Flash cards for Canon 10D (Advice needed)

triumph · Sep 9, 2003

I am currently considering making the big step over to digital using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around 200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a 512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

Rusty Cardores · Sep 9, 2003

triumph said:
I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs.

For starters, if you are shooting weddings shoot RAW and process with C1 or the Adobe PS Plug-in... it will save your backside when you blow an exposure on that white dress or something.

That said, you will need larger than 512 as I only fit about 76 RAWs on a 512... so a couple of 1Gb would be better, plus don't forget an extra for backup... you can't shoot a wedding with only one card, as if it dies you will be in the poo big time. When cards crash you can often recover the images already on there, but you can't finish the shoot.

triumph said:
I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.

Have a look at http://www.robgalbraith.com ...he has a CF flash database that will let you know the best performers in the 10D.... then have a look at someone like http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au for some of the best prices/service you will get on CF cards.

Do you need the extra speed of the more expensive card for weddings??? Perhaps not, but I can't help but think you get some reliability out of cards like Ridata and Transcend as well as speed.

I can only vouch for my Ridata and Sandisk cards... they have been 100%.

Rusty

randy corbin · Sep 9, 2003

I personally prefer the Lexar 1gb cards over any of the sandisk....

I recommend at least 2 1gb cards....

I have 2 1gb Lexar 32x cards for primary....if I fill those, I have another 6 256 lexars (bought a while back)

then I have my image tank to dump to, so I can shoot without worrying about it.

I agree about shooting raw, vs jpg......a 1gb card will give you about 135 pics per card in RAW

photography is my obsession.....
http://www.pbase.com/randolph001

newyorkgroove · Sep 9, 2003

I shoot weddings as well. Been VERY happy with my Transcend and Simpletech. http://www.newegg.com had good deals. I reccomend at least 3 gigs. But then i shoot about 150 pics per hour....i also shoot jpg Med (blows up fine to 11x14) but am about to start experimenting with RAW since im getting some higher end clients and im now working with a couple of pro's as a extra shooter. Less room for error and i think the RAW will give me mroe flexibility.

Gino

triumph said:
I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

shane alexander · Sep 10, 2003

Tiger Direct has the 10 gig image tank for $99
works great

A must have so you dont ever do that " trying to manage space for image " thing in your mind

You know; always trying to figure how much room you have and what size to shoot at.

You have to take that out of the equation

I like to bracket like crazy.

Agreed with Randy

OzonePark · Sep 10, 2003

I don’t shoot wedding too much anymore except if it is a particularly interesting situation or location. When I did shoot I too would use 8-10 rolls (about your 300 pictures) For a 4 hours affair that is ~~1 shoot per minute and about 60 formals.. I’ve found if you shoot much more than that you will start annoying the wedding party and the guests.~~

If I shoot today I would consider a single 1 gig and shoot jpeg; you will get about 300+ shots. I would not recommend shooting RAW unless you plan on charging a very hefty fee for processing and I would carefully explain that to the client up-front. While I can appreciate that the 12-bits can get you out of trouble sometimes, for me, I typically dispose of those fringe pictures and go for the better exposed ones.

Then again, if you just playing around and not looking to manage a profitable studio go ahead a buy gigs of memory and spend a lots of time processing RAW pictures; its a hobby. Please don’t interpret this as a put-down to amateur photography, rather, running a studio requires different considerations.

Rusty Cardores · Sep 10, 2003

OzonePark said:
If I shoot today I would consider a single 1 gig and shoot jpeg;
you will get about 300+ shots. I would not recommend shooting RAW
unless you plan on charging a very hefty fee for processing and I
would carefully explain that to the client up-front.

OzonePark said:
spend a lots of time processing RAW pictures; its a hobby.

Have you tried Capture One? I typically shoot 500 images at an event and use to shoot JPG as the Canon post process was a pain, but C1 allows me to get through RAW images in a fraction of the time it use to take for JPG.

For me the big time saver is never having to open a file.... C1 allows you to set everything (curves, sharpening, WB etc etc) from the preview... it only takes a few secs to set an image and you can have C1 processing the que in the background while you are working on the next image.

