George E. Cawthon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

Bible John wrote:

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always
be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in
message ...


Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is
usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are
the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite
a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very
expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may
be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least
512 MB cards.



Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for
years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not.
Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are
told by the public that they do.

I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do
not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings.


John

Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement
and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the
same............"

I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera,
just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP
camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and
I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not
sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera
but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before
they get back to their computer.

As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want.

I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have
considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I
would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska
only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips
longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some
sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card,
and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me....
What's the use?

Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very
in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means
your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a
higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could
store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs
in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement,
if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge.

It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the
lowest compression ratio.


Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem,
but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably
'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next
digital camera, in like 5 years....