CF dying?
Alfred Molon
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alan Meyer
news:MPG.247ff166b...@news.supernews.com...
> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
My understanding is that CompactFlash requires more on-chip
functionality and a more expensive physical interface (i.e. more
pins and real pins rather than just connection strips.) It's also
physically bigger. It all adds up to more cost.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_memory_cards
The bibliography at the bottom of the page has links to the
full hardware/software specifications for many of the card
technologies.
Alan
David J. Littleboy
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
My first dcams were Sony (S85 and F707) which use the far superior memory
stick; I've always thought the pins that CF uses are a disaster asking to
happen. A bit of dust on the connector, and your camera needs a trip to the
mfr. I've seen lots of bent pins in that sort of connector in the past.
So maybe this is good news.
(Our CEO just bought a portable DVD player, and it has an SD card slot, so
it does seem that SD is winning.)
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
David J Taylor
SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
so-called "professional" DSLRs.
Just be thankful that it's not micro-SD which has won! Too many lost
cards then. <G>
David
Bertram Paul
I hope they'll keep doing that. CF cards are very bad with connections. I
had two readers of which a few pins were broken: toss and throw away.
Much to expensive too compared with SD cards.
--
---
Bertram Paul
Ron Hunter
on either the camera, or card reader. The key is not to force anything.
Also, if the camera/card reader is properly designed, it would be
impossible to insert the card improperly. The only other reason pins
get damaged is foreign matter in the slot. I now have a camera (and
other devices) with SD card slots, and aside from the smaller size of
the SD card (which I don't see as an advantage), they work just as well.
J�rgen Exner
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>
>impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
>so-called "professional" DSLRs.
On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
after the previous war of confusion.
The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
the exFAT format.
CF didn't and doesn't have those problems. It is 6 years older than SD
(CF was introduced in 1994) and was designed for 137GB capacity right
from the start, so the original design will be good for maybe another
3-5 years for a total live span of 20 years.
Compare that with SD, which had to be updated with a non-compatible
design change twice already after an average of just 4 years. I wonder
who is running the SD consortium. Must be marketing and sales, because
no engineer could possibly design a specification with a live limit of 4
years.
Other limitiations of SD like proprietary interface affects mostly
system designers (embedded systems, card reader manufacturers, ...) and
much less the photographing public.
jue
J�rgen Exner
>I had CF cards on my first digital. I never had problems with the pins
>on either the camera, or card reader. The key is not to force anything.
> Also, if the camera/card reader is properly designed, it would be
>impossible to insert the card improperly. The only other reason pins
>get damaged is foreign matter in the slot. I now have a camera (and
>other devices) with SD card slots, and aside from the smaller size of
>the SD card (which I don't see as an advantage), they work just as well.
100% ACK.
jue
David J Taylor
[]
> On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish
> design decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
> As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for
> another round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4
> years after the previous war of confusion.
> jue
Indeed, an unfortunate and confusing choice.
David
Ron Hunter
for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
J�rgen Exner
>J�rgen Exner wrote:
>I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
>for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
>probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
>standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
>store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
>1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
>and my card reader will read.
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM"
Certainly today's capacities are more than enough for today's cameras
and camera technology.
But I cannot and will not predict what the future might bring. But who
would have imagined 10 years ago that people would use hard drives to
store feature-length and high-quality movies? Maybe in 3 years you won't
rent a cumbersome VHS tape (oh, wait, that's DVD nowadays) at
Blockbuster but instead plug your personal memory card into a machine at
your grocery store and download the latest movie while paying for your
bread and butter.
jue
ray
> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
As I recall, Mark Twain once wrote: "the reports of my death have been
greatly exaggerated."
l v
[snip]
> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
> probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
> standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
> store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
> 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
> and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
> on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
> files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
YMMV. A 512mb card holds approx 34 - 50 shots on my camera. It's 10MB
camera and the sizes of the RAW images vary in size. A 2gb cards holds
about 136 images.
A huge camera does not necessary mean an expensive DSLR camera where the
owner has deep pockets. 10MB pxl count is no longer a huge camera.
--
Len
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
> probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
> standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
> store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
> 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
> and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
> on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
> files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
>
> I hope they'll keep doing that. CF cards are very bad with connections. I
> had two readers of which a few pins were broken: toss and throw away.
> Much to expensive too compared with SD cards.
>
I have been using the same reader for several years without ANY problem and
with two different cameras [Nikon D70 and Nikon D200]. I have never had a
problem with pins in the camera or in the reader and never had a problem with
the cards other than filling them up. If you have a good reader, a good
camera, and take good care [common sense care, not out of the way hassle type
care] you won't have any problem with using CF cards. Certainly, I have never
read of the likes of Art Wolfe complaining.
J�rgen Exner
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.247ff166b...@news.supernews.com...
>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>
In my opinion it's pretty much a tossup.
The pins on CF readers (they are on the reader, not the card) are
fragile, they can bent and break. On the other hand the contacts on the
card are well protected in their little wells and the pins are hidden
deep inside of the CF card slot, so that normally you can't touch them.
And that slot should(!) align the card properly, such that the card
wouldn't be able to bend any pins, either. The real problem is dirt or
foreign objects in the little connectors on the card.
The open contact surfaces on an SD card are robust and virtually
undestructable. But on the other hand they are completely open and
because of the small size of the cards you pretty much cannot avoid
touching and thus contaminating them. And while you can clean the
contacts on the card there is no way telling how much of the dirt rubs
up onto the contacts in the reader and those you cannot clean.
