Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Maybe the CF should die?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:30:37 AM

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

In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...

More about : die

Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:30:38 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:fmnjd1lcidpjb322uuc5dbeu24b5aphkso@4ax.com...
> In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...

Isn't the XD proprietary, like the Memory Stick? In that case, no, it
shouldn't. We have had cards in and out lord knows how many times, and
never bent a pin. I'm not sure how others do it, it may be a design flaw in
some cameras, possibly too wide a tolerance in the slot?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
July 17, 2005 5:05:22 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:fmnjd1lcidpjb322uuc5dbeu24b5aphkso@4ax.com...
> In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...

Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:30:28 AM

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> > Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
>
> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
>
> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually cheaper
> for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means they can cram in
> more memory at the same density, for a higher-capacity product.

CF cards now go up to 8MB. One MB cards are relatively cheap.

I don't understand the need (desire) for smaller cards, myself. The CF
card is just about large enough to not get lost amongst the keys in the
pocket (in a case). It is small enough that a half dozen don't pouch
out a shirt pocket very much. It is large enough to be easy to get in
and out with a fingernail on its ridge.

Bending pins? I guess it's possible, but I'm not exactly Joe
Coordination, and I've never bent a pin, or even felt in danger of
doing so.

I have to wonder if the smaller cards aren't just manufacturers
attempts to keep the market built up, to continue selling at higher
prices, and to sell new, but unneeded, products just because they're
new. In other words,what are the real advantages of SD and xD cards?
Are there any or are the just gimmicks?
July 17, 2005 6:12:47 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

> We have had cards in and out lord knows how many times, and
> never bent a pin.

Same here, using several different really cheap card readers etc. I wonder
if these morons are -forcing- the card in backwards? After seeing some
idiot somehow plug a firewire cable in backwards, I'll believe anything!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:33:53 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:05:22 -0400, "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>
>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:fmnjd1lcidpjb322uuc5dbeu24b5aphkso@4ax.com...
>> In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...
>
>Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
>
>

I've seen how SD cards mount in a Palm device, they are partially
exposed and can be "released" by accident. Do they mount differently
in cameras?
-Rich
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:57:26 AM

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

RichA wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:05:22 -0400, "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
>>
>> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:fmnjd1lcidpjb322uuc5dbeu24b5aphkso@4ax.com...
>>> In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.
>>>
>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...
>>
>> Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD
>> card.
>>
>>
>
> I've seen how SD cards mount in a Palm device, they are partially
> exposed and can be "released" by accident. Do they mount differently
> in cameras?
> -Rich

The SD would now be my choice. In cameras I've seen the mounting is quite
secure and not "partially exposed". The card is hidden behind a closed
door.

David
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 1:18:33 PM

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

A friend of mine bought A D70.

She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins. Nikon
repaired it for CAD$125, which I figure is very reasonable.

I like CF, and hope that it will continue to evolve for the next 10
years.

And although I really don't like microdrives, it is the format that is
most likely to have the greatest memory of all the tiny storage devices
for quite a while.

Cheers,
Alan
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 2:26:07 PM

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

We've been using CF cards in digital cameras for around five years and
have accumulated a fair variety of them, ranging in size from 32meg to
2gig. We've never had a single problem with any of them. As a guess,
I'd say there's about a dozen of them. I also have a 512meg SD card
used in in a backup camera which has caused no trouble in the two years
or so of use. As someone else said, we use a variety of card readers
and the one I've used for the last year or so is a very cheap 5 in one
1. From a personal experience standpoint, both formats suit us just
fine. What David says here makes sense about the probable better
reliability of the SD card. I can't see any big selling point for the
large storage sizes either, since I think it makes sense to have less
info on more cards in case of loss or failure. Another point I've
heard mentioned in the various forums is the fact that a 512 is ideal
because it fits on a CD.

Having said all that, I wonder how anybody could determine whether a
failure was the result of operator error or manufacturing defect over
the phone or via e-mail. I would surely think they'd require the
camera in hand to make that determination?

Kitt


SMS wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
> > Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
> > much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very small
> > pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher reliability
> > and ruggedness.
>
> It's a good theory, but in reality it's not the SD card that has the
> issue, it's the SD card slot in the camera. They use a mechanical
> switch, similar to what's in a cassette deck, to do write protect. This
> switch can get damaged, and make EVERY SD card unreadable because the
> camera thinks that the card is write-protected. You can just dump the
> camera if it's a P&S, but for a D-SLR, you're looking at an expensive
> repair.
>
> > There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
> > the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
> > could allow a greater capacity.
>
> In the higher capacity cards there is a big difference, at least
> percentage wise. I.e., I recently purchased a 2GB 50x CF card on sale at
> Fry's for $100. The 2GB SD cards don't go on sale for anything close to
> that, selling for around $180.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:28:42 PM

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

On 17 Jul 2005 09:18:33 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Alan
Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:

>A friend of mine bought A D70.
>
>She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins.

Not sure I understand what you mean by sideways. Do you mean 90 degrees
off? I don't see how if one takes 30 sec to familiarize themselves with
the D70, or a 990/5700 by my experience, how one could bend the pins.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:15:00 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:28:42 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 17 Jul 2005 09:18:33 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Alan
>Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A friend of mine bought A D70.
>>
>>She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins.
>
>Not sure I understand what you mean by sideways. Do you mean 90 degrees
>off? I don't see how if one takes 30 sec to familiarize themselves with
>the D70, or a 990/5700 by my experience, how one could bend the pins.

Everyone says this, until it happens to them. Just trust in the fact
it is happening.
-Rich
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:42:51 PM

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

DoN. Nichols wrote:
> In article <1121589027.986434.210600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Cockpit Colin wrote:
> >> > Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
> >>
> >> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
> >>
> >> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually cheaper
> >> for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means they can cram in
> >> more memory at the same density, for a higher-capacity product.
> >
> >CF cards now go up to 8MB. One MB cards are relatively cheap.
>
> I hope that you mean 8GB. My *smallest* (and oldest) CF card is
> 8MB. It came with the Nikon CoolPix 950, and quickly got replaced by
> cards which held more shots. :-)
>

Yup. Gigabyte. Eight. Hell, I just bought a 512 MB, and wish I'd bought
two, plus a two gig.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:58:52 PM

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

In article <sh1ld1ppnltkjti4r82btrah0r4o74i4gm@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2005 09:18:33 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Alan
>Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A friend of mine bought A D70.
>>
>>She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins.
>
>Not sure I understand what you mean by sideways. Do you mean 90 degrees
>off?

From checking with my D70, that would appear to be the only way
to get it far enough in to bend the pins. It is unfortunate that the CF
format is wider than it is long, so this is possible. Fully square
would be better, or longer than it is wide.

> I don't see how if one takes 30 sec to familiarize themselves with
>the D70, or a 990/5700 by my experience, how one could bend the pins.

If you don't know the camera, but have *any* feel for how things
should go, the looseness of how it drops in at 90 degrees should serve
as adequate warning.

And -- there is an image on the access door showing the proper
orientation, at least in part.

But -- if you *do* drop it in at 90 degrees, and then *press*
it, yes, I can see that bent pins would be very likely.

Note, having read the discussion on the web site whose pointer
started this discussion, I can see how the photo service could have
multiple readers with bent pins, for one simple reason exemplified by an
experience with the SCSI-II connector used by Sun.

One of the pins on a cable as part of a new system was bent.
When it was plugged into the mating female connector on the computer, it
broke the partition between two sockets, and laid it over at an angle.
Thereafter, any other cable plugged into the same socket would also get
a bent pin, and any socket into which those were plugged would get a
"deviated septum", so the problem would spread widely. (Now granted,
these were flat blade pins, and were bent in the "strong" direction.
I'm not sure what a bent round pin as is found in the CF sockets would
do.

Such a failure could just as easily propagate through all of the
customer-accessible CF sockets in a printing house.

I was able to fix all of the Sun equipment, starting with
fine-pointed needle-nose pliers to straighten the pins in the connectors
(which were rather accessible compared to a CF socket in a camera). I
then used a medium sized safety pin to stand the partitions up again,
and everything subsequently worked as intended.

For the pins in a camera's CF socket, I would have to make a
tool consisting of a small diameter rod with a hole just right to accept
a pin drilled in the end (a jeweler's lathe job). With that, it should
be possible to reach in, slide it over the bent pins (one at a time),
and straighten them to the proper position. However, if they are too
badly bent, an attempt to straighten the pin would be likely to break it
off at the molded base, and the whole camera would have to be
disassembled, and the connector replaced, which could be where the
rather high-sounding quotes are coming from.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 8:51:53 PM

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

In article <GboCe.71431$G8.42792@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:05:22 -0400, "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD
>>> card.

[ ... ]

>> I've seen how SD cards mount in a Palm device, they are partially
>> exposed and can be "released" by accident. Do they mount differently
>> in cameras?

>The SD would now be my choice. In cameras I've seen the mounting is quite
>secure and not "partially exposed". The card is hidden behind a closed
>door.

The same applies to every camera that I've used with the CF
cards. And, while I have ways to read CF cards in my Sun workstations,
I don't think that I have a way to read an SD card, if that is the one
which a friend has in his camera. I've not worked with anything but the
PCMCIA cards (and hard drives) and the CF cards, so I don't know the
various ones by sight.

O.K. Looking at the 4-in-1 PCMCIA adaptor, I see that three of
the four formats are SD, SmartMedia, and something whose logo looks like
either a 'W' under several lines, or an "M" over several lines. This
means that I should be able to read SD cards -- but my D70 won't use
them, so I see no need to change.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 8:53:15 PM

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

Ha, the best part of that thread was where they call the 8080 "pro level
gear."


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:fmnjd1lcidpjb322uuc5dbeu24b5aphkso@4ax.com...
> In favour of the xD, which is becomming more popular.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=10...
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 8:55:52 PM

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

In article <1121589027.986434.210600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Cockpit Colin wrote:
>> > Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
>>
>> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
>>
>> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually cheaper
>> for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means they can cram in
>> more memory at the same density, for a higher-capacity product.
>
>CF cards now go up to 8MB. One MB cards are relatively cheap.

I hope that you mean 8GB. My *smallest* (and oldest) CF card is
8MB. It came with the Nikon CoolPix 950, and quickly got replaced by
cards which held more shots. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:26:21 PM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:15:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:28:42 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 17 Jul 2005 09:18:33 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Alan
>>Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A friend of mine bought A D70.
>>>
>>>She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins.
>>
>>Not sure I understand what you mean by sideways. Do you mean 90 degrees
>>off? I don't see how if one takes 30 sec to familiarize themselves with
>>the D70, or a 990/5700 by my experience, how one could bend the pins.
>
>Everyone says this, until it happens to them. Just trust in the fact
>it is happening.

As does folks driving the wrong way on the interstate or filling their gas
tank with diesel. Neither which imply any design defect.

With all due respect to the OP and his wife, you can't legislate against
stupidity.

wrt the problem at hand, I've taken almost 18,000 shots between my
990/5700/D70. Using a card reader or portable storage unit at an average of
25 shots, that equates to (18,000/25) * 2 = 1440 insertions without a
problem. Each camera has a different insertion orientation/mechanism, but
it's quite evident which is the proper orientation, especially if one is
prudent trying to insert the card.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:33 PM

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

> Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.

Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?

We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually cheaper
for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means they can cram in
more memory at the same density, for a higher-capacity product.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:34 PM

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:
>> Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD
>> card.
>
> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
>
> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually
> cheaper for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means
> they can cram in more memory at the same density, for a
> higher-capacity product.

Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very small
pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher reliability
and ruggedness.

There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
could allow a greater capacity.

David
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:34 PM

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

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> writes:

> > Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD card.
>
> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
>
> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually cheaper
> for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means they can cram in
> more memory at the same density, for a higher-capacity product.

As long as you don't bend the pins in the camera, which I've seen several
people's postings complain about.

I do believe SD is now becoming the media of choice, except in the realm of
DSLRs, and even there, there are DSLRs that support SD, either alone or in
conjuction with CF.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:35 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
> much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very small
> pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher reliability
> and ruggedness.

