Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 08 Feb 2010 (Monday) 11:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

can anyone tell me about how many pics a 4gb CF will hold with a 7D?

 
HankScorpio
Goldmember
Avatar
2,700 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2007
Location: England, baby!
     
Feb 08, 2010 13:18 |  #16

canonfaithfulforever wrote in post #9567206 (external link)
Go play with your camera set the ISO to 100 and it will say Z number set it to ISO 3200 it will say a number Lower than Z :D

No it won't unless by changing the ISO you also change the exposure and therefore the content of the image. The tendancy of a high ISO to expose the shadows slightly to the right and therefore increasing the recorded detail does not equate to high ISO creating larger files.


My collection of boxes with holes (external link)
EXIF semper intacta.
Gort! Klaatu barada nikto.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
canonfaithfulforever
Senior Member
430 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Crowborough, U.k.
     
Feb 08, 2010 13:21 |  #17

HankScorpio wrote in post #9567287 (external link)
No it won't unless by changing the ISO you also change the exposure and therefore the content of the image. The tendancy of a high ISO to expose the shadows slightly to the right and therefore increasing the recorded detail does not equate to high ISO creating larger files.

Well leave the cap on if you don't believe me and hell put it in manual so the exposure cant change, it does affect the space used therefore the amount of pics per card google it,


Gear List - Flickrexternal link - Wordpressexternal link - 500pxexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kharris904
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
68 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: macclenny, florida
     
Feb 08, 2010 13:24 |  #18

guys! please chill! either way...i've got the answer that i was looking for & you BOTH helped:) thank you!


~Kayla
Canon 7D w/grip • 24-70 f/2.8L • 580exii speedlite • & a wish list a mile long:)
My Photography Facebook:) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HankScorpio
Goldmember
Avatar
2,700 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2007
Location: England, baby!
     
Feb 08, 2010 13:27 |  #19

You mean the guess that the camera makes about the number of shots left? That's about as scientific as Scientology. The actual file size it based on recorded data not the rough estimate that is pre-programmed into the camera based on averages. An ISO 6400 shot with the lens cap on or of a white wall will be much smaller than an ISO 50 shot of a bunch of flowers because of the detail. The ISO is irrelevant unless it creates an exposure that records more details.


My collection of boxes with holes (external link)
EXIF semper intacta.
Gort! Klaatu barada nikto.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tracknut
Goldmember
Avatar
1,740 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Folsom, California
     
Feb 08, 2010 13:28 |  #20

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9566772 (external link)
I don't think raw matters too much on the ISO setting, since it is the raw uncompressed data. For JPGs though, this is true because with higher noise levels, there are fewer consecutive pixels with the same values that could be compressed together. If I am wrong, it won't be long before I am corrected! :)

Might as well clarify this... Raw files are certainly compressed - they would be even more enormous if they weren't!

Dave


Performance/sport dog photographer (external link)
Facebook (external link)
"Always available to shoot your dog"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
69,628 posts
Likes: 226
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
     
Feb 08, 2010 14:16 as a reply to  @ tracknut's post |  #21

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9566772 (external link)
I don't think raw matters too much on the ISO setting, since it is the raw uncompressed data. For JPGs though, this is true because with higher noise levels, there are fewer consecutive pixels with the same values that could be compressed together. If I am wrong, it won't be long before I am corrected! :)

There is lossless compression in RAW files, unlike the lossy compression in JPEG files. Otherwise the file size would be about 1.75 bytes per pixel (14 bit RAW); a 7D with 18 MP would have RAW files of about 31-32 MB.

HankScorpio wrote in post #9567035 (external link)
No it doesn't. ISO has no effect on file size. Image content does though.

ISO does affect file size in that higher ISO settings give you noisier images, so the files are less compressible.

HankScorpio wrote in post #9567287 (external link)
No it won't unless by changing the ISO you also change the exposure and therefore the content of the image. The tendancy of a high ISO to expose the shadows slightly to the right and therefore increasing the recorded detail does not equate to high ISO creating larger files.

By your reasoning, it's not high ISO settings but exposing to the right (which most of us habitually do) that adds file size. Using the same exposure settings for the same scene at different ISO values will lead to one horribly underexposed shot or one horribly overexposed shot, so from that standpoint I suppose you could conclude that more detail is being captured by a high ISO shot at the same exposure setting, but that's a nonsensical comparison. The only meaningful size comparison of two photos of the same scene is of two properly-exposed photos of the same scene. And in that case, sensor (high ISO and/or long exposure) noise will play a noticeable role in file size.


Jon
----------
Cocker Spaniels
Maryland and Virginia activities
Image Posting Rules and Image Posting FAQ
Report SPAM, Don't Answer It! (link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.
PAYPAL GIFT NO LONGER ALLOWED HERE

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Okami
Member
81 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Feb 08, 2010 14:23 |  #22

How about move the arguments to a new post guys?

BTW Kayla.

The smaller card theory on losing less pictures.. well since the pictures are so large now :) The smaller cards are the 8gb.

