Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4gb 150x SD card !

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:30:57 PM

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

I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...

More about : 4gb 150x card

Anonymous
September 16, 2005 6:07:09 PM

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

I would back up my images every so often on my Epson P-2000 before I
would fill up a 4GB+ memory card.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:47:02 PM

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

"dylan" <no@nowhere.com> writes:
> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html

Zipzoomfly.com sells that 8gb card for about $650. It's still past
the sweet spot: I bought a 4gb cf card from them for something like
$210 a month or so ago.

The new iPod Nano is $249 retail with 4GB of internal flash. Apple
supposedly negotiated a huge price cut from its flash supplier based
on the increased volume. That will certainly make itself felt in
other areas so I think we'll see 4GB CF cards under $150 within a few
months.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:55:37 AM

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

In article <dgf2pc$5fb$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, dylan <no@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
> > can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
> > http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
> >
> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html

12 gig, $9999

it used to be $15k about a year ago.

http://www.pretec.com/OnlineSales/SSD/Cheetah/Cheetah_P...
2GB.htm
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:27:08 PM

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
><jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>
>I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>

Or you could start saving for ...

http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html

Allan
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:27:09 PM

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

Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>
>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>
>
> Or you could start saving for ...
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>
> Allan
Well, so much for hard drives....
Should lighten laptops even more.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 12:48:42 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:57:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>>
>>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>>
>>
>> Or you could start saving for ...
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>>
>> Allan
>Well, so much for hard drives....
>Should lighten laptops even more.

They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
September 17, 2005 1:41:32 PM

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

On 16 Sep 2005 09:30:57 -0700, jogiba@hotmail.com wrote:

> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...

I paid twice that for my first 512 meg CF card. ;-(
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:19:01 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:48:42 -0700, Bill Funk
<BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:57:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>>>
>>>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>>>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or you could start saving for ...
>>>
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>>>
>>> Allan
>>Well, so much for hard drives....
>>Should lighten laptops even more.
>
>They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
>What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
>gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
>computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
>drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
>laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.

Are you sure it's flash RAM and not regular, volatile RAM? I thought
(I may be wrong) that flash RAM has a "relatively" low specification
for write-cycles. Also, I think that the read-write cycle times for
flash are way too slow, compared with the burst transfer rate of
modern disk drives.

As an aside, I've always been fascinated by the specifications of
"solid-state" disk drives. No track-to-track time or rotational
latency. Just a really, really high cost per MB.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:10:30 PM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:19:01 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:48:42 -0700, Bill Funk
><BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:57:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>>>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>>>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>>>>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or you could start saving for ...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>Well, so much for hard drives....
>>>Should lighten laptops even more.
>>
>>They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
>>What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
>>gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
>>computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
>>drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
>>laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.
>
>Are you sure it's flash RAM and not regular, volatile RAM? I thought
>(I may be wrong) that flash RAM has a "relatively" low specification
>for write-cycles. Also, I think that the read-write cycle times for
>flash are way too slow, compared with the burst transfer rate of
>modern disk drives.
>
>As an aside, I've always been fascinated by the specifications of
>"solid-state" disk drives. No track-to-track time or rotational
>latency. Just a really, really high cost per MB.

You may be right about the type of RAM.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:33:39 PM

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

I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
lose or damage the card? What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
missing something?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:54:15 PM

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

Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>
>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>
>
> Or you could start saving for ...
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>
> Allan

is that 16 GBIT or GByte? IF bit, it's only about 2 Gbyte...old news...
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:58:58 PM

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

In article <q5pni1p5ptdn83v4tk5b7hkheudri0vvme@4ax.com>,
grumpy@mailinator.com says...
> On 16 Sep 2005 09:30:57 -0700, jogiba@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
> > can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
> > http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>
> I paid twice that for my first 512 meg CF card. ;-(

Not much of an investment...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:00:38 AM

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

On 17 Sep 2005 16:33:39 -0700, Kitt wrote:

> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
> JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
> lose or damage the card? What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
> when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
> that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> missing something?

There's always something that can be a cause for concern. Whether
it's a realistic cause varies widely. While taking pictures, a
thief could make off with your camera bag containing your other
three 1GB flash cards loaded with unsaved images. What if the cards
don't fail but the camera dies just before you had planned to take
pictures on a "photo vacation"? Most non-pros wouldn't have spare,
backup cameras on hand. Unless you know the failure rate of flash
cards (compared to cameras, theft, heart attacks), worrying about a
4GB card may unjustified. Just a few years ago many people used the
same arguments to avoid 128MB and 256MB cards. Today their 32MB and
64MB cards don't get used very often. If a 1GB card is more than
adequate for you, fine. Use that. You don't need a larger card
even if some other people would. But if one card isn't sufficient
and you'll be buying a second or third, it may be more practical to
buy a 2GB or 4GB card. Unlike you, some people worry about possible
damage or loss that might occur when they change cards in the
camera. So they get a large card and never remove it, not even to
put it in a card reader. As I said before, there are many things
you could worry about. Choose your poison. But are they realistic
concerns?
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:02:39 AM

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

In article <5heoi11je32524q32rgi8h7dpvg8hpcpj9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
says...

> They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
> What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
> gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
> computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
> drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
> laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.

Well, you would need also several GB of RAM, to make sure that there is
no page swapping.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:02:40 AM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:02:39 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <5heoi11je32524q32rgi8h7dpvg8hpcpj9@4ax.com>, Bill Funk
>says...
>
>> They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
>> What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
>> gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
>> computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
>> drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
>> laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.
>
>Well, you would need also several GB of RAM, to make sure that there is
>no page swapping.

Why?
When the hybrid drive's RAM gets near full, it just gets dumped to the
drive's platters. No need for paging of the machine's RAM.
The flash RAM is within the drive's case.
http://news.com.com/Samsung+hybrid+hard+drive+works+whi...

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:02:41 AM

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

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:15:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> Well, you would need also several GB of RAM, to make sure that there is
>> no page swapping.
>
> Why?
> When the hybrid drive's RAM gets near full, it just gets dumped to the
> drive's platters. No need for paging of the machine's RAM.
> The flash RAM is within the drive's case.

Flash RAM would be the worst type of memory to use. It's not only
slower than regular memory, but (depending on the app. used) the
same region of disk space/flash memory could be rewritten a huge
number of times in a short period. Write to the same region often
enough and Flash RAM breaks down. My camera's manual even mentions
that the Flash memory may wear out (though I doubt that it will with
the number of pictures I take). The number of times that writing to
the same memory area will cause the memory to fail is high enough to
be of little concern when Flash RAM is used in a camera. But that
wouldn't be the case when it is used as a hard drive's buffer.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:42:08 AM

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

I was talking to a "parttime pro" about CF cards a couple of weeks ago. (I had
recently gotten a 2GB card for my 20D). He made an interesting comment. When he
does a wedding, he uses a bunch of 256 MB cards instead of one or two big capacity
cards... Reason is that if a card goes bad (and that has happened to both him and
me) he won't lose everything... Losing all or most of the pictures for a wedding
would be a "bad thing" losing 10 - 20% of the photos would be bad, but not nearly
the disaster as losing them all... I don't do that kind of pro work, and if I lose
a card's worth, it's not a big deal for me (and I love the 2 GB card!)

Mike



Kitt wrote:
> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
> JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
> lose or damage the card? What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
> when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
> that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> missing something?
>
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:10:28 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 16:33:39 -0700, Kitt wrote:
>
> > I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> > shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
> > JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
> > lose or damage the card? What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
> > Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
> > when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
> > that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> > missing something?
>
> There's always something that can be a cause for concern. Whether
> it's a realistic cause varies widely. While taking pictures, a
> thief could make off with your camera bag containing your other
> three 1GB flash cards loaded with unsaved images. What if the cards
> don't fail but the camera dies just before you had planned to take
> pictures on a "photo vacation"? Most non-pros wouldn't have spare,
> backup cameras on hand. Unless you know the failure rate of flash
> cards (compared to cameras, theft, heart attacks), worrying about a
> 4GB card may unjustified. Just a few years ago many people used the
> same arguments to avoid 128MB and 256MB cards. Today their 32MB and
> 64MB cards don't get used very often. If a 1GB card is more than
> adequate for you, fine. Use that. You don't need a larger card
> even if some other people would. But if one card isn't sufficient
> and you'll be buying a second or third, it may be more practical to
> buy a 2GB or 4GB card. Unlike you, some people worry about possible
> damage or loss that might occur when they change cards in the
> camera. So they get a large card and never remove it, not even to
> put it in a card reader. As I said before, there are many things
> you could worry about. Choose your poison. But are they realistic
> concerns?


