Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference in Memory Cards??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 10:47:53 AM

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

Would someone please explain the difference in SD Memory and Multimedia
cards? I've ordered a Canon Powershot A510 as an entry level digital camera
and find that it takes either one and I being new to all of this don't know
what each does and the better of the two. Thank you very much in advance
for any info.
Carol
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 2:40:44 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> Would someone please explain the difference in SD Memory and Multimedia
> cards? I've ordered a Canon Powershot A510 as an entry level digital camera
> and find that it takes either one and I being new to all of this don't know
> what each does and the better of the two. Thank you very much in advance
> for any info.
> Carol
>
>
Bottom line is that the SD cards are cheaper, and more available.
Wouldn't consider the MMC cards unless you already have some on hand.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 3:30:03 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> Would someone please explain the difference in SD Memory and
> Multimedia cards?
[]

SD is the newer technology and faster than the older MMC.
Buy SD only today.

Cheers,
David
Related resources
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 3:30:04 PM

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

If SD is the way to go then are some brands better than others and if so
which. Thanks, Carol


"> SD is the newer technology and faster than the older MMC.
> Buy SD only today.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 3:30:05 PM

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

In article <kuqdnbbOx8KWfM7fRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Carol L
<jlauffer@adelphia.net> wrote:

> If SD is the way to go then are some brands better than others and if so
> which. Thanks, Carol

I use Lexar exclusively and have never had a problem.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 3:30:05 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> If SD is the way to go then are some brands better than others and if so
> which. Thanks, Carol
>
>
> "> SD is the newer technology and faster than the older MMC.
>
>>Buy SD only today.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>David
>>
>
>
>
Some are faster (and cost more), but you may or may not see any
difference in the camera, only in a card reader (if you have a USB 2.0
or Firewire model). For what it is worth, I get a couple more pictures
on my Lexar card than on the Sandisk ones of the same capacity. Go figure.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 4:35:53 PM

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

OH MY , Well now I have another question. Do I need a card reader??? First
time I've come across this.
I have a Dell PC with a USB port available in front and a picbridge on the
HP. Now were entering into the computer aspect of all this and that will be
another new area for me. Sorry for more questions (;-) but all answers a
GREATLY appreciated
Carol

"Ron Hunter" >>
> Some are faster (and cost more), but you may or may not see any difference
> in the camera, only in a card reader (if you have a USB 2.0 or Firewire
> model).
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 4:35:54 PM

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:35:53 -0400, "Carol L" <jlauffer@adelphia.net>
wrote:

>OH MY , Well now I have another question. Do I need a card reader??? First
>time I've come across this.

I can not imagine not using a card reader for getting images off the
card. If you get a multi-function reader you can continue to use it
should you change media types in the future.

Why tie up the camera for such a mundane task?
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:05 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> If SD is the way to go then are some brands better than others and if
> so which. Thanks, Carol

I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB and 512MB
Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is thinner
than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect switch. We
choose that brand because it was cost-effective while offering the higher
reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed card reader.

Doubtless others will have their own favourites - SanDisk and Lexar are
good makes.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:06 PM

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

I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So many
things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on what I need extra
for it. I guess then comes learning how to work it. Too much for this 55
year old gal. Thanks again for your time and knowledge.

Carol


"> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB and 512MB
> Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is thinner
> than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect switch. We
> choose that brand because it was cost-effective while offering the higher
> reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed card reader.
>
> Doubtless others will have their own favourites - SanDisk and Lexar are
> good makes.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:06 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Carol L wrote:
>
>>If SD is the way to go then are some brands better than others and if
>>so which. Thanks, Carol
>
>
> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB and 512MB
> Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is thinner
> than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect switch. We
> choose that brand because it was cost-effective while offering the higher
> reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed card reader.
>
> Doubtless others will have their own favourites - SanDisk and Lexar are
> good makes.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Interesting. The MMC cards don't have the write lockout tab, and are
thinner than SD cards. I suspect you have been had.
But if you got them cheaper, it's a wash.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:07 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So many
> things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on what I need extra
> for it. I guess then comes learning how to work it. Too much for this 55
> year old gal. Thanks again for your time and knowledge.
>
> Carol
>
>
> "> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB and 512MB
>
>>Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is thinner
>>than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect switch. We
>>choose that brand because it was cost-effective while offering the higher
>>reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed card reader.
>>
>>Doubtless others will have their own favourites - SanDisk and Lexar are
>>good makes.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>David
>>
>
>
>
I have managed, and have a few years (62) on you. Just give it some
time. It helps if you are computer literate, and have been taking
pictures most of your life, too.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:08 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Carol L wrote:
>> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So
>> many things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on what
>> I need extra for it. I guess then comes learning how to work it. Too
>> much for this 55 year old gal. Thanks again for your time and
>> knowledge. Carol
>>
>>
>> "> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB
>> and 512MB
>>> Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is
>>> thinner than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect
>>> switch. We choose that brand because it was cost-effective while
>>> offering
>>> the higher reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed
>>> card reader. Doubtless others will have their own favourites -
>>> SanDisk and Lexar
>>> are good makes.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> I have managed, and have a few years (62) on you. Just give it some
> time. It helps if you are computer literate, and have been taking
> pictures most of your life, too.

55 + 62 = really, really old. Maybe even a record of oldth. Way to go
Ron!


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 5:28:09 PM

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

Remember great things can come in old packages. Thanks for the chuckle!
Carol


"Frank ess"> 55 + 62 = really, really old. Maybe even a record of oldth. Way
to go
> Ron!
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 7:08:19 PM

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

You don't "need" a card reader, but they sure seem like they would be more
convenient than hooking the camera up to the computer every time. Also, if
the USB port on the camera breaks, it probably isn't covered by warrenty.
(It isn't covered on my Nikon) The card readers are pretty cheap, I got one
for $20 in Canada.


"Carol L" <jlauffer@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:hZWdnWNLpJz_jcnfRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
> OH MY , Well now I have another question. Do I need a card reader???
First
> time I've come across this.
> I have a Dell PC with a USB port available in front and a picbridge on
the
> HP. Now were entering into the computer aspect of all this and that will
be
> another new area for me. Sorry for more questions (;-) but all answers
a
> GREATLY appreciated
> Carol
>
> "Ron Hunter" >>
> > Some are faster (and cost more), but you may or may not see any
difference
> > in the camera, only in a card reader (if you have a USB 2.0 or Firewire
> > model).
>
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 7:57:34 PM

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

Carol L wrote:
> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So many
> things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on what I
> need extra for it. I guess then comes learning how to work it. Too
> much for this 55 year old gal. Thanks again for your time and
> knowledge.
> Carol

You're welcome, Carol. I do remember finding certain concepts difficult
to grasp when I first started - today you have many different people here
who can explain things if different ways. Just one of those ways may
trigger your understanding. Your next step in understanding may be
processing the images you've taken for best results.

By the way, both my wife and I are older than you, so there's hope yet!

Cheers, and good luck!

David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 8:02:00 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Interesting. The MMC cards don't have the write lockout tab, and are
> thinner than SD cards. I suspect you have been had.
> But if you got them cheaper, it's a wash.

The Kingmax Platinum are genuine SD cards, with 66X data transfer rates.
No catch. Details here:

http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/product/SD.htm

The data transfer rates in a USB 2.0 hi-speed reader are astounding.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 8:08:11 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Some are faster (and cost more), but you may or may not see any
> difference in the camera, only in a card reader (if you have a USB 2.0
> or Firewire model). For what it is worth, I get a couple more
> pictures on my Lexar card than on the Sandisk ones of the same capacity.
> Go
> figure.

It may depend on the definition the "MB". I've seen cards with both
128,000,000 bytes and 128 * 1024 * 1024 bytes capacity. Also, if you
haven't formatted in the camera, there may be hidden files on the card.
It would be interesting to try CHKDSK <card>: and see what is reported.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 6, 2005 8:42:53 PM

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

I will definately get a reader but are there better brands than others?
Anything else anyone can think of that I will need? The camera reviews only
mentioned a larger memory card and rechargeable batteries besides what
comes with the camera.
As I've said this is all new to me. Thanks again
Carol


"Stormlady" wrote:
> You don't "need" a card reader, but they sure seem like they would be more
> convenient than hooking the camera up to the computer every time. Also,
> if
> the USB port on the camera breaks, it probably isn't covered by warrenty.
> (It isn't covered on my Nikon) The card readers are pretty cheap, I got
> one
> for $20 in Canada.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 1:21:30 AM

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

Carol L wrote:
> OH MY , Well now I have another question. Do I need a card reader??? First
> time I've come across this.
> I have a Dell PC with a USB port available in front and a picbridge on the
> HP. Now were entering into the computer aspect of all this and that will be
> another new area for me. Sorry for more questions (;-) but all answers a
> GREATLY appreciated
> Carol
>
> "Ron Hunter" >>
>
>>Some are faster (and cost more), but you may or may not see any difference
>>in the camera, only in a card reader (if you have a USB 2.0 or Firewire
>>model).
>
>
>
I would use a card reader, unless you have a camera that has a 'dock'.
The card reader will usually be faster than the camera at transferring
the pictures to the computer. Get a multi-format card reader as they
don't cost significantly more, and you can read your friend's or
relatives cards.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 1:24:04 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>>Interesting. The MMC cards don't have the write lockout tab, and are
>>thinner than SD cards. I suspect you have been had.
>>But if you got them cheaper, it's a wash.
>
>
> The Kingmax Platinum are genuine SD cards, with 66X data transfer rates.
> No catch. Details here:
>
> http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/product/SD.htm
>
> The data transfer rates in a USB 2.0 hi-speed reader are astounding.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Not, by definition, an SD card. Look up the official specs. But if it
works, what difference does it make?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 1:25:22 AM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>Carol L wrote:
>>
>>> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So
>>>many things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on what
>>>I need extra for it. I guess then comes learning how to work it. Too
>>>much for this 55 year old gal. Thanks again for your time and
>>>knowledge. Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>"> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB
>>>and 512MB
>>>
>>>>Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is
>>>>thinner than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect
>>>>switch. We choose that brand because it was cost-effective while
>>>>offering
>>>>the higher reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed
>>>>card reader. Doubtless others will have their own favourites -
>>>>SanDisk and Lexar
>>>>are good makes.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I have managed, and have a few years (62) on you. Just give it some
>>time. It helps if you are computer literate, and have been taking
>>pictures most of your life, too.
>
>
> 55 + 62 = really, really old. Maybe even a record of oldth. Way to go
> Ron!
>
>
The '62' was in parenthesis, to not imply that I was THAT much OLDER.
But I guess that wasn't enough for some people to avoid
misunderstanding. I don't WANT to get that old.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 1:25:23 AM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Carol L wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So
>>>> many things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on
>>>> what I need extra for it. I guess then comes learning how to work
>>>> it. Too much for this 55 year old gal. Thanks again for your time
>>>> and knowledge. Carol
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB
>>>> and 512MB
>>>>
>>>>> Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is
>>>>> thinner than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect
>>>>> switch. We choose that brand because it was cost-effective while
>>>>> offering
>>>>> the higher reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed
>>>>> card reader. Doubtless others will have their own favourites -
>>>>> SanDisk and Lexar
>>>>> are good makes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have managed, and have a few years (62) on you. Just give it some
>>> time. It helps if you are computer literate, and have been taking
>>> pictures most of your life, too.
>>
>>
>> 55 + 62 = really, really old. Maybe even a record of oldth. Way to go
>> Ron!
>>
>>
> The '62' was in parenthesis, to not imply that I was THAT much OLDER.
> But I guess that wasn't enough for some people to avoid
> misunderstanding. I don't WANT to get that old.

Shewt, Ronnie-the-Pouncer, I knew what you meant. It seemed worthwhile
to pounce and help you realize your parentheses didn't work out. Don't
feel bad; at only 62 you have plenty of time left to practice and get it
right.

Good luck!


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 6:10:48 AM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>Frank ess wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Carol L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have so much to learn that this is just baffling my mind. So
>>>>>many things to read and digest on getting the camera and now on
>>>>>what I need extra for it. I guess then comes learning how to work
>>>>>it. Too much for this 55 year old gal. Thanks again for your time
>>>>>and knowledge. Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"> I have bought 1GB Kingmax Platinum SD (and my wife has both 1GB
>>>>>and 512MB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Kingmax Platinum SD) and we have not been disappointed. It is
>>>>>>thinner than some other brands, and does not have a write-protect
>>>>>>switch. We choose that brand because it was cost-effective while
>>>>>>offering
>>>>>>the higher reading speed which would benefit our USB 2.0 Hi-Speed
>>>>>>card reader. Doubtless others will have their own favourites -
>>>>>>SanDisk and Lexar
>>>>>>are good makes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>David
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I have managed, and have a few years (62) on you. Just give it some
>>>>time. It helps if you are computer literate, and have been taking
>>>>pictures most of your life, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>55 + 62 = really, really old. Maybe even a record of oldth. Way to go
>>>Ron!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The '62' was in parenthesis, to not imply that I was THAT much OLDER.
>>But I guess that wasn't enough for some people to avoid
>>misunderstanding. I don't WANT to get that old.
>
>
> Shewt, Ronnie-the-Pouncer, I knew what you meant. It seemed worthwhile
> to pounce and help you realize your parentheses didn't work out. Don't
> feel bad; at only 62 you have plenty of time left to practice and get it
> right.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
Yeah, that's what my brother in law thought about turning 60. He won't
turn 61. Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 10:58:19 AM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> The Kingmax Platinum are genuine SD cards, with 66X data transfer
>> rates. No catch. Details here:
>>
>> http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/product/SD.htm
>>
>> The data transfer rates in a USB 2.0 hi-speed reader are astounding.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
> Not, by definition, an SD card. Look up the official specs. But if
> it works, what difference does it make?

