Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I erase my memory card after every download?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 28, 2005 11:30:36 PM

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

I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.

Have you heard of something like this?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:17:17 AM

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

Rudy Benner wrote:
> "Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
> news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> >I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> >earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> >segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
> >
> > Have you heard of something like this?
> >
>
> Where did you hear this?

Flash memory does indeed have a finite life. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory

These values are consistent with data from chip makers. Even erasing 3
times a day, every day would take 10 years to hit the low end of the
life expectancy of 10,000 cycles. You will certainly be using SOMETHING
else in 10 years. However, I would be more concerned about wearing out
the pins/contacts of the memory from inserting/removing in the camera
and card reader. I would expect the contacts on a CF card to take
10,000 insertions but I had a child try to insert a CF and bend a pin.
Of course, your mileage will vary. Bottom line, don't worry about it.
Glenn Gundlach
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:45:44 AM

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

"Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?
Not me. Since these cards are not the same as a floppy or hard drive, where
you are storing on magnetic media with heads and wear, one would think the
read/write cycle should be theoretically infinite. No moving parts. I have
yet to hear of a memory card wearing out. Anybody else?
Related resources
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:11:35 AM

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

"Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?
>

Where did you hear this?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:19:31 AM

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

Bill wrote:

> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?

If you Google for 'flash lifetime' and flash write cycles', you'll
find info from some credible sites that state flash memory is
good from around 300,000 writes up to a million..

Your card will wear out eventually, but it will be many years
until it happens.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:10:14 AM

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

On Sat, 28 May 2005 21:45:44 -0600, Sheldon wrote:

> Not me. Since these cards are not the same as a floppy or hard drive, where
> you are storing on magnetic media with heads and wear, one would think the
> read/write cycle should be theoretically infinite. No moving parts. I have
> yet to hear of a memory card wearing out. Anybody else?

Yes, Flash RAM has a limited number of writes. This is even
mentioned in my camera's manual. But the number is sufficiently
high that it's unlikely to be noticed by the vast majority of people
using the same card for many, many years. The wearing out of Flash
RAM mostly effected people that used it as a portable drive in small
handheld computers and later in PDAs. The computers had the ability
to rewrite the same sector far more frequently than any still
camera. Semiconducter manufacturers in response developed far
longer lived Flash RAM. The only way I'd see cards wearing out
before their time is if they're used extensively to record videos.

If any cards used in cameras ever do "wear out", they're likely to
be rare events (who would still be using them?) so many years from
now that they'd be equivalent to today's 4MB cards. In other words,
little used curiosities. I remember not too long ago when my 80MB
CF card was considered to be huge. :) 
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:46:46 AM

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

Bill wrote:
> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?
>
>
Hi,
No. But every time you download you wear the card out little by
little. Electrons get tired you know.
Tony
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:48:54 AM

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

Only damaging the card will shorten it's life.

"Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?
>
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:22:27 AM

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

> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.

If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:22:28 AM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:22:27 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:

>> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>

For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 

I think that he normally downloads well before the card is filled.
It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
filled, before downloading. But downloading multiple times without
reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
folder in the card.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:22:29 AM

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

Well my 64MB SD card lasted aprox 3 months that is when it got wet in a
Montana Mount lake around 45 degree water is all it took to destroy not only
my memory but the camera as well. However I at least did not loose my fish.

Gary

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:1ugi911p3krbsc3k819ikp8v3bel2bbu7e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:22:27 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
>
>>> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If
>>> I
>>> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the
>>> first
>>> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>
>> If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>
> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 
>
> I think that he normally downloads well before the card is filled.
> It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
> filled, before downloading. But downloading multiple times without
> reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
> option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
> folder in the card.
>
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:23:40 AM

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

> Not me. Since these cards are not the same as a floppy or hard drive,
where
> you are storing on magnetic media with heads and wear, one would think the
> read/write cycle should be theoretically infinite. No moving parts. I
have
> yet to hear of a memory card wearing out. Anybody else?

They have a limited life, but the average user isn't going to approach the
number of writes possible on modern cards.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:43:57 AM

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

Bill wrote:
> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?
>
>
Yes, and it's true, but I would expect the card to be long obsolete
before you get near that limit. I usually let the card get a few dozen
pictures on it before erasing. It really isn't a practical issue.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:47:21 AM

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

stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Benner wrote:
>
>>"Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
>>news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>>
>>>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>>>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>>>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>>
>>>Have you heard of something like this?
>>>
>>
>>Where did you hear this?
>
>
> Flash memory does indeed have a finite life. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
>
> These values are consistent with data from chip makers. Even erasing 3
> times a day, every day would take 10 years to hit the low end of the
> life expectancy of 10,000 cycles. You will certainly be using SOMETHING
> else in 10 years. However, I would be more concerned about wearing out
> the pins/contacts of the memory from inserting/removing in the camera
> and card reader. I would expect the contacts on a CF card to take
> 10,000 insertions but I had a child try to insert a CF and bend a pin.
> Of course, your mileage will vary. Bottom line, don't worry about it.
> Glenn Gundlach
>
If the CF slot on a device is properly designed, it would be impossible
to bend a pin unless something got into the slot. Unfortunately, NOT
all devices are designed that way. I never had a problem with inserting
a CF card, but then I was always careful.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:50:13 AM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
>
> If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>
Uhhh, most people don't fill up a card before dumping the pictures to
the computer. THAT'S one of the advantages of digital!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:51:36 AM

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

Photobossman wrote:
> Well my 64MB SD card lasted aprox 3 months that is when it got wet in a
> Montana Mount lake around 45 degree water is all it took to destroy not only
> my memory but the camera as well. However I at least did not loose my fish.
>
> Gary
>
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:1ugi911p3krbsc3k819ikp8v3bel2bbu7e@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:22:27 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If
>>>>I
>>>>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the
>>>>first
>>>>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>>
>>>If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>>
>> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 
>>
>> I think that he normally downloads well before the card is filled.
>>It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
>>filled, before downloading. But downloading multiple times without
>>reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
>>option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
>>folder in the card.
>>
>
>
>
Water, alone, shouldn't hurt a memory card. Now if the camera was ON
when dropped into the water, all bets are off.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 29, 2005 10:55:35 AM

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

On 28 May 2005 21:17:17 -0700
In message <1117340237.531031.208170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Posted from http://groups.google.com
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:

> Flash memory does indeed have a finite life. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
>
> These values are consistent with data from chip makers. Even erasing 3
> times a day, every day would take 10 years to hit the low end of the
> life expectancy of 10,000 cycles.
> <CROP>

If that were true, it seems to me that the directory
holding the FCB's for the 1st cluster of photos would
reach 10,000 writes quickly. We *should* be seeing
tons of failing card posts.

Jeff
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:55:36 AM

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

Confused wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 21:17:17 -0700
> In message <1117340237.531031.208170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Posted from http://groups.google.com
> stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Flash memory does indeed have a finite life. See
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
>>
>>These values are consistent with data from chip makers. Even erasing 3
>>times a day, every day would take 10 years to hit the low end of the
>>life expectancy of 10,000 cycles.
>><CROP>
>
>
> If that were true, it seems to me that the directory
> holding the FCB's for the 1st cluster of photos would
> reach 10,000 writes quickly. We *should* be seeing
> tons of failing card posts.
>
> Jeff

Quickly? Say you wrote and erased the same sector 10 times each day,
that's 1000 days, or 3 years of use. I would probably consider that a
good use life. I understand that newer cards are rated at 5 times that now.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:56:58 AM

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

> Yes, Flash RAM has a limited number of writes. This is even
>mentioned in my camera's manual. But the number is sufficiently
>high that it's unlikely to be noticed by the vast majority of people
>using the same card for many, many years. The wearing out of Flash
>RAM mostly effected people that used it as a portable drive in small
>handheld computers and later in PDAs. The computers had the ability
>to rewrite the same sector far more frequently than any still
>camera. Semiconducter manufacturers in response developed far
>longer lived Flash RAM. The only way I'd see cards wearing out
>before their time is if they're used extensively to record videos.

Why would video recording wear the card out more than takeing stills?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 12:14:00 PM

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

Bill <bill@nospamland.com> wrote:
>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.

>Have you heard of something like this?

Flash cards certainly have a finite amount of _write_ cycles. Read cycles does
not cause wear and tear asfaik. Asfaik, most cards should manage at least
100 000 write cycles per block. Real old ones maybe 10 000 (less than 64 mb?).

What can wear out is the places which is often rewritten, ie the file
allocation tables (FAT). This and file allocation can be mitigated by writeing
the fat on new locations. On a harddisc you want fat+files as near as possible
due head movement. So first block(s) that are free is used. On a flashcard one
can use roundrobin allocation to make sure as few as possible writes are used.
Which requires that the user ofcourse doesn't reformat the card. Also bad
blocks that has gone bad can be marked "bad" and be avoided.

So when pic1, pic2 is written, and then deleted. pic3 is written on the
physical sectors that lies after pic2.

What can really wear out a flash card is a embedded system that uses the flash
card for swapping. Where one usually have to add enough memory and disable
swapping altogether.

It would be interesting to know if cameras verifies that the picture has been
written. And if it will handle a bad block situation well..
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 12:23:22 PM

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

Confused wrote:
> On 28 May 2005 21:17:17 -0700
> In message <1117340237.531031.208170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Posted from http://groups.google.com
> stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Flash memory does indeed have a finite life. See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory
>>
>> These values are consistent with data from chip makers. Even erasing
>> 3 times a day, every day would take 10 years to hit the low end of
>> the life expectancy of 10,000 cycles.
>> <CROP>
>
> If that were true, it seems to me that the directory
> holding the FCB's for the 1st cluster of photos would
> reach 10,000 writes quickly. We *should* be seeing
> tons of failing card posts.
>
> Jeff

Yes, but I understand that the logical to physical mapping on cards is not
constant, for exactly this reason. Thus they wear evenly rather than
having a single region continuously hammered.

David
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:11:27 PM

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

pbdelete@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote:
> Bill <bill@nospamland.com> wrote:
>> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of
>> writes. If I earse the memory card after every download, I will be
>> writing to the first segments of the card every time. Hence,
>> shorten
>> the life of the card.
>
>> Have you heard of something like this?
>
> Flash cards certainly have a finite amount of _write_ cycles. Read
> cycles does not cause wear and tear asfaik. Asfaik, most cards
> should
> manage at least 100 000 write cycles per block. Real old ones maybe
> 10 000 (less than 64 mb?).
>
> What can wear out is the places which is often rewritten, ie the
> file
> allocation tables (FAT). This and file allocation can be mitigated
> by
> writeing the fat on new locations. On a harddisc you want fat+files
> as near as possible due head movement. So first block(s) that are
> free is used. On a flashcard one can use roundrobin allocation to
> make sure as few as possible writes are used. Which requires that
> the
> user ofcourse doesn't reformat the card. Also bad blocks that has
> gone bad can be marked "bad" and be avoided.
>
> So when pic1, pic2 is written, and then deleted. pic3 is written on
> the physical sectors that lies after pic2.
>
> What can really wear out a flash card is a embedded system that uses
> the flash card for swapping. Where one usually have to add enough
> memory and disable swapping altogether.
>
> It would be interesting to know if cameras verifies that the picture
> has been written. And if it will handle a bad block situation well..

My guess:

There isn't enough effect in any changes the operator can make to
outweigh mental wear-and-tear involved in making adjustments to other,
more salient aspects of workflow.

Shoot until you want to use the images, store and manipulate them,
format the card and make some more images.

If the ship sinks (you miss a few shots while you log the number of
writes/rewrites), how important is it that the deck chairs are in a
line (card sites are ever-so-slightly less likely to be nearing
obscurity)?

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
—Calvin
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:37:02 PM

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

In article <QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
"Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote:

> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?

Huh? That makes no sense at all. How do you expect to free up space on
the memory card unless you erase it or format it?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:50:04 PM

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

In article <2Whme.909$HN1.35@fe02.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> > I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> > earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> > segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.

If you're taking the card out of the camera to read it, I'd be MUCH
more concerned with the number of insert/extract cycles the card
connector is designed to handle - I've never seen a spec on that. On
some computer cables, the number is only in the hundreds; I seem to
recall some internal connectors with rated cycles in the double digits.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:30:42 PM

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

On 29 May 2005 07:56:58 GMT,
pbdelete@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote:

> Why would video recording wear the card out more than takeing stills?

Because you'd be writing far more quickly to the card. While it
might take sometimes take me a couple of days or weeks to fill a
large card taking stills, that same card could be filled with a
single video very quickly. With my camera, taking hi-res (640x480)
video will fill a 512MB card in only 7.4 minutes. On the other
hand, it's not too likely to effect the card's longevity because the
photographer will wear out long before the card does. :) 
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:42:26 PM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:27:44 -0700, Photobossman wrote:

> Well my 64MB SD card lasted aprox 3 months that is when
> it got wet in a Montana Mount lake around 45 degree water
> is all it took to destroy not only my memory but the camera
> as well. However I at least did not loose my fish.

The Gods were kind and let you off very lightly. :) 

Uh, that's the camera's memory you're talking about, right?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:11:18 PM

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

On 29/5/05 3:30 am, in article QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com, "Bill"
<bill@nospamland.com> wrote:

> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>
> Have you heard of something like this?

Why tie yourself into knots worrying about the inside of a memory card? It's
about as pointless as worrying about the sensor in your camera wearing out
because of the different kind of pictures it sees.

Just take pictures and leave the insides of flash cards to the technicians.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:59:56 PM

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

Shawn Hearn wrote:
> In article <QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
> "Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>
>>Have you heard of something like this?
>
>
> Huh? That makes no sense at all. How do you expect to free up space on
> the memory card unless you erase it or format it?

Here is how I use my cards. I take pictures, download to the computer,
and let the pictures remain on the card until I have taken a few dozen
pictures. This assures that should I mess up a file on the computer, or
inadvertently write over an original, I can just get the file from the
card. Since the card I have in my camera now holds over 300 pictures at
max res., there is no real reason to delete the pictures each time I
take, and download a few. It isn't like film, you don't HAVE to fill
the card every time before you download the pictures!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:38:29 PM

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

I've been using a 64 MB CF card for over four years now - erased it
thousands of times - actually outlived the camera!

Rudy Benner wrote:
> "Bill" <bill@nospamland.com> wrote in message
> news:QP2dnQNQyfVvugTfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>
>>I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of writes. If I
>>earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to the first
>>segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>
>>Have you heard of something like this?
>>
>
>
> Where did you hear this?
>
>
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:38:30 PM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:38:29 GMT, Bruce Coryell wrote:

> I've been using a 64 MB CF card for over four years now - erased it
> thousands of times - actually outlived the camera!

Really? You'd probably have to erase the card on average several
times a day for every day of those four years. Think of all the
labor that could have been saved by using a larger card! :) 
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 6:00:47 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Photobossman wrote:
>
>> Well my 64MB SD card lasted aprox 3 months that is when it got wet in
>> a Montana Mount lake around 45 degree water is all it took to destroy
>> not only my memory but the camera as well. However I at least did not
>> loose my fish.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>> news:1ugi911p3krbsc3k819ikp8v3bel2bbu7e@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:22:27 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I heard that a memory card has the limit of certain number of
>>>>> writes. If I
>>>>> earse the memory card after every download, I will be writing to
>>>>> the first
>>>>> segments of the card every time. Hence, shorten the life of the card.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>>>
>>>
>>> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 
>>>
>>> I think that he normally downloads well before the card is filled.
>>> It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
>>> filled, before downloading. But downloading multiple times without
>>> reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
>>> option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
>>> folder in the card.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> Water, alone, shouldn't hurt a memory card. Now if the camera was ON
> when dropped into the water, all bets are off.

Hi...

A few years ago, I left a smart media card in my shirt
pocket.

It got washed in the washing machine with detergent and
fabric softener - then dried in the dryer.

When next I wore the shirt, I found the card downloaded
the pics off it, and continued to use it. Best I know it's
still fine.

Ken
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:01:21 PM

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

> > If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>
> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 

I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

But downloading multiple times without
> reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
> option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
> folder in the card.

Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files only
writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually write
zeros over the file.

> It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
> filled, before downloading.

Why is that?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:01:22 PM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:01:21 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:

>> But downloading multiple times without
>> reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
>> option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
>> folder in the card.
>
> Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files only
> writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually write
> zeros over the file.

It amounts to the same thing. Do you really think that
reformatting zeros out the files? On some cameras reformatting may
be much quicker than deleting all files. It depends on how
efficiently the camera's software happens to have been written.
Some operating systems may do extensive disk writes when formatting
hard drives, but it's usually optional, and many format programs
defaulted to a very quick logical format, which allowed disk utility
programs to easily recover files from supposedly "reformatted"
drives. Substitute "deleting" for "reformatting" if you wish. But
if you have a large card, you ought to try reformatting it at least
once to verify whether on your camera it takes only seconds or many
minutes to finish, if you haven't already done so.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:01:22 PM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>>If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>>
>> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 
>
>
> I'll have to look into that. Thanks.
>
> But downloading multiple times without
>
>>reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
>>option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
>>folder in the card.
>
>
> Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files only
> writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually write
> zeros over the file.
>
>
>>It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
>>filled, before downloading.
>
>
> Why is that?
>
Nor does reformatting, in most cases, only rewrites the FAT and root
directory.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:01:22 PM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:01:21 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:

>> For some Memory Sticks it's as simple as flipping a switch. :) 
>
> I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

No need. That was said tongue in cheek. The switch isn't used to
delete files. It in effect enables 1/2 of the card and disables the
other half. When both halves have been filled you'd still have to
delete files using the usual methods.


>> It's very slightly riskier to continue using the card until it's
>> filled, before downloading.
>
> Why is that?

Accidents happen. Cards can be lost or stolen (as can the
cameras containing them), though not usually spindled or mutilated.
They can also fail and require replacement. If it ever happens, the
more that was on the card, the more that will be lost. What I said
wasn't meant to imply that losses would occur more often, but that
if it happened, on average, the losses would be much greater. And
the "slightly" was added to indicate that it may not be worth
worrying about too much as these losses are probably pretty rare.
But it's the same kind of reasoning many people use when they say
that they prefer using multiple cards instead of one large card,
which would be more convenient. If a card is lost or damaged, the
loss won't be as great.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:01:23 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 15:01:21 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:
>
>
>>> But downloading multiple times without
>>>reformatting would be more convenient if the camera had a menu
>>>option that forced all additional pictures to be stored in a new
>>>folder in the card.
>>
>>Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files only
>>writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually write
>>zeros over the file.
>
>
> It amounts to the same thing. Do you really think that
> reformatting zeros out the files? On some cameras reformatting may
> be much quicker than deleting all files. It depends on how
> efficiently the camera's software happens to have been written.
> Some operating systems may do extensive disk writes when formatting
> hard drives, but it's usually optional, and many format programs
> defaulted to a very quick logical format, which allowed disk utility
> programs to easily recover files from supposedly "reformatted"
> drives. Substitute "deleting" for "reformatting" if you wish. But
> if you have a large card, you ought to try reformatting it at least
> once to verify whether on your camera it takes only seconds or many
> minutes to finish, if you haven't already done so.
>
On my computer reformatting is MUCH faster than deleting 2 or 3 hundred
files!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:02:02 PM

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

> Well my 64MB SD card lasted aprox 3 months that is when it got wet in a
> Montana Mount lake around 45 degree water is all it took to destroy not
only
> my memory but the camera as well. However I at least did not loose my
fish.

LOL! I lost a camera like that, but the cards were all still good after
drying out.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:04:45 PM

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

> > If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
> >
> Uhhh, most people don't fill up a card before dumping the pictures to
> the computer. THAT'S one of the advantages of digital!

I fill up all 5 256mb cards (about 300-350 photos) in just a few hours of
shooting. I take my laptop with me if I plan to shoot all day. What's the
advantage of digital? That it doesn't use film? That's the /only/
advantage of digital.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:04:46 PM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>>If you don't erase the card, how will you get more files on it? <g>
>>>
>>Uhhh, most people don't fill up a card before dumping the pictures to
>>the computer. THAT'S one of the advantages of digital!
>
>
> I fill up all 5 256mb cards (about 300-350 photos) in just a few hours of
> shooting. I take my laptop with me if I plan to shoot all day. What's the
> advantage of digital? That it doesn't use film? That's the /only/
> advantage of digital.
>
NONSENSE! There are MANY advantages to digital. If you haven't
discovered that yet, you have a lot of pleasant surprises in store for
the future.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 29, 2005 8:55:06 PM

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

pbdelete@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote:

>Why would video recording wear the card out more than takeing stills?

Cause a typical session uses much more of the card's memory?

Wes
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:48:48 AM

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

> > Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files
only
> > writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually
write
> > zeros over the file.
>
> It amounts to the same thing.

No it doesn't. Not at all. Formatting is going to perform unnecessary disk
writes - even a quick format.

> Do you really think that
> reformatting zeros out the files?

A full format - yes. A quick format, no. Because all a quick format does
is wipe and rewrite the file index tables. But it rewrites them from
scratch. If you delete files you don't go through this extra step.



--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:48:49 AM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:48:48 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:

>> Do you really think that
>> reformatting zeros out the files?
>
> A full format - yes. A quick format, no. Because all a quick format does
> is wipe and rewrite the file index tables. But it rewrites them from
> scratch. If you delete files you don't go through this extra step.

Oh, no. As far as I'm aware that would only be possible if
formatting is done by the computer with the card in a card reader,
generally considered to be bad practice. Formatting in the camera
is where it should be done, and I'm unaware of any camera that
performs a full format. But as I've probably used far fewer than 1%
of the existing cameras there may be a few the allow full formats.
Maybe G.P. knows of one. :) 
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:53:39 AM

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

> Accidents happen. Cards can be lost or stolen (as can the
> cameras containing them), though not usually spindled or mutilated.
> They can also fail and require replacement. If it ever happens, the
> more that was on the card, the more that will be lost.

Well GEEZZ.. that's like saying don't shoot a whole roll of film because the
camera might get lost. I fill up 5 cards every time I go to the park.

> What I said
> wasn't meant to imply that losses would occur more often, but that
> if it happened, on average, the losses would be much greater.

I guess this only matters if you're shooting with a 3 gig card. But if you
were shooting a 4 hour event (wedding for example) you might well fill such
a card and would have a reasonable expectation to fill it. Filling the card
is just part of normal workflow IMO. But the pics don't stay on the card
long - I come home and off load those buggers to the hard drive so I can
loose them when /it/ fails. :) 

> And
> the "slightly" was added to indicate that it may not be worth
> worrying about too much as these losses are probably pretty rare.

Agreed. :) 

> But it's the same kind of reasoning many people use when they say
> that they prefer using multiple cards instead of one large card,
> which would be more convenient. If a card is lost or damaged, the
> loss won't be as great.

I miss shots because I'm changing cards.. multi-cards - bah!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:53:40 AM

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:53:39 GMT, Mr. Mark wrote:

>> Accidents happen. Cards can be lost or stolen (as can the
>> cameras containing them), though not usually spindled or mutilated.
>> They can also fail and require replacement. If it ever happens, the
>> more that was on the card, the more that will be lost.
>
> Well GEEZZ.. that's like saying don't shoot a whole roll of film because the
> camera might get lost. I fill up 5 cards every time I go to the park.

You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that if it takes a week for
someone to fill a card, they shouldn't wait until the card is full
before copying files to the camera. At the end of each day they
should at least copy all of the new pictures to the computer. To
blindly follow what you percieved to be my recommendation would
require you to do something like buying another 5 cards and when you
return from the park you'd have 10 half filled cards. Clearly an
absurd practice. On the other hand, if you understood what I was
trying to get across, if you went to the park with 10 cards and
returned after filling only 5, when you returned home you'd copy the
5 cards images to the computer immediately, rather than waiting
another day or so until all 10 cards would be filled.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:55:30 AM

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

> Nor does reformatting, in most cases, only rewrites the FAT and root
> directory.

Actually, deleting a file on from a Windows based FAT only changes the first
character of the file name.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:02:53 AM

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

> > I fill up all 5 256mb cards (about 300-350 photos) in just a few hours
of
> > shooting. I take my laptop with me if I plan to shoot all day. What's
the
> > advantage of digital? That it doesn't use film? That's the /only/
> > advantage of digital.
> >
> NONSENSE! There are MANY advantages to digital. If you haven't
> discovered that yet, you have a lot of pleasant surprises in store for
> the future.

At the risk of starting a very long thread...

Please give me a couple examples of advantages of digital over film that are
not directly related to the mere absence of film in the process. All the
advantages that I can think of are only conveniences derived from
eliminating film from the work flow. These would be speed (shutter to
view), compact (carry a bazillon photos in your pocket), ease of publishing
(web), long term cost effectiveness (i've burned over $700 in film dev in
the last 3 months), etc.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:04:38 AM

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

> Here is how I use my cards. I take pictures, download to the computer,
> and let the pictures remain on the card until I have taken a few dozen
> pictures. This assures that should I mess up a file on the computer, or
> inadvertently write over an original, I can just get the file from the
> card.

You should consider making your files on the computer read only as part of
your work flow. I only had to resize one image and save it to the original
file one time to learn that lesson. Ick.. what a yuck feeling.



--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:23:43 AM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>>Reformatting? Who said anything about reformatting? Deleting files
>
> only
>
>>>writes the file location out of the file index, it doesn't actually
>
> write
>
>>>zeros over the file.
>>
>> It amounts to the same thing.
>
>
> No it doesn't. Not at all. Formatting is going to perform unnecessary disk
> writes - even a quick format.
>
>
>>Do you really think that
>>reformatting zeros out the files?
>
>
> A full format - yes. A quick format, no. Because all a quick format does
> is wipe and rewrite the file index tables. But it rewrites them from
> scratch. If you delete files you don't go through this extra step.
>
>
>
Sorry, but if you delete files, then a multi-step process takes place
where each file is located, the directory entry rewritten to make it
available, and then the FAT table is also rewritten for that entry.
This takes place for EACH file, instead of just rewriting the FAT in one
write, and the Root directory in one write.
This is MUCH faster than deleting many files.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:27:11 AM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>> Accidents happen. Cards can be lost or stolen (as can the
>>cameras containing them), though not usually spindled or mutilated.
>>They can also fail and require replacement. If it ever happens, the
>>more that was on the card, the more that will be lost.
>
>
> Well GEEZZ.. that's like saying don't shoot a whole roll of film because the
> camera might get lost. I fill up 5 cards every time I go to the park.
>
>
>>What I said
>>wasn't meant to imply that losses would occur more often, but that
>>if it happened, on average, the losses would be much greater.
>
>
> I guess this only matters if you're shooting with a 3 gig card. But if you
> were shooting a 4 hour event (wedding for example) you might well fill such
> a card and would have a reasonable expectation to fill it. Filling the card
> is just part of normal workflow IMO. But the pics don't stay on the card
> long - I come home and off load those buggers to the hard drive so I can
> loose them when /it/ fails. :) 
>
>
>> And
>>the "slightly" was added to indicate that it may not be worth
>>worrying about too much as these losses are probably pretty rare.
>
>
> Agreed. :) 
>
>
>>But it's the same kind of reasoning many people use when they say
>>that they prefer using multiple cards instead of one large card,
>>which would be more convenient. If a card is lost or damaged, the
>>loss won't be as great.
>
>
> I miss shots because I'm changing cards.. multi-cards - bah!
>
If you miss shots while changing cards, then you are either very slow,
or you should be using a video camera... How many shots can one miss in
15 seconds?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:28:27 AM

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

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>Nor does reformatting, in most cases, only rewrites the FAT and root
>>directory.
>
>
> Actually, deleting a file on from a Windows based FAT only changes the first
> character of the file name.
>
And rewrites the associated FAT table entries.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!