Well, I was kind of speaking from my point of view. I shoot a couple
hundred shots, I go home and pop the card into the reader and download
them. The camera thief I can't control, but the loss of images due to
my own misfortune or negligence I can at least mitigate by
losing/destroying smaller blocks of work. So yes, I guess they're
realistic from my point of view. As far as the leaving in the camera,
doesn't that require proprietary software and slower downloads? That
still leaves four being cheaper than one. That's my big reality,
'cause I'm cheap. ;o)

I guess we don't really disagree. We just do it differently.
Worrying, that is.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 11:28:59 AM

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

On 18 Sep 2005 04:10:28 -0700, Kitt wrote:

> Well, I was kind of speaking from my point of view. I shoot a couple
> hundred shots, I go home and pop the card into the reader and download
> them. The camera thief I can't control, but the loss of images due to
> my own misfortune or negligence I can at least mitigate by
> losing/destroying smaller blocks of work. So yes, I guess they're
> realistic from my point of view.

By realistic I meant one should base a decision on the
probabilities involved. If one person in 5,000 loses pictures once
every 10 years due to a defective card it probably isn't a realistic
concern. But if it's one person in 50, I might want to use smaller
cards too.


> As far as the leaving in the camera, doesn't that require proprietary
> software and slower downloads?

Most cards appear as a hard drive to the computer when the camera
is connected to the computer with the USB cable. A few might
require the manufacturer's software with some versions of Windows,
but once the pictures are transferred, you can use whatever software
you prefer. File transfer speed should be comparable to the fastest
card readers if USB High Speed is supported by both the camera and
the computer.

> That still leaves four being cheaper than one. That's my big reality,
> 'cause I'm cheap. ;o)

But then you'll splurge the savings on a nice flash card holder or
two. :) 


> I guess we don't really disagree. We just do it differently.
> Worrying, that is.

What, me worry?



--
Does the A in Asaar stand for Alfred? Enquiring minds want to know.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:32:49 PM

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

Father Kodak wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:48:42 -0700, Bill Funk
> <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:57:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Allan & Glennis Sheppard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:26:47 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1126888257.650363.316610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> I thought my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II card was big but this is huge. I
>>>>>> can't wait for prices to drop on the 4GB 150x SD cards.
>>>>>> http://www.meritline.com/transcend-4gb-150x-secure-digi...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll need to wait even longer for this 8GB CF card to drop in price
>>>>> http://www.meritline.com/cf-memory-card-8gb.html
>>>>>
>>>> Or you could start saving for ...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news6388.html
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>> Well, so much for hard drives....
>>> Should lighten laptops even more.
>> They won't replace hard drives anytime soon. Far too expensive.
>> What's happening now, though, is hybrid drives. Hard drives with a few
>> gigs of flash RAM; this allows the flash RAM to hold data until the
>> computer's idle or there's enough data to need transferring to the
>> drive proper. This allows the drive to spin down, saving power. In
>> laptops, this can extend battery life significantly.
>
> Are you sure it's flash RAM and not regular, volatile RAM? I thought
> (I may be wrong) that flash RAM has a "relatively" low specification
> for write-cycles. Also, I think that the read-write cycle times for
> flash are way too slow, compared with the burst transfer rate of
> modern disk drives.
>
> As an aside, I've always been fascinated by the specifications of
> "solid-state" disk drives. No track-to-track time or rotational
> latency. Just a really, really high cost per MB.
>
Well, relatively high cost, which may be justified in the case of
laptops/notebooks, as would properly buffered read and writes. The
reads from my Lexar SD card seem to keep the HD on my wife's computer
quite busy. I am sure the read/write times are adequate in view of the
power, weight, and size savings for things like notebooks.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:35:02 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:15:04 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>> Well, you would need also several GB of RAM, to make sure that there is
>>> no page swapping.
>> Why?
>> When the hybrid drive's RAM gets near full, it just gets dumped to the
>> drive's platters. No need for paging of the machine's RAM.
>> The flash RAM is within the drive's case.
>
> Flash RAM would be the worst type of memory to use. It's not only
> slower than regular memory, but (depending on the app. used) the
> same region of disk space/flash memory could be rewritten a huge
> number of times in a short period. Write to the same region often
> enough and Flash RAM breaks down. My camera's manual even mentions
> that the Flash memory may wear out (though I doubt that it will with
> the number of pictures I take). The number of times that writing to
> the same memory area will cause the memory to fail is high enough to
> be of little concern when Flash RAM is used in a camera. But that
> wouldn't be the case when it is used as a hard drive's buffer.
>
I don't think a designer would use flash ram for a buffer, but rather to
emulate the HD physical storage itself. Obviously, flash ram is the
only safe type of ram for this purpose.
And the read/write cycle specs on new rams are more than adequate for
the purpose.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:36:21 PM

