Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

No-name 512MB CF for $19 at Fry's

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:33:14 AM

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

After $15 rebate.

If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated cards
are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.

More about : 512mb fry

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:33:15 AM

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

Dave R knows who wrote:

> After $15 rebate.
>
> If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated cards
> are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.


Does not surprise me. I now use a 2GB CF card, own two other 512mb cards but
never use them. Just as with computers, low memory cards will phase out as
the need for memory increases for digital cameras.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:38:14 AM

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

"Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:EWvKe.5338$0E5.3447@fe05.lga...
> Dave R knows who wrote:
>
>> After $15 rebate.
>>
>> If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated
>> cards
>> are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.
>
>
> Does not surprise me. I now use a 2GB CF card, own two other 512mb cards
> but
> never use them. Just as with computers, low memory cards will phase out as
> the need for memory increases for digital cameras.

The problem with the large cards is you can shoot all day and if something
happens you lose all your files. I had a 2GB lexar 80x give me some strange
error when my 1D camera locked up on me once and I wanted to cry because I
had a 3/4 of a day of shooting on the card. As it turns out, I got the
images back, but now I'm considering using my old 1GB cards first and save
the 2GB cards. I will not mind changing cards now.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:38:15 AM

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

Dave R knows who wrote:

>
> "Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:EWvKe.5338$0E5.3447@fe05.lga...
>> Dave R knows who wrote:
>>
>>> After $15 rebate.
>>>
>>> If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated
>>> cards
>>> are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.
>>
>>
>> Does not surprise me. I now use a 2GB CF card, own two other 512mb cards
>> but
>> never use them. Just as with computers, low memory cards will phase out
>> as the need for memory increases for digital cameras.
>
> The problem with the large cards is you can shoot all day and if something
> happens you lose all your files. I had a 2GB lexar 80x give me some
> strange error when my 1D camera locked up on me once and I wanted to cry
> because I had a 3/4 of a day of shooting on the card. As it turns out, I
> got the images back, but now I'm considering using my old 1GB cards first
> and save
> the 2GB cards. I will not mind changing cards now.


True, and I would go the 512 route if shooting nature. I shoot mostly
models, and it would interrupt the spontanaity of the photoshoot if I had
to keep switching memory cards. I love having the 2GB and shooting all I
want.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:32:56 AM

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

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:GdwKe.8560$p%3.36070@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:EWvKe.5338$0E5.3447@fe05.lga...
> > Dave R knows who wrote:
> >
> >> After $15 rebate.
> >>
> >> If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated
> >> cards
> >> are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.
> >
> >
> > Does not surprise me. I now use a 2GB CF card, own two other 512mb cards
> > but
> > never use them. Just as with computers, low memory cards will phase out
as
> > the need for memory increases for digital cameras.
>
> The problem with the large cards is you can shoot all day and if something
> happens you lose all your files. I had a 2GB lexar 80x give me some
strange
> error when my 1D camera locked up on me once and I wanted to cry because I
> had a 3/4 of a day of shooting on the card. As it turns out, I got the
> images back, but now I'm considering using my old 1GB cards first and save
> the 2GB cards. I will not mind changing cards now.


Yea I'm of the same clan. If you can fit over 50 images on a 512 card its
no worse then shooting 36 exposure rolls of film and if the card does die
you didn't loose your whole shoot.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:42:04 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:32:56 GMT, "Dirty Harry" <nopsam@nojust.com>
wrote:

>
>"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
>news:GdwKe.8560$p%3.36070@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> "Proteus" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:EWvKe.5338$0E5.3447@fe05.lga...
>> > Dave R knows who wrote:
>> >
>> >> After $15 rebate.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a 300D this is probably good enough as the speed-rated
>> >> cards
>> >> are worthless on that cam. Probably the XT, too.
>> >
>> >
>> > Does not surprise me. I now use a 2GB CF card, own two other 512mb cards
>> > but
>> > never use them. Just as with computers, low memory cards will phase out
>as
>> > the need for memory increases for digital cameras.
>>
>> The problem with the large cards is you can shoot all day and if something
>> happens you lose all your files. I had a 2GB lexar 80x give me some
>strange
>> error when my 1D camera locked up on me once and I wanted to cry because I
>> had a 3/4 of a day of shooting on the card. As it turns out, I got the
>> images back, but now I'm considering using my old 1GB cards first and save
>> the 2GB cards. I will not mind changing cards now.
>
>
>Yea I'm of the same clan. If you can fit over 50 images on a 512 card its
>no worse then shooting 36 exposure rolls of film and if the card does die
>you didn't loose your whole shoot.
>
Dirty Harry,
It's been suggested before that even with a relatively
large memory card 1 can always swap it out "before" it's full to
minimize the risk of losing a days efforts if it fails.

For example, if your doing a photo shoot of XYZ with a 2GB
card, change the card about 1/2 way through the photo shoot with a 2nd
2GB card. Now if the contents of 1 card becomes unrecoverable, you
have lost only 1/2 of your efforts for that session. When you move on
to the next photo event go back to the 1st card & again swap the card
out @ about the 1/2 way point.

Worst case scenario, if a 2BG card fails you loose only 1/2 of
every photo event you took that day before you had a chance to
off-load the pictures. However by using a large card you leave open
the option to continue if you feel that events are unfolding too fast
& that changing cards would mean missing some of the action. All of
this is a judgment call & the cards can be swapped out at any point
you choose 1/8th, 1/4 of the way through a photo session it's your
choice, but I like the "option" to continue shooting if I feel that
the risk to benefit ratio is in my favor.

Smaller cards force you to remember to swap them out but might
also happen @ a very bad point relative to what pictures your trying
to capture.

As for me, I now tend to favor the 2GB cards because they are
often very cost competitive with smaller cards & permit me the option
to keep shooting if I feel the risk is warranted. A last point in
favor of larger cards is looking toward the future, a larger card may
still be usable with a newer higher megapixel camera but a smaller 1
may suddenly seem unrealistically small. Yes I know, @ that point
memory is likely to be even less costly so upgrading to a larger card
when needed may be no big deal. My only point here is, if the price
per unit storage of the larger card is competitive with a smaller 1,
it may be better to go with the larger 1 & simply use it differently
as I have described/suggested.

Just my opinion, it works well for me, so I thought I would
share the idea with other's for their consideration.

Best wishes to all, if you find a method that works for you,
stick with it unless or until something better "for you" comes along.

Respectfully, DHB

..


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:42:05 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:42:04 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

> It's been suggested before that even with a relatively
>large memory card 1 can always swap it out "before" it's full to
>minimize the risk of losing a days efforts if it fails.

A more effective way of hedging your bets is to carry a small HD or
CDR based backup system. I have both, and the HD systems are faster
and smaller, while the CDR backups aren't at risk if the electronics
fail.

With the CDR system, I shoot on 512M cards, since they fit easily on
one CD. It will span across multiple CDRs, but it's another bit of
fiddling to pay attention to. With a HD or 512Ms on a CDR, it's a
matter of pushing a couple of buttons.

Both add some bulk and fussing, but if the shots are really important,
they add a big increase in risk control, as it would require 2
failures to lose your pictures, instead of 1. Whether that's worth
carrying the extra gear is another question.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:32:22 PM

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

"DHB" <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iuimf1le3pdfuh2udr1dosl79i58p1ct0i@4ax.com...

>>> The problem with the large cards is you can shoot all day and if
>>> something
>>> happens you lose all your files. I had a 2GB lexar 80x give me some
>>strange
>>> error when my 1D camera locked up on me once and I wanted to cry because
>>> I
>>> had a 3/4 of a day of shooting on the card. As it turns out, I got the
>>> images back, but now I'm considering using my old 1GB cards first and
>>> save
>>> the 2GB cards. I will not mind changing cards now.
>>
>>
>>Yea I'm of the same clan. If you can fit over 50 images on a 512 card its
>>no worse then shooting 36 exposure rolls of film and if the card does die
>>you didn't loose your whole shoot.
>>
> Dirty Harry,
> It's been suggested before that even with a relatively
> large memory card 1 can always swap it out "before" it's full to
> minimize the risk of losing a days efforts if it fails.
>
> For example, if your doing a photo shoot of XYZ with a 2GB
> card, change the card about 1/2 way through the photo shoot with a 2nd
> 2GB card. Now if the contents of 1 card becomes unrecoverable, you
> have lost only 1/2 of your efforts for that session. When you move on
> to the next photo event go back to the 1st card & again swap the card
> out @ about the 1/2 way point.
>
> Worst case scenario, if a 2BG card fails you loose only 1/2 of
> every photo event you took that day before you had a chance to
> off-load the pictures. However by using a large card you leave open
> the option to continue if you feel that events are unfolding too fast
> & that changing cards would mean missing some of the action. All of
> this is a judgment call & the cards can be swapped out at any point
> you choose 1/8th, 1/4 of the way through a photo session it's your
> choice, but I like the "option" to continue shooting if I feel that
> the risk to benefit ratio is in my favor.
>
> Smaller cards force you to remember to swap them out but might
> also happen @ a very bad point relative to what pictures your trying
> to capture.
>
> As for me, I now tend to favor the 2GB cards because they are
> often very cost competitive with smaller cards & permit me the option
> to keep shooting if I feel the risk is warranted. A last point in
> favor of larger cards is looking toward the future, a larger card may
> still be usable with a newer higher megapixel camera but a smaller 1
> may suddenly seem unrealistically small. Yes I know, @ that point
> memory is likely to be even less costly so upgrading to a larger card
> when needed may be no big deal. My only point here is, if the price
> per unit storage of the larger card is competitive with a smaller 1,
> it may be better to go with the larger 1 & simply use it differently
> as I have described/suggested.
>
> Just my opinion, it works well for me, so I thought I would
> share the idea with other's for their consideration.
>
> Best wishes to all, if you find a method that works for you,
> stick with it unless or until something better "for you" comes along.