Therefore I think neither is the perfect solution.
jue
Mike S.
In article <hlad155ut1l1drqqu...@4ax.com>,
J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>>
>>SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
>>impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
>>so-called "professional" DSLRs.
>
>On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
>decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
>As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
>round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
>after the previous war of confusion.
>
>The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
>smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
>you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
>wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
>ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
>is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
>left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
>the exFAT format.
exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.
Neil Harrington
"Bertram Paul" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:x8mdnYNtQcXUPovX...@novis.pt...
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.247ff166b...@news.supernews.com...
>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
>
> I hope they'll keep doing that. CF cards are very bad with connections. I
> had two readers of which a few pins were broken: toss and throw away.
I've seen this complaint before, but for the life of me I don't understand
how that can happen. The CF card should be precisely guided by the slot onto
the pins, and I don't see how you could make it do otherwise even if you
deliberately tried to. Unless those card readers just weren't designed or
made properly.
I still have several cameras that use CF cards (just recently bought a brand
new D200 in fact), and I've never had any problem with any of them.
Gary Edstrom
Bent or broken pins was also my initial worry about CF cards. However,
I am now on my 4th digital camera that uses CF cards and I have NEVER
had a broken or bent pin in 10 years with all those cameras.
Gary
dwight
Guess I'd better stock up now. I just bought the Canon 50d, and I was
surprised to see that it still takes compact flash.
CF cards are the perfect size for us older folks with fumble fingers. SD
cards are pushing the limit, and those damn microSD things (my cellphone
uses them) are flat-out ridiculous. There's no doubt that we could have
memory cards in even smaller sizes, but the limiting factor is and always
will be the human hand.
dwight
Alfred Molon
says...
> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
a single card. If something happens to that card you might lose
thousands of shots.
Alfred Molon
says...
> I have been using the same reader for several years without ANY problem and
> with two different cameras [Nikon D70 and Nikon D200]. I have never had a
> problem with pins in the camera or in the reader and never had a problem with
> the cards other than filling them up. If you have a good reader, a good
> camera, and take good care [common sense care, not out of the way hassle type
> care] you won't have any problem with using CF cards. Certainly, I have never
> read of the likes of Art Wolfe complaining.
One of my readers does not take CF anymore because of bent pins.
J�rgen Exner
>>wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
>>ther won't.
>
Thank you, good to know.
jue
Bowser
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:o92dnYE6uOnLmovX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>
> My first dcams were Sony (S85 and F707) which use the far superior memory
> stick; I've always thought the pins that CF uses are a disaster asking to
> happen. A bit of dust on the connector, and your camera needs a trip to
> the mfr. I've seen lots of bent pins in that sort of connector in the
> past.
And MS is one more example of Sony killing a format by trying to rule the
world with a proprietary solution. As a corporation, they are insane.
Morton
Some people use SD cards in devices other than digital still cameras.
For example, there are digital audio recorders that take SD cards,and
could well use 2 GB or even 4 GB. I myself get about 300 JPEX pix on a 1
GB card, and would rather use several separate cards for extensive
picture taking, rather than putting 1,000 pictures all on one card that
might possibly fail.
At least we have a choice.
Morton Linder
Ron Hunter
Yeah, and I remember Steve Jobs saying no one would ever need more than
16k of Ram, either.
I don't see why that isn't done now. Certainly a 4GB card is more than
enough to store most movies, some even in HD.
Ron Hunter
inefficient storage format like uncompressed RAW, either. If you stored
.jpg files, then how many pictures would those cards hold? Most of use
have no use for RAW, and wouldn't know what to do with it if our cameras
had it.
Ron Hunter
have it, but then I don't need it, either.
Ron Hunter
really favor the larger format.
Mike Cawood, HND BIT
news:l82dnfk5yp27JovX...@giganews.com...
> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use for
> SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB.
"GB is ok for photos but once you start taking video footage a 2GB card
doesn't seem that big any more, especially that the latest cameras will now
take "HD" footage.
I actually bought a 4GB SDHC card a few weeks ago.
Regards Mike.
Doug McDonald
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:l82dnfk5yp27JovX...@giganews.com...
>
>> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
>> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB.
>
I have 11 GB of CF cards total. I consider it enough, not too much.
I have to be able to carry cards and (charged) batteries for
up to two weeks shooting in areas where there is no way to
charge a battery (short of solar cells of course) especially one
big enough to run a laptop computer. I have come close to
filling up the 11 gigs.
A picture takes up about 9 megabytes, 11 gigs is thus roughly
1200 pictures. This seems a lot until you start taking
panoramas. Them when you decide you need HDR panoramas
(e.g. inside Carlsbad Caverns) everything double. I'm
talking 500 megabytes per final picture!
Doug McDonald
Wally
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <77o0miF...@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
>says...
>
>> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
>> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
>
>Still, even if you shoot RAW it's not wise to keep thousands of shots on
>a single card. If something happens to that card you might lose
>thousands of shots.
On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
losing the card or bending pins.
When 32 gb cards come down in price a bit, that's what I will buy.
Should be enough for most 2 week excursions, and I won't have to take
the card out till I get home.
Wally
David J Taylor
[]
> On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
> with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
> losing the card or bending pins.
I'd like to see the maths behind that.
> When 32 gb cards come down in price a bit, that's what I will buy.
> Should be enough for most 2 week excursions, and I won't have to take
> the card out till I get home.
