Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon moves to SD from CF for Canon S2 IS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:22:48 AM

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

Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
5-6GB and growing.

- Siddhartha

More about : canon moves canon

Anonymous
June 22, 2005 4:56:24 PM

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

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
> 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
> 5-6GB and growing.

While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.

Might be cheaper as well, and that market segment is getting crowded and
competitive!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 8:12:55 PM

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

> >>> Why wovld they move from SD to CF? Particvlarly when SD is stagnant
> >> While yov're right abovt capacity, I svspect that the SD system has
> >> greater overall reliability
> And the SD card has pins, too, jvst waiting to be bent.

I've long ago "standardized" on CF media over SD media.
I don't know if that's like standardizing on vinyl records or if it's
like standardizing on DVD disks.

What I don't vnderstand is why all the incompatible flash-card formats?
Do the differences actvally benefit vs (the consvmer)?

Svre, some are smaller, some are wider, some are thinner, some are
fatter, some are bigger, some are cheaper, some are more reliable, bvt
why isn't it that we all get together into a big vnion bvying mass and
say NO to the incompatible cards ovt there and only say yes to 1 or at
most 2 different incompatible formats? We did that, for example, with
the first betamax videotapes and laserdisks and newtons and cosmac 1402
and trashdos compvters and ... we even did it (with the help of the
government) with 120v 60hz power, railroads of a certain pitch,
standard-size pipe fittings, standardization on traffic signs and
streetlight colors (red does mean stop in all 50 states yov know) ...

Why not standardize on a single (two at most) damn media formats for
flash cards? Wovldn't WE benefit from this competitive standardization?
Related resources
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:17:52 PM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
>> 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
>> 5-6GB and growing.
>
> While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
> greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
> which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
>

Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
bent it sends shivers up my spine.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 9:17:53 PM

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

>
>"David J Taylor"
><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
>>> 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
>>> 5-6GB and growing.
>>
>> While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>> greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
>> which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
>>
>
>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
>
It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
that's a fairly preventable thing.
And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:34:16 PM

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

On 22 Jun 2005 05:22:48 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD
> is stagnant at 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are
> available for cheap upto 5-6GB and growing.

I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
number of sources. Even the tiny xD cards are now available up to
1GB in size, with some manufacturers predicting that xD cards will
eventually reach 8GB capacity.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:34:17 PM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
> I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
> cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
> number of sources.

2GB SD cards are advertised but seem hard to actually find, while
zipzoomfly.com does claim to have 8GB CF cards in stock.

CF seems to be going out of style in amateur cameras, though. SD is
smaller and less likely to bend up pins inside the camera if inserted
incorrectly. That's apparently a common cause of warranty repairs in
CF cameras.

Flash memory prices had a long and steep decline a year or so ago but
have been stagnant since then.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:22:23 AM

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

On 22 Jvn 2005 16:12:55 -0700, "CCN" <camcordernvt@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What I don't vnderstand is why all the incompatible flash-card formats?
>Do the differences actvally benefit vs (the consvmer)?
>
>Svre, some are smaller, some are wider, some are thinner, some are
>fatter, some are bigger, some are cheaper, some are more reliable, bvt
>why isn't it that we all get together into a big vnion bvying mass and
>say NO to the incompatible cards ovt there and only say yes to 1 or at
>most 2 different incompatible formats? We did that, for example, with
>the first betamax videotapes and laserdisks and newtons and cosmac 1402
>and trashdos compvters and ... we even did it (with the help of the
>government) with 120v 60hz power, railroads of a certain pitch,
>standard-size pipe fittings, standardization on traffic signs and
>streetlight colors (red does mean stop in all 50 states yov know) ...
>
>Why not standardize on a single (two at most) damn media formats for
>flash cards? Wovldn't WE benefit from this competitive standardization?

Ok.
Which one? :-)

--
Bill Fvnk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:27:23 AM

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

Dave R knows who wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant
>>> at 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap
>>> upto 5-6GB and growing.
>>
>> While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>> greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins,
>> each of which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion
>> force per pin.
>
> Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin
> problem but when you look inside your camera and see all those pins
> just waiting to get bent it sends shivers up my spine.

you guys forgot that SD cards is half smaller than CF...
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 2:28:36 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> >What I don't understand is why all the incompatible flash-card formats?
> >Do the differences actually benefit us (the consumer)?
> >Why not standardize on a single (two at most) damn media formats for
> >flash cards? Wouldn't WE benefit from this competitive standardization?
>
> Ok.
> Which one? :-)

Oooooh. Wait! Let me take a stab at this!

1. Compact Flash
and
2. AA batteries!

:) 

PS: Before I get called a "troll" (whatever that is), it's a joke. :) 
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:23:39 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
>ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
>> I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
>> cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
>> number of sources.

>2GB SD cards are advertised but seem hard to actually find, while
>zipzoomfly.com does claim to have 8GB CF cards in stock.

>CF seems to be going out of style in amateur cameras, though. SD is
>smaller and less likely to bend up pins inside the camera if inserted
>incorrectly. That's apparently a common cause of warranty repairs in
>CF cameras.

And SD cards are smaller. So they naturally are often the
choice for the smallest P&S cameras.

>Flash memory prices had a long and steep decline a year or so ago but
>have been stagnant since then.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:35:43 AM

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:27:23 +0200, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Dave R knows who wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote in message
>> news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant
>>>> at 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap
>>>> upto 5-6GB and growing.
>>>
>>> While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>>> greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins,
>>> each of which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion
>>> force per pin.
>>
>> Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin
>> problem but when you look inside your camera and see all those pins
>> just waiting to get bent it sends shivers up my spine.

This is a problem I understand with the "customer inserts
card into machine" type of "do it yourself" print systems.
CF cards require that all those little pins get where they
are supposed to get and all make contact as they should.
If not, there are problems. Encountered this at the local
Sam's Club where they make 4x6" prints for 17 cents each.
Apparently this is a problem with Compact Flash that doesn't
exist with the other forms of media such as SD and Memory Stick.
Local prices on SD media and CF media in 128 meg sizes is now
the same, ($19.99), and I believe capacities are already up to the
one gig level if not more in SD.

>you guys forgot that SD cards is half smaller than CF...
>

Jerome Bigge
Member, Muskegon Astronomical Society
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:36:22 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"David J Taylor"
>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
>>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
>>>>1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
>>>>5-6GB and growing.
>>>
>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
>>>which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
>>>
>>
>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
>>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
>>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
>>
>
> It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
> several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
> be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
> I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
> that's a fairly preventable thing.
> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.
>
Excuse me? The SD card has contact pads, which are engaged by spring
pads. NO pins.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:38:45 AM

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

CCN wrote:
>>>>>Why wovld they move from SD to CF? Particvlarly when SD is stagnant
>>>>
>>>>While yov're right abovt capacity, I svspect that the SD system has
>>>>greater overall reliability
>>
>>And the SD card has pins, too, jvst waiting to be bent.
>
>
> I've long ago "standardized" on CF media over SD media.
> I don't know if that's like standardizing on vinyl records or if it's
> like standardizing on DVD disks.
>
> What I don't vnderstand is why all the incompatible flash-card formats?
> Do the differences actvally benefit vs (the consvmer)?
>
> Svre, some are smaller, some are wider, some are thinner, some are
> fatter, some are bigger, some are cheaper, some are more reliable, bvt
> why isn't it that we all get together into a big vnion bvying mass and
> say NO to the incompatible cards ovt there and only say yes to 1 or at
> most 2 different incompatible formats? We did that, for example, with
> the first betamax videotapes and laserdisks and newtons and cosmac 1402
> and trashdos compvters and ... we even did it (with the help of the
> government) with 120v 60hz power, railroads of a certain pitch,
> standard-size pipe fittings, standardization on traffic signs and
> streetlight colors (red does mean stop in all 50 states yov know) ...
>
> Why not standardize on a single (two at most) damn media formats for
> flash cards? Wovldn't WE benefit from this competitive standardization?
>
We have, in effect. While there are other formats, svch as xD, and MS,
the CF and SD formats have a mvch larger market than the others. Bvyers
will eventvally vote with their wallets, and many of the cvrrent formats
will become as mvch a part of history as the 'Smartmedia'.


--
Ron Hvnter rphvnter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:43:12 AM

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

Paul Rubin wrote:
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
>
>> I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
>>cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
>>number of sources.
>
>
> 2GB SD cards are advertised but seem hard to actually find, while
> zipzoomfly.com does claim to have 8GB CF cards in stock.
>
> CF seems to be going out of style in amateur cameras, though. SD is
> smaller and less likely to bend up pins inside the camera if inserted
> incorrectly. That's apparently a common cause of warranty repairs in
> CF cameras.
>
> Flash memory prices had a long and steep decline a year or so ago but
> have been stagnant since then.

Say what? In May last year, 256 meg SD cards were $65 at Sam's Club.
Now one can get a 512 meg SD card for about $30. Stagnant? Not in my
(pocket) book.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:45:10 AM

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

Jerome Bigge wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:27:23 +0200, "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave R knows who wrote:
>>
>>>"David J Taylor"
>>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>>>wrote in message
>>>news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant
>>>>>at 1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap
>>>>>upto 5-6GB and growing.
>>>>
>>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins,
>>>>each of which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion
>>>>force per pin.
>>>
>>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin
>>>problem but when you look inside your camera and see all those pins
>>>just waiting to get bent it sends shivers up my spine.
>
>
> This is a problem I understand with the "customer inserts
> card into machine" type of "do it yourself" print systems.
> CF cards require that all those little pins get where they
> are supposed to get and all make contact as they should.
> If not, there are problems. Encountered this at the local
> Sam's Club where they make 4x6" prints for 17 cents each.
> Apparently this is a problem with Compact Flash that doesn't
> exist with the other forms of media such as SD and Memory Stick.
> Local prices on SD media and CF media in 128 meg sizes is now
> the same, ($19.99), and I believe capacities are already up to the
> one gig level if not more in SD.
>
>
>>you guys forgot that SD cards is half smaller than CF...
>>
>
>
> Jerome Bigge
> Member, Muskegon Astronomical Society
> Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
> Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"

SD cards are not without their problems. It took me about 10 tries to
get my SD card to work with Sam's reader. I think some of the readers
are just a bit on the flakey side.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:43:34 AM

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

Paul J Gans wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
> >ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
> >> I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
> >> cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
> >> number of sources.
>
> >2GB SD cards are advertised but seem hard to actually find, while
> >zipzoomfly.com does claim to have 8GB CF cards in stock.
>
> >CF seems to be going out of style in amateur cameras, though. SD is
> >smaller and less likely to bend up pins inside the camera if inserted
> >incorrectly. That's apparently a common cause of warranty repairs in
> >CF cameras.
>
> And SD cards are smaller. So they naturally are often the
> choice for the smallest P&S cameras.

But the Canon S2 IS is bigger than the Canon S1 IS, has a larger
battery and has more megapixels. So its not like the by putting in a SD
card they managed to reduce the size of this P&S camera.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:28:49 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
[]
> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.

No, the CF card has multiple small sockets, and the device you insert it
into has the pins. With the SD card, there are no "pins" as such on
either the card or the decide it's used in. They are leaf type wiping
contacts. Having used both SD and CF cards, my feeling is that the
insertion action is much gentler on the SD cards. The number of contacts
is far less as well.

Having said all that, providing you take reasonable care, both types
should last.

David
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:32:03 PM

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

Susan (Graphic Artist) wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> What I don't understand is why all the incompatible flash-card
>>> formats? Do the differences actually benefit us (the consumer)?
>>> Why not standardize on a single (two at most) damn media formats for
>>> flash cards? Wouldn't WE benefit from this competitive
>>> standardization?
>>
>> Ok.
>> Which one? :-)
>
> Oooooh. Wait! Let me take a stab at this!
>
> 1. Compact Flash
> and
> 2. AA batteries!
>
> :) 
>
> PS: Before I get called a "troll" (whatever that is), it's a joke. :) 

The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the US, I
guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras, just like we
have the AA and AAA cells today.

As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 3:10:04 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:36:22 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
>> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David J Taylor"
>>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
>>>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
>>>>>1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
>>>>>5-6GB and growing.
>>>>
>>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
>>>>which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
>>>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
>>>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
>>>
>>
>> It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
>> several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
>> be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
>> I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
>> that's a fairly preventable thing.
>> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.
>>
>Excuse me? The SD card has contact pads, which are engaged by spring
>pads. NO pins.