Great point. Also, I don't know if it is the same for everyone, but most of
my errors occur when the card is almost full so I think changing before full
is a great idea.
August 12, 2005 12:01:28 AM

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

Neil Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:42:04 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It's been suggested before that even with a relatively
>>large memory card 1 can always swap it out "before" it's full to
>>minimize the risk of losing a days efforts if it fails.
>
>
> A more effective way of hedging your bets is to carry a small HD or
> CDR based backup system. I have both, and the HD systems are faster
> and smaller, while the CDR backups aren't at risk if the electronics
> fail.
>
> With the CDR system, I shoot on 512M cards, since they fit easily on
> one CD. It will span across multiple CDRs, but it's another bit of
> fiddling to pay attention to. With a HD or 512Ms on a CDR, it's a
> matter of pushing a couple of buttons.
>
> Both add some bulk and fussing, but if the shots are really important,
> they add a big increase in risk control, as it would require 2
> failures to lose your pictures, instead of 1. Whether that's worth
> carrying the extra gear is another question.
>
>
> --
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer


Neil, you make a good point about using a secondary system for an image
store. I've dome some window shopping and have begun wondering if these
verious units just do a simple copy from the card, or there a model that
uses some sort of error checking during the copy process or maybe some
sort of follow-up copy verification that ensures the copied image is
valid. I realize this additional work may slow things a bit, but then
again, I'm in no rush.

Anybody with an idea about this?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:00:46 AM

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

"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
news:sr0nf15sp8vdmehk0hr2pc144bc7vr2rit@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:42:04 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> It's been suggested before that even with a relatively
>>large memory card 1 can always swap it out "before" it's full to
>>minimize the risk of losing a days efforts if it fails.
>
> A more effective way of hedging your bets is to carry a small HD or
> CDR based backup system. I have both, and the HD systems are faster
> and smaller, while the CDR backups aren't at risk if the electronics
> fail.
>
> With the CDR system, I shoot on 512M cards, since they fit easily on
> one CD. It will span across multiple CDRs, but it's another bit of
> fiddling to pay attention to. With a HD or 512Ms on a CDR, it's a
> matter of pushing a couple of buttons.
>
> Both add some bulk and fussing, but if the shots are really important,
> they add a big increase in risk control, as it would require 2
> failures to lose your pictures, instead of 1. Whether that's worth
> carrying the extra gear is another question.
>

I would love to get the Epson P-2000 for reading the card right after it
comes out of the camera. I would feel better knowing 1) the data is good,
and 2) the data is in two places.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 9:35:08 AM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:01:28 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>> A more effective way of hedging your bets is to carry a small HD or
>> CDR based backup system. I have both, and the HD systems are faster
>> and smaller, while the CDR backups aren't at risk if the electronics
>> fail.
>>
>> With the CDR system, I shoot on 512M cards, since they fit easily on
>> one CD. It will span across multiple CDRs, but it's another bit of
>> fiddling to pay attention to. With a HD or 512Ms on a CDR, it's a
>> matter of pushing a couple of buttons.
>>
>> Both add some bulk and fussing, but if the shots are really important,
>> they add a big increase in risk control, as it would require 2
>> failures to lose your pictures, instead of 1. Whether that's worth
>> carrying the extra gear is another question.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>

>Neil, you make a good point about using a secondary system for an image
>store. I've dome some window shopping and have begun wondering if these
>verious units just do a simple copy from the card, or there a model that
>uses some sort of error checking during the copy process or maybe some
>sort of follow-up copy verification that ensures the copied image is
>valid. I realize this additional work may slow things a bit, but then
>again, I'm in no rush.
>
>Anybody with an idea about this?

Transferring DATA (pictures in this case) is rarely ever done
with true 100% error checking. I know of no consumer or pro-consumer
level P&S or DSLR that does this when transferring picture DATA from
the camera's buffer to the memory flash card.

If this is correct then that's the 1st place DATA could be
corrupted. As far as I know this also applies to almost "any" device
that you use to transfer your data to in the field.

For example, transfer to CD-R or DVD-ROM via a device
specifically designed for this, it must 1st read the data from your
camera's flash memory card & then burn it onto CD-R or DVD-ROM. Most
if not all of these units have some RAM memory used as a buffer for
which "all" of your picture DATA must go through before reaching it's
optical output disc. This RAM is almost certainly not (ECC) Error
Checking & Correcting.

How do you know the CD or DVD it burned actually works & now
holds all of your DATA error free before reusing, thus writing over
your DATA (pictures) on your camera's memory card? All of these same
concerns/places where your DATA can be corrupted also apply to units
that write the DATA to a 2.5" hard drive.

As for the Epson (P2000?) that somebody suggested, yes you can
view it 1st but that's not likely practical during a photo shoot.
Also Does the Epson P2000 support all RAW formats so you can view them
or does it just display the small jpeg that many cameras create (when
set to record RAW only files) for the camera's LCD to display?

Even a notebook PC has the same "potential" weaknesses. With
a notebook PC you can install your RAW conversion software to view &
be sure the pictures are there & also burn a CD-R or DVD-ROM so that
your eggs are not all in 1 basket.

Does your home PC use/have ECC RAM memory? Very few do these
days because of the added cost & the fact that RAM has become so
reliable. The same can be asked about the RAM buffer on your hard
drive, do you think that's ECC RAM?

Last question, how much do you want/can take with you on a
photo shoot? As for me, I try to not overwrite my camera flash cards
until I am certain that I have saved the DATA properly on @ least 2
places & always update my off-site storage as often as I can too.

Basically, take reasonable precautions with your DATA, what is
reasonable to me may be seen as too elaborate or not enough for
others.

Hope some of this is helpful to somebody.

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:43:54 PM

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

Stacking replies because my server drops some posts...

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:35:08 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:01:28 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>Neil, you make a good point about using a secondary system for an image
>>store. I've dome some window shopping and have begun wondering if these
>>verious units just do a simple copy from the card, or there a model that
>>uses some sort of error checking during the copy process or maybe some
>>sort of follow-up copy verification that ensures the copied image is
>>valid. I realize this additional work may slow things a bit, but then
>>again, I'm in no rush.

There are backup CDR systems that will perform a compare after the
burn, and they do add extra time, but they do improve the odds of good
data integrity. I don't recall which ones they are, as I quit
researching them after buying my last one, but a bit of research will
dig them up. There are others that let you view the pictures, but
they have shorter battery life, and it's not as good a guarantee as a
compare.

The photo review websites, like http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and
www.dpreview.com, often have discussions or reviews on these, or you
could start a new thread on it here.

Note that CDRs do not necessarily have long or guaranteed lifetimes,
despite what the marketers say, and leaving a burned one out in the
sun for a few hours can be enough to make it unreadable. This is
another advantage of HD over CDR, but with the HD, if you drop it, you
may lose all your data at once, while burned CDRs are not dependent on
the device once they're finished.

If you're really paranoid, or the data is particularly valuable and
irreplaceable, you have one of each, since each system is susceptible
to different types of failures. I mostly use the CDR system, and burn
2 copies of each card on separate CDRs, and I've never had an
unrecoverable photo in the last 2-3 years of using this system. If
you're on the road, you can mail one to yourself at home, which will
protect you if your luggage/gear gets stolen, or whatever.

As DHB says, we all decide what are reasonable precautions, and they
must be traded off against cost and difficulty.

> How do you know the CD or DVD it burned actually works & now
>holds all of your DATA error free before reusing, thus writing over
>your DATA (pictures) on your camera's memory card? All of these same
>concerns/places where your DATA can be corrupted also apply to units
>that write the DATA to a 2.5" hard drive.

These are all good points, and ultimately, none of your data is safe.
It's all about risk analysis, and how much time/money/trouble you want
to use to safeguard your data. We all have different thresholds for
this.

I research a new device before I buy it. If a fair number of people
have used it successfully and only a few have had problems, that's a
good sign. If it's the other way around, I keep looking.

When I get a new backup device, I test it a bunch of times before
taking it out on the road. If I can back up my data 20 times over a
week to HD or CDR and read them back without error every time on
multiple computers, this helps reassure me that the system is working
as designed, but any device can fail at any time.

As far as the original data integrity goes, that's also a concern, but
if your camera is not writing properly to the card, it's a whole
different issue solved a different way. I work on the assumption that
my camera and cards have worked fine many times in the past.
Regardless, the goal is to back up the data your camera has put on the
card, and that's the first step.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
!