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

Kitt wrote:
> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
> JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
> lose or damage the card? What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
> when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
> that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> missing something?
>
Not at the moment, but in the future, you will probably find 4GB will
only store a few pictures... Data automatically expands to fill all
available storage.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:23:56 PM

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

In article <fI2Xe.4714$g32.2167@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Mike H says...
> I was talking to a "parttime pro" about CF cards a couple of weeks ago. (I had
> recently gotten a 2GB card for my 20D). He made an interesting comment. When he
> does a wedding, he uses a bunch of 256 MB cards instead of one or two big capacity
> cards... Reason is that if a card goes bad (and that has happened to both him and
> me) he won't lose everything... Losing all or most of the pictures for a wedding
> would be a "bad thing" losing 10 - 20% of the photos would be bad, but not nearly
> the disaster as losing them all... I don't do that kind of pro work, and if I lose
> a card's worth, it's not a big deal for me (and I love the 2 GB card!)

If a card goes bad, you can still recover the images with a recovery
utility. If all images have the same size (i.e. if you shoot exclusively
RAW), it's even easier to recover everything. Just do an image of the
card, find the start of the first RAW, then split the image (using a
flie splitting utility) into chunks the size of the RAW image.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:02:12 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <fI2Xe.4714$g32.2167@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Mike H
> says...
>> I was talking to a "parttime pro" about CF cards a couple of weeks
>> ago. (I had recently gotten a 2GB card for my 20D). He made an
>> interesting comment. When he does a wedding, he uses a bunch of
>> 256 MB cards instead of one or two big capacity cards... Reason is
>> that if a card goes bad (and that has happened to both him and me)
>> he won't lose everything... Losing all or most of the pictures for
>> a wedding would be a "bad thing" losing 10 - 20% of the photos
>> would be bad, but not nearly the disaster as losing them all... I
>> don't do that kind of pro work, and if I lose a card's worth, it's
>> not a big deal for me (and I love the 2 GB card!)
>
> If a card goes bad, you can still recover the images with a recovery
> utility.

not always...just if you're lucky...
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:06:36 PM

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

Kitt wrote:
> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300 large/fine
> JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at that. What if I
> lose or damage the card?

Some thing people tend to forget is that you dramatically lower the
liklihood of "losing or damaging" cards when you remove them from your
camera only 1/4th as often as you do a 1GB card.
:) 

>What if it fails and all my shots are lost?

-But what if your storage device fails that you copy all your 1GB files to??

A 4GB card can often allow you to keep a short-term "backup" of the files
you copy to your storage device when in the field. I use an Epson P-2000 in
the field (hard drive storage), but I always put off erasing cards until I
HAVE to...until I'm back home and can copy them to my computer also. That
way, I always have redundancy (the P-2000 and my computer HD). When you
have a huge card, there's nothing preventing you from copying the files
SOONER than "full."

> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig card
> when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On top of
> that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> missing something?

You don't sound like you'd benefit.
Some of us who shoots tons of RAW would love a big card like that.
When it gets down around $200, I'll be snapping up several (or...if I decide
on the 5D...sooner than that). :) 
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:07:03 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> Kitt wrote:
>> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
>> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300
>> large/fine JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at
>> that. What if I lose or damage the card?
>
> Some thing people tend to forget is that you dramatically lower the
> liklihood of "losing or damaging" cards when you remove them from your
> camera only 1/4th as often as you do a 1GB card.
> :) 
>
>> What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
>
> -But what if your storage device fails that you copy all your 1GB
> files to??
> A 4GB card can often allow you to keep a short-term "backup" of the
> files you copy to your storage device when in the field. I use an
> Epson P-2000 in the field (hard drive storage), but I always put off
> erasing cards until I HAVE to...until I'm back home and can copy them
> to my computer also. That way, I always have redundancy (the P-2000
> and my computer HD). When you have a huge card, there's nothing
> preventing you from copying the files SOONER than "full."
>
>> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig
>> card when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On
>> top of that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
>> missing something?
>
> You don't sound like you'd benefit.
> Some of us who shoots tons of RAW would love a big card like that.
> When it gets down around $200, I'll be snapping up several (or...if I
> decide on the 5D...sooner than that). :) 

