Canon 50D ?
philo
but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards...
so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
loopy livernose
"philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Z7Cdnf-ksqI89W7X...@ntd.net...
I was told (in local Jessop's) it should take a 32gb card.. but they were
recommending 8 or 16gb
the reason for recommending smaller cards is to put less eggs in one basket,
and not saying the camera had a problem with 32GB cards. if that makes
sense..
HTH
LL
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
philo
>
> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Z7Cdnf-ksqI89W7X...@ntd.net...
>> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week...
>> but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards...
>> so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
>>
>> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
>>
>> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
>
> I was told (in local Jessop's) it should take a 32gb card.. but they
> were recommending 8 or 16gb
>
> the reason for recommending smaller cards is to put less eggs in one
> basket, and not saying the camera had a problem with 32GB cards. if
> that makes sense..
>
> HTH
>
> LL
>
Well I did not want to go as large as 32g but had been thinking of 8g
no where could I find the specs...not even in the manual
if the camera formats the card as fat16 there would be a 2 gig limit...
a few of my cameras have that limitation...
so did not want to get one too large.
Tom D
[...]
> Well I did not want to go as large as 32g but had been thinking of 8g
>
>
> no where could I find the specs...not even in the manual
I use an 8GB card in my 40D with no problems. I've also used 4GB
Microdrives as well. In the specification section of the 40D manual, it
states that the recording media can be Type I or II Compact Flash, and that
it is compatible with Microdrive and 2GB and larger cards. There is
probably a similar statement in the 50D manual. In my manual, it is near
the end. I would think that this would be something that would be early on
in the manual, but it is not. Enjoy the camera.
-=- Tom
philo
"Tom D" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:hcvrit$tjr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks
In the manual all is says for card type is
type I or II UDMA capable
no mention of size...so I'll probably go for an 8 gig card
DRS
[...]
> if the camera formats the card as fat16 there would be a 2 gig
> limit... a few of my cameras have that limitation...
> so did not want to get one too large.
The 50D uses FAT32. I have a 4G in mine. I might get an 8G now they're
coming down in price. Note, while the 50D can use UDMA-enabled CF cards
it's not a huge benefit.
Ofnuts
Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
--
Bertrand
philo
Thanks
I may just pick up something locally that's reasonably priced
philo
I'll check out the local stores and get whatever they have in stock
if the price is right
Ron Recer
Check out the following to see which brand/model cards are fastest in the
50D.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9672
Ron
who hates waiting for the card to catchup!
philo
"Ron Recer" <RonR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00ed12e8$0$23372$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1MCdnTWlhKB9YG7X...@ntd.net...
>> Ofnuts wrote:
>>> philo wrote:
>>>> "Tom D" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
>>>> news:hcvrit$tjr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<lamdnST1SZsw8G7X...@ntd.net>...
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Well I did not want to go as large as 32g but had been thinking of
>>>>>> 8g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>> -=- Tom
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> In the manual all is says for card type is
>>>>
>>>> type I or II UDMA capable
>>>>
>>>> no mention of size...so I'll probably go for an 8 gig card
>>>
>>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll check out the local stores and get whatever they have in stock
>> if the price is right
>
> Check out the following to see which brand/model cards are fastest in the
> 50D.
>
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9672
>
> Ron
> who hates waiting for the card to catchup!
>
Thanks
I was surprised at how much price variation there is on the larger cards...
I see that some are much faster than others
Gary Edstrom
I am sticking exclusively with 4GB cards. They are big enough to hold
about 150 images with both RAW and JPEG being saved. I currently have 7
4GB cards. I would rather have a number of smaller cards than a single
larger card. If a card fails, I stand to lose far fewer pictures than I
would if a huge card failed.
That being said, however, I have to say that in over 10 years of digital
picture taking, I have only lost one single image that I can blame on
the chip. They have been EXTEREMELY reliable. My very first
CompactFlash chip still performs perfectly after almost 11 years, but I
never use it anymore since it is only 8megs.
Gary
Peter
To me reliability and availability are both important.
I use 8g cards and will probably switch to 16. I usually try to download at
least daily so when a card fails I will not lose too much. While I have
occasionally put more than 4g of images on a card, I have also had the
experience of running out of space at a crucial time. (My own fault I did
not bother to put a spare in my pocket because I did not expect a lengthy
shooting session.)
--
Peter
philo
Yeah...considering how cheap the 4 gig cards are I may just pick up a
bunch of them.
While going through all the cards I have in my house...
I also found an 8 meg card that came with my first digital camera
(1 MP) I still have the camera...a Kodak.
still works and I actually have a use for it in a class my fianc� and I
teach. That old Kodak has survived many a hard fall onto a concrete
sidewalk...Too bad the new camera's are not that sturdy.
philo
In my case...I do not worry too much about card failure...
but I do worry about storage...
so I typically copy my images to at least two separate hard drives...
and most of my stuff is backed up 3 or 4 times.
Though I've had good luck with hard drives...
eventually they will go
Peter
> Peter wrote:
>> To me reliability and availability are both important.
>> I use 8g cards and will probably switch to 16. I usually try to download
>> at least daily so when a card fails I will not lose too much. While I
>> have occasionally put more than 4g of images on a card, I have also had
>> the experience of running out of space at a crucial time. (My own fault I
>> did not bother to put a spare in my pocket because I did not expect a
>> lengthy shooting session.)
>>
>
>
> In my case...I do not worry too much about card failure...
> but I do worry about storage...
> so I typically copy my images to at least two separate hard drives...
> and most of my stuff is backed up 3 or 4 times.
>
> Though I've had good luck with hard drives...
> eventually they will go
After a hard lesson, I now also back up the hard drives, regularly and after
the first "throw out the real and obvious crap" run through, I save to a
secondary location.
What is important is that the user perform some form of redundancy, whatever
is workable for them.
--
Peter
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> no mention of size...so I'll probably go for an 8 gig card
> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
Each time you swap cards you risk dropping or mis-filing the card.
Since that is a real, and at times (e.g. near deeper water)
severe risk, 2 cards are rarely safer than one.
In fact, if a card has a failure rate of x, two cards mean that
it's practically twice as likely that at least one card fails!
-Wolfgang
philo
In the nine years I've been doing digital photography
I've had no mishaps.
Not saying it could not happen...
but with film I sure made a lot of mistakes...
especially loading film wrong on the reels!
philo
Worst for me was a friend of mine I built a machine for.
No matter how many times I told him to back up his stuff...
he rarely did.
He creates photo-montages and each one can take him hundreds of hours to
produce.
He had a few drives that developed read/write problems
and I saved his butt.
Then one day...a drive that had been working fine...
quit...just like that.
It was not even detected on the bios.
I fooled with machine until quite late at night
and finally went over the electronics with a good light and a good
magnifying glass...
and I found a surface mount capacitor with one end slightly lifted from
the board...a poor solder joint from the factory.
I was too tired to work on it and had the good sense to go to bed...
but I kept waking every few hours in a cold sweat.
Next morning I soldered it...and it worked!!!!!
I copied the data to another drive and told him not to use
the one I repaired.
Yep, you guessed it...
he's still using it...
but I am not going to lose any more sleep if he loses data again!
Peter
Wish I had a friend like you when I had the crash. I lost a theme project in
which I had selected twenty four images out of over three hundred. This
happened four years ago and I have never been emotionally able to redo the
project, although I tried several times.
BTW the title of the theme was Derri�res of Virginia Beach. Very few of the
images were of the type you might envision when you first read the title. In
fact, most were of the type that should have covered up at the beach, but
didn't.
I have always had a don't look back, look forward, attitude. But, I do try
to learn from my mistakes.