It's a good theory, but in reality it's not the SD card that has the
issue, it's the SD card slot in the camera. They use a mechanical
switch, similar to what's in a cassette deck, to do write protect. This
switch can get damaged, and make EVERY SD card unreadable because the
camera thinks that the card is write-protected. You can just dump the
camera if it's a P&S, but for a D-SLR, you're looking at an expensive
repair.

> There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
> the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
> could allow a greater capacity.

In the higher capacity cards there is a big difference, at least
percentage wise. I.e., I recently purchased a 2GB 50x CF card on sale at
Fry's for $100. The 2GB SD cards don't go on sale for anything close to
that, selling for around $180.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:35 PM

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

In article <zIpCe.71475$G8.33729@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Cockpit Colin wrote:
>>> Why not the more common SD cards, rather than a semi-proprietary xD
>>> card.
>>
>> Why not good, old-fashioned CF cards?
>>
>> We don't NEED anything smaller - CF cards are very robust - usually
>> cheaper for the same capacity, and the larger physical format means
>> they can cram in more memory at the same density, for a
>> higher-capacity product.
>
>Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
>much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very small
>pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher reliability
>and ruggedness.

The fewer pins suggests that the SD cards are serial data
transfer, one bit at a time, so the speed is potentially much lower.
The CF cards transfer 8 bits in parallel, so they are potentially much
faster. (Assuming that you aren't limited by the speed of a slower USB
bus anyway. :-)

>There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
>the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
>could allow a greater capacity.

I like the form factor of the CF cards, and I think that I would
be uncomfortable with the SD cards -- even though I am good at detail
work. It just strikes me as being too easy to have it slip out of my
hands when shuffling them in the field.

And the CF cards have proven to be quite robust in unfriendly
environments. I don't like the exposed contacts on the surface of the
SD cards and similar. Far too easy to get a static zap into the card.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:36 PM

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

Siggy wrote:
> In news:qcuCe.4504$p%3.27422@typhoon.sonic.net,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> scwibbled:
>
>
>>It's a good theory, but in reality it's not the SD card that has the
>>issue, it's the SD card slot in the camera. They use a mechanical
>>switch, similar to what's in a cassette deck, to do write protect. This
>>switch can get damaged, and make EVERY SD card unreadable because the
>>camera thinks that the card is write-protected. You can just dump the
>>camera if it's a P&S, but for a D-SLR, you're looking at an expensive
>>repair.
>
>
> I am not aware that a WRITE(or Delete)-protect switch prevents READING the
> picture data off the card. Only in trying to WRITE/DELETE new image data
> does that become a problem if the switch goes faulty.

Yes, my mistake. I should have said make EVERY SD card _unwriteable_.
The camera is unusable, except for reviewing pictures already on the SD
card. Just saw a Usenet post about his happening. If you see one post
about something on Usenet, you can be pretty confident that the
problem's been seen pretty often by the non-Usenet world.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 11:56:37 PM

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

SMS wrote:
[]
> Yes, my mistake. I should have said make EVERY SD card _unwriteable_.
> The camera is unusable, except for reviewing pictures already on the
> SD card. Just saw a Usenet post about his happening. If you see one
> post about something on Usenet, you can be pretty confident that the
> problem's been seen pretty often by the non-Usenet world.

Just as we see postings about problems with CF cards where the pins have
been bent in the camera requiring an expensive repair. Both of these card
types can be abused, but I know which I now trust the more.

When I was looking at 1GB cards, 60X/66X speeds, I found the cost was very
similar.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:18:09 AM

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

On 17 Jul 2005 15:58:52 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

> If you don't know the camera, but have *any* feel for how things
>should go, the looseness of how it drops in at 90 degrees should serve
>as adequate warning.
>
> And -- there is an image on the access door showing the proper
>orientation, at least in part.
>
> But -- if you *do* drop it in at 90 degrees, and then *press*
>it, yes, I can see that bent pins would be very likely.

Most of the bent pins I have seen have come from photographers in too
much of a hurry when changing CF cards, shooting on assignment. If
they don't take the time to use a proper case and drop them into a
camera bag or pocket with the socket holes unprotected they can fill
with pocket lint or sand particles. If they then try and reinsert
them into the camera to download the images to a laptop...problems.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:17:41 AM

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

> I have to wonder if the smaller cards aren't just manufacturers
> attempts to keep the market built up, to continue selling at higher
> prices, and to sell new, but unneeded, products just because they're
> new. In other words,what are the real advantages of SD and xD cards?
> Are there any or are the just gimmicks?

I can see a use for, say, SD technology in such things as my PDA, but in SLR
cameras I just can't see the need. Some memory is so thin it's actually
quite scary taking it out of a camera :( 
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 2:16:43 AM

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

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:26:21 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:15:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA
><none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:28:42 -0400, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Jul 2005 09:18:33 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Alan
>>>Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A friend of mine bought A D70.
>>>>
>>>>She immediately put the card in sideways and bent a few pins.
>>>
>>>Not sure I understand what you mean by sideways. Do you mean 90 degrees
>>>off? I don't see how if one takes 30 sec to familiarize themselves with
>>>the D70, or a 990/5700 by my experience, how one could bend the pins.
>>
>>Everyone says this, until it happens to them. Just trust in the fact
>>it is happening.
>
>As does folks driving the wrong way on the interstate or filling their gas
>tank with diesel. Neither which imply any design defect.
>
>With all due respect to the OP and his wife, you can't legislate against
>stupidity.
>
>wrt the problem at hand, I've taken almost 18,000 shots between my
>990/5700/D70. Using a card reader or portable storage unit at an average of
>25 shots, that equates to (18,000/25) * 2 = 1440 insertions without a
>problem. Each camera has a different insertion orientation/mechanism, but
>it's quite evident which is the proper orientation, especially if one is
>prudent trying to insert the card.

You mean like, "not in a hurry" as a professional photographer might
be? The quote to fix a camera ($400 point and shoot) by the mfg. for
bent pins was $292.00. I guess you might look at it as a windfall for
the camera maker, but people with the problem are not likely to re-buy
from that mfg. when they hear the repair cost price.
-Rich
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 2:16:44 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:044md11c191654qrr4hj70h2ucsocgueef@4ax.com...

>
> You mean like, "not in a hurry" as a professional photographer might
> be? The quote to fix a camera ($400 point and shoot) by the mfg. for
> bent pins was $292.00. I guess you might look at it as a windfall for
> the camera maker, but people with the problem are not likely to re-buy
> from that mfg. when they hear the repair cost price.
> -Rich

When I change cards, believe me, I'm in a hurry! And, like I said, neither
my wife nor I have bent as much as a single pin on any of the card changes
we've done. I'm just not sure how it is done, unless the slots are too
large for the card, and allow a large degree of misalignment.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 3:26:55 AM

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

> Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
> much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very small
> pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher reliability
> and ruggedness.

Can't say I've EVER had a reliability issue with either formats.

>
> There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
> the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
> could allow a greater capacity.

Off the top of my head I think SD are up to 2GB and CF 8GB.
July 18, 2005 3:26:56 AM

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

It is much worse to lose 8 gig then 2 gig of information.
I think many photographers would rather split there work up to limit the
possiblity of loss of images to just one media.