--Although that would be a CF (for the 5D)...not an SD.
:) 
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:46:06 PM

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
> > Kitt wrote:
> >> I'm still wondering why anybody wants one that big unless you're
> >> shooting RAW + JPEG using a 12 mpxl camera. I get over 300
> >> large/fine JPEG's on my 1 gig CF at 6 mpxl and I get nervous at
> >> that. What if I lose or damage the card?
> >
> > Some thing people tend to forget is that you dramatically lower the
> > liklihood of "losing or damaging" cards when you remove them from your
> > camera only 1/4th as often as you do a 1GB card.
> > :) 
> >
> >> What if it fails and all my shots are lost?
> >
> > -But what if your storage device fails that you copy all your 1GB
> > files to??
> > A 4GB card can often allow you to keep a short-term "backup" of the
> > files you copy to your storage device when in the field. I use an
> > Epson P-2000 in the field (hard drive storage), but I always put off
> > erasing cards until I HAVE to...until I'm back home and can copy them
> > to my computer also. That way, I always have redundancy (the P-2000
> > and my computer HD). When you have a huge card, there's nothing
> > preventing you from copying the files SOONER than "full."
> >
> >> Just multiplying by 4 tells me I'd have near 1400 shots on a 4gig
> >> card when full. The most I've ever shot in a day is around 400. On
> >> top of that, four 1's are cheaper than one 4. I just don't get it. Am I
> >> missing something?
> >
> > You don't sound like you'd benefit.
> > Some of us who shoots tons of RAW would love a big card like that.
> > When it gets down around $200, I'll be snapping up several (or...if I
> > decide on the 5D...sooner than that). :) 
>
> --Although that would be a CF (for the 5D)...not an SD.


Don't know yet what it will be for the Nikon D75+. Fourteen megapixel,
full size sensor with a 14-120 F2.0 Macro kit lens. Under $2500
complete. Then I'll get a four gig card, whichever format... maybe
two. ;o)



> :) 
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:01:39 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:35:02 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Flash RAM would be the worst type of memory to use. It's not
>> only slower than regular memory, but (depending on the app. used)
>> the same region of disk space/flash memory could be rewritten a
>> huge number of times in a short period. Write to the same region
>> often enough and Flash RAM breaks down. My camera's manua
>>l even mentions that the Flash memory may wear out (though I doubt
>> that it will with the number of pictures I take). The number of times
>> that writing to the same memory area will cause the memory to fail is
>> high enough to be of little concern when Flash RAM is used in a
>> camera. But that wouldn't be the case when it is used as a hard drive's
>> buffer.
>
> I don't think a designer would use flash ram for a buffer, but rather
> to emulate the HD physical storage itself. Obviously, flash ram is the
> only safe type of ram for this purpose.

Safer. Flash RAM is indeed used to emulate HD storage. But it is
in the main only used in situations that don't overly stress the
Flash RAM. Infrequent copying of files, such as in MP3 players, or
the little keychain type storage units that allow for easy file
transportation.

> And the read/write cycle specs on new rams are more than adequate
> for the purpose.

Not quite, unless your "purposes" are quite modest. Palm has
tried using it with their T5, with non-volatile Flash RAM being used
for the first time for program and data storage. It's noticeably
slower that the RAM previously used, and while the latest, fastest
Flash RAM may be comparable in speed to some of the slower hard
drives, if used to replace hard drives, much care would have to be
taken to avoid modes of use that would quickly wear it out. There
are circuits designed to "share the wear" over all of the RAM, but
it's not foolproof.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:12:08 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:23:56 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <fI2Xe.4714$g32.2167@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Mike H says...
>> I was talking to a "parttime pro" about CF cards a couple of weeks ago. (I had
>> recently gotten a 2GB card for my 20D). He made an interesting comment. When he
>> does a wedding, he uses a bunch of 256 MB cards instead of one or two big capacity
>> cards... Reason is that if a card goes bad (and that has happened to both him and
>> me) he won't lose everything... Losing all or most of the pictures for a wedding
>> would be a "bad thing" losing 10 - 20% of the photos would be bad, but not nearly
>> the disaster as losing them all... I don't do that kind of pro work, and if I lose
>> a card's worth, it's not a big deal for me (and I love the 2 GB card!)
>
>If a card goes bad, you can still recover the images with a recovery
>utility. If all images have the same size (i.e. if you shoot exclusively
>RAW), it's even easier to recover everything. Just do an image of the
>card, find the start of the first RAW, then split the image (using a
>flie splitting utility) into chunks the size of the RAW image.

