Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microdrive vs CF card

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 8:43:30 PM

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

Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
prices)?

What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
half of the capacity to cost even more?

Len

More about : microdrive card

Anonymous
September 26, 2005 8:43:31 PM

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

<lemax@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vmmgj1945gav40oi0ef6c75svnng1lus4i@4ax.com...
>
> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> prices)?
>
> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> half of the capacity to cost even more?
>

Simple. They're completely different media. Compact flash is still more
expensive to manufacture than harddrives.

Greg
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 12:53:51 AM

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

lemax@nospam.com wrote:

> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> prices)?
>
> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> half of the capacity to cost even more?

Just groups.Google.com in this NG for the answer.

In short: The price for a microdrive is lower as there is fear of buying
them because they are electromechnical and therefore more prone to failure.

People are willing to pay the premium for solid state because they don't
want failure and esp. the inconveniences that it represents.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
September 27, 2005 1:41:32 AM

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

Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory
(the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
So, it's your choice...


BTW, 12Mbytes/sec ~ 96Mbits/sec...

Arthur

lemax@nospam.com wrote:
> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> prices)?
>
> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> half of the capacity to cost even more?
>
> Len
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 1:41:33 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:41:32 GMT, Arthur <asinko@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
>drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory
>(the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
>the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
>So, it's your choice...
>

Oh, I see... Do you know if there is any data on the reliability of of
the microdrives? Basically how often do they break and how well can
they survive a "rough" handling? I assume that CF cards have no
problems at all... do they?
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 1:41:34 AM

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

<lemax@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1cugj1l40ah6qgp50i0i8qvo1at9hr1cpj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:41:32 GMT, Arthur <asinko@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
>>drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory
>>(the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
>>the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
>>So, it's your choice...
>>
>
> Oh, I see... Do you know if there is any data on the reliability of of
> the microdrives? Basically how often do they break and how well can
> they survive a "rough" handling? I assume that CF cards have no
> problems at all... do they?

Well, I've seen tests on CF cards where they run them through the wash and
drive trucks over them and they still work fine. I wouldn't want to do that
with a microdrive. Not that long ago the ONLY way to get a lot of megabytes
into your camera was with a microdrive, but that's changing. The less
moving parts the better, IMO.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 2:53:21 AM

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

From: <lemax@nospam.com>

|
| Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
| while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
| prices)?
|
| What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
| half of the capacity to cost even more?
|
| Len

Go with Compact Flash Flash RAM. MicroDrives are mechanical and suffer from G-force shock
and therefore have a much higher failure rate. They also consume more power and thus drain
the batter faster.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 3:03:19 AM

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:43:30 -0400, lemax@nospam.com wrote:

>
>Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
>while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
>prices)?
>
>What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
>half of the capacity to cost even more?

Drop that microdrive on a hard surface or try to use it above 10,000
feet and you'll know.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
September 27, 2005 3:19:34 AM

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

lemax@nospam.com wrote:

> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> prices)?
>
> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> half of the capacity to cost even more?
>
> Len

The CF card is all memory. Memory has always been more expensive per
unit of measure than hard-drives. Probably will always be, because they
continue to make advances in hard-drive technology at the same time
they'er advancing memory technology.

It's come down a lot if it's only twice as expensive (4GB [2x2GB] of CF
compared to 4GB microdrive).

A quick search turned up 1GB RAM for a computer at $79.95. The same
place had 250GB Seagate Barracuda drives for $69.99 after rebate.

The 4GB Lexar CF card (12MBps) was $429.99

And a search on-line turned up that 97MBps is a maximum burst rate. The
Sony microdrive has only 12.24 MBps sustained EXTERNAL transfer rate.
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:42:31 AM

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

In article <1cugj1l40ah6qgp50i0i8qvo1at9hr1cpj@4ax.com>,
lemax@nospam.com wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:41:32 GMT, Arthur <asinko@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
> >drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory
> >(the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
> >the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
> >So, it's your choice...
> >
>
> Oh, I see... Do you know if there is any data on the reliability of of
> the microdrives? Basically how often do they break and how well can
> they survive a "rough" handling? I assume that CF cards have no
> problems at all... do they?

Anything can fail given rough enough treatment, a CF is basically a
silicon wafer and consequently can be broken with high enough impact.
However given the bad rep Microdrives have I can't imagine using one
For jobs I am being paid for. Lexar and others have good reputations for
CF cards, its a given.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"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 27, 2005 7:25:10 AM

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

According to John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net>:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:43:30 -0400, lemax@nospam.com wrote:

[ ... ]

> >What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> >half of the capacity to cost even more?
>
> Drop that microdrive on a hard surface or try to use it above 10,000
> feet and you'll know.