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4grCe.1201$PL5.152221@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> Why? Because SD cards have many fewer contacts, and each contact has a
>> much larger area. The contacts are a wiping leaf rather than a very
>> small pin and socket, so an SD card has the potential for a higher
>> reliability and ruggedness.
>
> Can't say I've EVER had a reliability issue with either formats.
>
>>
>> There really is little difference in price, although you are right about
>> the greater volume which may help some people to handle CF cards, and
>> could allow a greater capacity.
>
> Off the top of my head I think SD are up to 2GB and CF 8GB.
>
>
July 18, 2005 3:37:50 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s7FCe.15178$HV1.11766@fed1read07...
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:044md11c191654qrr4hj70h2ucsocgueef@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> You mean like, "not in a hurry" as a professional photographer might
>> be? The quote to fix a camera ($400 point and shoot) by the mfg. for
>> bent pins was $292.00. I guess you might look at it as a windfall for
>> the camera maker, but people with the problem are not likely to re-buy
>> from that mfg. when they hear the repair cost price.
>> -Rich
>
> When I change cards, believe me, I'm in a hurry! And, like I said,
> neither my wife nor I have bent as much as a single pin on any of the card
> changes we've done. I'm just not sure how it is done, unless the slots
> are too large for the card, and allow a large degree of misalignment.
>
I have seen several digital cameras come in with bent CF slot pins, I agree
it takes a certain level of skill to do this, but I have seen it several
times. The Nikon Coolpix 5000 the card could be inserted wrong.
July 18, 2005 3:39:45 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:044md11c191654qrr4hj70h2ucsocgueef@4ax.com...
>
>
> You mean like, "not in a hurry" as a professional photographer might
> be? The quote to fix a camera ($400 point and shoot) by the mfg. for
> bent pins was $292.00. I guess you might look at it as a windfall for
> the camera maker, but people with the problem are not likely to re-buy
> from that mfg. when they hear the repair cost price.
> -Rich
>
All digital camera repairs are expensive, so it really doesn't matter what
camera you buy, you break it'll be expensive.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:37:55 AM

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

Yes 90 deg. Just reporting the facts. She did it. She paid for it.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 9:47:33 AM

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

People make mistakes. It happens. Maybe you've never made a mistake
about anything in your life. But that's statistically unlikely.

BTW: Wasn't my wife. I said a friend.
Oh! You made a mistake. Gee. Go figure.

She is also an excellent photographer, holds an MBA/finance and is
comptroller for a large city in Canada. So I don't think stupidity is
at the root of it.

Cheers,
Alan
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 10:54:17 AM

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

DoN. Nichols wrote:
[]
> O.K. Looking at the 4-in-1 PCMCIA adaptor, I see that three of
> the four formats are SD, SmartMedia, and something whose logo looks
> like
> either a 'W' under several lines, or an "M" over several lines. This
> means that I should be able to read SD cards -- but my D70 won't use
> them, so I see no need to change.

I don't think anyone would suggest you change or choose a camera purely on
the basis of card type (unless you had a compulsion to use Microdrives!).
Your next camera, though, or DSLR backup, may well be SD.

David
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:00:24 AM

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

DoN. Nichols wrote:
[]
> The fewer pins suggests that the SD cards are serial data
> transfer, one bit at a time, so the speed is potentially much lower.
> The CF cards transfer 8 bits in parallel, so they are potentially much
> faster. (Assuming that you aren't limited by the speed of a slower
> USB
> bus anyway. :-)

Yes, but today we have serial interfaces like USB 2.0 hi=speed, Firewire,
Serial ATA etc. which have data rates several times faster that any of
today's memory cards can handle, so being serial doesn't now worry me.


> I like the form factor of the CF cards, and I think that I would
> be uncomfortable with the SD cards -- even though I am good at detail
> work. It just strikes me as being too easy to have it slip out of my
> hands when shuffling them in the field.

Yes, I see what you mean, so it's great to have the choice.

> And the CF cards have proven to be quite robust in unfriendly
> environments. I don't like the exposed contacts on the surface of the
> SD cards and similar. Far too easy to get a static zap into the card.

I presume that the interface design will take this into account, just as
on chip-carrying smart credit cards etc.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 11:03:12 AM

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

McLeod wrote:
[]
> Most of the bent pins I have seen have come from photographers in too
> much of a hurry when changing CF cards, shooting on assignment. If
> they don't take the time to use a proper case and drop them into a
> camera bag or pocket with the socket holes unprotected they can fill
> with pocket lint or sand particles. If they then try and reinsert
> them into the camera to download the images to a laptop...problems.

What happened to the recommendation made to me coming from supposed
professionals: change cards in advance?

