Recommended SD size for 61MP

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

At least 128 GB they need to be V90 to attempt a burst sequence that is not short

In my a7Rv, I use a pair of 64G Sony "tough" cards, for my style and frequency of shooting that has been sufficient.

I shoot compressed raw. I've been using Sony Alpha cameras for over 12 years, both A and E mount. Well over half a million photos with all kinds of lighting conditions, and I have never examined a photo and thought... "I shoulda used uncomressed raw."

Interceptor121 said:

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

At least 128 GB they need to be V90 to attempt a burst sequence that is not short

Click to expand...

Well, all my current 64GB UHS-II cards are V60, and the only bursts that I rarely do is basically trying to get the right face expression from my granddaughter, so I guess I can work with that for now.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

It really depends on what and how you shoot. As a practical matter, why not look into how many shots you took on a typical outing with your prior camera, figure out the ratios of the file sizes (in bytes), and then use that as multiplier for whatever cards you used with your prior camera? Maybe go one size up from that so you will rarely if ever run out.

For me, the default cards these days are Sony Tough SD cards in 128 GB in the 277 / 150 MB/s speed (basically, V60). They are fast enough that I've never encountered the camera's buffer maxing out: it clears fast enough to these cards. I'm only shoot 24 MP but I'm shooting with an A9 and sometimes blazing away at sports. I shoot uncompressed raw + fine JPEG, which is about 47 + 10 = 57 MB per photo. I have never filled a 128 GB card in one session, but I have filled a 64 GB card, so this seems like a good size for me. The next step up in these cards (the 300 / 299 MB/s, V90 version) is $148 versus $60 for the ones I get, so more than 2x the cost for very little if any benefit--for me.

Martin Ocando said:

Interceptor121 said:

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

At least 128 GB they need to be V90 to attempt a burst sequence that is not short

Click to expand...

Well, all my current 64GB UHS-II cards are V60, and the only bursts that I rarely do is basically trying to get the right face expression from my granddaughter, so I guess I can work with that for now.

Click to expand...

Single shot you can work with v30 capacity is more important so see how you get on

You previously shot 20MP and 64GB was sufficient. At that rate you'll likely need 128GB. But, maybe the capabilities of the 61MP makes you shoot differently and need more.
SD cards are cheap these days. 512GB Samsung Pro is only $38 USD. Yes, it is way more than you probably need but now there is no longer a question if you have enough.

If you're doing a lot of long bursts the write times can be long and annoying with V30 cards. V90 cards are 3x faster but a 512GB cost $200-500 USD. At that price point you might as well get a CFexpress 4.0 Type A card to write 7x even faster. OWC 480GB is only $160 USD.

-

Lossless compressed RAW (60-70MB) is the same 14-bit as uncompressed RAW (120MB) except smaller file size. Lossy compressed RAW (40-50MB) is 12-bit during AF-C burst but 14-bit for AF-S single shot. (reference)

Post-process 14-bit RAW will push recovery better in than 12-bit, but it is hard to notice the difference unless pushing really far.

I shoot lossless compressed RAW 99% of the time. Don't see a point using uncompressed RAW. If I need to squeeze out extra FPS for burst then maybe I'll switch to lossy compressed RAW.

Waku Waku said:

You previously shot 20MP and 64GB was sufficient. At that rate you'll likely need 128GB. But, maybe the capabilities of the 61MP makes you shoot differently and need more.
SD cards are cheap these days. 512GB Samsung Pro is only $38 USD. Yes, it is way more than you probably need but now there is no longer a question if you have enough.

If you're doing a lot of long bursts the write times can be long and annoying with V30 cards. V90 cards are 3x faster but a 512GB cost $200-500 USD. At that price point you might as well get a CFexpress 4.0 Type A card to write 7x even faster. OWC 480GB is only $160 USD.

Click to expand...

Only remember that I don't have the A7R V, so CF Express is not an option for me (yet), I plan on changing that by the end of the year.

Waku Waku said:

-

Lossless compressed RAW (60-70MB) is the same 14-bit as uncompressed RAW (120MB) except smaller file size. Lossy compressed RAW (40-50MB) is 12-bit during AF-C burst but 14-bit for AF-S single shot. (reference)

Post-process 14-bit RAW will push recovery better in than 12-bit, but it is hard to notice the difference unless pushing really far.

I shoot lossless compressed RAW 99% of the time. Don't see a point using uncompressed RAW. If I need to squeeze out extra FPS for burst then maybe I'll switch to lossy compressed RAW.

Click to expand...