1> Correct me if I am wrong, but RAW files do vary some in
size because they use a form of lossless compression, so that won't
help much in file recovery.

2> Just like a hard drive, a CF or any flash memory card can
fail in a way that makes the card completely inoperative. DATA
recovery programs only have a chance to work "if" a corrupted card can
still be accessed.

3> Just my opinion, but 2GB cards seem to be the sweat spot of
most capacity & the lowest cost with a reasonably sized card. As to
concerns of losing irreplaceable pictures such as wedding pictures,
there are other ways to distribute the risk as many photo journalists
do. They use high capacity cards & swap them out before they are
filled & keep rotating them for long shoots. Yes if you manage to
fill up 3 2GB cards via rotation & 1 card fails that's a lot of
pictures taken on 1 card & possibly lost but they won't all be lost
form the same event.

For a wedding, 1 could take say 30 pictures of X part of the
wedding & them swap out the card & take about 30 more. Now you have
pictures of X part of the wedding on 2 cards.

From working in the telecommunications field as an ET, I can
tell you the ultimate in reliability is having "redundant systems".
In the U.S.A. the phone system is powered @ the switching offices by a
48VDC system which runs on multiple commercial AC powered power
supplies (rectifiers). If 1 fails, the others simply supply more
power, so there is always more capacity on-line than there is demand.
Additionally, there are 1 or several 48VDC battery stings wired in
parallel, so if the commercial AC fails & all rectifier go down, the
batteries now provide the power & again without interruption.
Further, many switching offices have their own auxiliary AC power
generators that can be brought on-line if the commercial AC does not
come back on soon enough & smaller offices usually have a special AC
power jack on the side of the office to allow a portable generator to
be temporarily used when/where needed.

What does all of this have to do with digital photography & CF
card size. Ultimately, where possible & cost effective, such as a
wedding, redundancy remains the safest rule. 2 photographers each
with 2 DSLR cameras & multiple CF cards. This distributes your eggs
so they are not all carried in 1 basket. Ultimate redundancy might be
to use the largest card available & have your DSLR also WiFi the
picture DATA to a small notebook PC's hard drive in the backpack worn
by the photographer.

Life is full of risks, the key is to take "reasonable"
measures to minimize the risks. If 1 can afford 2 "professional"
photographers for a wedding then that may be a very reasonable choice,
if not, redundancy still rules. As I often say "an OK shot captured
with a P&S camera is better than a great shot captured & lost by a
professional photographer due to some equipment failure outside of
his/her ability to control".

Hope this overly long response proves 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
September 18, 2005 8:12:09 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:12:08 GMT, DHB wrote:

> For a wedding, 1 could take say 30 pictures of X part of the
> wedding & them swap out the card & take about 30 more. Now
> you have pictures of X part of the wedding on 2 cards.

Even better would be to use some of the better "pro" DSLRs that
are able to write simultaneously to two cards. The ones I've heard
of don't allow RAW files to be written to both, but if the one
holding the RAW files is damaged, the other card's highest quality
JPG files should provide more than adequate backup insurance that
for most photographers may never be required.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 1:53:47 AM

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

In article <k80ri15tff90g105oeemoqj4o01o1gk7bi@4ax.com>, DHB says...

> 1> Correct me if I am wrong, but RAW files do vary some in
> size because they use a form of lossless compression, so that won't
> help much in file recovery.

Depends on the camera. RAW files of Olympus cameras are uncompressed and
have always the same size.

> 2> Just like a hard drive, a CF or any flash memory card can
> fail in a way that makes the card completely inoperative. DATA
> recovery programs only have a chance to work "if" a corrupted card can
> still be accessed.

Depends on how the card fails. If it's just the FAT which gets
corrupted, recovery is easy. If instead you can't even make an image of
the card, then probably everything is lost. In some cases some only of
the images get corrupted, but you can still retrieve the rest.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
!