Is SD memoery as good as compact flash?

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

They're both good, no worries.

Bill Crocker


"jeffrey" <tootal2@nospame.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uJshe.19185$rt1.2735@fe04.lga...
>I just bought a pentax optio s5i and a 1 gig sd card. My other camera uses
>compact flash and it worked good. One time I washed the CF in a washing
>machine and dried it by accident and it still worked.
> Anything I should worry about when using a sd card?

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

> 2. Don't wash the card with whites and don't use a fabric softener.

If you use a fabric softenter, does that make the images soft focus? Maybe
USM would help that.

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

jeffrey wrote:
> I just bought a pentax optio s5i and a 1 gig sd card. My other camera
> uses compact flash and it worked good. One time I washed the CF in a
> washing machine and dried it by accident and it still worked.
> Anything I should worry about when using a sd card?

Yes, dropping it in the grass. SD has been quite reliable for me, but
the small size has been a problem a few times.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

The Laughing Hyena wrote:
> IMHO, it's better not to use a £300 camera in place of a £20 card
> reader - every time you use an electrical device, you shorten its life
> a tiny bit. Also if something goes wrong near by (such as a lightning
> strike) or in the computer (a rare electrical fault), the camera could
> get toasted... These are only small chances, but do you really want to
> go there?
Does it really matter? Every day I wake up I've shortened my life a
bit. Should I stop waking up?

The chances of the computer frying the camera are small. The shortened
life is probably something very small and the camera will be obsolete
way before this shortened life kicks in.

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

On 15 May 2005 01:17:41 -0700, The Very Bad Minton wrote:

> IMHO, it's better not to use a £300 camera in place of a £20 card
> reader - every time you use an electrical device, you shorten its life
> a tiny bit.

Then the cameras should not be used at all, as the mechanical and
electrical wear and tear on them is far greater than what takes
place when they are used to send data to the computer.


> Also if something goes wrong near by (such as a lightning
> strike) or in the computer (a rare electrical fault), the camera could
> get toasted... These are only small chances, but do you really want to
> go there?

Everything and every activity entails some risk. Some of the
possible outcomes of walking, riding in vehicles and eating non
homegrown food are far more serious (deadly sometimes) than using a
USB connection. I guess that these are places you also won't go?


> Seen it happen on 2 faulty computers (luckily it was USB flash drives).
> In both cases, the front USB ports had been wired the wrong way
> around. We don't use that manufacturer any more ;-)

So with computers whose manufacturers you trust, and whose USB
ports have been tested, you still wouldn't connect a camera to them,
only card readers? I assume it's also too risky to attach more
valuable printers as well. And what if a defective USB port zaps
the card reader, ruining it and the flash card, possibly holding
irreplaceable images. If any device has protective circuitry it's
more likely to be found in a camera than in a card reader.


> Anyway, your life is shortened a bit whether you wake or not every day.
> Although it could be interesting if you could get someone else to wake
> up for you and take some of the wear and tear...

No pain, no gain . . .