[Lornz]

as title says .. just wondering like how many pictures it would hold .. (the camera is 12.1megapixels if that makes much difference?)

thanks

[Gofre]

(Original post by Lornz)
as title says .. just wondering like how many pictures it would hold .. (the camera is 12.1megapixels if that makes much difference?)

thanks

It will hold well over 1000 photos.

[Lornz]

(Original post by Gofre)
It will hold well over 1000 photos.

thank you

[lonelykatana]

(Original post by Gofre)
It will hold well over 1000 photos.

Not in Raw

[Nuffles]

About 2000 in JPEG, about 400 in RAW.

[Lornz]

(Original post by Nuffles)
About 2000 in JPEG, about 400 in RAW.

what do you mean by RAW?

[Kareir]

1. If it's really, REALLY good.

[Nuffles]

(Original post by Lornz)
what do you mean by RAW?

When a camera saves the picture as a JPEG it works out what the picture should look like and throws away all the extra data it collected from the sensor to make the end file size smaller. When you tell the camera to save the image as RAW (usually only applies to high end compacts and SLRS) it saves every bit of data collected from the sensor so you can decide if you want it or not later on when you edit on the computer. This obviously results in much larger file sizes (more than 4 times as large, depending on your camera sensor and processing style).

[ReddDraggon]

Depends on a number of factors:

-Resolution
-Format Jpeg/RAW
- Quality of Jpeg or how bit raws they are.

[v2p]

On my 10 megapixels camera it lets me take about 1500 photos in jpeg set at 10 m.p with an 8gb sd card, so for 12.1 m.p it will probably be a little less than that

[CameraGirl]

depends on the format, but i can easily get 600 7MP photos on a 2GB, so an 8GB would hold a hell of a lot!
so yeah, depends on your camera as the others have said, and the format, but 8GB is plenty for most people.

[Lornz]

just with a normal digital camera .. that any idiot (like me )can use ..

[CameraGirl]

(Original post by lonelykatana)
Not in Raw

had a look at your photography...it's amazing! i'm so jealous
i cannot WAIT until i can getmy DSLR (so broke atm) and can start taking some more professional photos than with my compact! eeeep.

(Original post by Lornz)
just with a normal digital camera .. that any idiot (like me )can use ..

probably 1000 - 2000 depending on the specs of the camera then, possibly more.

[JamesWright]

Depends, size of files vary due to exposure, ISO and other factors. Its not just a straight RAW or JPEG setting. That being sad it should be round abouts 2,000...

You'd have to be doing some serious shooting to fill up a card as I back-up and delete every evening.

[Kage]

If it has a RAW setting, I'd be tempted still to switch to it. Sharpness increases quite a bit, and no loss in picture quality.
You'll find that home editing software will compress the RAW into JPEG at much better quality than the inbuilt camera program can

[Nuffles]

(Original post by Kage)
If it has a RAW setting, I'd be tempted still to switch to it. Sharpness increases quite a bit, and no loss in picture quality.
You'll find that home editing software will compress the RAW into JPEG at much better quality than the inbuilt camera program can

Sharpness actually goes down when using RAW as there's no sharpening applied in camera, you have to sharpen when processing. Other than that there's no difference in sharpness as it's still the same lens projecting the same image onto the same sensor. The main benefits of shooting in RAW is the massive amount of extra data stored including a much wider exposure range and white balance.

[Kage]

Ah, maybe I was wrong then.
I think I misjudged because my RAW editor automatically places a 2 times sharpness on the image, within a setting.
Still, the quality issue remains.

Certainly keep to Fine (Best) JPEG compression if you are going to stick