I was surprised that they can get away with a card which is slightly
thinner than most SD cards, but in practice these cards work just fine
both in cameras and readers. They are not, as you seemed to suggest, MMC
cards being deceptively marketed. Six of these cards have recently
survived a visit to the Antarctic with no problems.

David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 1:03:34 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:


>> Don't feel bad; at only 62 you have plenty of time left to
>> practice and get it right.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>>
> Yeah, that's what my brother in law thought about turning 60. He
> won't turn 61. Sigh.

I'm sorry.


--
Frank
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 3:45:20 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>
> []
>
>>>The Kingmax Platinum are genuine SD cards, with 66X data transfer
>>>rates. No catch. Details here:
>>>
>>> http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/product/SD.htm
>>>
>>>The data transfer rates in a USB 2.0 hi-speed reader are astounding.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not, by definition, an SD card. Look up the official specs. But if
>>it works, what difference does it make?
>
>
> I was surprised that they can get away with a card which is slightly
> thinner than most SD cards, but in practice these cards work just fine
> both in cameras and readers. They are not, as you seemed to suggest, MMC
> cards being deceptively marketed. Six of these cards have recently
> survived a visit to the Antarctic with no problems.
>
> David
>
>
I didn't mean to imply that they were of inferior quality, just that
they are, technically, mislabeled. Check the specifications for SD and
MMC cards. Those are NOT SD cards as they don't have the SD capability
for manual lockout (who needs it). If the thinner plastic isn't a
concern to you, I see no harm, no foul. Still, they aren't what they
purport to be.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 3:46:21 PM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>Frank ess wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Don't feel bad; at only 62 you have plenty of time left to
>>>practice and get it right.
>>>
>>>Good luck!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, that's what my brother in law thought about turning 60. He
>>won't turn 61. Sigh.
>
>
> I'm sorry.
>
>
Yes, his wife is still dealing with the abrupt and unexpected situation,
and that after her son died only two months before..


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 7, 2005 7:34:07 PM

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

In article <Asd5e.7525$eF4.419@fe03.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> I didn't mean to imply that they were of inferior quality, just that
> they are, technically, mislabeled. Check the specifications for SD and
> MMC cards. Those are NOT SD cards as they don't have the SD capability
> for manual lockout (who needs it). If the thinner plastic isn't a
> concern to you, I see no harm, no foul. Still, they aren't what they
> purport to be.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>

If they meet other specs of the MMC cards, they might not work in some older
digital cameras.

I have an old 3mp Toshiba camera that belongs to my wife that will NOT use an
MMC card. SD only in that little guy.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 9:01:43 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> I didn't mean to imply that they were of inferior quality, just that
> they are, technically, mislabeled. Check the specifications for SD
> and MMC cards. Those are NOT SD cards as they don't have the SD
> capability for manual lockout (who needs it). If the thinner plastic
> isn't a concern to you, I see no harm, no foul. Still, they aren't
> what they purport to be.

I see them slightly differently - as SD cards that are thinner. Perhaps
outside the SD specification, yes. However, they are not plastic, but the
ceramic from which many ICs are made - I think you can see that from the
link I gave. Ruggedised SD cards if you like. I can recommend them.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 7, 2005 11:40:05 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>>I didn't mean to imply that they were of inferior quality, just that
>>they are, technically, mislabeled. Check the specifications for SD
>>and MMC cards. Those are NOT SD cards as they don't have the SD
>>capability for manual lockout (who needs it). If the thinner plastic
>>isn't a concern to you, I see no harm, no foul. Still, they aren't
>>what they purport to be.
>
>
> I see them slightly differently - as SD cards that are thinner. Perhaps
> outside the SD specification, yes. However, they are not plastic, but the
> ceramic from which many ICs are made - I think you can see that from the
> link I gave. Ruggedised SD cards if you like. I can recommend them.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Faster MMC cards, be definition. But like I said, unless you WANT that
manual write lockout, it really doesn't matter.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 8, 2005 11:43:57 AM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> Faster MMC cards, be definition. But like I said, unless you WANT
> that manual write lockout, it really doesn't matter.

Ron, you can think as you wish. The Kingmax Platinum SD cards are
manufactured, marketed, sold, and function 100% as SD memory cards. They
even have the extra connection pad that is on SD cards.

http://www.kingmaxdigi.com/product/SD.htm

If you have any argument, perhaps you should take it up with Kingmax?

Cheers,
David
!