--
Peter
philo
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4af4bb38$0$28769$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:gsCdnUI1jKfbM2nX...@ntd.net...
>> Peter wrote:
>>> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2o-dnUeOhoLYBWnX...@ntd.net...
>>>> Peter wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
>>
>> I was too tired to work on it and had the good sense to go to bed...
>> but I kept waking every few hours in a cold sweat.
>>
>> Next morning I soldered it...and it worked!!!!!
>>
>> I copied the data to another drive and told him not to use
>> the one I repaired.
>>
>> Yep, you guessed it...
>> he's still using it...
>>
>> but I am not going to lose any more sleep if he loses data again!
>>
>
>
> Wish I had a friend like you when I had the crash. I lost a theme project
> in which I had selected twenty four images out of over three hundred. This
> happened four years ago and I have never been emotionally able to redo the
> project, although I tried several times.
If the harddrive itself had gone into a total failure...
your only hope would have been to get the drive to a *very expensive* data
recovery lab...
otherwise, there would have been many ways to get the data back.
>
> BTW the title of the theme was Derri�res of Virginia Beach. Very few of
> the images were of the type you might envision when you first read the
> title. In fact, most were of the type that should have covered up at the
> beach, but didn't.
Yes...I always tell my fianc� that good photos and flattering photos
are not necessarily the same thing !
>
> I have always had a don't look back, look forward, attitude. But, I do try
> to learn from my mistakes.
>
Yes,
once it's gone it's gone..
best not to fret too much and move on...
though that opportunity may be lost...there will always be others...
and quite often...even better ones!
>
> --
> Peter
Ron Recer
I have a number of CF cards and two CF Micro drives. My 340 MB Micro drive
was purchased with my Canon G1 back in '01 and still works. I have a 1 GB
CF card that has problems and I don't use it any more. It hasn't failed
completely, but from time to time one to several images couldn't be read
from the card. Reformatting didn't solve the problem so I quit using it.
Now I have four 4 GB cards I use in my 50D with 100-400 lens, used primarily
for wildlife photos. I have gone through 3 of the 4 GB cards in a day, never
filled all four. In my 10D, used primarily for landscape photos, I use a 2
GB and 1 GB card with my old 1 GB and 340 MB micro drives as backups. I
seldom fill the 2 GB card with landscape photos in a day, but it is nice to
have plenty of cards/micro drives available just in case.
Ron
philo
Now that I think of it...
since the 50D is not for video...a 4 gig card should be sufficient for
most purposes..
I better pick up a few of them though.
Ofnuts
> 16GB which is 2x less safe.
--
Bertrand
Ofnuts
>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>
> 16GB which is 2x less safe.
If a card stands one chance in a thousand to fail (or be lost, or
stolen) during a given period of time, then, when using two cards, you
stand two chances in a thousand to lose some pictures (ie, failure/loss
of either card) but you stand only one change in a million to lose all
you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
--
Bertrand
Alan Browne
> philo wrote:
>> no mention of size...so I'll probably go for an 8 gig card
>
> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>
1. If a card goes long enough to write it over completely 2 or 3 times
the chances that it fails over its useful lifecycle are pretty close to nil.
2 With 2 cards there is more risk of failure (2 cards has more chance of
a fail in one of the cards than one card has).
3. There is more chance of losing a card while swapping in the field.
4. There is more chance of formatting a card before emptying it (human
error). (This is a recoverable error with vendor or 3rd party recovery
tools, but can lead to further write over if not caught on time).
The only card I had fail on me died in under 100 frames. And as I was
testing a new camera, I had already offloaded most images in any case (a
few at a time). [though I had that sick feeling of a failed new camera
for a few seconds].
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Joel wrote:
>>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>> How about 1GB is 4 times safer, and 512M is 8 times safer? <bg> I use
>> 16GB which is 2x less safe.
> If a card stands one chance in a thousand to fail (or be lost, or
> stolen) during a given period of time, then, when using two cards, you
> stand two chances in a thousand to lose some pictures (ie, failure/loss
> of either card)
The chance to not loose data is 999:1000 per card, so the chance
not to loose data at all is (999/1000)^2, and the chance to loose
some data is thus (1 - (999/1000)^2).
You thus don't stand a 2‰ chance, you stand a 1.999‰ chance
to loose some data, assuming your model is correct.
> but you stand only one change in a million to lose all
> you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
Then you should use a million cards, or at least one card per shot.
You'll have a very good chance of loosing a number of cards,
but you'll rarely loose them all. Except that in the case of
theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000
chance of loosing all your photos comes true ---
--- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is
indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change
in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss
of both cards)" in clear conscience.
Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your
bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues
against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards
than necessary.
-Wolfgang
Ofnuts
> Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>>>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>
>>> How about 1GB is 4 times safer, and 512M is 8 times safer? <bg> I use
>>> 16GB which is 2x less safe.
>
>> If a card stands one chance in a thousand to fail (or be lost, or
>> stolen) during a given period of time, then, when using two cards, you
>> stand two chances in a thousand to lose some pictures (ie, failure/loss
>> of either card)
>
> The chance to not loose data is 999:1000 per card, so the chance
> not to loose data at all is (999/1000)^2, and the chance to loose
> some data is thus (1 - (999/1000)^2).
Yes, P(X or Y)=P(X) + P(Y) - P(X and Y)
> You thus don't stand a 2� chance, you stand a 1.999� chance
> to loose some data, assuming your model is correct.
>
>> but you stand only one change in a million to lose all
>> you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
>
> Then you should use a million cards, or at least one card per shot.
> You'll have a very good chance of loosing a number of cards,
> but you'll rarely loose them all. Except that in the case of
> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000
> chance of loosing all your photos comes true ---
> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is
> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change
> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss
> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place. The
cards are small enough to be kept in a wallet when not in use, or remain
in the luggage at the hotel... However I do agree that the first day,
all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is
stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more
pictures can be taken in the following days.
> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your
> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues
> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards
> than necessary.
The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
--
Bertrand
Peter
news:4af7e2ca$0$17826$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
The argument that more cards = more safety must have been made under the
same mathematical principal that it is entirely possible to demolish Mt.
Everest with a hammer.
--
Peter
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Except that in the case of
>> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000
>> chance of loosing all your photos comes true ---
>> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is
>> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change
>> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss
>> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place.
You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the
hotel back home?
> However I do agree that the first day,
> all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is
> stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more
> pictures can be taken in the following days.
So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)?
>> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your
>> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues
>> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards
>> than necessary.
> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are
safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain
number of cards suddenly is less safe.
-Wolfgang
Ofnuts
> Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
>>> Except that in the case of
>>> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000
>>> chance of loosing all your photos comes true ---
>>> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is
>>> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change
>>> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss
>>> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
>
>> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place.
>
> You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the
> hotel back home?
I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane
crash during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
Keeping the cards in a pocket and not in the camera bag is already quite
sufficient. Thieves may be after my camera, my (battered) watch, my
mobile phone, but I seriously doubt they are specifically after my
memory cards.
>> However I do agree that the first day,
>> all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is
>> stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more
>> pictures can be taken in the following days.
>
> So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)?
Yes, although unlikely, with only one camera (although the card is
spring-loaded in the camera, and shit happens). But it can also be a
case of a defective card (in which case I have still got the camera),
and in the extreme cases I can buy/borrow/rent another camera. So I
still come back home with pictures.
>>> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your
>>> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues
>>> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards
>>> than necessary.
>
>> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
>
> The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are
> safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain
> number of cards suddenly is less safe.
Not less safe, less practical. Absolute safety isn't needed (and doesn't
exist anyway). We just need the pictures to be about as likely to return
home as we are.
--
Bertrand
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> Except that in the case of
>>>> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000
>>>> chance of loosing all your photos comes true ---
>>>> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is
>>>> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change
>>>> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss
>>>> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
>>> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place.
>> You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the
>> hotel back home?
> I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am.
In other words, "no". You do keep all the cards at the same
place at least sometimes.
> If i die in a plane
> crash during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
Muggings, theft and robbery are said to disappear more cameras
and cards than people.
> Keeping the cards in a pocket and not in the camera bag is already quite
> sufficient. Thieves may be after my camera, my (battered) watch, my
> mobile phone, but I seriously doubt they are specifically after my
> memory cards.
Tell me your address and I'll inform the relevant thieves. :-)
>>> But if the card is
>>> stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more
>>> pictures can be taken in the following days.
>> So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)?
> Yes, although unlikely, with only one camera (although the card is
> spring-loaded in the camera, and shit happens). But it can also be a
> case of a defective card (in which case I have still got the camera),
> and in the extreme cases I can buy/borrow/rent another camera. So I
> still come back home with pictures.
If you loose your one and only card, you can also buy/borrow/rent
another card and come back home with pictures. Same
resolution to the same failure mode.
>>> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
>> The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are
>> safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain
>> number of cards suddenly is less safe.
> Not less safe, less practical.
Ah, but isn't a single, large enough card more practical than
having to swap cards and risking loosing shots because you cannot
insert another card with enough space fast enough?
> Absolute safety isn't needed (and doesn't
> exist anyway). We just need the pictures to be about as likely to return
> home as we are.
Eye-fi card (or laptop or public internet access or ...) and a
convenient hotspot, then: the pictures can be home before you are.
-Wolfgang
Peter
> I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane crash
> during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever.
--
Peter
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane crash
>> during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
> If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever.
Beware, you may have to answer your maker.
In other belief systems you may be reborn as a spider for your
deeds.
I'd rate that as a major concern.
-Wolfgang
Peter
news:j534t6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
Under a belief system such as you described, any such concern would only be
temporary.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
Hah, yes. That is astute and quite funny in its own way.
Zen Buddhism has some comment on the nature of divinity and change. While
this is a subject in itself the issue of merit and light are of concern to
the photographer. Additionally, the related Japanese method of "Kaizen" is
of direct practical value to engineers.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> Peter <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>> If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever.
>> Beware, you may have to answer your maker.
>> In other belief systems you may be reborn as a spider for your
>> deeds.
>> I'd rate that as a major concern.
> Under a belief system such as you described, any such concern would only be
> temporary.
In that case *any* concern is temporary.
Unless you have infinite lifes as a spider or worm or
whatever-animal-you-don't-want-to-be before you.
-Wolfgang
ransley
> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week...
> but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards...
> so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
>
> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
>
> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
Shooting video, multiple exposures, bracketing with Raw tax the write
speed. The cheapest slow cards work but getting a faster card you will
see an improvement in speed. I dont think you need the fastest cards
as they are also very expensive. If you are getting several cards at
least try one fast card before getting all slow cards. I use 4gb but
you can go alot larger.
philo
My Canon 50D does not do video...I have another camera for that.
Tried it out last weekend and as it turns out card speed is sort of a
moot point...
I can shoot as fast as I want...even hi-speed multiple shot...
the camera buffers it all. When I was done with my sequence...
it took about 7 seconds for it to write everything to the card...
Fantastic feature!
BTW: The camera will not turn off until all data are written to the card.
Cat(h)
> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week...
> but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards...
> so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
>
> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
>
> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
My 400 D takes 4 meg, so I would imagine it can take more than that?
Caít()
philo
My 4 gig card works fine
and I guess I can go as large as I want.
So far the camera is working out well...
the only snag was that RAW format is now CR2 which Photoshop CS2 can't
handle.
It was suggested that I try the DNG converter...and I just got around to
that this morning...
works fine!
Thanks to all who suggested it