Sorry. I have no SD cards.
The springs are prevented from bending, how?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 3:12:39 PM

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

On 23 Jun 2005 04:43:34 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
>> >ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
>> >> I don't know about prices, but Sandisk has been advertising 2GB SD
>> >> cards for a couple of months, and 8GB CF cards are available from a
>> >> number of sources.
>>
>> >2GB SD cards are advertised but seem hard to actually find, while
>> >zipzoomfly.com does claim to have 8GB CF cards in stock.
>>
>> >CF seems to be going out of style in amateur cameras, though. SD is
>> >smaller and less likely to bend up pins inside the camera if inserted
>> >incorrectly. That's apparently a common cause of warranty repairs in
>> >CF cameras.
>>
>> And SD cards are smaller. So they naturally are often the
>> choice for the smallest P&S cameras.
>
>But the Canon S2 IS is bigger than the Canon S1 IS, has a larger
>battery and has more megapixels. So its not like the by putting in a SD
>card they managed to reduce the size of this P&S camera.
>
>- Siddhartha

Maybe they put in more "stuff" that wouldn't fit with the CF card?
Like a larger battery? LArger sensor (i don't know)? Bigger PCB?
Or did they make a hollow floatation chamber? :-)

Maybe by using SD, they still kept it smaller than if they used CF?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 3:52:47 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:32:03 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
i
>
> The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the US, I
> guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras, just like we
> have the AA and AAA cells today.
>
> As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!
>
> Cheers,
> David
The battery sizes have been the same for over sixty years, it is just the
names that have been altered.
U2 is now D for example.
I remember being sent to our local shops to try and get some different
sizes for the torches in 1940 (think blackout).

--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:51:49 PM

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

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:32:03 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
> i
>>
>> The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the US,
>> I guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras, just
>> like we have the AA and AAA cells today.
>>
>> As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
> The battery sizes have been the same for over sixty years, it is just
> the names that have been altered.
> U2 is now D for example.
> I remember being sent to our local shops to try and get some different
> sizes for the torches in 1940 (think blackout).

But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm asking for:

- one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
manufacturers

- an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries

- an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports

- wide availability of the high street

- wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:51:50 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Neil Ellwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:32:03 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>> i
>>>
>>> The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the US,
>>> I guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras, just
>>> like we have the AA and AAA cells today.
>>>
>>> As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>> The battery sizes have been the same for over sixty years, it is just
>> the names that have been altered.
>> U2 is now D for example.
>> I remember being sent to our local shops to try and get some different
>> sizes for the torches in 1940 (think blackout).
>
>But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm asking for:
>
>- one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
>manufacturers

Sure. And let's standardize lenses, too. Why do we need so many?
And sensor size, too. It's too confusing as is, and I don't need all
those other sizes.
Gee, let's just have one camera on the market. It'll be good, because
it will be standardizes!
>
>- an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries

And here I was under the impression that a monopoly was not going to
result in lower prices. Unless the Government has that monopoly, of
course, so I guess the Government should make that one size battery,
huh?
>
>- an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports

Well, the monopoly will solve that.
>
>- wide availability of the high street

Of course!
>
>- wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent

No, that doesn't fit the standard. Sorry.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
Standards sound teriffic, until you stop to think of the uninted
consequences.
Who gets to set the standards?
I'd really rather have both - and + DVDs, instead of a "Standardized"
format that won't change or evolve.
Let the market figure it out.

My opinion, of course. :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:02:26 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:36:22 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
> >> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"David J Taylor"
> >>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
> >>>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
> >>>>>1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
> >>>>>5-6GB and growing.
> >>>>
> >>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
> >>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
> >>>>which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
> >>>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
> >>>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
> >> several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
> >> be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
> >> I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
> >> that's a fairly preventable thing.
> >> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.
> >>
> >Excuse me? The SD card has contact pads, which are engaged by spring
> >pads. NO pins.
>
> Sorry. I have no SD cards.
> The springs are prevented from bending, how?
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

With SD, by design, the leaf springs are pushed outside of the volume
of the chamber by the card itself.

Think of it this way: if you make a piece of solid plastic the size of
an SD card and push it in an SD slot, it won't hurt the springs, as
they simply move out of the way of the phony card as though they were
making contact with surface pads on a real card.

If you make a piece of solid plastic the size of a CF card and push it
in a CF slot, it will smash all the socket pins [if you press hard
enough], as they are not intended to get out of the way of the card,
but rather to mate with something inside the card.

Bottom line, if it fits in an SD slot, it's unlikely to damage the
hardware. The same cannot be said for CF.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:27:41 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:49 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm asking for:
>
> - one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
> manufacturers
>
> - an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries
>
> - an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports
>
> - wide availability of the high street
>
> - wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent

That's a worthy goal, but one that you're unlikely to see, unless
.. . . you or someone else finds some means of providing to the
camera manufacturer's two of Li-ion's benefits:

1. If a second battery is needed by the new camera buyer, they're
much more likely to purchase the much more expensive ones with the
manufacturer's label on them than the much cheaper third party
replacements. Standardization would lower prices even further, and
buyers would be much more trusting of known brands (Energizer,
RayOVac, etc.) than the more obscure brands such as Power2000, Moon
Flower, etc., unlikely to be seen in drug stores and supermarkets.

2. By continually designing new proprietary batteries that can't be
used in older, discontinued models, you get a powerful "planned
obsolescence" tool that encourages consumers to buy new cameras
sooner than they might otherwise have done.

I'd also like to see Li-ion rechargeable batteries standardized,
but at the same time, it would be desirable to either develop
primary Lithium batteries that could be used in place of the Li-ion
rechargeables, or allow the use of AA batteries. (There are some
cameras and PDAs that allow the choice of either Li-ion
rechargeables or alkalines, so it can be done.) The reason is that
rechargeable Li-ion batteries (at least the ones I've used), while
better than alkaline batteries in cold weather, still fare poorly.
They are rated for operation only down to +14 deg. F, and even if
stored but not used, aren't supposed to be subjected to temperatures
below -4 deg. F. Compare that with AA Lithiums that are rated for
operation down to temperatures as low as -40 degrees. It's
interesting that you asked for a non-rechargeable equivalent. I
agree, but as noted above, unless some improved technology comes
along, I'd like to see it done with both alkalines (cheap, and
excellent shelf life) and Lithiums (best performance and even better
shelf life).
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:52:12 PM

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

On 23 Jun 2005 13:02:26 -0700, "missingdata" <clayschn@fast.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:36:22 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
>> >> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"David J Taylor"
>> >>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> >>>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
>> >>>>>1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
>> >>>>>5-6GB and growing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
>> >>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
>> >>>>which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
>> >>>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
>> >>>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
>> >> several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
>> >> be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
>> >> I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
>> >> that's a fairly preventable thing.
>> >> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.
>> >>
>> >Excuse me? The SD card has contact pads, which are engaged by spring
>> >pads. NO pins.
>>
>> Sorry. I have no SD cards.
>> The springs are prevented from bending, how?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>With SD, by design, the leaf springs are pushed outside of the volume
>of the chamber by the card itself.

And if debris gets in the slot, what happens?
>
>Think of it this way: if you make a piece of solid plastic the size of
>an SD card and push it in an SD slot, it won't hurt the springs, as
>they simply move out of the way of the phony card as though they were
>making contact with surface pads on a real card.
>
>If you make a piece of solid plastic the size of a CF card and push it
>in a CF slot, it will smash all the socket pins [if you press hard
>enough], as they are not intended to get out of the way of the card,
>but rather to mate with something inside the card.
>
>Bottom line, if it fits in an SD slot, it's unlikely to damage the
>hardware. The same cannot be said for CF.

How does CF fail in this regard?
Like I said, I have some devices that accept CF,and aside from debris
getting in the slot, I see no way for normal insertion to bend any
pins.
Abnormal use (abuse) can break anything.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:36:45 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:35:43 GMT in rec.photo.digital, Jerome Bigge
<jerbigge@worldnet.att.net> wrote,
>Apparently this is a problem with Compact Flash that doesn't
>exist with the other forms of media such as SD and Memory Stick.

On a recent visit to Sav-on, the SD slots were taped over on 2 out
of 3 of their customer terminals. Apparently, according to the woman
working there, if a customer inserts the SD card upside down and
pushes HARD ENOUGH it is still possible to break something.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 10:27:30 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2005 13:02:26 -0700, "missingdata" <clayschn@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:36:22 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:17:52 GMT, "Dave R knows who"
> >> >> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>"David J Taylor"
> >> >>><david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
> >> >>>message news:Yddue.54525$G8.14004@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>news:1119442968.060122.33660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Why would they move from SD to CF? Particularly when SD is stagnant at
> >> >>>>>1GB and CF cards (including microdrives) are available for cheap upto
> >> >>>>>5-6GB and growing.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>While you're right about capacity, I suspect that the SD system has
> >> >>>>greater overall reliability because the connector has fewer pins, each of
> >> >>>>which is far bigger, and possibly requires less insertion force per pin.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Yup, I think you are right. Knock on wood I've never had a pin problem but
> >> >>>when you look inside your camera and see all those pins just waiting to get
> >> >>>bent it sends shivers up my spine.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's probably just me, but I have CF cards, a Digital Rebel/300D,
> >> >> several card readers, and I'm trying to figure out how a CF card can
> >> >> be inserted in such a way to bend any pins.
> >> >> I'm aware that foreign (or domestic) debris can certainly do this, but
> >> >> that's a fairly preventable thing.
> >> >> And the SD card has pins, too, just waiting to be bent.
> >> >>
> >> >Excuse me? The SD card has contact pads, which are engaged by spring
> >> >pads. NO pins.
> >>
> >> Sorry. I have no SD cards.
> >> The springs are prevented from bending, how?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> replace "g" with "a"
> >
> >With SD, by design, the leaf springs are pushed outside of the volume
> >of the chamber by the card itself.
>
> And if debris gets in the slot, what happens?
> >
> >Think of it this way: if you make a piece of solid plastic the size of
> >an SD card and push it in an SD slot, it won't hurt the springs, as
> >they simply move out of the way of the phony card as though they were
> >making contact with surface pads on a real card.
> >
> >If you make a piece of solid plastic the size of a CF card and push it
> >in a CF slot, it will smash all the socket pins [if you press hard
> >enough], as they are not intended to get out of the way of the card,
> >but rather to mate with something inside the card.
> >
> >Bottom line, if it fits in an SD slot, it's unlikely to damage the
> >hardware. The same cannot be said for CF.
>
> How does CF fail in this regard?
> Like I said, I have some devices that accept CF,and aside from debris
> getting in the slot, I see no way for normal insertion to bend any
> pins.
> Abnormal use (abuse) can break anything.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Sorry, but I thought I was already as clear as possible:

The design of the cavity and wiper contacts in SD is such that anything
that fits though the opening of the cavity for an SD card cannot harm
those contacts. It avoids common mis-insertion problems >BY DESIGN<.

The design of the cavity and pins in CF is such that anything that fits
through the opening of the cavity for a CF card CAN harm the pins
except a CF card oriented the correct way. It does not avoid common
mis-insertion problems by design.

One easy way to damage one or more CF pins [and I have seen more than
one camera damaged this way] is to put a CF card in sideways and push.

Clear yet?
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:25:30 PM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:32:03 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>>> i
>>>>
>>>> The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the
>>>> US, I guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras,
>>>> just like we have the AA and AAA cells today.
>>>>
>>>> As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David
>>> The battery sizes have been the same for over sixty years, it is
>>> just the names that have been altered.
>>> U2 is now D for example.
>>> I remember being sent to our local shops to try and get some
>>> different sizes for the torches in 1940 (think blackout).
>>
>> But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm
>> asking for:
>>
>> - one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
>> manufacturers
>
> Sure. And let's standardize lenses, too. Why do we need so many?
> And sensor size, too. It's too confusing as is, and I don't need all
> those other sizes.
> Gee, let's just have one camera on the market. It'll be good, because
> it will be standardizes!
>>
>> - an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries
>
> And here I was under the impression that a monopoly was not going to
> result in lower prices. Unless the Government has that monopoly, of
> course, so I guess the Government should make that one size battery,
> huh?
>>
>> - an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports
>
> Well, the monopoly will solve that.
>>
>> - wide availability of the high street
>
> Of course!
>>
>> - wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent
>
> No, that doesn't fit the standard. Sorry.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
> Standards sound teriffic, until you stop to think of the uninted
> consequences.
> Who gets to set the standards?
> I'd really rather have both - and + DVDs, instead of a "Standardized"
> format that won't change or evolve.
> Let the market figure it out.
>
> My opinion, of course. :-)

Standardised lenses in the form of lenses with interchangeable mounts were
once available - perhaps they still are. I'm sure they provided an
economical solution for those who couldn't afford manufacturer's own
lines.

