Secure Digial Memeory

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

Hi



I know this is a common 'ish' question for this group.



I need some new memory for my camera (secure digital) and I want some advice
on which card to go for.



My options are ether a Sandisk or Toshiba card and basically which is the
best card and also the most reliable.



Second question am I better going for a more smaller sized card or less
bigger sized card, the reason I ask is somewhere I read a while ago you are
better using a small card as they don't seem to corrupt as easy.



Cheers



Richard

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

>>>>> I need some new memory for my camera (secure digital) and I want some
>>>>> advice on which card to go for.

I am buying nothing but Lexar 32x cards (recently the 1gb card). The
speed is great, and they have been perfectly reliable.

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

Rich P wrote:
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> I have been looking around and I can get Kingston memory cheap. I have
> always considered this decent but looking at google there have been
> some negative remarks about this, is these genuine or have these people
> just been unlucky?
>
> The lexar 32x cards are about £10 more then the others, are these
> worth it, I would like a fast card but it is not the most important as
> the photography I do is just recreational, not professional or anything
>
> Richard
>
Kingston seems to be a reputable company, and just about any I have
heard of will happily replace non-working media without complaint.
I, personally, rather favor the Lexar cards. I seem to get more
pictures on my 128 meg Lexar card than on the 128 meg Sandisk cards. Go
figure.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

On 16 May 2005 05:41:30 -0700, "Rich P" <rpike1983@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks for your replies.
>
>I have been looking around and I can get Kingston memory cheap. I have
>always considered this decent but looking at google there have been
>some negative remarks about this, is these genuine or have these people
>just been unlucky?
>
>The lexar 32x cards are about £10 more then the others, are these
>worth it, I would like a fast card but it is not the most important as
>the photography I do is just recreational, not professional or anything
>
>Richard

I have 2 Kingston 256Mb SD Elite Pro cards. No problems at all.

Best Kingston SD memory prices [Canada] including free shipping ...
http://www.softmagic.ca/dept.asp?dept_id=08-011

Lexar makes Kodak memory. Both always more costly than other brand
names.

Hap

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>>Kingston seems to be a reputable company, and just about any I have
>>heard of will happily replace non-working media without complaint.
>>I, personally, rather favor the Lexar cards. I seem to get more
>>pictures on my 128 meg Lexar card than on the 128 meg Sandisk cards. Go
>>figure.
>
>
> 128MB <> 128,000,000 bytes
>
> Perhaps they cards are using different definitions of "meg".
>
> Personally, I have used and recommend the Kingmax Platinum SD cards as
> being both fast and reliable. They omit the mechanical write-protect
> switch.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
I which case they are NOT SD, but MMC cards. No matter, as I find the
write-protect of little value, if any. The Lexar card is faster as
well, so it wins twice.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kingston seems to be a reputable company, and just about any I have
>>>>heard of will happily replace non-working media without complaint.
>>>>I, personally, rather favor the Lexar cards. I seem to get more
>>>>pictures on my 128 meg Lexar card than on the 128 meg Sandisk
>>>>cards. Go figure.
>>>
>>>
>>>128MB <> 128,000,000 bytes
>>>
>>>Perhaps they cards are using different definitions of "meg".
>>>
>>>Personally, I have used and recommend the Kingmax Platinum SD cards
>>>as being both fast and reliable. They omit the mechanical
>>>write-protect switch.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I which case they are NOT SD, but MMC cards. No matter, as I find the
>>write-protect of little value, if any. The Lexar card is faster as
>>well, so it wins twice.
>
>
> As we have discussed before, these are SD cards, Ron, as MMC has a
> different number of connections and does not work at the 66X speed which
> the Kingmax offer.
>
> I doubt I would see any difference between the Kingmax at 66X speed and
> the Lexar at 80X speed, so paying much more for Lexar (which are the
> prices I see) would most likely not be worth it. SanDisk and Kingmax are
> similarly priced, with Kingmax being a little chaeaper (and much better
> sealed hermetically).
>
> David
>
>
I never claimed that the cards are in any inferior, but you can call a
mum a rose, but it won't BE a rose. Regardless of what they call it,
the card is NOT a standard SD card, but something between a SD and MMC
card. If it works for you, that's all that really counts. I am sure
that, other than in my wife's computer with the internal card reader, I
wouldn't see any difference between the two here. My camera certainly
isn't able to make use of either speed level.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:26:00 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> We will have to disgaree about the card's name - you don't think it's an
> SD card, many other people do. It is not an MMC card as they have a
> different number of connection pads (IIRC), it's an SD card without the
> write-protect switch.

That's probably correct. When MMC and SD cards first started to
be used in PDAs, the SD cards found to be much faster, and the
explanation wasn't that they used faster memory, but that the SD
cards used a wider data path, 4 bits wide IIRC.