I have V60 64GB cards, so I better give it a go first and see how it fits my workflow and shooting style.

sludge21017 said:

Sony 1920GB CFexpress Type A TOUGH Memory Card CEA-M1920T B&H

Click to expand...

Two of them and I can get close to the price of an A7R V.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

It really depends on what and how you shoot. As a practical matter, why not look into how many shots you took on a typical outing with your prior camera, figure out the ratios of the file sizes (in bytes), and then use that as multiplier for whatever cards you used with your prior camera? Maybe go one size up from that so you will rarely if ever run out.

For me, the default cards these days are Sony Tough SD cards in 128 GB in the 277 / 150 MB/s speed (basically, V60). They are fast enough that I've never encountered the camera's buffer maxing out: it clears fast enough to these cards. I'm only shoot 24 MP but I'm shooting with an A9 and sometimes blazing away at sports. I shoot uncompressed raw + fine JPEG, which is about 47 + 10 = 57 MB per photo. I have never filled a 128 GB card in one session, but I have filled a 64 GB card, so this seems like a good size for me. The next step up in these cards (the 300 / 299 MB/s, V90 version) is $148 versus $60 for the ones I get, so more than 2x the cost for very little if any benefit--for me.

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I feel I'm overthinking this. My V60 64 GB SDs are going to be enough for now. Then I'll figure out if I need more space, or better performance.

Thanks all for the tips.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

I used 128GB Sony Tough G cards - you get plenty of shots on an A7R IV/V/C - 128GB used to be the largest size of G series cards, but you can get 256GB now.

Martin Ocando said:

I only shoot RAW, sometimes RAW+JPEG, if light is good, as I can share the JPEGs faster. I used to shoot with 20MP MFT sensor cameras, and 64GB was more that sufficient for a whole day of shooting, with room to spare. Now that I'll start shooting 61MP files, I'm aiming for compressed RAWs, although I heard that in difficult lighting conditions is better to go uncompressed, I wonder if I should be investing in higher capacities.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

I use 256GB v90, but I also shoot video. I have also used 1TB v30 card without issue. Use what you have, there is a mode that will make use of that card.

My dual 160GB cards give me enough for 5000+ photos in a single day without dipping into any of the backup cards, memory is cheap, no reason not to get a couple of 128s at least these days.

Martin Ocando said:

Waku Waku said:

You previously shot 20MP and 64GB was sufficient. At that rate you'll likely need 128GB. But, maybe the capabilities of the 61MP makes you shoot differently and need more.
SD cards are cheap these days. 512GB Samsung Pro is only $38 USD. Yes, it is way more than you probably need but now there is no longer a question if you have enough.

If you're doing a lot of long bursts the write times can be long and annoying with V30 cards. V90 cards are 3x faster but a 512GB cost $200-500 USD. At that price point you might as well get a CFexpress 4.0 Type A card to write 7x even faster. OWC 480GB is only $160 USD.

Click to expand...

Only remember that I don't have the A7R V, so CF Express is not an option for me (yet), I plan on changing that by the end of the year.

Martin Ocando said:

-

Lossless compressed RAW (60-70MB) is the same 14-bit as uncompressed RAW (120MB) except smaller file size. Lossy compressed RAW (40-50MB) is 12-bit during AF-C burst but 14-bit for AF-S single shot. (reference)

Post-process 14-bit RAW will push recovery better in than 12-bit, but it is hard to notice the difference unless pushing really far.

I shoot lossless compressed RAW 99% of the time. Don't see a point using uncompressed RAW. If I need to squeeze out extra FPS for burst then maybe I'll switch to lossy compressed RAW.

Click to expand...

I have V60 64GB cards, so I better give it a go first and see how it fits my workflow and shooting style.

Click to expand...

During vacation or long day of shooting I put a large 256/512GB card in slot-1 which never gets removed from the camera. Slot-2 would be rotated out frequently with multiple older smaller 32-64GB cards and left at the hotel/offsite etc. It will serve as a backup. This way if I happen to drop my camera in the ocean or gets stolen not everything is lost.

That is wise to continue using existing V60 64GB cards and gauge your actual usage before buying. Then add additional storage as needed. Having two 64GB is better than one 128GB.

If your shooting style doesn't require much bursts a V30 card is sufficient. Some newer V30 cards from Samsung/Sandisk uses off spec design which can actually read 150-190MB/s well exceeding the UHS-I standard 104 MB/s limit. It is great for offloading to your computer. For in-camera writes they all follow strictly the std.

However, to get that off spec speed you have to have the right card reader. Not all of them is able read that fast. Because it is not within standard spec it is hard to figure out which one supports it. Some Samsung readers work fast with their own card but can't with Sandisk and vice versa. Rather confusing.