I don't think your comparison is fair. We already have standardised
non-rechargeables and NiMH cells in the form of AAA, AA etc. sizes. I
don't see what is wrong with wanting a similar range of standardised
Li-ion cells. It's already clear that many people are turning away from
cameras with proprietary Li-ion batteries, so it actually might be in the
manufacturers' interest to adopt a common set of sizes.

David
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:25:31 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:25:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:32:03 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> The batteries aren't a joke. It /is/ about time someone (in the
>>>>> US, I guess) campaigned for a standard Li-ion battery for cameras,
>>>>> just like we have the AA and AAA cells today.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for cards, SD and CF are enough standard for me!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> David
>>>> The battery sizes have been the same for over sixty years, it is
>>>> just the names that have been altered.
>>>> U2 is now D for example.
>>>> I remember being sent to our local shops to try and get some
>>>> different sizes for the torches in 1940 (think blackout).
>>>
>>> But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm
>>> asking for:
>>>
>>> - one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
>>> manufacturers
>>
>> Sure. And let's standardize lenses, too. Why do we need so many?
>> And sensor size, too. It's too confusing as is, and I don't need all
>> those other sizes.
>> Gee, let's just have one camera on the market. It'll be good, because
>> it will be standardizes!
>>>
>>> - an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries
>>
>> And here I was under the impression that a monopoly was not going to
>> result in lower prices. Unless the Government has that monopoly, of
>> course, so I guess the Government should make that one size battery,
>> huh?
>>>
>>> - an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports
>>
>> Well, the monopoly will solve that.
>>>
>>> - wide availability of the high street
>>
>> Of course!
>>>
>>> - wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent
>>
>> No, that doesn't fit the standard. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>> Standards sound teriffic, until you stop to think of the uninted
>> consequences.
>> Who gets to set the standards?
>> I'd really rather have both - and + DVDs, instead of a "Standardized"
>> format that won't change or evolve.
>> Let the market figure it out.
>>
>> My opinion, of course. :-)
>
>Standardised lenses in the form of lenses with interchangeable mounts were
>once available - perhaps they still are. I'm sure they provided an
>economical solution for those who couldn't afford manufacturer's own
>lines.

Those aren't standardized lenses, they're lenses with standardized
mounts. We have them now. And not all lenses with, for example, Canon
mounts are from Canon.
>
>I don't think your comparison is fair. We already have standardised
>non-rechargeables and NiMH cells in the form of AAA, AA etc. sizes. I
>don't see what is wrong with wanting a similar range of standardised
>Li-ion cells. It's already clear that many people are turning away from
>cameras with proprietary Li-ion batteries, so it actually might be in the
>manufacturers' interest to adopt a common set of sizes.

The market doesn't seem to be suffering as you think it is.
Canon, for example, is making the Digital Rebel XT/350D in larger
initial numbers than the DR/300D (which had production ramped up =due
to demand), even with a proprietary battery.
Nikon's D70 and other DSLRs, in fact, all major brand DSLRs are
selling in more numbers than initially expected.
A few people deciding they will do without for lack of standardized
batteries aren't hurting the makers much.

>
>David
>

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:48:45 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:51:49 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> But Li-ion batteries are not so standardised - that's what I'm
>> asking for:
>>
>> - one battery which will fit many cameras, and from different
>> manufacturers
>>
>> - an end to excessive prices for special-to-type batteries
>>
>> - an end to very poor quality 3rd party imports
>>
>> - wide availability of the high street
>>
>> - wide availability of a non-rechargeable equivalent
>
> That's a worthy goal, but one that you're unlikely to see, unless
> . . . you or someone else finds some means of providing to the
> camera manufacturer's two of Li-ion's benefits:
>
> 1. If a second battery is needed by the new camera buyer, they're
> much more likely to purchase the much more expensive ones with the
> manufacturer's label on them than the much cheaper third party
> replacements. Standardization would lower prices even further, and
> buyers would be much more trusting of known brands (Energizer,
> RayOVac, etc.) than the more obscure brands such as Power2000, Moon
> Flower, etc., unlikely to be seen in drug stores and supermarkets.
>
> 2. By continually designing new proprietary batteries that can't be
> used in older, discontinued models, you get a powerful "planned
> obsolescence" tool that encourages consumers to buy new cameras
> sooner than they might otherwise have done.
>
> I'd also like to see Li-ion rechargeable batteries standardized,
> but at the same time, it would be desirable to either develop
> primary Lithium batteries that could be used in place of the Li-ion
> rechargeables, or allow the use of AA batteries. (There are some
> cameras and PDAs that allow the choice of either Li-ion
> rechargeables or alkalines, so it can be done.) The reason is that
> rechargeable Li-ion batteries (at least the ones I've used), while
> better than alkaline batteries in cold weather, still fare poorly.
> They are rated for operation only down to +14 deg. F, and even if
> stored but not used, aren't supposed to be subjected to temperatures
> below -4 deg. F. Compare that with AA Lithiums that are rated for
> operation down to temperatures as low as -40 degrees. It's
> interesting that you asked for a non-rechargeable equivalent. I
> agree, but as noted above, unless some improved technology comes
> along, I'd like to see it done with both alkalines (cheap, and
> excellent shelf life) and Lithiums (best performance and even better
> shelf life).

Thanks for your comments. I think that in regard to (1) you may have to
accept a slight increase in camera prices if net profit margin is to be
maintained. There will be a slight saving in not having to deal with the
specification, procurement and QC of special-to-type cells. I think that
(2) is the opposite - people will be /discouraged/ from buying new models
that don't use the older batteries - it certainly did me!