>
> Wally
I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
David
N
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:pGMRl.32636$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
>
> David
Would this do?
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
--
N
Ron Hunter
I would like to see some of those. As for 9MB per picture, perhaps a
more frugal image format is in order for those longer excursions. And
taking panos isn't something the average photographer does often, I
suspect, although I have long enjoyed doing them, even before digital
cameras.
David J Taylor
Thanks, but no. No reliability figures as far as I could see.
David
N
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
Yeah, I had a poke around there, thought I remembered reliability figures
being there, but apparently not, just performance figures.
--
N
Mike S.
In article <eIqdnfahbvQtr4rX...@giganews.com>,
It is not offered automatically by Windows Update; you must seek it out.
David J Taylor
> In article <eIqdnfahbvQtr4rX...@giganews.com>,
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Mike S. wrote:
>>> exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hummm. Not in my list of fixes. Unless it is included in SP3, I
>> don't have it, but then I don't need it, either.
>
> It is not offered automatically by Windows Update; you must seek it
> out.
FWIW, exFAT appears to be built in to Windows Vista and Windows-7.
Cheers,
David
Robert Coe
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
: > "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: >> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
: > My first dcams were Sony (S85 and F707) which use the far superior
: > memory stick; I've always thought the pins that CF uses are a
: > disaster asking to happen. A bit of dust on the connector, and your
: > camera needs a trip to the mfr. I've seen lots of bent pins in that
: > sort of connector in the past.
: >
: > (Our CEO just bought a portable DVD player, and it has an SD card
: > slot, so it does seem that SD is winning.)
: SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
: so-called "professional" DSLRs.
: Just be thankful that it's not micro-SD which has won! Too many lost
: cards then. <G>
Ah, but the useful thing about micro-SD cards is that spies can swallow them.
Just try swallowing a CF card!
Bob
Matt Ion
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> [snip]
>> can probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support
>> new standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card,
>> which can store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more
>> than the 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera
>> will support, and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put
>> that may images on a single media of any type. Those with huge
>> cameras that make huge files can usually afford to keep up with
>> current technology.
>
> YMMV. A 512mb card holds approx 34 - 50 shots on my camera. It's 10MB
> camera and the sizes of the RAW images vary in size. A 2gb cards holds
> about 136 images.
>
> A huge camera does not necessary mean an expensive DSLR camera where the
> owner has deep pockets. 10MB pxl count is no longer a huge camera.
Let's not forget, P&S cameras have been pushing the megapixel count far
faster than DLSRs, and your average consumer has been led by marketing
to believe that more=better, so many just run out and buy the highest-MP
camera they can and the biggest memory card they can fit in it. Your
average Wal-Mart Photo Department employee or BestBuy salesdroid doesn't
know enough to ask in advance if the person has a card reader that will
support the bigger card, and even if they did, your average consumer
wouldn't know the answer to that question beyond, "Well it works fine
with my old camera."
Can they afford to upgrade their card readers? Sure... but as we've
seen time and time again with SDHC, most don't realize that they'll need
to, until they plug the new card into their old reader and get all
manner of error messages, if anything at all. Then they panic and post
vague "HELP IVE LOST ALL MY PHOTO'S" queries to all manner of web
forums, only to be met with all kinds of "have you tried this?"
questions and suggestions for recovery software, before someone (usually
me) finally thinks to ask if this is a >2GB card and an older card reader.
And sure, you can hold lots of JPEGs on a relatively small card...
especially if you're a n00b shooting in some fully-auto mode that
defaults to small or low-quality JPEGs... but you wouldn't believe how
many times I've run into people who never actually think to delete
pictures off the card once they've loaded them on the computer, shooting
happily away for weeks or months until the card is full... of course,
that happens when they're out and about and away from their computer and
card reader, so then it's either format and lose everything, or go
through slowly and delete the old photos one at a time.
512MB-1GB may be lots for your basic "serious hobbyist" who thinks of
these things... but not for your "average digital camera consumer".
Ron Hunter
David J Taylor
I looked through all 24 pages, and if there was a table showing
reliability versus make, style and size, I missed it! <G>
David
Doug Jewell
> Wally wrote:
> []
>> On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
>> with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
>> losing the card or bending pins.
>
> I'd like to see the maths behind that.
1 x 8GB card, the risk of having a single bit failure across
the total 8GBs of storage is equal. The risk of having a
complete card failure is 8 times greater for the 8x1GB
cards, but offsetting that is that the potential loss with
the 8GB card will be up to 8 times as great.
If you are only using 1 x 8GB card or 8 x 1GB card, then the
risk of losing cards will be higher with the 8 cards,
because they will be accessed more often. The 8GB would live
in the camera and wouldn't likely be removed. Of course
though, if you do lose a card the potential loss is 8x
greater if it is the 8GB card.
At the end of the day, I can't see any real risk benefit in
using one over the other, so long as they are high quality
cards to begin with. I'd rather use 8 x High Quality 1GB
cards than 1 x cheap 8GB card, and vice-versa I'd rather use
1 x high quality 8GB card than 8 x cheap 1GB cards.
Considering the way memory pricing has gone though, I'd
hazard a guess that the fakers are more likely to
concentrate on the high capacity cards than the low capacity
cards, so there is probably a greater chance of unknowingly
buying a dodgy 8GB card.
--
The Australian Labor Party couldn't run a pay dunny. They'd
have a queue half a mile long, and no-one on the seat.
