Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can the Digital Rebel use WA compact flash?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
Website. Naturally, I'm confused.

Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:01:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

> Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
> Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
> able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
> updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
> also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
> Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
>
> Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?

You're asking two different questions: first, whether "CF-with-WA"
memory is compatible with Canon cameras (they are), and second, whether
the DRebel and other Canon cameras take advantage of the WA capabilities
(that, I don't know specifically)
December 17, 2004 6:01:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:01:23 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>Phil Stripling wrote:
>
>> Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
>> Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
>> able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
>> updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
>> also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
>> Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
>>
>> Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?
>
>You're asking two different questions: first, whether "CF-with-WA"
>memory is compatible with Canon cameras (they are), and second, whether
>the DRebel and other Canon cameras take advantage of the WA capabilities
>(that, I don't know specifically)


Is the rebel CF with WA compatible...Yes
Does the rebel take advantage of the WA to write faster... not really.

The 10D does...sort of (personal experience)
The 20D really does, as do the 1ds et al.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:13:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 16 Dec 2004 18:12:16 -0800, Phil Stripling
<phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

>Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
>Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
>able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
>updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
>also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
>Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
>
>Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?

Sorry,
but no, the Digital Rebel/300D does"not" support Lexar's WA.
What has worked well for me is to by a "lifetime" warrantee from a
major manufactures, such as Lexar & Sandisk.

Sandisk Ultra II & Lexar's 12x or faster CF cards have
lifetime warrantees & have become very cost competitive. Some people
simply by the least expensive cards & have good luck with them, but I
feel it's better to by from Sandisk or Lexar for important pictures or
DATA. This becomes especially concerning if your purchasing a large
card such as a 1 or 2GB CF card. Many will warn you about placing all
of your eggs in 1 large basket, a legitimate concern. However if the
type of photography makes a large basket practical, just make sure its
a quality basket & empty/duplicate it's DATA soon/often, just as you
should do with your computer's hard drive DATA.

Anything can & eventually will fail but in the case of quality
memory flash cards, I think it's far more likely that my camera will
fail 1st, mainly because it has moving parts.

Hope the additional information/opinion was helpful.

Respectfully, DHB
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:16:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> writes:

>SNIP<
> Many will warn you about placing all
> of your eggs in 1 large basket, a legitimate concern.

I'm one of them. I've got a CoolPix 990, and I use a mix of 128 and 256MB
cards just to lessen the loss when one fails. The one Gig card was only $80
after the rebate, and that seemed worth the cost. Louise then gets to make
the choice of filling it up or not. Her interest is in having a speedy
camera, so the writing speed is important. However, since others have said
the Digi Reb won't be able to take advantage of that speed, the size is
moot.

>SNIP<
> Anything can & eventually will fail but in the case of quality
> memory flash cards, I think it's far more likely that my camera will
> fail 1st, mainly because it has moving parts.

The problem with a lifetime warranty isn't that the CF is better (it may
not be*), it's that when it does fail, the data are lost. The maker may
replace the card, but it's not the card that's lost, it's the very
important photos.

While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
who knows?

*In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of replacing
a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:22:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
> not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
> but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
> the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
> apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
> travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
> functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
> back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
> expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
> who knows?

CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )

> *In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of
replacing
> a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
> under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
> to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.

That's exactly how it works. Warranties aren't really based on
longevity, but on the economics of the situation.

steve
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:14:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?

The DRebel is pretty slow, so a faster card won't make much difference.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:47:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com>
wrote:

>> While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
>> not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
>> but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
>> the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
>> apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
>> travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
>> functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
>> back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
>> expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
>> who knows?
>
> CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
>times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
>to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
>out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
>can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
>So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
>of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
>would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )

Hmmm...
Let's do the math on that.
That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
card.
If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
300.
Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
(obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
right?
That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
with.
Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :-)
>
>> *In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of
>replacing
>> a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
>> under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
>> to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.
>
> That's exactly how it works. Warranties aren't really based on
>longevity, but on the economics of the situation.
>
>steve
>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:02:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
>>>not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
>>>but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
>>>the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
>>>apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
>>>travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
>>>functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
>>>back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
>>>expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
>>>who knows?
>>
>> CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
>>times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
>>to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
>>out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
>>can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
>>So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
>>of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
>>would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )
>
>
> Hmmm...
> Let's do the math on that.
> That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
> card.
> If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
> card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
> 300.
> Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
> (obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
> pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
> right?
> That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
> with.
> Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :-)

Hi...

I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
your logic, if I may?

I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
last 3 megs be used.

So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:02:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:02:57 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Ken Weitzel
<kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:

>I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
>in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
>last 3 megs be used.
>
>So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
>but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
>first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
>any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.

I believe the cards are designed to even out the use of allocated space to
prevent just this scenario.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:02:57 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>Hi...
>
>I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
>your logic, if I may?
>
>I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
>in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
>last 3 megs be used.
>
>So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
>but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
>first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
>any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.
>
>Take care.
>
>Ken

I'll agree the normal use isn't to fill the card.
But even an average would be over 4 million shots, if only using the
card to half capacity. If that's all that's being used, why use a 1
Gig card?

Personally, I keep a 512 meg card loaded unless I'm going out to shoot
a particular theme (a Zoo, for example); then I load the 1 Gigger, and
will almost fill it.
The 512 megger gets used for 'pick-up' shots, and doesn't get anywhere
near filled before I empty it.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 3:08:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Stripling wrote:

> DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> writes:
>
> The problem with a lifetime warranty isn't that the CF is better (it may
> not be*), it's that when it does fail, the data are lost. The maker may
> replace the card, but it's not the card that's lost, it's the very
> important photos.
>

This is also true of film. If the film fails because of irradiation at
airports, or just a cock-up in processing (which usually is out of your hands)
then the same applies. The shots are lost.

Colin
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lKPwd.515288$Pl.203979@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Big Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally,
>>>>I'm
>>>>not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not
>>>>digital,
>>>>but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
>>>>the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
>>>>apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
>>>>travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
>>>>functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and
>>>>brought
>>>>back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
>>>>expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
>>>>who knows?
>>>
>>> CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
>>>times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like
>>>"up
>>>to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
>>>out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a
>>>picture
>>>can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
>>>So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with
>>>1/2
>>>of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how
>>>much
>>>would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )
>>
>>
>> Hmmm...
>> Let's do the math on that.
>> That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
>> card.
>> If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
>> card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
>> 300.
>> Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
>> (obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
>> pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
>> right?
>> That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
>> with.
>> Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :-)
>
> Hi...
>
> I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
> your logic, if I may?
>
> I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
> in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
> last 3 megs be used.
>
> So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
> but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
> first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
> any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
>
The controller in a CF card writes data evenly across all flash cells. It
is called wear leveling. Even the FAT is written to a different location.

Also, most CF cards today have flash cell life between 300,000 and 2,
000,000 erase write cycles.

Bill Frank
CompactFlash Association
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:38:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Hmmm...
> Let's do the math on that.
> That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
> card.

Because the card is formatted with a FAT filesystem, every time you take
a new picture, you're writing to the FAT table, so that area of the card is
going to get hit pretty heavily.

In any event, my point was that you'll get a LOT of usage out of the
camera - even at "just" 15,000 pictures, that's still a lot of pictures.
Even if you're talking about a $200 2-gig card, that's just over a penny per
shot.

steve
!