David
July 18, 2005 11:52:35 AM

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

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:tmICe.72045$G8.43323@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> DoN. Nichols wrote:
> []
>> O.K. Looking at the 4-in-1 PCMCIA adaptor, I see that three of
>> the four formats are SD, SmartMedia, and something whose logo looks
>> like
>> either a 'W' under several lines, or an "M" over several lines. This
>> means that I should be able to read SD cards -- but my D70 won't use
>> them, so I see no need to change.
>
> I don't think anyone would suggest you change or choose a camera purely on
> the basis of card type (unless you had a compulsion to use Microdrives!).
> Your next camera, though, or DSLR backup, may well be SD.
>
Oddly enough I see people coming in looking for cameras that accept
SmartMedia or CF cards. "I paid $80 for this card in 2003 and I want to use
it."
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:28:46 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> McLeod wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:03:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What happened to the recommendation made to me coming from supposed
> >> professionals: change cards in advance?
> >
> > In advance of what? The good shots you started getting, the action;
> > what?
>
> Presumably, the action? I'm just surprised that professionals would be
> changing cards in an excessive hurry, rather than ensuring they had plenty
> of spare space.
>
> David

Me, too. When I was shooting action stuff, the idea was always to have
a full roll of film in each camera at the start of the action, and
change during breaks of any kind. If you shot half a 36 exposure roll,
you pulled it and popped in a full 36. About the only time that didn't
apply was when you were shooting with a bulk back, but even there, with
a motor drive, it was often better to be safe than miss that one in
10,000 shot. Film is cheap compared to missing something that is one
time only! And for other stuff, film is cheap compared to reshoots.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 1:50:23 PM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:03:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>What happened to the recommendation made to me coming from supposed
>professionals: change cards in advance?

In advance of what? The good shots you started getting, the action;
what?
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:10:17 PM

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

Darrell wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:044md11c191654qrr4hj70h2ucsocgueef@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>You mean like, "not in a hurry" as a professional photographer might
>>be? The quote to fix a camera ($400 point and shoot) by the mfg. for
>>bent pins was $292.00. I guess you might look at it as a windfall for
>>the camera maker, but people with the problem are not likely to re-buy
>>from that mfg. when they hear the repair cost price.
>>-Rich
>>
>
> All digital camera repairs are expensive, so it really doesn't matter what
> camera you buy, you break it'll be expensive.
>
>
>

The other day I was at the local camera store when a fellow came in to
buy a Canon 1D MK2. He had bought a Nikon D2 about a 1-1/2 years ago and
while he was happy with the camera, there came a time when he said "the
fuse in the camera had blown and needed replacing." You fellows who know
the internal workings of the Nikon D2 would know something about this
fuse thing.

Blowing the fuse didn't bother him, he said, and it's not why he was
jumping from Nikon to Canon. Nikon wanted $850 to replace the fuse. He
said he told Nikon "he once was a Nikon camera repair technician and
could repair the camera if Nikon would just sell him the fuse." Nikon
refused to sell just the fuse, they wanted to replace the fuse board
assembly too, at a cost of $850. The man claimed replacing the entire
assembly wasn't necessary since he had taken apart the camera and can
clearly see a new fuse can replace the old fuse. Again Nikon refused to
sell just the fuse. That's what did the trick. In the heat of anger, he
decided to go Canon because "friends" have claimed to have little to no
problems with Canon."

I can't verify this story and I told it as it was told by the fellow.
Some of you fellows would know if it's BS or not.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:26:17 PM

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

Darrell wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> I don't think anyone would suggest you change or choose a camera
>> purely on the basis of card type (unless you had a compulsion to use
>> Microdrives!). Your next camera, though, or DSLR backup, may well be
>> SD.
> Oddly enough I see people coming in looking for cameras that accept
> SmartMedia or CF cards. "I paid $80 for this card in 2003 and I want
> to use it."

We have friends like that as well! I usually figure that if I'm buying a
new camera I'll need to get new storage with it.

David
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 6:05:40 PM

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

McLeod wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:03:12 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> What happened to the recommendation made to me coming from supposed
>> professionals: change cards in advance?
>
> In advance of what? The good shots you started getting, the action;
> what?

Presumably, the action? I'm just surprised that professionals would be
changing cards in an excessive hurry, rather than ensuring they had plenty
of spare space.

David
July 19, 2005 12:48:33 AM

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

In article <pLCdndi22JuWBUbfRVn-gg@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>Oddly enough I see people coming in looking for cameras that accept
>SmartMedia or CF cards. "I paid $80 for this card in 2003 and I want to use
>it."

