Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MMC OR SD Card????

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 31, 2005 4:02:45 PM

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

I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).

Thanks in advance for any help offered.

More about : mmc card

Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:02:46 PM

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

Me <Me@somewherenear.net> writes:

> I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
> MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
> not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).

You want SD. MMC is the older format, and slower. Also, I wouldn't be
surprised if the camera only accepted SD and not MMC.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:02:46 PM

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:02:45 GMT, Me <Me@somewherenear.net> wrote:

>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
>MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
>not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>
>Thanks in advance for any help offered.


Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
format other than CF (compact flash.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Related resources
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:02:46 PM

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

Me wrote:
> I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
> MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
> not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>
> Thanks in advance for any help offered.

I use the SD cards because they have been less expensive, and more
available. Now I have all the cards I need, so I guess whichever is
cheaper would be the choice.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:02:47 PM

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

rafe bustin wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:02:45 GMT, Me <Me@somewherenear.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
>>MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
>>not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help offered.
>
>
>
> Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
> format other than CF (compact flash.)
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

RAther difficult to get a CF card into the SD card slot, doncha think?

I would also have much preferred Kodak stick with the CF card, but that
isn't how they decided to go. Not all that pleased with the change to
proprietary lithium ion batteries either...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:12:39 PM

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:13:02 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:02:45 GMT, Me <Me@somewherenear.net> wrote:
>
>>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
>>MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
>>not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help offered.
>
>
>Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
>format other than CF (compact flash.)
>
>
>rafe b.
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
shortsighted.
For example, CF requires a larger physical size camera than a smaller
form factor card; this limits the smallness of the camera. If small
camera size is what's wanted, CF isn't a good choice.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
January 31, 2005 4:44:49 PM

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

Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in
news:m3ekg1lolf.fsf@glinda.the-meissners.org:

> Me <Me@somewherenear.net> writes:
>
>> I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes
>> both MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD?
>> Price is not an issue as both cards are the same price and
>> capacity(128mb).
>
> You want SD. MMC is the older format, and slower. Also, I wouldn't
> be surprised if the camera only accepted SD and not MMC.
>

Thanks for the answer. The website said that the camera(Kodak DX6490) does
take both but I think I'll do as you suggest and go for the sd card.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:44:50 PM

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

Me wrote:
> Michael Meissner <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote in
> news:m3ekg1lolf.fsf@glinda.the-meissners.org:
>
>
>>Me <Me@somewherenear.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes
>>>both MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD?
>>>Price is not an issue as both cards are the same price and
>>>capacity(128mb).
>>
>>You want SD. MMC is the older format, and slower. Also, I wouldn't
>>be surprised if the camera only accepted SD and not MMC.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the answer. The website said that the camera(Kodak DX6490) does
> take both but I think I'll do as you suggest and go for the sd card.

Yes, the Kodak cameras will take either (not both as that implies at the
same time. grin). I don't know about speeds as that would depend on
the manufacturer.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:13:39 PM

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

And hammer them in with a mallet....?

Guy

> Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
> format other than CF (compact flash.)
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:13:40 PM

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:13:39 -0000, "Bigguy" <Bigguy@nowhere.com> wrote:
And then prise them out with a chisel..........
>
>And hammer them in with a mallet....?
>
>Guy
>
>> Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
>> format other than CF (compact flash.)
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:35:15 PM

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

Big Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:13:02 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:02:45 GMT, Me <Me@somewherenear.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
>>>MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
>>>not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any help offered.
>>
>>
>>Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
>>format other than CF (compact flash.)
>>
>>
>>rafe b.
>>http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>
> Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
> shortsighted.
> For example, CF requires a larger physical size camera than a smaller
> form factor card; this limits the smallness of the camera. If small
> camera size is what's wanted, CF isn't a good choice.
>
My current camera is actually somewhat larger than the older one that
used CF cards. If the cards get much smaller, us old farts will need
stronger magnifying glasses to SEE the darn things! I already have
trouble holding onto the SD cards. The eject mechanism on my camera has
been known to shoot a card across the room!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:00:00 PM

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

Bigguy wrote:
> And hammer them in with a mallet....?
>
> Guy
>
>
>>Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
>>format other than CF (compact flash.)
>>
>>
>>rafe b.
>>http://www.terrapinphoto.com



Well, that was rather my point, though
it could have been said better.

Let's try again. I wouldn't buy a
camera that used anything other than
CF memory.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 1:12:04 AM

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

rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> writes:

> Bigguy wrote:
> > And hammer them in with a mallet....?
> > Guy
> >
> >>Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
> >>format other than CF (compact flash.)
> >>
> >>
> >>rafe b.
> >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
> Well, that was rather my point, though
> it could have been said better.
>
> Let's try again. I wouldn't buy a
> camera that used anything other than
> CF memory.

In terms of cards sold, I believe SD cards surged ahead of CF cards in 2004.
Unlike xD, I suspect SD has acheived critical mass that you don't have to worry
too much about it being around for awhile.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:18:17 AM

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

On 31 Jan 2005 22:12:04 -0500, Michael Meissner
<mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:

>rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> Bigguy wrote:
>> > And hammer them in with a mallet....?
>> > Guy
>> >
>> >>Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
>> >>format other than CF (compact flash.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>rafe b.
>> >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>>
>> Well, that was rather my point, though
>> it could have been said better.
>>
>> Let's try again. I wouldn't buy a
>> camera that used anything other than
>> CF memory.
>
>In terms of cards sold, I believe SD cards surged ahead of CF cards in 2004.
>Unlike xD, I suspect SD has acheived critical mass that you don't have to worry
>too much about it being around for awhile.


Well, I am surprised. A quick check
of tigerdirect.com shows prices about
the same. But the largest SD card is
1 Gb, whereas the largest CF is 8 Gb.

There was a time when microdrives
were used with the CF format. Is
that still so, and is that even
possible with SD format?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:57:55 AM

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

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:

> On 31 Jan 2005 22:12:04 -0500, Michael Meissner
> <mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:
> >In terms of cards sold, I believe SD cards surged ahead of CF cards in 2004.
> >Unlike xD, I suspect SD has acheived critical mass that you don't have to
> >worry too much about it being around for awhile.
>
> Well, I am surprised. A quick check
> of tigerdirect.com shows prices about
> the same. But the largest SD card is
> 1 Gb, whereas the largest CF is 8 Gb.

If the largest size a memory card can hold things is your only criteria, then
CF is still the king, and given it is a larger physical form factor, perhaps it
will always have the lead. But for many cameras/pdas/cell phones, size of the
media is important too. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next few years,
CF becomes more of a speciality item.

However, in general, I believe it is better to chose a camera based on the
images it produces, rather than the memory card it uses. For a second camera
perhaps, looking at something that will allow you to share memory cards and
batteries is useful (my second camera was one of the last smartmedia cameras
Olympus produced because of that), but even there the final image is what
counts, not the media format it takes.

> There was a time when microdrives
> were used with the CF format. Is
> that still so, and is that even
> possible with SD format?

Microdrives are still available with CF-II, but given their fragility, and the
rapidity that solid state media has expanded the capacity, I expect them to
join smartmedia in the dead media category pretty soon.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:13:25 PM

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

Big Bill wrote:
[]
> Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
> shortsighted.

But buying a camera today which uses other than SD or CF II memory would
surely be foolish?

David
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 2:57:31 PM

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

Michael Meissner wrote:
> rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> writes:
>
>
>>On 31 Jan 2005 22:12:04 -0500, Michael Meissner
>><mrmnews@the-meissners.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In terms of cards sold, I believe SD cards surged ahead of CF cards in 2004.
>>>Unlike xD, I suspect SD has acheived critical mass that you don't have to
>>>worry too much about it being around for awhile.
>>
>>Well, I am surprised. A quick check
>>of tigerdirect.com shows prices about
>>the same. But the largest SD card is
>>1 Gb, whereas the largest CF is 8 Gb.
>
>
> If the largest size a memory card can hold things is your only criteria, then
> CF is still the king, and given it is a larger physical form factor, perhaps it
> will always have the lead. But for many cameras/pdas/cell phones, size of the
> media is important too. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next few years,
> CF becomes more of a speciality item.
>
I'm skeptical. SD is one of those "calc watch" designs-- we CAN make it
so small, but SHOULD we? SD cards are so small as to present
difficulties in handling

Expanding the camera slightly to take a bigger physically card gives you
more room for a bigger LCD, more single-function buttons (instead of
complicated many-function buttons with a steeper learning curve), and
better insides (bigger sensor perhaps?)

The SD card is a licence to make tiny, nasty cameras with expandable memory.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:29:42 PM

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

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:13:25 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>[]
>> Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
>> shortsighted.
>
>But buying a camera today which uses other than SD or CF II memory would
>surely be foolish?
>
>David
>
That's not what I said at all.
Read it again:
"Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
shortsighted."
Not, "Picking a camera that uses other than SD or CF II is foolish."
I'm talking about using the card form factor as a major criteria.
Cameras should be chosen on how well they meet your criteria for
taking photos, not on how they store those photos.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:49:12 PM

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

Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:13:25 -0000, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Big Bill wrote:
>> []
>>> Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
>>> shortsighted.
>>
>> But buying a camera today which uses other than SD or CF II memory
>> would surely be foolish?
>>
>> David
>>
> That's not what I said at all.
> Read it again:
> "Picking a camera based on which memory card it takes is, IMO,
> shortsighted."
> Not, "Picking a camera that uses other than SD or CF II is foolish."

I didn't disagree with your point, but introduced a new one. Read what I
said!

> I'm talking about using the card form factor as a major criteria.
> Cameras should be chosen on how well they meet your criteria for
> taking photos, not on how they store those photos.

I would certainly agree with that, although given a choice of two very
similar cameras what storage medium you might choose CF or SD if one
fitted in with your existing working arrangements.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:27:29 PM

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

rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in
news:26fsv0tbsg6bb81mfugnhto1d3fhjvuqi3@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:02:45 GMT, Me <Me@somewherenear.net> wrote:
>
>>I am about to buy a new digital camera. The one I have picked takes both
>>MMC and SD. My question is what card should I go for MMC or SD? Price is
>>not an issue as both cards are the same price and capacity(128mb).
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help offered.
>
>
> Neither. I wouldn't use any "card" memory
> format other than CF (compact flash.)
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>

Bloody hell if I'd known a newbie asking a simple question would cause such
a debate I wouldnt have bothered. Anyway, I took delivery of the camera
today and IMO its great. I got a 128mb SD card at the same time.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:20:02 AM

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

Jack Zeal <hakfoo@gmail.com> wrote:
: I'm skeptical. SD is one of those "calc watch" designs-- we CAN make it
: so small, but SHOULD we? SD cards are so small as to present
: difficulties in handling
:
: Expanding the camera slightly to take a bigger physically card gives you
: more room for a bigger LCD, more single-function buttons (instead of
: complicated many-function buttons with a steeper learning curve), and
: better insides (bigger sensor perhaps?)

Sounds like you want to get yourself an old Sony Mavica then. Floppies
galore, and it's big big big!

:
: The SD card is a licence to make tiny, nasty cameras with expandable memory.

I like my Pentax *ist-DS well enough (despite the stupid name) and it is
hardly a tiny, nasty camera. I think you are generalizing too much.

-Charles

--
Charles Robinson
Minneapolis, MN
charlesr@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~charlesr
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 3:37:39 AM

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

> :
> : The SD card is a licence to make tiny, nasty cameras with expandable memory.
>
> I like my Pentax *ist-DS well enough (despite the stupid name) and it is
> hardly a tiny, nasty camera. I think you are generalizing too much.
>
> -Charles
>
I didn't say all SD cameras are tiny and nasty. My present camera
(Rollei D330) takes SD; it's not nasty IMO. Too small for my
preference, perhaps, and a little slow on deciding the range of the
target, however, what can I expect for 99 dollars?

I merely meant SD makes it *possible* (key word-- licence, not mandate)
to make a really small camera without giving away expandable memory.
Small means tradeoffs somewhere, so it probably means you lose either
image performance (worse sensor or lens) or controls (tiny and or awkward)

With a really small memory card, it makes things like 4MP matchbook
cameras a lot more feasible. (tremble in fear)
!