On 2015-07-12 12:59:17 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-07-11 16:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?


I don't recall them being considered unreliable. Indeed we all cried
the chorus of better to get solid state memory than the small spinning
mass disks that were cheaper (and far as I can tell no longer marketed).

There are all sorts of stories of lost cameras found years later with
all the data intact. Indeed a recent camera was fished out of a lake 6
years after it was lost and all the photos were retrieved and the owner
eventually located.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.3136501

Then

there was this one.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-reunites-lost-waterlogged-camera-owner/

That said, any electronics can fail. I bring a laptop and offload
images to the laptop as I go. There are other solutions as well that
include data tanks and uploading images to a "cloud" account on the fly.

You can even operate your own 'cloud' drive at home and send the images there.

The trouble of course, on the road, is getting sufficiently high
bandwidth connections to the net. In some places it's hard to get
something that can reliably and quickly take off the 5 - 10 GB+ of
images one can easily shoot in a day.

This has been my travel fail safe redundant storage. It does full and
incremental backups.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck