Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Compact Flash Card - How to choose the one?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:56:10 PM

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

I'm looking at buying a new 1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D. It
appears there are many different cards available on the market. Various
speeds and brands, various prices as well.

What would you recommend? Does the cheap cards under perform compared
to more expensive nice brand ones? Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB
or 1 off 1 GB? I would have thought having two reduces the risk of
getting one jammed!!!
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 5:41:35 PM

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

'don't know about that logic...'

that makes sense!
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 8:30:36 PM

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

On 9 Jun 2005 12:56:10 -0700, Vince_Ecosse wrote:

> Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB or 1 off 1 GB? I would have
> thought having two reduces the risk of getting one jammed!!!

I don't know about that logic. I'd think that the risk rises with
smaller cards, as they're inserted and removed more often. The risk
is not just of failure, but of accidentally dropping a card in the
weeds, etc. Cards seem to be inherently more reliable than cameras,
which have many failure prone moving parts and electrical
connections. Pros are aware of this and usually have more than one
camera available when they're on a job. I doubt that many amateurs
that use multiple small cards due to worries about the failure of a
large card have given much thought to bringing along even a small
backup camera when they're out with their digital wonders, shooting
the breeze as well as the objects that pass before their lenses.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 8:54:19 PM

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

Vince_Ecosse wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a new 1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D. It
> appears there are many different cards available on the market.
> Various speeds and brands, various prices as well.
>
> What would you recommend? Does the cheap cards under perform
> compared
> to more expensive nice brand ones? Also, would you go for 2 off
> 512MB
> or 1 off 1 GB? I would have thought having two reduces the risk of
> getting one jammed!!!

Your 8mp camera will chew up a lot of storage space if you shoot raw
(and you should shoot raw). It won't take long to get close to the end
of a 512 mb card, in propitious circumstances.

Card speed may have an influence on the length of time between the
last of a series of click-click-click ... shots that fill the camera's
buffer, and the next available shot. But not much, and it's an unusual
thing to be doing, one after another after another ...

Card speed will have an influence on the length of time it takes to
download through a high-speed USB2 or firewire connection, but
relatively little difference in the real measures as opposed to the
perceptual reality of waiting and waiting and waiting ...

The cards are likely to perform well and last long, so you may want to
consider buying the fastest available, just to hedge against improved
technology that could take advantage of the extra speed.

Otherwise, I'd reckon any card obtained from a high-volume dealer
today will be satisfactory for all but the most esoteric pursuits.

So: With one CF camera I'd buy a couple 1-GIG cards or a 1-GIG and two
512s, at a minimum. While I like the idea of one-GIG, if one-GIG is
the total resource, two five-twelves is the suspenders-and-bels
solution. If you expect to do any dawn-to-dark-and-beyond essions, you
may require a few more. Most cases, starting with a 1-GIG in the
camera is likely to result in fewer in-field swaps, and cover your
needs handily.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:06:48 PM

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

On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:56, Vince_Ecosse wrote:

> I'm looking at buying a new 1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D. It
> appears there are many different cards available on the market.
> Various speeds and brands, various prices as well.
>
> What would you recommend? Does the cheap cards under perform compared
> to more expensive nice brand ones? Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB
> or 1 off 1 GB? I would have thought having two reduces the risk of
> getting one jammed!!!

For safety, I always go with redundancy. With the images distributed
over several smaller capacity cards, you won't loose all of your shots,
if one card fails or you loose it or flush down the head. ;-) The
total cost will be more than having the same capacity in a single card,
but the increased security offsets the additional expense, IMO. So,
yes, in your case, I'd rather go with 2 512MB cards instead of 1 1GB
one.

As far as generic "cheap" cards to name-brand "pricey" cards: The only
differences, other than price and flashy logos, I've found is
performance. The generic cards have slower copy rates than the
name-brands cards, but not all that much slower. I only know because,
out of curiosity, I ran a few tests. And I've never had a generic card
fail on me, not in 3 years. But if they make you neverous, keep an eye
out for sales specials on "name" cards. I just bought several 256MB 4x
Lexar CF cards on sale at Walmart for $19.95 each. This is less than
what similar generic 256MB cards would go for from major electronics
discount houses.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:38:36 PM

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

>Vince writes ...
>
>I'm looking at buying a new 1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D. It
>appears there are many different cards available on the market. Various
>speeds and brands, various prices as well.
>
>What would you recommend?