Yes, I want primary cells in the same form factor with electrical
equivalence, and if both alkalines and Lithium are required so be it. I
wonder what a modern version of the PP3 could do? The right sort of
capacity? Need better contacts, though!

http://www.battery-force.co.uk/show_PP3_Batteries.html

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 12:28:56 AM

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

On 23 Jun 2005 18:27:30 -0700, "missingdata" <clayschn@fast.net>
wrote:

>> How does CF fail in this regard?
>> Like I said, I have some devices that accept CF,and aside from debris
>> getting in the slot, I see no way for normal insertion to bend any
>> pins.
>> Abnormal use (abuse) can break anything.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>Sorry, but I thought I was already as clear as possible:
>
>The design of the cavity and wiper contacts in SD is such that anything
>that fits though the opening of the cavity for an SD card cannot harm
>those contacts. It avoids common mis-insertion problems >BY DESIGN<.
>
>The design of the cavity and pins in CF is such that anything that fits
>through the opening of the cavity for a CF card CAN harm the pins
>except a CF card oriented the correct way. It does not avoid common
>mis-insertion problems by design.
>
>One easy way to damage one or more CF pins [and I have seen more than
>one camera damaged this way] is to put a CF card in sideways and push.
>
>Clear yet?

It's getting better.
But, when I try to insert a CF card sideways, it doesn't want to go.
By design.
Like I said, abuse can break anything.

For SD, if you'd like to volunteer a device that takes SD cards, I
will bet hard cash I can farkle it. :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:31:00 AM

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

David Sommers wrote:
> You obvously have never seen the Canon S1 IS and S2 IS in person. While the
> S2 IS is a bit bigger overall when closed than the S1 IS, that biggness is
> mostly in the 12X zoom lens assembly when it deploys. No Viagra required
> here. The S2 IS lens is a lot bigger than the S1 IS.
>
> Both the S1 IS and S2 IS use the exact same batteries - 4 AA cells.
>

Ohh yes, the battery are the same. Here's what makes it larger (from
dpreview)
"Unlike most 'upgrades', the S2 IS is not only better specified than
its predecessor; it's larger (much deeper) and heavier too. Most of
this is down to the slightly larger sensor, which leads to a slightly
larger lens (which also has a wider zoom range)"

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:35:12 AM

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

You obvously have never seen the Canon S1 IS and S2 IS in person. While the
S2 IS is a bit bigger overall when closed than the S1 IS, that biggness is
mostly in the 12X zoom lens assembly when it deploys. No Viagra required
here. The S2 IS lens is a lot bigger than the S1 IS.

Both the S1 IS and S2 IS use the exact same batteries - 4 AA cells.

Bye.

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119527014.404732.5640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Paul J Gans wrote:
[,,,,,,]
[......]
>
> But the Canon S2 IS is bigger than the Canon S1 IS, has a larger
> battery and has more megapixels. So its not like the by putting in a SD
> card they managed to reduce the size of this P&S camera.
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:18:50 PM

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

On 22 Jun 2005 16:12:55 -0700, "CCN" <camcordernut@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Why not standardize

Variety is the prerequisite for evolution.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
June 24, 2005 3:18:51 PM

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

"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message news:brinb1pl1sjlujjsjm54dl1hqs2k1mdseu@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jun 2005 16:12:55 -0700, "CCN" <camcordernut@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why not standardize
>
> Variety is the prerequisite for evolution.

And corporate profit margins.

There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
from CF to SD in the S2.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 3:18:52 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:35 GMT, "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> wrote in message news:brinb1pl1sjlujjsjm54dl1hqs2k1mdseu@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Jun 2005 16:12:55 -0700, "CCN" <camcordernut@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Why not standardize
>>
>> Variety is the prerequisite for evolution.
>
>And corporate profit margins.
>
>There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
>from CF to SD in the S2.

You are privy to Canon's design meetings?
Or is this from your deep knowledge of everything about digital
cameras?
I'm curious why you would attempt to tell us that you know more than
Canon's people do.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 6:49:33 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:48:45 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. I think that in regard to (1) you may have to
> accept a slight increase in camera prices if net profit margin is to be
> maintained. There will be a slight saving in not having to deal with the
> specification, procurement and QC of special-to-type cells. I think that
> (2) is the opposite - people will be /discouraged/ from buying new models
> that don't use the older batteries - it certainly did me!

If there has to be a slight increase in camera prices it could
easily be done without requiring an increase! By that I mean that
the initial price is already grossly inflated, and future initial
prices wouldn't have to be determined any differently. Compared to
most other products, camera prices plummet far more than most other
things. It's not unusual for them to be sold new for 30% to 40% of
what they initially sold for just a year or two earlier. Whether
it's radios, TVs, VCRs or cars, when their prices drop just prior to
the introduction of new models, it's not often that they decrease
more than 1/2 the percentage that cameras do. If profits have to be
maintained, it could easily be done if prices didn't drop so
swiftly, but whether it will occur this way or not, we'll have to
wait and see. I imagine the industry's instict would be to take the
easy way out and simply raise initial prices as you suggest.


> Yes, I want primary cells in the same form factor with electrical
> equivalence, and if both alkalines and Lithium are required so be it. I
> wonder what a modern version of the PP3 could do? The right sort of
> capacity? Need better contacts, though!

I've never cared much for that design - too many cells, which is
ok for primary batteries but deadly for rechargeables. Li-ion would
have a tremendous advantage for higher voltage battery packs as
they'd need only 1/2 the number of cells that would be required by
NiCad or NiMH. You're right about the ridiculous contacts. They
not only waste space, but often are easily damaged and can be
difficult to connect and remove. On the low end, the rechargeable
Li-ion battery used in the GameBoy XP seems like a good model. It's
very small and even from the beginning has been modestly priced.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:18:07 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:35 GMT, Rick wrote:

> There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
> from CF to SD in the S2.

You're right, but only in that they didn't have to switch. But
there may have been a good reason or two for them to do so. If
their long range plans don't include CF, they'd have to drop them at
some point. Some S2 owners would be inconvenienced if they have a
large supply of CF cards. But others would gain by the decision to
switch to SD, as their SD cards would have a much greater future
life, well beyond the S2. If it still used CF cards, the S2 might
easily be the last camera those CF cards would be used in. A better
solution might have been to do what a number of other cameras have
done, which is to offer dual card slots. One for CF and a second
for the other (SD, xD, MS, whatever). The necessary increase in
size and cost could be kept small enough to be almost unnoticeable.
It's not as if the S2 is designed to be able to fit into small shirt
pockets. This dual card solution has already been used not only by
Canon in some of its cameras, but by Fuji, Kodak, Konica, Olympus,
Samsung, Sony and probably other manufacturers as well.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:20:43 PM

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

one.... more.... time....

You CAN insert a CF card sideways. It DOES want to go. The slot
provides no resistance to doing so. The side of the card bottoms out
on the pins. And when an inexperienced user tries to get it 'all the
way in' [because he knew it was flush with the slot when he took it
out] he bends the pins. I have seen the result.

[everyone else 'scuse me if I shout, but it seems apparently necessary]


BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH SD!
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:43:48 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> I don't think your comparison is fair. We already have standardised
> non-rechargeables and NiMH cells in the form of AAA, AA etc. sizes. I
> don't see what is wrong with wanting a similar range of standardised
> Li-ion cells.

Nothing is wrong with wanting standardized Li-Ion cells. In fact the
cells are already available for manufacturers to build packs with. All
the manufacturer of battery packs is doing is putting the Li-Ion cells
into an enclosure, and adding appropriate circuitry for protection,
temperature monitoring, etc.

> It's already clear that many people are turning away from
> cameras with proprietary Li-ion batteries, so it actually might be in the
> manufacturers' interest to adopt a common set of sizes.

Where do you get the idea that many people are turning away from cameras
with proprietary batteries? They really have no choice in most cases,
since except for vertical grips that take AA batteries, most mid-range
to high end cameras use proprietary Li-Ion packs.

A standardized Li-Ion pack is already available, it's the R-CRV3, but it
isn't a great solution.

The biggest obstacle with Li-Ion is that you have to sell packs, not
cells. The packs have the protection circuitry. As we have seen with
Apple notebooks, Li-Ion batteries can catch fire or explode when charged
improperly.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:59:14 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
[]
> Where do you get the idea that many people are turning away from
> cameras with proprietary batteries? They really have no choice in
> most cases, since except for vertical grips that take AA batteries,
> most mid-range to high end cameras use proprietary Li-Ion packs.

Simply from people's comments in this newsgroup. While it's an atypical
sample, it's a suprising percentage of those who express a view who are
against proprietary batteries.

> A standardized Li-Ion pack is already available, it's the R-CRV3, but
> it isn't a great solution.
>
> The biggest obstacle with Li-Ion is that you have to sell packs, not
> cells. The packs have the protection circuitry. As we have seen with
> Apple notebooks, Li-Ion batteries can catch fire or explode when
> charged improperly.

I hadn't seen the R-CRV3 before - thanks for pointing it out.

It is the fully assembled pack that I would like to see standardised, for
the benefits of all - around 7V at 1000mAh might be useful.

Cheers,
David
June 25, 2005 12:17:22 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message news:sflob1pobm9e8b38vv1aboss9p4q4k4556@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:35 GMT, Rick wrote:
>
> > There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
> > from CF to SD in the S2.
>
> You're right, but only in that they didn't have to switch. But
> there may have been a good reason or two for them to do so. If
> their long range plans don't include CF, they'd have to drop them at
> some point. Some S2 owners would be inconvenienced if they have a
> large supply of CF cards. But others would gain by the decision to
> switch to SD, as their SD cards would have a much greater future
> life, well beyond the S2. If it still used CF cards, the S2 might
> easily be the last camera those CF cards would be used in. A better
> solution might have been to do what a number of other cameras have
> done, which is to offer dual card slots. One for CF and a second
> for the other (SD, xD, MS, whatever). The necessary increase in
> size and cost could be kept small enough to be almost unnoticeable.
> It's not as if the S2 is designed to be able to fit into small shirt
> pockets. This dual card solution has already been used not only by
> Canon in some of its cameras, but by Fuji, Kodak, Konica, Olympus,
> Samsung, Sony and probably other manufacturers as well.

Sorry, it made no sense for Canon to move a camera from
3MP to 5MP, and also change its memory format from one
that currently supports up to 8GB per card to one that
currently supports no more than 2GB -- and even the
2GB's are difficult to find in stock. It's almost as ridiculous
as Canon's insistence on putting an arbitrary and
unnecessary 1GB file size limitation on film clips in the S2
(and S1).

As time goes on it appears Canon's bean counters are
getting the best of the company.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 1:40:44 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:17:22 GMT, Rick wrote:

> Sorry, it made no sense for Canon to move a camera from
> 3MP to 5MP, and also change its memory format from one
> that currently supports up to 8GB per card to one that
> currently supports no more than 2GB -- and even the
> 2GB's are difficult to find in stock.

It does make sense, even if you fail to see why. I'm not very
familiar with the S1. Do you know that it actually supports 4GB and
8GB cards? Even if 2GB SD cards aren't common today, I'm sure that
4GB SD cards will be plentiful within a year, and 8 GB SD cards will
soon follow. With its modest 5MP sensor, most S2 owners wouldn't
feel the pressure to get 4GB and 8GB cards that owners of cameras
with 8, 12 and 16MB sensors currently have.


> It's almost as ridiculous as Canon's insistence on putting an
> arbitrary and unnecessary 1GB file size limitation on film clips
> in the S2 (and S1).

While video isn't what I care much about in digital cameras, if I
did, it would be the large number of cameras that limit clip lengths
to just a few minutes that I might find annoyable. Anyone that
truly has a need for unlimited length, multi-GB video files probably
could find more valid reasons to avoid the S1 and S2 than their 1GB
file size limit. I guess 8mm and Super-8 film cameras are too far
before your time to mean much, but people found ways to cope. It
was called "splicing". I'm sure that computers can do that too. :) 


> As time goes on it appears Canon's bean counters are
> getting the best of the company.

You might be more concerned if you were an Olympus fan, with the
upheaval that company is undergoing. Even Kodak is suffering,
although to a lesser degree. Canon is probably quite pleased with
the way things are going. It's *you* that either the bean counters
or the designers are getting to. Make them pay for their abuse.
Buy a Fuji, Sony, or Konica. Konica's cameras tend to do video
fairly well, and the Fuji I bought late last year takes high
resolution videos (with sound) at 30fps, limited only by card size.
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:51:43 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> Standards sound teriffic, until you stop to think of the uninted
> consequences.
> Who gets to set the standards?

Would you also wish for non-standard sized tires on your car or bike?
Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for common housing lumber?
Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for electrical outlets?
Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for photographic paper?

On the other hand
Would you really wish for standard sizes for pens and pencils?
Would you really wish for standard sizes for pants and blouses?
Would you really wish for standard sizes for kites and balloons?
Would you really wish for standard sizes for chairs and couches?

My point is that standards often work.
And often they might stifle competition.

They need to be intelligent.

I, for one, vote for standard-size batteries.
It is those who purchase cameras with non-standard batteries which are
at fault (nobody else as you can't blame the corporation for attempting
to maximize profits at your expense).

In the end, they will sell MORE cameras if we had standard-sized
batteries!
Put it this way: Would they sell as many flashlights as they do if
every one came with a differently sized battery?

I think not.

Let the manufacturer actually concentrate on making a BETTER
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 3:05:34 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> 1. If a second battery is needed by the new camera buyer, they're
> much more likely to purchase the much more expensive ones with the
> manufacturer's label on them than the much cheaper third party
> replacements.

Hi ASAAR,
You've been reasonable so I'll tell it to you straight by using a
well-known automotive analogy.

Does General Motors make their own tire?
No.
They concentrate on making cars.

Same thing with camera manufacturers.
I doubt ANY make their own battery (I'd guess they just brand them).

Let them concentrate on making cameras - not non-standard batteries.
CCN

BTW, ASAAR, I think your arguments are thoughtful and precise!
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 3:13:31 AM

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

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> Variety is the prerequisite for evolution.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

Especially when the variety benefits us not (which is the case here
with flash cards and batteries).

For example, if every car brand came with its own infant seat gear so
that you could only buy a manufacturers' car seat, would be benefit
from this variety or not?

As another obvious example, similar to batteries, if every brand of
stapler used a differently sized staple, would be really benefit from
the immense variety?

As yet another obvious example, similar to memory media, if every
computer came with a different operating system and
manufacturer-specific non-USB non-Firewire interface, would be really
benefit from the variety.

In all the cases above, and in the specific case of memory cards and
camera batteries, the consumer benefits not from the variety.

Standards are what made the world own computers.
Standards are what electrified the world!
Standards are why you can talk to your friend across town on a cell
phone.

Standard batteries and flash media would benefit us, the consumer, far
more than it would be a disadvantage to evolution!

My humble opinion,
CCN
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 3:14:39 AM

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

> There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
> from CF to SD in the S2.

I agree.
And I did NOT buy an SI S2 for that reason alone!

CCN
June 25, 2005 6:51:15 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message news:sdbpb1tm6he6murk0pe0fotqbun7aufjha@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:17:22 GMT, Rick wrote:
>
> > Sorry, it made no sense for Canon to move a camera from
> > 3MP to 5MP, and also change its memory format from one
> > that currently supports up to 8GB per card to one that
> > currently supports no more than 2GB -- and even the
> > 2GB's are difficult to find in stock.
>
> It does make sense, even if you fail to see why. I'm not very
> familiar with the S1. Do you know that it actually supports 4GB and
> 8GB cards?

Yes, it supports FAT and FAT32. As does the S2.

> Even if 2GB SD cards aren't common today, I'm sure that
> 4GB SD cards will be plentiful within a year, and 8 GB SD cards will
> soon follow.

How are you sure? SD is quite a bit smaller than CF,
and it wouldn't surprise me if manufacturers are having
major yield problems trying to get 4 or 8GB into that
small a form factor.

Or, another way to ask the questions is, SD has been
out nearly as long as CF. So where are the 4 and 8GB
cards?

> With its modest 5MP sensor, most S2 owners wouldn't
> feel the pressure to get 4GB and 8GB cards that owners of cameras
> with 8, 12 and 16MB sensors currently have.

Not true. We have three 2GB SD cards for our S2,
and between the movie clips, continuous shooting etc
we manage to fill all of them up every time we go on
even a weekend trip. It would be much more
convenient to just have one card in the camera and
not have to constantly ration.

> > It's almost as ridiculous as Canon's insistence on putting an
> > arbitrary and unnecessary 1GB file size limitation on film clips
> > in the S2 (and S1).
>
> While video isn't what I care much about in digital cameras, if I
> did, it would be the large number of cameras that limit clip lengths
> to just a few minutes that I might find annoyable. Anyone that
> truly has a need for unlimited length, multi-GB video files probably
> could find more valid reasons to avoid the S1 and S2 than their 1GB
> file size limit. I guess 8mm and Super-8 film cameras are too far
> before your time to mean much, but people found ways to cope. It
> was called "splicing". I'm sure that computers can do that too. :) 

You sure have a knack for projection. The point isn't
who does or doesn't need or want unlimited film clips.
The question is why the limitation is there when it
doesn't need to be, and when the industry as a whole
is removing it?

> > As time goes on it appears Canon's bean counters are
> > getting the best of the company.
>
> You might be more concerned if you were an Olympus fan, with the
> upheaval that company is undergoing. Even Kodak is suffering,
> although to a lesser degree. Canon is probably quite pleased with
> the way things are going. It's *you* that either the bean counters
> or the designers are getting to. Make them pay for their abuse.
> Buy a Fuji, Sony, or Konica. Konica's cameras tend to do video
> fairly well, and the Fuji I bought late last year takes high
> resolution videos (with sound) at 30fps, limited only by card size.

We can't stand two of those three manufacturers (esp.
Fuji, who for some reason think purple casts in images
are a good thing), and the only Sony we've ever liked
was the F717 (images from which still require quite a
bit of post processing, to fix the cruddy contrast and
poor color response in certain lighting conditions).
All in all Canon is ~2-3 years ahead of everyone else
in terms of in-camera processing and raw image quality.
!