If you don't mind my asking, what application would require a photographer to take 1,000 pictures / hour?
We can 'set and forget' the SD card in the SD slot and have ChronoSync automatically transfer anything in our tether folder to it. It's a great backup/scratch disk. $800 is chump change for a professional photography studio.
edit: I love that I was downvoted for this.
edit: I'm not saying your comment was lame or stupid or wrong or whatever. It just didn't really fit as a reply to the parent. Perhaps someone else thought so too. I also would not have downvoted you for it. But maybe someone else did.
Also, I think you are confusing your parties in this thread.
As for price, i don't think it will even take that long. In 2 years it will cost something like 50 bucks. A USB3.0 128GB flash drive (260MB/s read, 240MB/s write) from SanDisk now costs about $100.
E.g. on Amazon UK right now I see a 256GB Lexar SD card for 300 GBP, or a 128GB SanDisk SD card for 70 GBP, or 64GB SD cards for around 30 GBP...
So expect the prices on the 256GB models to start falling shortly, and once 1TB versions arrive it won't take long until the 512GB versions drop to a quarter or less.
If you're shooting something that's impractical to retake (whether due to expense or it being an inherently one-time event) you want to use minimal compression, if any. Even if you are using compression, HD video eats gigs like popcorn. :-)
I've photographed some indoor dog agility events, for example; border collies running at top speed through moderately-lit facilities tends to mean lots of unusable photos.
ID badge "photo days" at large companies, conventions, celebrity-public photos (e.g. Comic Con-esk), etc.
They come in, snap, they leave. Rinse repeat.
By the way, I think your post made me realize how professional photographers work: They shoot with burst and pick stuff out later.
I guess it makes sense, you want to maximize the odds of catching a great shot. I'm much more methodical, but maybe I shouldn't be.
Of course, whether having an entire photoshoot on a single piece of (relatively fragile) storage is a good idea is another question entirely.
"During these low-light tests I also had the chance to work with both the conventional RAW file size, which yielded approximately 77MB files" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review...
Which seems odd as 36.3MP * 14bits / pixel ~= 63.5 MB though it does say it can save both raw a JPEG at the same time which may make up the difference. That or it's saving 17 bits / pixel.
77MB * 5pictures a second = 23GB / min.
But, IMO your looking at it the wrong way as your not their target market. This is for HD video not camera's.
Still, the goal is not to fill the tings to capacity it's a cost / benefit trade-off is 500$ (800$ - 300$ for a 256 GB SD card) worth being able to take more than 256GB worth of pictures. And in that case it might be worth it simply to reduce the risk of missing a great shot. Even if they rarely want to go though 3,000 pictures looking for the best ones. There is utility in basically never running out of space. Plus a few applications where you might actually fill a 256GB card.
512 is still excessive right now (and the price!), but bitrates aren't exactly decreasing.
So, this is still to small to be useful for those videos. However, for more normal 4k videos @ 30-60FPS this is probably a good fit and a much nicer form factor than SSD.
Changing out SD cards on an SLR doesn't really take very long, but it does disrupt the workflow (particularly when you have to take a thousand pictures in an hour or more, that could be a dozen SD card changes) and $800 for a card which might last you the whole day might be worth it.
It definitely won't be useful for your kid's birthday party or even to film your school project. But as an industrial tool there are definitely uses for a card such as this (although external SSDs are starting to become "big," so maybe less so than a year ago).