I recommend this site by Rob Galbraith, which measures performance for
a host of cards for the 350D ...
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...

Almost all my cards are either SanDisk (Ultra or Extreme, both are
fine) or Lexars (32x - 80x) ... recently Lexar had a problem where data
was lost on certain Canon cameras so I'd recommend SanDisk for your
model.

>Does the cheap cards under perform compared
>to more expensive nice brand ones?

Yes.

>Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB or 1 off 1 GB?

1 GB now, more later ... you should get around 125 RAW images at low
ISO with a 1 GB card.

Bill
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:43:47 PM

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

>Wayne writes ...
>
>And what about wear on the pins and camera socket? Is there any
>rating on this? A few insertions every day would surely have some
>effect on the pins?

The reliability data I saw from Lexar and SanDisk sez 10,000
"insertions" minimum so that's 5,000 times moving the card to a reader
and back ... a 1 GB card gives about 125 RAW images for an 8 MB Canon
camera so that means you could shoot up to 625,000 images if you filled
the card every time (yeah, I know you won't but ...) ... the entry
level cameras are rated about 50,000 shutter "actuations" so that means
the card will outlast 12 camera bodies :)  Even my 1D Mark II is only
rated at 200,000 cycles so I'd go thru three of them with one card, and
I use several different cards.

In short, don't worry about it ...

Bill
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 11:10:21 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2005 12:56:10 -0700, Vince_Ecosse wrote:
>
>
>>Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB or 1 off 1 GB? I would have
>>thought having two reduces the risk of getting one jammed!!!
>
>
> I don't know about that logic. I'd think that the risk rises with
> smaller cards, as they're inserted and removed more often. The risk
> is not just of failure, but of accidentally dropping a card in the
> weeds, etc. Cards seem to be inherently more reliable than cameras,
> which have many failure prone moving parts and electrical
> connections. Pros are aware of this and usually have more than one
> camera available when they're on a job. I doubt that many amateurs
> that use multiple small cards due to worries about the failure of a
> large card have given much thought to bringing along even a small
> backup camera when they're out with their digital wonders, shooting
> the breeze as well as the objects that pass before their lenses.
>

Quite possibly that is because we can't all afford multiple cameras,
given that our cameras aren't 'profit centers'....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 12:16:00 AM

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

Vince_Ecosse wrote:
> I'm looking at buying a new 1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D. It
> appears there are many different cards available on the market.
> Various speeds and brands, various prices as well.
>
> What would you recommend? Does the cheap cards under perform compared
> to more expensive nice brand ones? Also, would you go for 2 off 512MB
> or 1 off 1 GB? I would have thought having two reduces the risk of
> getting one jammed!!!

I bought 3 x 512MB Crucial two years ago for my Nikon 5700, and more
recently 3 x 2GB SanDisk Ultra II for my Nikon 8400. The higher speed of
the SanDisk Ultra II has proved a benefit when reading the cards on a USB
2.0 hi-speed reader. I don't normally take a portable PC away with me on
trips.

David
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 12:34:48 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:10:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> I doubt that many amateurs
>> that use multiple small cards due to worries about the failure of a
>> large card have given much thought to bringing along even a small
>> backup camera when they're out with their digital wonders, shooting
>> the breeze as well as the objects that pass before their lenses.
>
> Quite possibly that is because we can't all afford multiple cameras,
> given that our cameras aren't 'profit centers'....

I don't think so. It's true that if they thought about it many
people would not want to incur the extra expense. But I think it's
really a concept that just hasn't been though of. For most people,
backup cameras are not unlike computer backups. Not even considered
until after disaster strikes. But take the OP as an example, who's
thinking about a "1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D" and may have
more money invested in external flashes, additional lenses, etc. A
little backup P&S for $150 or less wouldn't significantly damage the
financial status compared to what's already been spent. And it
would make a suitable companion for the 350D, belonging like a
telescope needs it's spotter scope. Like a shark wants its remoras.
:) 

Anyway, your camera and mine are relatively inexpensive. For us,
a lesser "backup' camera could be a CVS $9.99 digital one-shot.
Anyone that can afford that much money to buy emergency lithium AA
backup batteries should be knocking down the doors trying to get a
backup digital camera (including batteries I think) for the same
price. :) 

(but so far I've resisted the urge to do that . . .)
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:11:42 AM

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

In article <u49ha15r1gouuni07rnfc5hmas6l5dsi96@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
says...

> I don't know about that logic. I'd think that the risk rises with
>smaller cards, as they're inserted and removed more often. The risk
>is not just of failure, but of accidentally dropping a card in the
>weeds, etc. Cards seem to be inherently more reliable than cameras,
>which have many failure prone moving parts and electrical
>connections.


I've got a 1GB Lexar 80x card for when away from home. But at home, I
find that I normally download with only a few images on it. I know
these cards have a lifetime warranty and should last a jillion cycles,
yet I worry if maybe I shouldnt be routinely using a smaller cheaper
card in such cases, just to keep the wear and tear off the large
expensive one?

And what about wear on the pins and camera socket? Is there any rating
on this? A few insertions every day would surely have some effect on
the pins?
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:11:43 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:11:42 GMT, Wayne wrote:

> I've got a 1GB Lexar 80x card for when away from home. But at home, I
> find that I normally download with only a few images on it. I know
> these cards have a lifetime warranty and should last a jillion cycles,
> yet I worry if maybe I shouldnt be routinely using a smaller cheaper
> card in such cases, just to keep the wear and tear off the large
> expensive one?

If it's literally only a few, then you should already have a small
card buried away somewhere. Maybe a 16MD or 32MB card came with the
camera? If that's too small, 64MB and 128MB cards are pretty cheap.
I don't think it's worth worrying about though. I don't have any
"real" numbers available (semiconductor manufacturers would know)
but if insurance companies sold "life insurance" policies for the
memory cards, the cards are probably so reliable and long lived that
the actuaries could come up with a fee of pennies per year and the
insurance companies wouldn't lose money.


> And what about wear on the pins and camera socket? Is there any rating
> on this? A few insertions every day would surely have some effect on
> the pins?

I assume that they using "self-cleaning" contacts. I wouldn't let
kiddies play with CF cards though, as I can imagine an accident
waiting to happen involving sand, sugar or salt. Other card types
should be relatively immune to those artery cloggers.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 8:29:14 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:11:42 GMT, Wayne wrote:
>
>
>>I've got a 1GB Lexar 80x card for when away from home. But at home, I
>>find that I normally download with only a few images on it. I know
>>these cards have a lifetime warranty and should last a jillion cycles,
>>yet I worry if maybe I shouldnt be routinely using a smaller cheaper
>>card in such cases, just to keep the wear and tear off the large
>>expensive one?
>
>
> If it's literally only a few, then you should already have a small
> card buried away somewhere. Maybe a 16MD or 32MB card came with the
> camera? If that's too small, 64MB and 128MB cards are pretty cheap.
> I don't think it's worth worrying about though. I don't have any
> "real" numbers available (semiconductor manufacturers would know)
> but if insurance companies sold "life insurance" policies for the
> memory cards, the cards are probably so reliable and long lived that
> the actuaries could come up with a fee of pennies per year and the
> insurance companies wouldn't lose money.
>
>
>
>>And what about wear on the pins and camera socket? Is there any rating
>>on this? A few insertions every day would surely have some effect on
>>the pins?
>
>
> I assume that they using "self-cleaning" contacts. I wouldn't let
> kiddies play with CF cards though, as I can imagine an accident
> waiting to happen involving sand, sugar or salt. Other card types
> should be relatively immune to those artery cloggers.
>

I wouldn't obsess about either issue. The card should last longer than
your camera, and take more insertions than you will likely ever make.
Treat the cards well, and avoid contamination as you mentioned and you
should enjoy the card(s) for longer than you keep the camera.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 8:32:59 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:10:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>> I doubt that many amateurs
>>>that use multiple small cards due to worries about the failure of a
>>>large card have given much thought to bringing along even a small
>>>backup camera when they're out with their digital wonders, shooting
>>>the breeze as well as the objects that pass before their lenses.
>>
>>Quite possibly that is because we can't all afford multiple cameras,
>>given that our cameras aren't 'profit centers'....
>
>
> I don't think so. It's true that if they thought about it many
> people would not want to incur the extra expense. But I think it's
> really a concept that just hasn't been though of. For most people,
> backup cameras are not unlike computer backups. Not even considered
> until after disaster strikes. But take the OP as an example, who's
> thinking about a "1GB compact Flash for my EOS 350D" and may have
> more money invested in external flashes, additional lenses, etc. A
> little backup P&S for $150 or less wouldn't significantly damage the
> financial status compared to what's already been spent. And it
> would make a suitable companion for the 350D, belonging like a
> telescope needs it's spotter scope. Like a shark wants its remoras.
> :) 
>
> Anyway, your camera and mine are relatively inexpensive. For us,
> a lesser "backup' camera could be a CVS $9.99 digital one-shot.
> Anyone that can afford that much money to buy emergency lithium AA
> backup batteries should be knocking down the doors trying to get a
> backup digital camera (including batteries I think) for the same
> price. :) 
>
> (but so far I've resisted the urge to do that . . .)
>
And do you think the average digital camera user has a 350D?? I don't
think even the average NG reader has such a setup. Certainly I don't
have funds to keep a second camera as a backup. NOT everyone is a
professional, or even a 'serious amateur'. Most of us just want to make
better snapshots. Have you seen the pictures from 'disposable' cameras?
Would rather miss the shot entirely!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:37:27 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:

<large relevant post snipped>

> But I
> suppose some people require industrial strength clues.

Most clueless individuals insist on staying that way, whether or not
industrial strength clues are provided. ;) 

Austin
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 9:51:42 AM

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

Does anyone knows about Kingston CF cards? I found some cheap one on
the internet. Also, I heard they are cheaper in the US than in Europe.
Is that true? As I'm flying over at the end of the month...
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 10:43:52 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:32:59 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> And do you think the average digital camera user has a 350D?? I don't
> think even the average NG reader has such a setup. Certainly I don't
> have funds to keep a second camera as a backup. NOT everyone is a
> professional, or even a 'serious amateur'. Most of us just want to make
> better snapshots. Have you seen the pictures from 'disposable' cameras?
> Would rather miss the shot entirely!

You certainly have an unusual ability to completely miss the point
and look for reasons to elevate your blood pressure. The *original*
point was not that backup cameras were needed for anything. It was
to try to show that people worrying that single large memory cards
would be overly risky, making them get two smaller cards instead, so
that one card would be available if something happened to the other,
were really not being practical. Because if they were consistent,
they'd also want to have a backup for their far more delicate,
breakable camera. And since hardly anyone (other than pros) backup
their cameras, why worry about the memory cards? But even if I
thought that having a backup camera was a good idea for everyone,
why in the world would you get upset about it? Does an opinion,
even one you disagree with take money out of your wallet? One would
be tempted to think that you resent anyone having affluent enough to
afford a DSLR, since this is only one of many times that you've
angrily plead poverty. And if you thought that I was seriously
advocating using a cheap disposable camera as a backup, you have a
serious inability to read between the lines and have a sense of
humor that's on life support at best. I thought that by providing
an image of you knocking down doors to get such a cheap, near
worthless camera [along with the ":) "] as well as ending with "(but
so far I've resisted the urge to do that . . .)" I was providing an
unmistakable hint that I was talking with "tongue in cheek". But I
suppose some people require industrial strength clues.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 11:32:41 AM

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

>Does anyone knows about Kingston CF cards?

Did you look at the link I gave you that rates CF cards for this
camera? The best cards were over 50% faster than the fastest Kingston
card for writing RAW images.
!