[Newt]

Wish I could even take 1 good photo per 1,000. I have to take a lot just to get a decent one no matter how long it takes to get the photo. I like to take the first photo as I first saw it. Then move around for other angles. Sometimes a couple of inches can make a difference. If I'm shooting hand held and can move around easily, I'll shoot a lot more. When using the tripod things naturally slow down, fewer shots and more time per each. NN

[MooseAndSquirrel]

[polarbear]

I admit it. I own a fancy SLR. I read the whole manual. I've forgotten most of it. Now I'm a Programmed Mode junkie. I usually don't take more than a roll of film a hike. I rarely bracket. I've only had one trip where virtually all photos on the trip were spectacular--it was in the Sierras after a snowfall. I have about 30 carousels of slides there are probably only a few per carousel worth enlargening, but still makes for an interesting photo journal.

[Newt]

A friend at work and I were talking about large memory cards, 1gb-CF, and he mentioned that he had heard that when the card starts getting on the fuller side that it takes the camera longer to write the info to the card. Is there anything to this and if so, is it noticeable? N

[Dayhike Mike]

Your friend is correct. Don't know what is taking it but it does take longer occasionally when the card is almost filled. And yeah, it's noticeable. If the file system on the cards was NTFS, I could tell you exactly what the deal was -- NTFS leaves space between each file so that they can grow or shrink slightly without causing fragmentation and ends up having to fill in the space between files once you've used approximately 80-85% of the available space on the drive. The multiple seeks and writes that this requires can really bring a system to a crawl. But they aren't. Older cameras used FAT and newer ones are using FAT32 to support larger card sizes, so I don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps they're doing something similar, i.e. leaving gaps between files, but I've never read anything that indicates FAT32 is similar to NTFS in that respect.

[Tom]

If anything, just another reason to get one large card instead of two smaller ones. You'd run into the "getting full" issue far more frequently with two smaller cards. Personally, I never found this to be a real world issue (it's only slightly noticeable).

[Newt]

So Tom, you're indicating that this happens regardless of card size? N

[Sore Feet]

I haven't noticed this happening (though I think I've only filled one of my 256mb cards completely one time so far). But does it really matter? Unless you're shooting wildlife or sports, that extra second or two doesn't make much difference.

[Dayhike Mike]

[Newt]

Thanks. I spose it's not to big a deal. Tho there have been a number of times that the digital lag has been frustrating when wanting to get a couple of quick shots off. N

[dayhiker]

[Malachai Constant]

For what it's worth Costco has 256MB SanDisk flash cards for $10 off thats $29.95 for CF cards. I realize thats kind of small for most of youse guys.

[dayhiker]

Why not use 4 of those instead a 1 GB card?

[Tom]

Sandisk (non-ultra) = slow, but not a bad deal for a 256 MB card. I personally prefer 1 card. It's a hassle switching cards in the middle of a shoot. Not to mention when you have more than 2 cards it's hard to remember which cards are full and which are empty.

[Sore Feet]

Bring a dry erase pen with you...unless you're worried about the extra weight.