Martin Ocando said:

Waku Waku said:

You previously shot 20MP and 64GB was sufficient. At that rate you'll likely need 128GB. But, maybe the capabilities of the 61MP makes you shoot differently and need more.
SD cards are cheap these days. 512GB Samsung Pro is only $38 USD. Yes, it is way more than you probably need but now there is no longer a question if you have enough.

If you're doing a lot of long bursts the write times can be long and annoying with V30 cards. V90 cards are 3x faster but a 512GB cost $200-500 USD. At that price point you might as well get a CFexpress 4.0 Type A card to write 7x even faster. OWC 480GB is only $160 USD.

Click to expand...

Only remember that I don't have the A7R V, so CF Express is not an option for me (yet), I plan on changing that by the end of the year.

Click to expand...

A7RIV means you have to choose between lossy RAW (which many say is fine (but I never liked the idea of) and uncompressed RAW. I chose to go for uncompressed RAW, which meant that my RAW files were a bit over 120MB for every image.

I you choose uncompressed RAW, then you'll get about 500 images on the 64GB cards you are considering.

I was using 128GB cards, and getting a bit over 1000 images per card - that was ample.

Whether 500 feels like enough is up to you - I have always tended to press the button quite a bit ;-)

Martin Ocando said:

Martin Ocando said:

-

Lossless compressed RAW (60-70MB) is the same 14-bit as uncompressed RAW (120MB) except smaller file size. Lossy compressed RAW (40-50MB) is 12-bit during AF-C burst but 14-bit for AF-S single shot. (reference)

Post-process 14-bit RAW will push recovery better in than 12-bit, but it is hard to notice the difference unless pushing really far.

I shoot lossless compressed RAW 99% of the time. Don't see a point using uncompressed RAW. If I need to squeeze out extra FPS for burst then maybe I'll switch to lossy compressed RAW.

Click to expand...

I have V60 64GB cards, so I better give it a go first and see how it fits my workflow and shooting style.

Click to expand...

AlephNull said:

Martin Ocando said:

Waku Waku said:

You previously shot 20MP and 64GB was sufficient. At that rate you'll likely need 128GB. But, maybe the capabilities of the 61MP makes you shoot differently and need more.
SD cards are cheap these days. 512GB Samsung Pro is only $38 USD. Yes, it is way more than you probably need but now there is no longer a question if you have enough.

If you're doing a lot of long bursts the write times can be long and annoying with V30 cards. V90 cards are 3x faster but a 512GB cost $200-500 USD. At that price point you might as well get a CFexpress 4.0 Type A card to write 7x even faster. OWC 480GB is only $160 USD.

Click to expand...

Only remember that I don't have the A7R V, so CF Express is not an option for me (yet), I plan on changing that by the end of the year.

Click to expand...

A7RIV means you have to choose between lossy RAW (which many say is fine (but I never liked the idea of) and uncompressed RAW. I chose to go for uncompressed RAW, which meant that my RAW files were a bit over 120MB for every image.

I you choose uncompressed RAW, then you'll get about 500 images on the 64GB cards you are considering.

I was using 128GB cards, and getting a bit over 1000 images per card - that was ample.

Whether 500 feels like enough is up to you - I have always tended to press the button quite a bit ;-)

AlephNull said:

AlephNull said:

-

Lossless compressed RAW (60-70MB) is the same 14-bit as uncompressed RAW (120MB) except smaller file size. Lossy compressed RAW (40-50MB) is 12-bit during AF-C burst but 14-bit for AF-S single shot. (reference)

Post-process 14-bit RAW will push recovery better in than 12-bit, but it is hard to notice the difference unless pushing really far.

I shoot lossless compressed RAW 99% of the time. Don't see a point using uncompressed RAW. If I need to squeeze out extra FPS for burst then maybe I'll switch to lossy compressed RAW.

Click to expand...

I have V60 64GB cards, so I better give it a go first and see how it fits my workflow and shooting style.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, now that we are talking about that, I have in my Lightroom catalog over 10K RAWs (I did a huge cleanup the other day, precisely preparing for this), and is around 410GB. So, a simple calculation shows that:

410GB / 10,400 files is roughly 39 MB per RAW
Needing 120GB per Sony RAW will require 4x the storage.

So, I feel 500 shots per day is more than enough for me, for any regular day, but when traveling it'll a bit limiting.

So logic dictates I should start looking for both more storage space for my NAS, and then a larger SD card. Right now I have 4 64GB V60 SDs, so if I encounter myself filling one up, I can change it on site, and if I have one set for RAWs and one for JPEGs, as I usually do (unless is a paid gig), I only need to change one.

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell