Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SD vs CF

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:37:41 PM

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

Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
more compact than CF.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

More about : question

Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:37:42 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
> more compact than CF.

They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:37:43 PM

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

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:E42dnW4TatcEn4TfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>> more compact than CF.
>
> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.

Upon what do you base this statement?
I have heard of no such indication.

Personally, I think CF will give way to SD entirely...eventually.
CF remains remarkably relevant, considering that it is among the oldest flash memory types
(an off-shoot of relatively ancient PCMCIA cards and PCMCIA-based hard-drives). As size
constrains capacity less and less, SD will likely take over. Canon is now moving more in
the direction of SD--even providing slots for BOTH SD and CF on it's professional DSLRs.

In the near future, CF keeps it's advantage largely due to the fact that it's size allows
larger capacity builds more easily. This is great for now. Eventually, physical size
will be an afterthought, since size will end up basicaly being limited by what can
reasonably be handled with human fingers. Capacity will continue to increase for a long
time, regardless of limit of what is considered a reasonable physical size.
-Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:37:44 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%v8Sd.97010$0u.17697@fed1read04...
>
> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:E42dnW4TatcEn4TfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>> more compact than CF.
>>
>> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
>
> Upon what do you base this statement?

Personal experience.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 10:37:45 PM

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

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T8Kdnea3l4xlu4TfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:%v8Sd.97010$0u.17697@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:E42dnW4TatcEn4TfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>>> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>>> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>>> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>>> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>>> more compact than CF.
>>>
>>> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
>>
>> Upon what do you base this statement?
>
> Personal experience.

You are too small a sample (1) to draw any general conclusions about the formats.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:55:08 AM

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

I would think the most important part of digital photography is the Camera.
SD cards in most cases are used in more compact cameras (with some
exceptions as Panasonic) SD cards were first found in other electronic
devices and Digital Camcorders (for stills). If any card is the best
performer it's probably the xD card which is used by Fuji and Olympus.
Choose a digital camera by it's merits not what type of memory card it uses.
I really think we're loosing what photography is all about and getting
involved in all the technical garbley gook.

I don't think your image quality is going to suffer using a CF, SM, xD, SD,
or even MS, memory cards.




"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
> more compact than CF.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:55:09 AM

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

"Helge Buddenborg" <foto@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:nYcSd.6284$RM2.3624@read1.cgocable.net...
>I would think the most important part of digital photography is the Camera. SD cards in
>most cases are used in more compact cameras (with some exceptions as Panasonic) SD cards
>were first found in other electronic devices and Digital Camcorders (for stills). If any
>card is the best performer it's probably the xD card which is used by Fuji and Olympus.
> Choose a digital camera by it's merits not what type of memory card it uses. I really
> think we're loosing what photography is all about and getting involved in all the
> technical garbley gook.
>
> I don't think your image quality is going to suffer using a CF, SM, xD, SD, or even MS,
> memory cards.

Did you read the opening line of his post?
-Or were you just set on pontificating regardless...
:) 

> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>> more compact than CF.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
>
>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:27:47 AM

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

In article <E42dnW4TatcEn4TfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, Charles Schuler says...
>
> > Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
> > least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
> > instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
> > capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
> > more compact than CF.
>
> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.

I've never heard that CF cards are particularly reliable. And with my
previous camera, the Olympus 5050, there was a compatibility issue with
a Transcend 30x 512MB CF. Every now and then the card got corrupted.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:27:48 AM

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

> I've never heard that CF cards are particularly reliable. And with my
> previous camera, the Olympus 5050, there was a compatibility issue with
> a Transcend 30x 512MB CF. Every now and then the card got corrupted.

SM cards can get corrupted (reformatted) simply by inserting them into a
reader connected to a Windows computer. Four SM cards corrupted at this
location; not one CF card, so far. What infuriates me is that Windows
recognizes the SM cards but the camera will not. I have taken those cards
to a camera shop and their cameras can't reformat them either. Any Apple
users out there?

I have Googled this to death and learned that those SM cards can probably be
recovered with the appropriate hardware/software. Screw that ... life is
too short and SM cards are on my "never buy again" list.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:34:34 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
> more compact than CF.

I find the SD cards harder to handle, too small to find if dropped, and
I don't like the contacts being exposed. That said, they seem to work
quite well, and are available in adequate capacities.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:35:07 AM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>more compact than CF.
>
>
> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
>
>
Do you have actual test information to confirm that, or is it just opinion?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:35:08 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:2pfSd.8635$eO5.1330@fe07.lga...
> Charles Schuler wrote:
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>>least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>>instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>>capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>>more compact than CF.
>>
>>
>> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
> Do you have actual test information to confirm that, or is it just opinion?

His response to me indicated that it's in his own "personal experience"...which means it
is opinion based on a tiny, personal sample.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:36:01 AM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
>>I've never heard that CF cards are particularly reliable. And with my
>>previous camera, the Olympus 5050, there was a compatibility issue with
>>a Transcend 30x 512MB CF. Every now and then the card got corrupted.
>
>
> SM cards can get corrupted (reformatted) simply by inserting them into a
> reader connected to a Windows computer. Four SM cards corrupted at this
> location; not one CF card, so far. What infuriates me is that Windows
> recognizes the SM cards but the camera will not. I have taken those cards
> to a camera shop and their cameras can't reformat them either. Any Apple
> users out there?
>
> I have Googled this to death and learned that those SM cards can probably be
> recovered with the appropriate hardware/software. Screw that ... life is
> too short and SM cards are on my "never buy again" list.
>
>
How did SM cards get into the discussion. SM is a dead format, with cause.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
February 21, 2005 11:10:54 AM

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

In article <nYcSd.6284$RM2.3624@read1.cgocable.net>, foto@cogeco.ca says...
> I would think the most important part of digital photography is the Camera.
> SD cards in most cases are used in more compact cameras (with some
> exceptions as Panasonic) SD cards were first found in other electronic
> devices and Digital Camcorders (for stills). If any card is the best
> performer it's probably the xD card which is used by Fuji and Olympus.
> Choose a digital camera by it's merits not what type of memory card it uses.
> I really think we're loosing what photography is all about and getting
> involved in all the technical garbley gook.
>
> I don't think your image quality is going to suffer using a CF, SM, xD, SD,
> or even MS, memory cards.
>
>
>
>
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
> > Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
> > least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
> > instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
> > capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
> > more compact than CF.
> > --
> >
> > Alfred Molon
> > ------------------------------
> > Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> > Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
>
>
>

I dont think there IS a CF vs SD issue,

I have yet to see a camera that uses both, so you dont get a choice.

Sony with its memory sticks, is really the only camera maker that should give
you pause.. Since memory sticks (the last time I looked) were more expensive
per mb than all the other media, you should stop and think before buying a
Sony camera. I have a Sony F-717, and the memory sticks for it were VERY
pricey, but it was the best 5mp digicam I could find at the time (at least
for me) so I bought it and bit the bullet on memory.

Even Sony has started using CF cards on a couple of cameras.

The size of the card is a dead issue, as long as I can fit it in the camera,
size doesn't matter (though I think the smaller media are more difficult to
use and easier to loose).

You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it takes
NOT by what kind of memory it uses. The memory card doesnt change the
color/resolution/clarity/focus/noise level in the picture. If these aren't
your concerns, then go buy the memory you want, and buy the cheapest camera
you can find that uses them, you weren't concerned about picture quality
anyway.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:53:35 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:8%aSd.97023$0u.26975@fed1read04...
>
> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T8Kdnea3l4xlu4TfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:%v8Sd.97010$0u.17697@fed1read04...
>>>
>>> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:E42dnW4TatcEn4TfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>>>> Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>>>> least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>>>> instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>>>> capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>>>> more compact than CF.
>>>>
>>>> They sure are more compact but just not as reliable.
>>>
>>> Upon what do you base this statement?
>>
>> Personal experience.
>
> You are too small a sample (1) to draw any general conclusions about the
> formats.


Don't worry about him Mark he is talking about SM cards and they are
rubbish.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 12:30:42 PM

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

Me personally, I think the mad-rush to SD cards is silly. And yes, it IS a
mad-rush. I think even compactness is not a good enough reason. Look at how
compact Canon's S410 and S500 are, and they take great pictures--and they
use Compact Flash.

Speed-wise, look at how fast Canon's EOS20D and Nikon's D70 and D2h are,
very fast cameras--and they're Compact Flash.

I actually have less problem with Sony's Memory Stick--or Fuji/Olympus'
xD--than I do SD, because SD seems to be driving CF in the direction of
Smart Media cards. There's nothing wrong with Compact Flash at all, it's
small yet not so ridiculously tiny as to be so easy to lose, is fast, has
huge capacities, is as universal as they come, and heck even Sony was
starting to put it in their better cameras as a Memory Stick alternative.
Just when even Sony is embracing CF, we're going to do a mad rush to SD
cards now? Why? It's not better, so why bother with the mad-rush, camera
manufacturers?

LRH
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:36:32 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> I've never heard that CF cards are particularly reliable. And with my
> previous camera, the Olympus 5050, there was a compatibility issue
> with a Transcend 30x 512MB CF. Every now and then the card got
> corrupted.

That's most likey your camera. CF cards are in general very reliable.
The two main problems seem to be people bending the pins in the camera
when inserting the card incorrectly (and forcing it), and people who
format the card incorrectly in the PC rather than in their camera.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:36:33 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> []
>
>>I've never heard that CF cards are particularly reliable. And with my
>>previous camera, the Olympus 5050, there was a compatibility issue
>>with a Transcend 30x 512MB CF. Every now and then the card got
>>corrupted.
>
>
> That's most likey your camera. CF cards are in general very reliable.
> The two main problems seem to be people bending the pins in the camera
> when inserting the card incorrectly (and forcing it), and people who
> format the card incorrectly in the PC rather than in their camera.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
And people who forget and remove the card while it is still being
written to. If it happens to be rewriting the FAT, it's toast.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:10:32 PM

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

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:W0oSd.18954$Tt.16463@fed1read05...
> Me personally, I think the mad-rush to SD cards is silly. And yes, it IS a mad-rush. I
> think even compactness is not a good enough reason. Look at how compact Canon's S410 and
> S500 are, and they take great pictures--and they use Compact Flash.
>
> Speed-wise, look at how fast Canon's EOS20D and Nikon's D70 and D2h are, very fast
> cameras--and they're Compact Flash.
>
> I actually have less problem with Sony's Memory Stick--or Fuji/Olympus' xD--than I do
> SD, because SD seems to be driving CF in the direction of Smart Media cards. There's
> nothing wrong with Compact Flash at all, it's small yet not so ridiculously tiny as to
> be so easy to lose, is fast, has huge capacities, is as universal as they come, and heck
> even Sony was starting to put it in their better cameras as a Memory Stick alternative.
> Just when even Sony is embracing CF, we're going to do a mad rush to SD cards now? Why?
> It's not better, so why bother with the mad-rush, camera manufacturers?

I don't see a mad rush.
I see a switch in the ultra compact cameras, but I hardly a "rush" anywhere else, save for
ultra compact cameras. Part of what may drive manufacturers away (besides size) is the
fact that using CF cards means building the 52 pins into whatever the device is. Surely
it is easier and cheaper to deal (manufacture) products with the pinless 9 connectors of
SD instead. Remember too, that lots of devices use SD (mp3 players, PDA, etc.). People
like to have one memory type when possible, so that they aren't carrying two types around.

I think I basically agree with you, though, about the continued usefulness of CF. They
have the largest capacity by a large margin, and are plenty fast.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:30:42 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:43 -0800

> Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought, since size
> will end up basicaly being limited by what can reasonably be
> handled with human fingers.

Personally, I think CF size is this limit. I Like the size of
CF - It feels sturdy, rather than small and flimsy, is easy to
pick up off a flat surface, and manuvure quickly into the slot.
SD and especially the new XM(? I Think) feel too small and
brittle for my liking, and are more fiddly to pick up and use.

Also worth remembering that not everyone has small, nimble
fingers. Those with athritis, or just plain 'Dumbthumbs'
syndrome, find the physical size of CF to be much easier to
handle.

Chris D
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:30:43 PM

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

"Chris D" <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote in message
news:20050221113042.5298821e.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:43 -0800
>
>> Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought, since size
>> will end up basicaly being limited by what can reasonably be
>> handled with human fingers.
>
> Personally, I think CF size is this limit. I Like the size of
> CF - It feels sturdy, rather than small and flimsy, is easy to
> pick up off a flat surface, and manuvure quickly into the slot.
> SD and especially the new XM(? I Think) feel too small and
> brittle for my liking, and are more fiddly to pick up and use.
>
> Also worth remembering that not everyone has small, nimble
> fingers. Those with athritis, or just plain 'Dumbthumbs'
> syndrome, find the physical size of CF to be much easier to
> handle.

I tend to agree, actually, though I don't think a large number of folks find SD difficult
to handle. I do like how SD has developed as a push-to-eject soloution, rather than what
can often be the difficult ejection/removal of CF. I also find it interesting how SD
manages it's communications, with only a tiny fraction of the connectors that CF has. I
suspect the zillion connectors of the CF are related to it's hard-drive roots with PCMCIA
cardss and hard-drive connectivity, but I don't know. SD has 8 or 9 connectors, while CF
has a whopping 52 pins.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:30:43 PM

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

Chris D wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:43 -0800
>
>
>>Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought, since size
>>will end up basicaly being limited by what can reasonably be
>>handled with human fingers.
>
>
> Personally, I think CF size is this limit. I Like the size of
> CF - It feels sturdy, rather than small and flimsy, is easy to
> pick up off a flat surface, and manuvure quickly into the slot.
> SD and especially the new XM(? I Think) feel too small and
> brittle for my liking, and are more fiddly to pick up and use.
>
> Also worth remembering that not everyone has small, nimble
> fingers. Those with athritis, or just plain 'Dumbthumbs'
> syndrome, find the physical size of CF to be much easier to
> handle.
>
> Chris D

I certainly do. The SD cards are pretty robust, but the smaller size
makes them quite difficult to find if dropped into grass. I think they
are on the verge of 'too small'. Smaller formats certainly cross the line.
Who wants a 10GB card one has to have a microscope to insert into the
camera???


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:30:44 PM

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:50:57 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:

>"Chris D" <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote in message
>news:20050221113042.5298821e.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au...
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:43 -0800
>>
>>> Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought, since size
>>> will end up basicaly being limited by what can reasonably be
>>> handled with human fingers.
>>
>> Personally, I think CF size is this limit. I Like the size of
>> CF - It feels sturdy, rather than small and flimsy, is easy to
>> pick up off a flat surface, and manuvure quickly into the slot.
>> SD and especially the new XM(? I Think) feel too small and
>> brittle for my liking, and are more fiddly to pick up and use.
>>
>> Also worth remembering that not everyone has small, nimble
>> fingers. Those with athritis, or just plain 'Dumbthumbs'
>> syndrome, find the physical size of CF to be much easier to
>> handle.

>I tend to agree, actually, though I don't think a large number of folks find SD difficult
>to handle.

Depends on the circumstances. I have no problem swapping SD cards when
seated at my desk, but I wouldn't be at all keen on doing so while, say,
standing in grass. Still, with a 1Gb card I'm not going to have to swap
very often.

Manufacturers do seem to be developing an absurd fetish for smallness.
When I bought my mobile telephone I chose the largest one in the shop
but it's still too small to sit comfortably in my hand. The target
market these days seems to be Japanese 8 year olds.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 2:30:45 PM

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

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:0v3j11lfi3irrbeoeg1vb87ese7mjubr8g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:50:57 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
> here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>"Chris D" <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:20050221113042.5298821e.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au...
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:43 -0800
>>>
>>>> Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought, since size
>>>> will end up basicaly being limited by what can reasonably be
>>>> handled with human fingers.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think CF size is this limit. I Like the size of
>>> CF - It feels sturdy, rather than small and flimsy, is easy to
>>> pick up off a flat surface, and manuvure quickly into the slot.
>>> SD and especially the new XM(? I Think) feel too small and
>>> brittle for my liking, and are more fiddly to pick up and use.
>>>
>>> Also worth remembering that not everyone has small, nimble
>>> fingers. Those with athritis, or just plain 'Dumbthumbs'
>>> syndrome, find the physical size of CF to be much easier to
>>> handle.
>
>>I tend to agree, actually, though I don't think a large number of folks find SD
>>difficult
>>to handle.
>
> Depends on the circumstances. I have no problem swapping SD cards when
> seated at my desk, but I wouldn't be at all keen on doing so while, say,
> standing in grass. Still, with a 1Gb card I'm not going to have to swap
> very often.

I guess we all have our comfort levels.
I have very large hands, and don't find SD cards a problem, though I definitely think the
xD cards are too small, and would avoid them for their size alone.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:39:05 PM

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

Larry wrote:

> You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it
takes
> NOT by what kind of memory it uses.

Given two cameras that take basically the same sort of picture per $ by
whatever criteria, the smart person buys the CF-based one, not the SD
one.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:50:33 PM

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

> In the near future, CF keeps it's advantage largely due to the fact
> that it's size allows larger capacity builds more easily. This
> is great for now. Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought,
> since size will end up basicaly being limited by what can
> reasonably be handled with human fingers. Capacity will continue
> to increase for a long time, regardless of limit of what
> is considered a reasonable physical size.

??? If CF is larger, it will _always_ hold more than an SD card given
equal technology. Furthermore, physical shape and size -- the "form
factor" -- are not, and never will be, "afterthoughts" (look at the
cellphone business, as one example). Basically, you aren't making any
sense at all.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:02:29 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> How did SM cards get into the discussion. SM is a dead format, with
cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory

Think of "SD" (and xD, and the rest of them) as "Son of SM".
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:52:34 PM

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109019033.886317.117100@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

> In the near future, CF keeps it's advantage largely due to the fact
> that it's size allows larger capacity builds more easily. This
> is great for now. Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought,
> since size will end up basicaly being limited by what can
> reasonably be handled with human fingers. Capacity will continue
> to increase for a long time, regardless of limit of what
> is considered a reasonable physical size.

??? If CF is larger, it will _always_ hold more than an SD card given
equal technology. Furthermore, physical shape and size -- the "form
factor" -- are not, and never will be, "afterthoughts" (look at the
cellphone business, as one example). Basically, you aren't making any
sense at all.

------------------
When I speak of size not being so much of a factor, I'm talking about a very similar
concept which applies to cell phones and laptops (for example). Laptops have a rough
minimum size that remains practical, due to keyboard/screen size needs. Cell phones can't
be much smaller than they are right now without becoming too small to use easily
(key-pads, display, etc.).

As memory miniaturization increases far beyond present capabilities, it will be easier and
easier to compress loads of memory into small spaces. Right now, CF makes that easier,
but eventually, physical size will become less and less an issue in terms of how much
memory will "fit." This is what I mean by "afterthought." It will become more a question
of handling than size-related memory constraints. Laptops will tend to remain not much
smaller than what is available today, save for thickness. Same with cell phones. Same
with (eventually) memory cards.

Feel free to disagree, but I think the industry will agree with me.
-Mark

Save' yet?
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:08:31 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
>> That's most likey your camera. CF cards are in general very
>> reliable. The two main problems seem to be people bending the pins
>> in the camera when inserting the card incorrectly (and forcing it),
>> and people who format the card incorrectly in the PC rather than in
>> their camera. Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
> And people who forget and remove the card while it is still being
> written to. If it happens to be rewriting the FAT, it's toast.

Good point!

David
February 21, 2005 7:04:32 PM

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

In article <1109018345.191746.249930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com says...
> Larry wrote:
>
> > You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it
> takes
> > NOT by what kind of memory it uses.
>
> Given two cameras that take basically the same sort of picture per $ by
> whatever criteria, the smart person buys the CF-based one, not the SD
> one.
>
>

It would be MY preference, but not everybody feels the SD cards are too
damned small (as I do).

Like YOU said all things being EQUAL the CF-card camera would be the one I
buy. (and I have a significant investment in both memory sticks AND SD cards)


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 7:11:34 PM

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

On 2/21/05 7:10 AM, in article
MPG.1c83a7dd3037553e9896cf@news.individual.NET, "Larry"
<larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:

> I dont think there IS a CF vs SD issue,
>
> I have yet to see a camera that uses both, so you dont get a choice.

Minor nit - The Canon 1Ds Mark II uses both CF cards and SD cards :) 
Both types can be in the camera at the same time and can be selected as
desired.

Snip
> You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it takes
> NOT by what kind of memory it uses. The memory card doesnt change the
> color/resolution/clarity/focus/noise level in the picture. If these aren't
> your concerns, then go buy the memory you want, and buy the cheapest camera
> you can find that uses them, you weren't concerned about picture quality
> anyway.
>
Absolutely true!
Chuck
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:10:53 PM

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

Larry wrote:
> In article <nYcSd.6284$RM2.3624@read1.cgocable.net>, foto@cogeco.ca says...
>
>>I would think the most important part of digital photography is the Camera.
>>SD cards in most cases are used in more compact cameras (with some
>>exceptions as Panasonic) SD cards were first found in other electronic
>>devices and Digital Camcorders (for stills). If any card is the best
>>performer it's probably the xD card which is used by Fuji and Olympus.
>>Choose a digital camera by it's merits not what type of memory card it uses.
>>I really think we're loosing what photography is all about and getting
>>involved in all the technical garbley gook.
>>
>>I don't think your image quality is going to suffer using a CF, SM, xD, SD,
>>or even MS, memory cards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>>least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>>instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>>capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>>more compact than CF.
>>>--
>>>
>>>Alfred Molon
>>>------------------------------
>>>Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>>Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
>>
>>
>>
>
> I dont think there IS a CF vs SD issue,
>
> I have yet to see a camera that uses both, so you dont get a choice.
>
> Sony with its memory sticks, is really the only camera maker that should give
> you pause.. Since memory sticks (the last time I looked) were more expensive
> per mb than all the other media, you should stop and think before buying a
> Sony camera. I have a Sony F-717, and the memory sticks for it were VERY
> pricey, but it was the best 5mp digicam I could find at the time (at least
> for me) so I bought it and bit the bullet on memory.
>
> Even Sony has started using CF cards on a couple of cameras.
>
> The size of the card is a dead issue, as long as I can fit it in the camera,
> size doesn't matter (though I think the smaller media are more difficult to
> use and easier to loose).
>
> You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it takes
> NOT by what kind of memory it uses. The memory card doesnt change the
> color/resolution/clarity/focus/noise level in the picture. If these aren't
> your concerns, then go buy the memory you want, and buy the cheapest camera
> you can find that uses them, you weren't concerned about picture quality
> anyway.
>
>
I disagree with your initial statement. IF one has a few hundred
dollars invested in CF cards (as I did), then the type of card the new
camera uses IS a factor to consider. It may not be the most important
(I bought an SD card camera), but it IS a factor of importance to those
of us with finite budgets.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:13:29 PM

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

Larry wrote:
> In article <1109018345.191746.249930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com says...
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it
>>
>>takes
>>
>>>NOT by what kind of memory it uses.
>>
>>Given two cameras that take basically the same sort of picture per $ by
>>whatever criteria, the smart person buys the CF-based one, not the SD
>>one.
>>
>>
>
>
> It would be MY preference, but not everybody feels the SD cards are too
> damned small (as I do).
>
> Like YOU said all things being EQUAL the CF-card camera would be the one I
> buy. (and I have a significant investment in both memory sticks AND SD cards)
>
>
I saw just today, an article about a new format card that is only 1/4
the size of the MMC/SD cards! Now that is TOO small for most people to
handle. It might be ok for a phone, if it was to be inserted only once,
and left in place, but I wouldn't consider handling it 'in the field'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:15:05 PM

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Me personally, I think the mad-rush to SD cards is silly. And yes, it IS a
> mad-rush. I think even compactness is not a good enough reason. Look at how
> compact Canon's S410 and S500 are, and they take great pictures--and they
> use Compact Flash.
>
> Speed-wise, look at how fast Canon's EOS20D and Nikon's D70 and D2h are,
> very fast cameras--and they're Compact Flash.
>
> I actually have less problem with Sony's Memory Stick--or Fuji/Olympus'
> xD--than I do SD, because SD seems to be driving CF in the direction of
> Smart Media cards. There's nothing wrong with Compact Flash at all, it's
> small yet not so ridiculously tiny as to be so easy to lose, is fast, has
> huge capacities, is as universal as they come, and heck even Sony was
> starting to put it in their better cameras as a Memory Stick alternative.
> Just when even Sony is embracing CF, we're going to do a mad rush to SD
> cards now? Why? It's not better, so why bother with the mad-rush, camera
> manufacturers?
>
> LRH
>
>
I tend to agree, but then I learned a long time ago that you can expend
a lot of energy without result if you try to swim against the stream...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:18:08 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109019033.886317.117100@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
>
>
>>In the near future, CF keeps it's advantage largely due to the fact
>>that it's size allows larger capacity builds more easily. This
>>is great for now. Eventually, physical size will be an afterthought,
>>since size will end up basicaly being limited by what can
>>reasonably be handled with human fingers. Capacity will continue
>>to increase for a long time, regardless of limit of what
>>is considered a reasonable physical size.
>
>
> ??? If CF is larger, it will _always_ hold more than an SD card given
> equal technology. Furthermore, physical shape and size -- the "form
> factor" -- are not, and never will be, "afterthoughts" (look at the
> cellphone business, as one example). Basically, you aren't making any
> sense at all.
>
> ------------------
> When I speak of size not being so much of a factor, I'm talking about a very similar
> concept which applies to cell phones and laptops (for example). Laptops have a rough
> minimum size that remains practical, due to keyboard/screen size needs. Cell phones can't
> be much smaller than they are right now without becoming too small to use easily
> (key-pads, display, etc.).

They are ALREADY too small!

>
> As memory miniaturization increases far beyond present capabilities, it will be easier and
> easier to compress loads of memory into small spaces. Right now, CF makes that easier,
> but eventually, physical size will become less and less an issue in terms of how much
> memory will "fit." This is what I mean by "afterthought." It will become more a question
> of handling than size-related memory constraints. Laptops will tend to remain not much
> smaller than what is available today, save for thickness. Same with cell phones. Same
> with (eventually) memory cards.

I would hope that laptops would get LIGHTER. Mine tends to put my legs
to sleep if I use it on my lap too long. Then there is the heat problem
with some laptops...

>
> Feel free to disagree, but I think the industry will agree with me.
> -Mark
>
> Save' yet?
>
>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:19:14 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>How did SM cards get into the discussion. SM is a dead format, with
>
> cause.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
>
> Think of "SD" (and xD, and the rest of them) as "Son of SM".
>
Absolutely NOT. The SD card is vastly more robust, and has much larger
capacity. The SM card was just TOO THIN to be robust.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:36:11 AM

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

In article <BE3F6415.1AD4F%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>, C Wright
says...
> > I have yet to see a camera that uses both, so you dont get a choice.
>
> Minor nit - The Canon 1Ds Mark II uses both CF cards and SD cards :) 
> Both types can be in the camera at the same time and can be selected as
> desired.

And in that camera the write speed is about 4MB/s with CF and 6.7MB/s
with SD...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:42:03 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:HMvSd.159$Ei2.76@fe04.lga...
> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>> Me personally, I think the mad-rush to SD cards is silly. And yes, it IS a mad-rush. I
>> think even compactness is not a good enough reason. Look at how compact Canon's S410
>> and S500 are, and they take great pictures--and they use Compact Flash.
>>
>> Speed-wise, look at how fast Canon's EOS20D and Nikon's D70 and D2h are, very fast
>> cameras--and they're Compact Flash.
>>
>> I actually have less problem with Sony's Memory Stick--or Fuji/Olympus' xD--than I do
>> SD, because SD seems to be driving CF in the direction of Smart Media cards. There's
>> nothing wrong with Compact Flash at all, it's small yet not so ridiculously tiny as to
>> be so easy to lose, is fast, has huge capacities, is as universal as they come, and
>> heck even Sony was starting to put it in their better cameras as a Memory Stick
>> alternative. Just when even Sony is embracing CF, we're going to do a mad rush to SD
>> cards now? Why? It's not better, so why bother with the mad-rush, camera manufacturers?
>>
>> LRH
> I tend to agree, but then I learned a long time ago that you can expend a lot of energy
> without result if you try to swim against the stream...

Unless you're a salmon...and make it to the top of the river...
But oops! -They DIE when they get there!
:) 
-Guess you're right.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:43:23 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:bLvSd.156$1j2.152@fe04.lga...
> Larry wrote:
>> In article <1109018345.191746.249930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>>Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it
>>>
>>>takes
>>>
>>>>NOT by what kind of memory it uses.
>>>
>>>Given two cameras that take basically the same sort of picture per $ by
>>>whatever criteria, the smart person buys the CF-based one, not the SD
>>>one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It would be MY preference, but not everybody feels the SD cards are too damned small
>> (as I do).
>>
>> Like YOU said all things being EQUAL the CF-card camera would be the one I buy. (and I
>> have a significant investment in both memory sticks AND SD cards)
>>
>>
> I saw just today, an article about a new format card that is only 1/4 the size of the
> MMC/SD cards! Now that is TOO small for most people to handle. It might be ok for a
> phone, if it was to be inserted only once, and left in place, but I wouldn't consider
> handling it 'in the field'.

I think that's exactly what market they're intended for (cell phones, or perhaps even
watches with mp3 players in them, etc.).
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:47:41 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:LIvSd.155$l62.67@fe04.lga...
> Larry wrote:
>> In article <nYcSd.6284$RM2.3624@read1.cgocable.net>, foto@cogeco.ca says...
>>
>>>I would think the most important part of digital photography is the Camera. SD cards in
>>>most cases are used in more compact cameras (with some exceptions as Panasonic) SD
>>>cards were first found in other electronic devices and Digital Camcorders (for stills).
>>>If any card is the best performer it's probably the xD card which is used by Fuji and
>>>Olympus.
>>>Choose a digital camera by it's merits not what type of memory card it uses. I really
>>>think we're loosing what photography is all about and getting involved in all the
>>>technical garbley gook.
>>>
>>>I don't think your image quality is going to suffer using a CF, SM, xD, SD, or even MS,
>>>memory cards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:MPG.1c82f7462fb92ac598a9eb@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>Not that this really matters, but it seems to me that SD cards are at
>>>>least as good as CF cards, and are perhaps even faster. Lexar for
>>>>instance launched a 60x SD card, and SD cards are available in
>>>>capacities of at least 1GB (maybe more). Add to this that SD cards are
>>>>more compact than CF.
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Alfred Molon
>>>>------------------------------
>>>>Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
>>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>>>>Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I dont think there IS a CF vs SD issue,
>>
>> I have yet to see a camera that uses both, so you dont get a choice.
>>
>> Sony with its memory sticks, is really the only camera maker that should give you
>> pause.. Since memory sticks (the last time I looked) were more expensive per mb than
>> all the other media, you should stop and think before buying a Sony camera. I have a
>> Sony F-717, and the memory sticks for it were VERY pricey, but it was the best 5mp
>> digicam I could find at the time (at least for me) so I bought it and bit the bullet on
>> memory.
>>
>> Even Sony has started using CF cards on a couple of cameras.
>>
>> The size of the card is a dead issue, as long as I can fit it in the camera, size
>> doesn't matter (though I think the smaller media are more difficult to use and easier
>> to loose).
>>
>> You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it takes NOT by what
>> kind of memory it uses. The memory card doesnt change the
>> color/resolution/clarity/focus/noise level in the picture. If these aren't your
>> concerns, then go buy the memory you want, and buy the cheapest camera you can find
>> that uses them, you weren't concerned about picture quality anyway.
>>
>>
> I disagree with your initial statement. IF one has a few hundred dollars invested in CF
> cards (as I did), then the type of card the new camera uses IS a factor to consider. It
> may not be the most important (I bought an SD card camera), but it IS a factor of
> importance to those of us with finite budgets.

I agree there. A lot of people have more than one digital camera, and it's nice to be
capable of sharing cards between cameras, or at least not having to start collecting
memory all over again if you're only keeping one camera.
I've spent many hundreds of $$ on the compact flash cards I use, and would certainly want
to keep using them. That's one thing I liked about the newest professional DSLRs from
Canon, which actually let you use onr or the other...or both simultaneously.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:18:47 AM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:bLvSd.156$1j2.152@fe04.lga...
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1109018345.191746.249930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>eawckyegcy@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You SHOULD be picking a camera according to what kind of pictures it
>>>>
>>>>takes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NOT by what kind of memory it uses.
>>>>
>>>>Given two cameras that take basically the same sort of picture per $ by
>>>>whatever criteria, the smart person buys the CF-based one, not the SD
>>>>one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It would be MY preference, but not everybody feels the SD cards are too damned small
>>>(as I do).
>>>
>>>Like YOU said all things being EQUAL the CF-card camera would be the one I buy. (and I
>>>have a significant investment in both memory sticks AND SD cards)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I saw just today, an article about a new format card that is only 1/4 the size of the
>>MMC/SD cards! Now that is TOO small for most people to handle. It might be ok for a
>>phone, if it was to be inserted only once, and left in place, but I wouldn't consider
>>handling it 'in the field'.
>
>
> I think that's exactly what market they're intended for (cell phones, or perhaps even
> watches with mp3 players in them, etc.).
>
>
I hope they just build them into the watch/phone, etc.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:43:47 AM

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

In article <LIvSd.155$l62.67@fe04.lga>, Ron Hunter says...

> I disagree with your initial statement. IF one has a few hundred
> dollars invested in CF cards (as I did), then the type of card the new
> camera uses IS a factor to consider. It may not be the most important
> (I bought an SD card camera), but it IS a factor of importance to those
> of us with finite budgets.

It's not a good idea to invest large amounts of money in one type of
memory cards nowadays. The return on investment gets quickly negative.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 10:43:48 AM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <LIvSd.155$l62.67@fe04.lga>, Ron Hunter says...
>
>
>>I disagree with your initial statement. IF one has a few hundred
>>dollars invested in CF cards (as I did), then the type of card the new
>>camera uses IS a factor to consider. It may not be the most important
>>(I bought an SD card camera), but it IS a factor of importance to those
>>of us with finite budgets.
>
>
> It's not a good idea to invest large amounts of money in one type of
> memory cards nowadays. The return on investment gets quickly negative.
Yes, but the money was spent over 2 years ago.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 3:02:42 PM

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:43:47 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <LIvSd.155$l62.67@fe04.lga>, Ron Hunter says...
>
>> I disagree with your initial statement. IF one has a few hundred
>> dollars invested in CF cards (as I did), then the type of card the new
>> camera uses IS a factor to consider. It may not be the most important
>> (I bought an SD card camera), but it IS a factor of importance to those
>> of us with finite budgets.
>
>It's not a good idea to invest large amounts of money in one type of
>memory cards nowadays. The return on investment gets quickly negative.

You suggest renting them?
The ROI keeps pretty well, as long as you have a camera that accepts
them.
While SM was a disappointment as far as longevity goes, CF is a pretty
safe 'investment'.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 6:18:14 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Absolutely NOT. The SD card is vastly more robust, and has much
larger
> capacity. The SM card was just TOO THIN to be robust.

Capacity is a red-herring; the form factor alone is enough to dimiss
it. The heritage is undeniable (interface, underlying tech, etc).

I have a few SD cards for a waterproof camera. They are wafer thin
pieces of junk as far as I can tell. I can't imagine anything being
thinner or less robust.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:01:37 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely NOT. The SD card is vastly more robust, and has much
>
> larger
>
>>capacity. The SM card was just TOO THIN to be robust.
>
>
> Capacity is a red-herring; the form factor alone is enough to dimiss
> it. The heritage is undeniable (interface, underlying tech, etc).
>
> I have a few SD cards for a waterproof camera. They are wafer thin
> pieces of junk as far as I can tell. I can't imagine anything being
> thinner or less robust.
>
You must be buying different cards from what I am using. They are
neither wafer thin, nor junk. All of them work just fine, and they are
much thicker than SM cards, also much smaller.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 11:09:52 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely NOT. The SD card is vastly more robust, and has much
>
> larger
>
>>capacity. The SM card was just TOO THIN to be robust.
>
>
> Capacity is a red-herring; the form factor alone is enough to dimiss
> it. The heritage is undeniable (interface, underlying tech, etc).
>
> I have a few SD cards for a waterproof camera. They are wafer thin
> pieces of junk as far as I can tell. I can't imagine anything being
> thinner or less robust.
>
Just looked up the specs. SD cards are .1 inch thick, which is about
2.5 mm, while a SM card is .76 mm thick. Looks like the SD card is
about 3 times as thick, and smaller on either side by about the same
factor. That renders it MUCH more robust. Are you sure we are talking
about the same device?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:49:32 AM

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

In article <db0n11ho684r5s055rh4j5p8fc0js072tc@4ax.com>, Big Bill
says...

> You suggest renting them?

No, just buy the capacity you need *now* and not the capacity you might
need in five years. You can never know what type of cards your next
camera will use.

> The ROI keeps pretty well, as long as you have a camera that accepts
> them.
> While SM was a disappointment as far as longevity goes, CF is a pretty
> safe 'investment'.

But the depreciate pretty fast. If you resell them, you lose money.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:01:50 AM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c85c755d4b8f84498a9fd@news.supernews.com...
> In article <db0n11ho684r5s055rh4j5p8fc0js072tc@4ax.com>, Big Bill
> says...
>
>> You suggest renting them?
>
> No, just buy the capacity you need *now* and not the capacity you might
> need in five years. You can never know what type of cards your next
> camera will use.
>
>> The ROI keeps pretty well, as long as you have a camera that accepts
>> them.
>> While SM was a disappointment as far as longevity goes, CF is a pretty
>> safe 'investment'.
>
> But the depreciate pretty fast. If you resell them, you lose money.

When you shot with film, did you buy the film itself as an "investment"??
Of course not.
Memory cards are perhaps the worst possible item to think of in terms of an investment.
I buy memory and think in terms of capacity.
That capacity doesn't diminish.
I will never buy memory cards with the intention to sell them, and if I ever do sell them,
I am prepared from the beginning to recognize that their value was "transferred" to the
value of the images I created. My memory cards cost a pretty penny when I bought my first
1GB microdrives in 2001 (or so). They are dirt cheap now by comparison, but the value of
my **images** (to me) during that time has INCREASED.

I don't pretend to be giving you some sort of revelation here, but I think we should take
some of these factors into consideration before the old, typical models of valuation are
applied to memory cards. We need to remember that memory cards are a replacement of
FILM--which was UTTERLY **USED UP** (NEVER to be usable again!) from the very moment we
finished a roll!
"Devalued" memory cards start to look downright valuable when you think of it this way.
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:13:13 PM

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:49:32 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <db0n11ho684r5s055rh4j5p8fc0js072tc@4ax.com>, Big Bill
>says...
>
>> You suggest renting them?
>
>No, just buy the capacity you need *now* and not the capacity you might
>need in five years. You can never know what type of cards your next
>camera will use.

Ah, I've never considered buying CF cards on the idea that I might
want them later, especially with prices dropping as they are. I jus
thave what I need now.
>
>> The ROI keeps pretty well, as long as you have a camera that accepts
>> them.
>> While SM was a disappointment as far as longevity goes, CF is a pretty
>> safe 'investment'.
>
>But the depreciate pretty fast. If you resell them, you lose money.

Yes, all flash RAM cards depreciate fast, as far as resale value is
concerned; but I never buy things based on resale value, myself. I buy
them to use.
I recognize this puts me at odds with a lot of people who will buy
things (like cars, for example) with a distinct eye to resale. I just
use them up, as a rule.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
!