Once you have stacked the que, you can get a coffee, take more pics, spend time with the wife or whatever..... I can't do that with JPG.

OzonePark · Sep 10, 2003

Rusty

No, I have not used c1 at this time. Per your workflow, is this to apply the same adjustment to all shots? What do you think you get out of RAW that you can't get from JPG (just curious). 500 shots is a large shoot, do you work with an assistant or solo?

Rusty Cardores said:
OzonePark said:

If I shoot today I would consider a single 1 gig and shoot jpeg;
you will get about 300+ shots. I would not recommend shooting RAW
unless you plan on charging a very hefty fee for processing and I
would carefully explain that to the client up-front.

Click to expand...

Rusty Cardores said:

spend a lots of time processing RAW pictures; its a hobby.

Click to expand...

Have you tried Capture One? I typically shoot 500 images at an
event and use to shoot JPG as the Canon post process was a pain,
but C1 allows me to get through RAW images in a fraction of the
time it use to take for JPG.

For me the big time saver is never having to open a file.... C1
allows you to set everything (curves, sharpening, WB etc etc) from
the preview... it only takes a few secs to set an image and you can
have C1 processing the que in the background while you are working
on the next image.

Once you have stacked the que, you can get a coffee, take more
pics, spend time with the wife or whatever..... I can't do that
with JPG.

Rusty Cardores · Sep 10, 2003

OzonePark said:
Rusty

No, I have not used c1 at this time. Per your workflow, is this to
apply the same adjustment to all shots?

No, each shot is treated on it's own.... it is a very simple matter of adjusting a few sliders, dragging a crop box etc. Although you can select multiple thumbs and apply the settings from the current image to all selected.

OzonePark said:
What do you think you get
out of RAW that you can't get from JPG (just curious).

Many will argue on this one, but I think the RAW process gives me a better image quality, that aside....

It gives you a wider scope for correction with next to no quality loss, if any.

It gives you the freedom to just shoot and not be worried about WB or oops! I'm 1/2 stop over - 1/2 stop under.

Smaller archiving.... not as small as JPEG, but I don't want to use JPEG due to the compression, I know you can save as tiff but that is huge. What I do with C1 is output to small'ish JPEGs for proofs, I then archive my RAW files along with the C1 conversion settings. This saves a stack of room, then when an image is ordered I simply re-run the image using the archived settings and it matches the proof perfectly.

When shooting 500 images not all will be ordered and using the above method means that I have not spent time on images (other than a few seconds) that will not be used. It also means that customers see corrected proofs, too many photographers will display "out of camera" proofs that are rubbish (because it is too much work to correct them just for a proof) and tell the customer "That will be fixed during the printing process"

But best of all is a much much faster workflow. It really is designed with workflow in mind. 500 images in JPEG would see me working for a whole day+ just opening correcting re-saving, but with C1 I am done in about 3 hours.

OzonePark said:
500 shots
is a large shoot, do you work with an assistant or solo?

500 is a solo shoot, 1000'ish if I take my mate..... but that is for sport so it's not hard to clock up the images

I would suggest that you download the free trial of C1 and give it a go. I think it is only a 15 day trial, so you need to really sit down and learn it during that time.... I think you will find that you can create your own work flow that you will be happy with.

OzonePark · Sep 10, 2003

Rusty,

Interesting. I may try RAW again, maybe with PS8.

I too get shots 1/2-f stop off or more. I typically have no problem recovering these with a simple levels or curves layer. My understanding is that a person with reasonably good eyes can detect about 100 shades. 8-bits get 2x+ (256 levels). As long as the adjustment is not substantial I've not found and problem with banding. Surely 12-bits gets you more before banding would be an issue.

My WB is pretty right on and can be easily adjusted with a fill layer or any number of other PS tools

I save in .PSD format so I suffer not additional or incremental JPG losses. I use .PSD as it maintains certain PS information that is lost when saving to .TIF. This of course assume you use PS and use certain features that are maintained in the .PSD format. For what its worth, .PSD is slightly more disk efficient. Not that I really care as server disk space is not an issue at current disk costs.

With that said, I will give C1 I try. If nothing else I would like to re-confirm the advantages so many talk about.

Thanks for the info

Rusty Cardores said:
OzonePark said:

Rusty

No, I have not used c1 at this time. Per your workflow, is this to
apply the same adjustment to all shots?

Click to expand...

No, each shot is treated on it's own.... it is a very simple matter
of adjusting a few sliders, dragging a crop box etc. Although you
can select multiple thumbs and apply the settings from the current
image to all selected.

Rusty Cardores said:

What do you think you get
out of RAW that you can't get from JPG (just curious).

Click to expand...

Many will argue on this one, but I think the RAW process gives me a
better image quality, that aside....

It gives you a wider scope for correction with next to no quality
loss, if any.

It gives you the freedom to just shoot and not be worried about WB
or oops! I'm 1/2 stop over - 1/2 stop under.

Smaller archiving.... not as small as JPEG, but I don't want to use
JPEG due to the compression, I know you can save as tiff but that
is huge. What I do with C1 is output to small'ish JPEGs for
proofs, I then archive my RAW files along with the C1 conversion
settings. This saves a stack of room, then when an image is
ordered I simply re-run the image using the archived settings and
it matches the proof perfectly.

When shooting 500 images not all will be ordered and using the
above method means that I have not spent time on images (other than
a few seconds) that will not be used. It also means that customers
see corrected proofs, too many photographers will display "out of
camera" proofs that are rubbish (because it is too much work to
correct them just for a proof) and tell the customer "That will be
fixed during the printing process"

But best of all is a much much faster workflow. It really is
designed with workflow in mind. 500 images in JPEG would see me
working for a whole day+ just opening correcting re-saving, but
with C1 I am done in about 3 hours.

Rusty Cardores said:

500 shots
is a large shoot, do you work with an assistant or solo?

Click to expand...

500 is a solo shoot, 1000'ish if I take my mate..... but that is
for sport so it's not hard to clock up the images

I would suggest that you download the free trial of C1 and give it
a go. I think it is only a 15 day trial, so you need to really sit
down and learn it during that time.... I think you will find that
you can create your own work flow that you will be happy with.

Turkoman · Sep 10, 2003

I am comtemplating getting an image tank but I worry about reliability and whether it works with RAW files. How much use and abuse have you put in your image tank and have you had any trouble w/ lost files?

Ali

randy corbin said:
then I have my image tank to dump to, so I can shoot without
worrying about it.

I agree about shooting raw, vs jpg......a 1gb card will give you
about 135 pics per card in RAW

photography is my obsession.....
http://www.pbase.com/randolph001

--
Canon 10D
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 50/1.4
Tamron 28-300 XR
BG-ED
Olympus D-40
Olympus IS-1

Jean Valentin · Sep 10, 2003

... in one basket.

If you use the 256 Mb card you will get about 30 pics (RAW + high JPEG). If something goes bad, you will lose only those pictures. It is true that a lot of times you can recover them, but what if...

Although 1Gb or high capacity cards are tempting, for wedding photography (where there is no second chance) I would not use them.

This is what I would do.

Regards,
Val

triumph said:
I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

Ed Halley · Sep 10, 2003

Jean Valentin said:
... in one basket.

If you use the 256 Mb card you will get about 30 pics (RAW + high
JPEG). If something goes bad, you will lose only those pictures. It
is true that a lot of times you can recover them, but what if...

Although 1Gb or high capacity cards are tempting, for wedding
photography (where there is no second chance) I would not use them.

Alternative viewpoint: swapping eggs between baskets invites disaster.