I have a couple thousand bucks worth of CF cards. Both my cameras and
my audio recorder use them. I'm very happy with the situation.
I represent some kind of laughing stock to you because I have a
preferred standard storage medium, and a desire to continue using it?
July 19, 2005 1:12:11 AM

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

In article <LvWdnfvHyYU2kUHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
nick c <n-chen@cometcast.net> wrote:


What events conspire to cause a fuse to blow? What EE got paid a salary
to design such a nonservicable system?
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:12:12 AM

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

james wrote:
> In article <LvWdnfvHyYU2kUHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
> nick c <n-chen@cometcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> What events conspire to cause a fuse to blow? What EE got paid a salary
> to design such a nonservicable system?

From what I gleaned from the conversation, the system could be
serviceable, after all, the fellow was saying he (being a Nikon
repairman, at one time) could replace the blown fuse if Nikon would sell
him the fuse. Nikon would not sell him just the fuse and insisted the
entire assembly had to be replaced and Nikon said they would replace the
assembly if he wanted them to do the job. He asked for and got the
camera returned to him.

I just witnessed the conversation the fellow was having with the
salesman. I could see as the one sided conversation continued, the
fellow was getting himself worked up and I didn't feel it was a good
time to talk to him. He darn sure talked loud enough for people to know
he was pissed. When finished, he bought the Canon 1DMK2 with the Canon
28-135mm lens.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:50:36 AM

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

In message <1121690853.713997.122690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Alan Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote:

>She is also an excellent photographer, holds an MBA/finance and is
>comptroller for a large city in Canada. So I don't think stupidity is
>at the root of it.

I'm not saying this to say anything about your friend, but a job as
comptroller and an MBA in finance probably has almost no correlation to
technical/physical intelligence.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:32:25 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> james wrote:
> > In article <LvWdnfvHyYU2kUHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
> > nick c <n-chen@cometcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What events conspire to cause a fuse to blow? What EE got paid a
> > salary to design such a nonservicable system?
>
> I have doubts as to whether there ever /was/ a fuse. People would more
> likely use diodes for polarity protection. More likely the manufacturer
> didn't want someone without the proper training opening up the camera and,
> most likely, creating even more damage than already existed.
>

You may be right. But my problem, if any of the original story is true,
is the ownership of the camera. It quit belonging to Nikon in any
manner when the purchaser took it out of the dealer's door, or the
warranty expired, your choice. Thus, it is not Nikon's business how the
owner chooses to repair it, or have it repaired or what the result is.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 6:41:54 AM

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:52:14 -0700, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:

>james wrote:
>> In article <LvWdnfvHyYU2kUHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
>> nick c <n-chen@cometcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What events conspire to cause a fuse to blow? What EE got paid a salary
>> to design such a nonservicable system?
>
> From what I gleaned from the conversation, the system could be
>serviceable, after all, the fellow was saying he (being a Nikon
>repairman, at one time) could replace the blown fuse if Nikon would sell
>him the fuse. Nikon would not sell him just the fuse and insisted the
>entire assembly had to be replaced and Nikon said they would replace the
>assembly if he wanted them to do the job. He asked for and got the
>camera returned to him.
>
>I just witnessed the conversation the fellow was having with the
>salesman. I could see as the one sided conversation continued, the
>fellow was getting himself worked up and I didn't feel it was a good
>time to talk to him. He darn sure talked loud enough for people to know
>he was pissed. When finished, he bought the Canon 1DMK2 with the Canon
>28-135mm lens.

It's unlikely Nikon made the fuse. I'd have looked for the mfg.
My guess is it's by Raychem.
But I understand jumping to Canon.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:52:49 AM

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

james wrote:
> In article <LvWdnfvHyYU2kUHfRVn-qA@comcast.com>,
> nick c <n-chen@cometcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> What events conspire to cause a fuse to blow? What EE got paid a
> salary to design such a nonservicable system?

I have doubts as to whether there ever /was/ a fuse. People would more
likely use diodes for polarity protection. More likely the manufacturer
didn't want someone without the proper training opening up the camera and,
most likely, creating even more damage than already existed.

David
!