Doug Jewell
>
> I've seen this complaint before, but for the life of me I don't understand
> how that can happen. The CF card should be precisely guided by the slot onto
> the pins, and I don't see how you could make it do otherwise even if you
> deliberately tried to. Unless those card readers just weren't designed or
> made properly.
Likewise it's got me stumped how people do it. I don't have
a CF camera anymore, but never had trouble when I did, and
for quite a while I was using CF cards as temporary storage
(like thumb drives), because the main computers I used had
CF readers, and I had a bunch of CF cards. Never had a problem.
But when I was in the camera retail trade, it was a
never-ending source of dramas. Seemed to be pretty much
every week we'd have someone bring in their camera in with a
bent pin. Despite the fact we sold more Canon & Sony CF
cameras than Nikon CF cameras (because at the time the
entire Canon & Sony range were CF, whereas it was only D200
and higher in the Nikon), we had more Nikons with this than
anything else. Next came Canon, and Sony came a distant 3rd,
and surprisingly their repair costs were the lowest. Can't
say I ever saw an Olympus with the problem, but we didn't
sell very many of them.
Repair costs ranged from about $300 to $600AUS, so it wasn't
a cheap fix. The manufacturers always refused to do it under
warranty, and of course it was us the humble retailer that
copped the flack from the customer over it. Try telling a
customer who bought a D3 off you last week, that their
$7.5k(AUS) camera now needs to be sent away for 3 weeks, and
it will cost them approx $500 to get it fixed. Did I mention
I hate Nikon?
I never heard of any problems with card readers - perhaps
because they were cheap people just threw them away instead
of trying to return them.
Like you, I have no idea how someone manages to get bent
pins, but somehow lots of people do.
>
> I still have several cameras that use CF cards (just recently bought a brand
> new D200 in fact), and I've never had any problem with any of them.
Stan Trenton
You may jest, but the prolific or adventurous photographer and
photo-journalist runs into this situation more times than you care to
imagine.
There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
(I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
I wouldn't think about swallowing one but I really like the micro-SD cards
for their small size. Plus I doubt they'd survive the corrosive
stomach-acids anyway. After the first couple of times of trying to find one
that I tossed aside I quickly learned that the first thing to do after
purchase is to draw a large UV fluorescent "X" on both sides of them with
an invisible UV-ink permanent marker. When tossed into the brush they are
easier to find later by using a portable UV lamp, when it might be safe to
come back to retrieve it after dark. Or in the event of my death or
incarceration for having taken those photographs a good investigative team
or friends will eventually find that micro-SD card. Win win.
The more common advantage that I found to micro-SD cards, and one that the
more normal photographer might relate to, my GPS and MP3 player also both
use them. If I run out of photo storage then I just abscond one of my
micro-SD cards from the GPS or MP3 player and continue shooting. I can
always replace the map and song files later. I can't replace that moment in
time that needs to be photographed. Since I always have my GPS and MP3
player in my pockets while out and about photographing I also always have
backup photo-memory available. Micro-SD cards also come in Class-6 speeds
now so speed is no longer an issue. Class-6 is a tad slower in micro-SD
than standard size SD cards, I'm not sure why, but not enough to make a
great difference.
Savageduck
> imag......
...and the phantom troll returns, as a Walter Mitty version of a photographer.
You truly live in a fantasy World. Maybe one of these days you might
actually buy yourself that P&S and take a few snap shots.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Karst T.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
John McWilliams
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:36:02 -0700, Savageduck
>>> You may jest, but the prolific or adventurous photographer and
>>> photo-journalist runs into this situation more times than you care to
>>> imag......
>> ...and the phantom troll returns, as a Walter Mitty version of a photographer.
>> You truly live in a fantasy World. Maybe one of these days you might
>> actually buy yourself that P&S and take a few snap shots.
But Walter Mitty was relatively charming.....
Annika1980
>
> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
>
Better yet, shoot HD video.
I have a 16GB card in my Fab 5D2 and I've filled it up on more than
one occasion.
Frank ess
I want to see Chapter Two.
Savageduck
True.
Perhaps another analogy would be more appropriate.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
I would prefer to see the conclusion.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
fenton b arnsworth
Dear Resident-Trolls,
Your replies are completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved)
Sammy T
Dear Resident-Troll,
Al Parkins
Dear Resident-Troll,
David J Taylor
Thanks for that, Doug.
"the risk of having a single bit failure across the total 8GBs of storage
is equal"
I simply don't buy the assumption that the cards are of equal quality, as
an 8GB card is likely to be of considerable different design to the 1GB
card, rendering the assumption questionable, at least. I still haven't
seen any measured failure rates.
It sounds as if you would go for the better quality cards as well. I tend
to go for the best value-for-money, given a good brand name. Last year I
bought 2GB cards, this year 4GB. I tend to buy enough storage that I
don't have to have a backup HD on a trip (although on my last trip I took
a portable plus and external 320GB HD).
Cheers,
David
Ron Hunter
I still would be very wary of putting 8GB of images on ANY single media.
Yes, they are reliable, but anything can break, and it is possible to
lose one, or even the camera, so your whole vacation is without
pictures.... I would consider that worse than losing the camera.
Ron Hunter
Don't force it, get a bigger hammer. If the card doesn't go in easily,
they use more force.
Doug Jewell
path whilst in the camera retail trade. Idiot came in and
asked for an SD card for his camera. I noticed that in his
hand was a Kodak DC3400, the same model as my first digital
camera (very good camera BTW). I asked if he was buying for
that camera and yes he was, so I told him he'd need a CF
card, not an SD card. He didn't believe me, so I asked for
the camera, flipped open the door and showed him the size of
the slot, while at the same time holding a CF and an SD card
in my hand - To anyone with half a brain it would be obvious
that the CF card was the same size as the hole, and the SD
card was much much smaller. Anyway, he ended up buying the
CF card, but was muttering under his breath that he still
didn't believe me. I offered to put it in for him but that
wouldn't be necessary and off he went.
About 5 minutes later I'm on a phone call and Mr Idiot walks
in yelling and swearing that I sold him the wrong card, he
sees I'm on the phone, and pushed down the hangup button!!
He shoved the camera under my face and said that it was the
wrong card because the door doesn't even close now. One look
told me he had shoved it in the wrong way. But he had shoved
it in so hard that I couldn't remove it. Got a pair of
pliers and managed to pull it out after applying a LOT of
force. Under Mr Idiots nose, I turned the card around,
inserted it properly, closed the door and showed it to him
working, then gave him a telling off over hanging up the phone.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Stan Trenton
<stre...@idontwantemail.com> saying something like:
> You or others in this news-group
>might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
>out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
In your dreams, you sad git.
Robert Coe
:
:
Is that where he photographs the repairs to the Hubble Telescope?
Bob
Savageduck
No.
It is where he fabricates his own Hubble down-link and wires it to a
P&S he is yet to buy.
He then describes the files produced as exceeding the quality of the
NASA/HST product, but feels the World is unworthy of seeing the
excellence he has created. So he will not publish.
>
> Bob
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
>> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
>> probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
>> standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
>> store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
>> 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
>> and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
>> on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
>> files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
>
> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
Indeed. I shoot RAW with 4GB CF cards. Most of the time, I only need one
card, but every now & then I need a second. (Last time was when I shot
three bands in one night.)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> In article <77o0miF...@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> says...
>
>> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
>> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
>
> a single card. If something happens to that card you might lose
> thousands of shots.
<shrug> If you drop your camera at the start of the shoot, it amounts to
the same thing. Shit happens.
Bob Larter
> Wally wrote:
> []
>> On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
>> with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
>> losing the card or bending pins.
>
> I'd like to see the maths behind that.
You're certainly more likely to lose or damage your card or socket while
swapping cards during a shoot than you are by simply leaving one in the
camera the whole time.
>> When 32 gb cards come down in price a bit, that's what I will buy.
>> Should be enough for most 2 week excursions, and I won't have to take
>> the card out till I get home.
>>
>> Wally
>
> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
Ayup.
Bob Larter
> There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
> noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
> sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
> after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
> experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
> wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
> (I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
> drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
> into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
> employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
> behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
> might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
> out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S images.
LOL
wrote:
>Stan Trenton wrote:
>> There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
>> noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
>> sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
>> after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
>> experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
>> wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
>> (I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
>> drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
>> into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
>> employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
>> behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
>> might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
>> out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
>
>We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S images.
ON YOUR KNEES TROLL-BOY! Your favorite position! Beg some more!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Just what I want to do is enrich the lives of useless internet-living
trolls that reside in their mommies' basements. And they want this for free
too? My photography never comes near the internet, lest it please useless
idiots like you. Be grateful for the once-a-year, greatly downsized,
jpg-compression-ruined, scrap-shot that I might temporarily post as an
example to prove some fool totally wrong about their advised techniques or
useless equipment.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are just too too funny! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't even afford to look at 60x60 thumbnails from my vast collection,
much less view anything printable from it. I judge the buyer before they
are allowed to purchase anything from me. Few, very few, have the
personality and values that will afford them the privilege, and then have
enough funds to do so. Things like you aren't even a consideration for a
preview glimpse of a few tiny thumbnails.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You should be desperately grateful that I'm even acknowledging your
existence this much. Next time you might have to be sated by a single "."
and be extremely thankful for it. LOL!!!!
Too too funny! It wants to see my photography for free! A hopeless and
useless internet-troll wanting to see my photography for free?
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poldie
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
> > "David J Taylor"
> > <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> >>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
> >> impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
> >> so-called "professional" DSLRs.
>
> > decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
> > As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
> > round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
> > after the previous war of confusion.
>
> > The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
> > smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
> > you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
> > wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
> > ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
> > is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
> > left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
> > the exFAT format.
>
> > CF didn't and doesn't have those problems. It is 6 years older than SD
> > (CF was introduced in 1994) and was designed for 137GB capacity right
> > from the start, so the original design will be good for maybe another
> > 3-5 years for a total live span of 20 years.
>
> > Compare that with SD, which had to be updated with a non-compatible
> > design change twice already after an average of just 4 years. I wonder
> > who is running the SD consortium. Must be marketing and sales, because
> > no engineer could possibly design a specification with a live limit of 4
> > years.
>
> > Other limitiations of SD like proprietary interface affects mostly
> > system designers (embedded systems, card reader manufacturers, ...) and
> > much less the photographing public.
>
> > jue
>
> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
> probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
> standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
> store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
> 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
> and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
> on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
> files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
files. Saying 2GB is plenty is laughable. My card cost £20 including
postage.
I've got a friend who does weddings using a 12 megapixel camera, and
he uses an 8GB card.
If I could fit 1600 pictures on my card I'd probably not get another
one, but I can't.