I've never lost an image due to a bad CompactFlash card, but I've lost CompactFlash cards. I would much rather keep a single 1GB CF card inside the camera body for the entire outing. I put it into the body before I leave the house. I take it out of the body just long enough to transfer images to the PC or tank, and put it right back. I know I won't lose a $1500 four pound body due to my own negligence, but it's quite easy to lose a cheap one ounce piece of plastic.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

OzonePark · Sep 10, 2003

Jean,

Good point. Typically there is backup camera, lens, lights, etc. While I've only had a few years experience with flash cards vs decades with cameras, it seems to me that the most stable piece of hardware is the flash card as it has no moving parts and failure is not a direct function of usage; that is my understanding of solid-state failure modality. I would be much more concerned with lighting, camera, lens failure (in that oder).

Jean Valentin said:
If you use the 256 Mb card you will get about 30 pics (RAW + high
JPEG). If something goes bad, you will lose only those pictures. It
is true that a lot of times you can recover them, but what if...

Although 1Gb or high capacity cards are tempting, for wedding
photography (where there is no second chance) I would not use them.

This is what I would do.

Regards,
Val

triumph said:

I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

Click to expand...

Velu · Sep 10, 2003

I would go for two 512 cards, combined with a microdrive II
Normally CF cards don't crash... but ever heard of Murphy ?

Regards
Velu

Rusty Cardores · Sep 10, 2003

CathAce2000 said:
I am comtemplating getting an image tank but I worry about
reliability and whether it works with RAW files. How much use and
abuse have you put in your image tank and have you had any trouble
w/ lost files?

Ali

I have had my Image Tank (version 1) for ages and transfered about 60Gb of images without a single loss or corruption. It lives in the camera case and gets all the knocks and bumps that camera cases normally get... which isn't much I will admit. RAW files are not a problem, as the image tank is simply a HD to dump your files, it has no view facility.

Jean Valentin · Sep 10, 2003

Hi Ed,

Unfortunately there is no full proof solution. Me, personally, I prefer to loose a small card (either through malfunction or actually loosing it) than to loose a big card with all my pictures. But this is my preference. I am not saying that is the best way.

Regards,

Val

Ed Halley said:
Jean Valentin said:

... in one basket.

If you use the 256 Mb card you will get about 30 pics (RAW + high
JPEG). If something goes bad, you will lose only those pictures. It
is true that a lot of times you can recover them, but what if...

Although 1Gb or high capacity cards are tempting, for wedding
photography (where there is no second chance) I would not use them.

Click to expand...

Alternative viewpoint: swapping eggs between baskets invites
disaster.

I've never lost an image due to a bad CompactFlash card, but I've
lost CompactFlash cards. I would much rather keep a single 1GB CF
card inside the camera body for the entire outing. I put it into
the body before I leave the house. I take it out of the body just
long enough to transfer images to the PC or tank, and put it right
back. I know I won't lose a $1500 four pound body due to my own
negligence, but it's quite easy to lose a cheap one ounce piece of
plastic.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Phil Forister · Sep 10, 2003

I sure like my Ridata 512. It is fast, and I have never had a problem with it. Either in the camera, or in a CF card reader.

triumph said:
I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

michaelg3 · Sep 10, 2003

triumph said:
I am currently considering making the big step over to digital
using a canon 10D and shoot a lot of weddings averaging around
200-300 images . Can anyone advise on a suitable flash memory card
as I have considered getting a 1GB Sandisk however thought maybe a
512Mb might be sufficient if I'm shooting jpegs. I here the Ultra
series in these cards has a quicker transfer rate than the standard
but I'm not sure if it is worth paying the extra unless I was
shooting sports or action pics.
Can anyone advise
Thanks

randy corbin · Sep 10, 2003

Rusty Cardores said:
CathAce2000 said:

I am comtemplating getting an image tank but I worry about
reliability and whether it works with RAW files. How much use and
abuse have you put in your image tank and have you had any trouble
w/ lost files?

Ali

Click to expand...

I have had my Image Tank (version 1) for ages and transfered about
60Gb of images without a single loss or corruption. It lives in
the camera case and gets all the knocks and bumps that camera cases
normally get... which isn't much I will admit. RAW files are not a
problem, as the image tank is simply a HD to dump your files, it
has no view facility.

--

photography is my obsession.....
http://www.pbase.com/randolph001

Flash cards for Canon 10D (Advice needed)

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts