Photo file size

[asdf]

Time for me to get a new camera. I think I am going to pick up a 7mp Kodak but i was wondering what the average file size is per photo. I just want to make sure I get good size of memory card.
Anyone know?

[Reedus]

I average around 4.0 to 4.5 MB per picture with my 7.2 megapixel Casio Exilim. They look so damn good after you view them in actual size on the 20 inch LCD computer screen.

[R]

Most digital cameras will let you select how much you can compress your JPEG photo files, often expressed as settings like fine, standard or normal, and economy or basic. For most shooting, the default of normal is a good compromise between quality and storage space.

Lately, card prices have been plunging, so you can get lots of storage for not too much money. That said, there are certainly many things about a camera to consider that are more important than pixel count. Any more, I'd say just get a camera that you like and that you'll carry and use - just about every digital made today has enough pixels.

[mroy]

just about every digital made today has enough pixels.

That's crazy talk!

Well, I guess it's okay for most people. I can't get enough image data to work with. My next camera though is going to have to save images in RAW, and do AEB. I especially miss AEB since I downsized my SLR to a regular size to save weight and not worry about breaking anything worth a lot if I have to chuck my pack around, or I crash on my bike ;)

[Cirrus2000]

For most shooting, the default of normal is a good compromise between quality and storage space.

Lately, card prices have been plunging, so you can get lots of storage for not too much money.

I just got four 1 Gig SD cards, $80 Canadian - that's like $65 US. Using these cards in a 6 MP Pentax, I can fit well over 300 photos on each at full resolution, and best quality (or 17 minutes of video at 640x480, 30fps) on each card. At that kind of storage, why compromise?

Forget small cards - a couple of big ones, and you're set.

[DiscGo]

I purchased a 2 gig sd card for 40 bucks a couple of months ago. I would really recommend going for at least a 1 gig and probably a 2 gig (just so you don't need to rely on multiple cards or have to change cards)

[R]

I purchased a 2 gig sd card for 40 bucks a couple of months ago. I would really recommend going for at least a 1 gig and probably a 2 gig (just so you don't need to rely on multiple cards or have to change cards)

The flip side of that is that I don't like putting all my eggs in one basket. I had a card reader with a bent pin inside it once. When I inserted the card, it scrambled its brains, and I had to recover the data using a nice little program called File Salvage. It was just a 256M card, and I did get most of the images rescued, but what if it had been the whole shoot on a 2G?

Just my $.02.

[sparker1]

I agree that several IGB cards is a good way to go. I have a Canon 30D (8.2 MP) and get 110 RAW images per card. Shooting JPEG yields several hundred, depending on quality chosen.

[JP]

That's crazy talk!

No it's not, most people don't even know what a RAW pic is and on top of that the majority of people won't be using the RAW format to take pics. Then you'll have your curious folk set it to RAW and see they hardly get any pics to their card and quickly back out of that format

[R]

I agree with many of Ken Rockwell's ideas about why your camera doesn't matter...

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

-Richard

[asdf]

thanks guys