Just get a good quality CF and the chances of loss while it does happen isn't as high. I've used 16gb Sandisk Extreme III's (now their normal Sandisk Ultra's are just as quick) for awhile and they've never had a problem. I've thrown about 60k pictures a year on them.

I used to have 4gb cards but the fact there are times i've had to fidget around to change cards during a gig makes it easier for me to lose one then having the same card in my camera all day.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kharris904
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
68 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: macclenny, florida
     
Feb 08, 2010 18:32 |  #23

haha okami...that's what i was thinking...hence the "guys! please chill!" lol

but thanks for the tip...so i should get several 8gb's instead of several 4gbs? right now i have (6) 4gb & (1) 8 gb. do you think that is sufficient or should i trade in my 4's for more 8's? thanks.


~Kayla
Canon 7D w/grip • 24-70 f/2.8L • 580exii speedlite • & a wish list a mile long:)
My Photography Facebook:) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peter ­ nap
Senior Member
581 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Feb 08, 2010 18:36 as a reply to  @ kharris904's post |  #24

Stay away from the "Video" button..:oops:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kharris904
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
68 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: macclenny, florida
     
Feb 08, 2010 18:44 |  #25

peter nap wrote in post #9569545 (external link)
Stay away from the "Video" button..:oops:


haha! thanks for the tip but i know absolutely nothing about video so it's probably pretty safe to say that i'll never use it!


~Kayla
Canon 7D w/grip • 24-70 f/2.8L • 580exii speedlite • & a wish list a mile long:)
My Photography Facebook:) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oRGie
Senior Member
398 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Portugal
     
Feb 08, 2010 18:46 |  #26

KenjiS wrote in post #9566697 (external link)
You know, i remember when i had 36 frames, And that was it >.> Why is it now that 150 is too low!

yes but, surely like me you used to carry a bag full of spare rolls of film ;) and how many times did you have a b&w roll in and wished you could get a colour shot cos the roll wasnt finished lol :cool:


oRGie - I am an EOS and the 7D was my idea :cool:
http://www.fluidr.com/​photos/orgie (external link)
EF70-200F4LIS - EF-S15-85IS - EF50 1.8II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mouettus
Senior Member
576 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Feb 08, 2010 19:05 |  #27

peter nap wrote in post #9569545 (external link)
Stay away from the "Video" button..:oops:

yeah i was wondering that as well... how long of video can you fit on a 4/8/16gb?

another thing to consider other than the card size is the speed. I mean... I wouldn't go Extreme IV... but need something decent. The only threads I have found on the net about that are ppl who use their camera as a machine gun, generating like 20 raws at a time in burst mode.

Price for me is also another factor to consider. Technology goes so fast that I don't think it's quite a good idea to pay 150$ only for a card... I like them in the 60-75$ range. Heck... I paid 20$ for my 8gb SDHC.


7D + XS | 70-200mm f4L IS USM | 18-55mm IS | 55-250mm IS | 50mm f/1.8 II | Speedlite 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mocows
Goldmember
Avatar
1,055 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
     
Feb 08, 2010 19:25 |  #28

mouettus wrote in post #9569748 (external link)
yeah i was wondering that as well... how long of video can you fit on a 4/8/16gb?

another thing to consider other than the card size is the speed. I mean... I wouldn't go Extreme IV... but need something decent. The only threads I have found on the net about that are ppl who use their camera as a machine gun, generating like 20 raws at a time in burst mode.

Price for me is also another factor to consider. Technology goes so fast that I don't think it's quite a good idea to pay 150$ only for a card... I like them in the 60-75$ range. Heck... I paid 20$ for my 8gb SDHC.

In the manual, a 7D will support upto a 4GB file size OR a 30 mins video (I believe). And for video, you don't need a high-end card. You can go with a cheap 133X (or less, something about 7MB/s is fine I think).

When you shoot at full burst, that's when you need a faster card. I use a 300X lexar card and it's perfectly fine in-terms of speed.


7D | XSi + Phottix Grip | 400 F/5.6 | 70-200 F/4 | Sigma 30 f/1.4 | Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 |430ex | Horusbennu C-2830V | Photo Clam PC-33
flickr gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rakesh
Member
225 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Bangalore, India
     
Feb 08, 2010 20:24 |  #29

With ISo 100 setting, 4 Gb CF Card can hold approx. 139 to 153 images.


Gears:
My WildLife Gallery :
http://www.justwildlif​e.com (external link)
My Kids Project Galleries : http://www.facebook.co​m …otography/15851​1907574485 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ R
Goldmember
4,319 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: 06478, CT
     
Feb 08, 2010 21:15 |  #30

I agree with the others 8GB is the smallest you should use. Not related but if you use a grip with dual batteries, you will get thousands of shots out of them before you need to recharge them. I've taken 2800 shots and still have 25% life in them.


Mike R
www.mikerubinphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16,959 views & 0 likes for this thread
can anyone tell me about how many pics a 4gb CF will hold with a 7D?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1171 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.