David J Taylor
[]
> You're certainly more likely to lose or damage your card or socket
> while swapping cards during a shoot than you are by simply leaving
> one in the camera the whole time.
Agreed. It was more the idea of using a single card over a longer period
(several days- two weeks) which I wasn't quite so happy with (as well as
the fact the more modern cards might be more or less reliable than earlier
cards). For a critical shoot, I would certainly try to make sure I had
enough capacity /in/ the camera so that a card change was not required.
Which reminds me of a different topic: where was the most unusual place
you have needed to change film? I can offer: on top of mount Etna (with
all that volcanic dust) and inside an Egyptian pyramid (almost too dark to
see what you were doing). Sadly, I have needed to change CF or SD cards
far less! I've certainly needed to change batteries during a shoot,
although I would keep an eye on the battery state and change before
anything critical.
Cheers,
David
Bob Larter
> "David J Taylor"
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>> SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
>> impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
>> so-called "professional" DSLRs.
>
> On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
> decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
If I didn't use CFs exclusively, I'd be more concerned about the limited
read/write speeds of SD card vs CF cards. For serious use, the low max
speed of SD cards is much more of an issue than their capacity.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
> []
>> You're certainly more likely to lose or damage your card or socket
>> while swapping cards during a shoot than you are by simply leaving
>> one in the camera the whole time.
>
> Agreed. It was more the idea of using a single card over a longer
> period (several days- two weeks)
I wouldn't leave one in my camera for so long. I always download
everything to my PeeCee after every shoot, burn a backup, then reformat
the CF card, ready for the next time. I shoot with a pair of freshly
formatted 4GB Sandisk cards, & rarely need to use the second one in the
same shoot.
> which I wasn't quite so happy with (as
> well as the fact the more modern cards might be more or less reliable
> than earlier cards).
You know that FLASH memory wears out, right?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling>
> For a critical shoot, I would certainly try to
> make sure I had enough capacity /in/ the camera so that a card change
> was not required.
Ditto, which is usually enough.
> Which reminds me of a different topic: where was the most unusual place
> you have needed to change film? I can offer: on top of mount Etna (with
> all that volcanic dust) and inside an Egyptian pyramid (almost too dark
> to see what you were doing). Sadly, I have needed to change CF or SD
> cards far less! I've certainly needed to change batteries during a
> shoot, although I would keep an eye on the battery state and change
> before anything critical.
Oh, I haven't ever had to swap cards anywhere as exotic as that. My
biggest danger has been the possibility of dropping a CF card into a
puddle on a nightclub table, or someone spilling a drink on me. Other
than that, the next biggest danger I've had is when I've been shooting
an outdoor event, & needed to swap cards or lenses in a sand storm.
*That* can be scary. Since I got the 1Dmk2, changing batteries hasn't
been an issue. I've never yet had to change one during a shoot. (It was
very different with the tiny Li-Ions for my 10D.)
Bob Larter
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:39:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stan Trenton wrote:
>>> There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
>>> noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
>>> sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
>>> after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
>>> experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
>>> wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
>>> (I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
>>> drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
>>> into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
>>> employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
>>> behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
>>> might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
>>> out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
>> We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S images.
[can't produce any photos]
Yeah, that's what I thought.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> which I wasn't quite so happy with (as
>> well as the fact the more modern cards might be more or less reliable
>> than earlier cards).
>
> You know that FLASH memory wears out, right?
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling>
Yes, of course. Still doesn't alter the fact that more modern cards might
have different reliability (e.g. wear out in more write cycles) than
earlier, making the 1x8GB vs. 8x1GB comparison invalid on purely numeric
grounds. OK, you can say other things being equal", but they aren't
equal.
> Oh, I haven't ever had to swap cards anywhere as exotic as that. My
> biggest danger has been the possibility of dropping a CF card into a
> puddle on a nightclub table, or someone spilling a drink on me. Other
> than that, the next biggest danger I've had is when I've been shooting
> an outdoor event, & needed to swap cards or lenses in a sand storm.
> *That* can be scary. Since I got the 1Dmk2, changing batteries hasn't
> been an issue. I've never yet had to change one during a shoot. (It
> was very different with the tiny Li-Ions for my 10D.)
Stories about CF (and SD?) cards surviving a washing machine make me think
that dropping into a puddle or a drink probably wouldn't lose you any
images!
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Poldie says...
> My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
> files. Saying 2GB is plenty is laughable. My card cost £20 including
> postage.
400 images on one card is a lot. Even more than that is dangerous, in
case the card goes bad.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
David J Taylor
> In article <7a586cf4-fd90-4dc9-93d7-9f2457015b84
> @q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Poldie says...
>
>> My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
>> including postage.
>
> 400 images on one card is a lot. Even more than that is dangerous, in
> case the card goes bad.
I routinely keep over one thousand images on a card, and I don't regard it
as "dangerous". There is a trade-off somewhere between having many small
cards, and a few very large ones, and it probably also depends on whether
you can take a backup each evening.
David
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> which I wasn't quite so happy with (as
>>> well as the fact the more modern cards might be more or less reliable
>>> than earlier cards).
>>
>> You know that FLASH memory wears out, right?
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_levelling>
>
> Yes, of course. Still doesn't alter the fact that more modern cards
> might have different reliability (e.g. wear out in more write cycles)
> than earlier, making the 1x8GB vs. 8x1GB comparison invalid on purely
> numeric grounds. OK, you can say other things being equal", but they
> aren't equal.
Having had 30 years of experience in the electronics & computer
industries, my money would be on newer cards being more reliable than
older cards. I can't point you at any serious data on this, but that's
what my gut says.
>> Oh, I haven't ever had to swap cards anywhere as exotic as that. My
>> biggest danger has been the possibility of dropping a CF card into a
>> puddle on a nightclub table, or someone spilling a drink on me. Other
>> than that, the next biggest danger I've had is when I've been shooting
>> an outdoor event, & needed to swap cards or lenses in a sand storm.
>> *That* can be scary. Since I got the 1Dmk2, changing batteries hasn't
>> been an issue. I've never yet had to change one during a shoot. (It
>> was very different with the tiny Li-Ions for my 10D.)
>
> Stories about CF (and SD?) cards surviving a washing machine make me
> think that dropping into a puddle or a drink probably wouldn't lose you
> any images!
Probably true, but I'd rather not have to find out the hard way. ;^)
Bob Larter
> In article <7a586cf4-fd90-4dc9-93d7-9f2457015b84
> @q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Poldie says...
>
>> My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
>> postage.
>
> 400 images on one card is a lot. Even more than that is dangerous, in
> case the card goes bad.
Hm. I have two 4GB Sandisks, & have shot at least thirty thousand RAW
images on them without ever losing a single shot. I'm not worried.
David J Taylor
[]> Having had 30 years of experience in the electronics & computer
> industries, my money would be on newer cards being more reliable than
> older cards. I can't point you at any serious data on this, but that's
> what my gut says.
I would agree, but I still would prefer 4 x 4GB cards than 1 x 16GB (for a
trip of more than a day or two).
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> I routinely keep over one thousand images on a card, and I don't regard it
> as "dangerous". There is a trade-off somewhere between having many small
> cards, and a few very large ones, and it probably also depends on whether
> you can take a backup each evening.
It's a good idea to backup your photos every evening to a computer, as
the other person suggested. You wouldn't want to lose over 1000 photos
in case the card went bad.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> I would agree, but I still would prefer 4 x 4GB cards than 1 x 16GB (for a
> trip of more than a day or two).
In fact if you travel with just one card and that goes bad, you might
have a problem in case you find yourself far away from civilisation.
Alfred Molon
> Hm. I have two 4GB Sandisks, & have shot at least thirty thousand RAW
> images on them without ever losing a single shot. I'm not worried.
At the moment I'm using two 4GB and one 8GB CF cards, which I backup
every evening to the computer (and an additional USB HDD). Every 8.5GB
of shots I do a backup to a DVD DL.
Bob Larter
Well, givn that a 4GB card is enough for me to get a few hundred
RAW+JPEG shots, that works for me too. ;^)
Bob Larter
> In article <BGSUl.36555$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> I routinely keep over one thousand images on a card, and I don't regard it
>> as "dangerous". There is a trade-off somewhere between having many small
>> cards, and a few very large ones, and it probably also depends on whether
>> you can take a backup each evening.
>
> It's a good idea to backup your photos every evening to a computer, as
> the other person suggested. You wouldn't want to lose over 1000 photos
> in case the card went bad.
I always dump everything onto my PC at the end of the day, regardless of
any other considerations. But that's just me, where I'm not going away
to shoot for a few days.
Bob Larter
> In article <4a241d11$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter says...
>
>> Hm. I have two 4GB Sandisks, & have shot at least thirty thousand RAW
>> images on them without ever losing a single shot. I'm not worried.
>
> At the moment I'm using two 4GB and one 8GB CF cards, which I backup
> every evening to the computer (and an additional USB HDD). Every 8.5GB
> of shots I do a backup to a DVD DL.
DVD DLs are too expensive for me to use for day to day backups. I use
gold DVD-Rs, & so far, I haven't had any trouble reading my archived
files. Mostly, one disk is enough to hold a days shooting. Sometimes.
I'll have to use a second disk, but that's rare.
David J Taylor
> In article <BGSUl.36555$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> I routinely keep over one thousand images on a card, and I don't
>> regard it as "dangerous". There is a trade-off somewhere between
>> having many small cards, and a few very large ones, and it probably
>> also depends on whether you can take a backup each evening.
>
> It's a good idea to backup your photos every evening to a computer, as
> the other person suggested. You wouldn't want to lose over 1000 photos
> in case the card went bad.
It's nice if you can, but you don't necessarily want to have to take a
computer round with you for a short trip, if a camera alone will suffice.
How many times in recent year have you had a good name brand CF or SD card
go bad on you?
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>> []> Having had 30 years of experience in the electronics & computer
>>> industries, my money would be on newer cards being more reliable
>>> than older cards. I can't point you at any serious data on this,
>>> but that's what my gut says.
>>
>> I would agree, but I still would prefer 4 x 4GB cards than 1 x 16GB
>> (for a trip of more than a day or two).
>
> Well, givn that a 4GB card is enough for me to get a few hundred
> RAW+JPEG shots, that works for me too. ;^)
I don't do RAW, so I have a little more margin. <G>
David
Gary Edstrom
I just got back from a trip where I used RAW format 100% of the time.
It's great, but it really takes the memory! For my Canon 50D, CR2 raw
files average 20.7 megs. Converting them to DNG format takes the
average down to 16.2 megs. Good old high quality JPG format takes it
way down to 5.8 megs.
That means that I can only store about 207 CR2 files on a DVD. I guess
it's about time to invest in a BlueRay drive!
Gary
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
> In article <7a586cf4-fd90-4dc9-93d7-9f2457015b84
> @q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Poldie says...
>
>> My 4gb CF card holds less than 400 raw (10MB or so 10megapixel)
>> files. Saying 2GB is plenty is laughable. My card cost �20 including
>> postage.
>
> 400 images on one card is a lot. Even more than that is dangerous, in
> case the card goes bad.
And how many times as a card gone bad? ... compared to all those pictures
you was not able to take because you had to change a filled up card?
Over the last 5 years I have take over 100000 pictures and never ever have a
card failed.
The only advantage in smaller cards (ie. 4 Gb cs 16 Gb) is that the smaller
one is a bit faster.
--
J�rn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/
George Kerby
On 6/2/09 6:27 AM, in article 4i2a25drual1ub8is...@4ax.com,
"Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote:
Naw. Just get a DL drive. A LOT cheaper for both drive and media...
Savageduck
<newsma...@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> said:
Agreed.
I use CF exclusively, having CF cards ranging from 128MB to 8GB with no
failures.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> I don't do RAW, so I have a little more margin. <G>
You should if you are serious about photography.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> It's nice if you can, but you don't necessarily want to have to take a
> computer round with you for a short trip, if a camera alone will suffice.
Actually I never travel without a computer. It's a Lenovo X200, light
and portable. If I do not shoot any photos I use it to check my emails.
Given that there are cheap and light netbooks (which accept huge HDDs) I
see no reason why anybody would not want to carry a small computer when
travelling. And a photographer might want to review the photos in the
evening.
> How many times in recent year have you had a good name brand CF or SD card
> go bad on you?
In 2003 a CF card got corrupted, loss of the data (partial recovery with
a utility possible). Later the pins of the CF slot of a card reader got
bent and it was no longer possible to insert CF cards into it.
Alfred Molon
says...
> That means that I can only store about 207 CR2 files on a DVD. I guess
> it's about time to invest in a BlueRay drive!
That is the solution, but Bluray media are still ridicolously expensive.
Alfred Molon
> And how many times as a card gone bad? ... compared to all those pictures
> you was not able to take because you had to change a filled up card?
Happened once to me.
David J Taylor
> In article <MY3Vl.36726$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> I don't do RAW, so I have a little more margin. <G>
>
> You should if you are serious about photography.
I have once or twice, but being an ex-slide film user, I try to get the
exposure right in the camera every time.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> Actually I never travel without a computer. It's a Lenovo X200, light
> and portable. If I do not shoot any photos I use it to check my
> emails.
Do you never go on holiday? To me, there is something wrong if you cannot
do without e-mails for a few days, from time to time.
> Given that there are cheap and light netbooks (which accept huge
> HDDs) I see no reason why anybody would not want to carry a small
> computer when travelling. And a photographer might want to review the
> photos in the evening.
The average netbook is under-powered, its display is, I feel, too small,
and the lack of DVD read-write a distinct disadvantage. Consequently I
would recommend an 12-inch notebook with at least a dual-core processor
and 2GB of memory.
>> How many times in recent year have you had a good name brand CF or
>> SD card go bad on you?
>
> In 2003 a CF card got corrupted, loss of the data (partial recovery
> with a utility possible). Later the pins of the CF slot of a card
> reader got bent and it was no longer possible to insert CF cards into
> it.
That was rather a long time ago. But you said "got corrupted". Did you
determine what actually happened? I was pleased to move from CF to SD
cards partially because of the potential of the bent pin problem. I've
seen bent pins, but on CPUs rather than CF-readers.
Cheers,
David
Ron Recer
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C64A9779.2B9FA%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
laptops USB port, are about the size of a 1/2" thick passport, cost $120 and
can store 24,000+ 20.7mb images. Use two drives for redundancy and it will
cost you about 1 cent per image to store those 20.7 mb raw files.
Ron
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Do you never go on holiday? To me, there is something wrong if you cannot
> do without e-mails for a few days, from time to time.
I always bring my notebook with me on holidays, also to be able to check
my emails. Why would it be a problem if somenbody likes to check his
emails every day? It only takes a few minutes.
> The average netbook is under-powered, its display is, I feel, too small,
> and the lack of DVD read-write a distinct disadvantage.
But it is sufficient for browsing through the images and getting a
better impression. Some netbooks have 1366x768 screens.
> That was rather a long time ago. But you said "got corrupted". Did you
> determine what actually happened?
My guess is some card write problem in the camera. Still, I do not trust
those tiny little things. I wouldn't take the risk of keeping one
thousand or more images on a single memory card.
David J Taylor
[]
> I always bring my notebook with me on holidays, also to be able to
> check my emails. Why would it be a problem if somenbody likes to
> check his emails every day? It only takes a few minutes.
I would hope that I don't need to explain that! You may become
permanently chained to the office. <G>
>> That was rather a long time ago. But you said "got corrupted". Did
>> you determine what actually happened?
>
> My guess is some card write problem in the camera. Still, I do not
> trust those tiny little things. I wouldn't take the risk of keeping
> one thousand or more images on a single memory card.
That's what I thought from what you said. So not actually a card problem,
but a camera problem (or whatever).
If you don't trust the small card with so much data, I suppose you don't
trust hard disks either, where the data is much more physically
compressed! <G>
Cheers,
David
--
--
SatSignal software - quality software written to your requirements
Web: www.satsignal.eu
Email: david...@writeme.com