Actually -- it will probably work in a jetliner at 10,000 feet
or higher -- as long as cabin pressure is fine. Let it get reduced by
an accident of some form, however, and you won't be able to make a
photographic record of it -- and you may damage the drive enough so
you'll have problems reading it later on.

The primary reason for the altitude limitation on hard disks is
that the heads are flying on a cushion of air above the rotating
surface. Let the air get thin enough, and the heads are dragging on the
surface of the disk platters, damaging both.

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 ---
September 27, 2005 12:20:11 PM

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

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:11jgqeiiq5a5pe8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <lemax@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vmmgj1945gav40oi0ef6c75svnng1lus4i@4ax.com...
>>
>> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
>> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
>> prices)?
>>
>> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
>> half of the capacity to cost even more?
>>
>
> Simple. They're completely different media. Compact flash is still more
> expensive to manufacture than harddrives.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
They are different technologies to be sure, but "buzz". Sorry, wrong answer
but
we do have a lovely parting gift for you. <VBG> Solid state flash memory IS
actually
cheaper to produce...the quick answer is that it is priced as it is because
they
can. Manufacturers of flash memory do not wish to see weekly price erosion
as in DRAMs (and to a lesser extent, SRAM). Currently, enough of the
purchasing
public perceives a huge (enough to support a 100% price differential)
advantage
to flash memory over microdrives. Microdrives initially had some problems
(it
IS very difficult to miniaturize mechanical assemblies and have them robust
for
what the average person will do to them) and the perception has persisted.
Mishandle either and it WILL fail. If you are ham-fisted, you probably
stand a
greater chance of damaging the alignment of your microdrive than you do
breaking
the die-bonding wires in a flash memory device (though I have seen a
technician
do this). If you think you'll be running your flash memory through the
washer and
dryer from forgetting it in your pocket, the flash should do better through
the washer
while the microdrive may do better in the dryer with a bunch of synthetic
fabrics (lower
heat but more static electricity). Of course, the microdrive will
eventually suffer from
mechanical wear (usually about 30,000 hours MTBF)...but then semiconductor
memory
gradually suffers from carrier migration (usually about 50,000 hours MTBF
from all
causes). The semiconductor memory is available in speeds faster than any
microdrive
and if you need the speed (i.e., sports, auto racing, etc.) then it is the
clear winner.

Some of the "tricks" to make either last longer:
1) do not put pressure on the "large" surfaces of either...you'll cause the
microdrive to
have alignment issues and risk breaking the bond wires of the flash memory
2) minimize the number of memory insertions/removals...barring mishandling,
THIS is
where you are most likely to experience a failure
3) NEVER store your MD/CF in your pocket...put it in something that you
don't wash
4) keep away from heat levels you wouldn't want to be in

George
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 12:58:47 PM

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

DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:

> The primary reason for the altitude limitation on hard disks is
> that the heads are flying on a cushion of air above the rotating
> surface. Let the air get thin enough, and the heads are dragging on the
> surface of the disk platters, damaging both.

Interesting. I've done shooting above 10,000 feet several times in the
past couple of years, and I'd never heard that microdrives had any
problem. Good thing I don't use them. :) 

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:24:06 PM

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

On 27 Sep 2005 03:25:10 GMT, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

>According to John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net>:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:43:30 -0400, lemax@nospam.com wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> >What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
>> >half of the capacity to cost even more?
>>
>> Drop that microdrive on a hard surface or try to use it above 10,000
>> feet and you'll know.
>
> Actually -- it will probably work in a jetliner at 10,000 feet
>or higher -- as long as cabin pressure is fine. Let it get reduced by
>an accident of some form, however, and you won't be able to make a
>photographic record of it -- and you may damage the drive enough so
>you'll have problems reading it later on.

I was thinking more on top of any one of the peaks in North America
that are over 10,000 feet not an airliner.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:27:43 PM

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

Ok, quite a case was presented in favor of the CF cards and against
being cheap. I am getting it now - figuratively and literally =-)

Thanks to all.

Len
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 4:35:38 PM

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Specs suggest that the microdrives should be pretty rugged if handled
> sensibly - just wondering if anyone has actually tried them?

I work in doing medical photographs, a friend had a microdrives because
that is the only thing the admin would let him buy, or the only way he
could get a gigabyte for the money he had to spend. The drive lasted 3
years until he dropped it, had no backup. He was out of business for a
couple of days, not good for the bottom line. But the microdrive did
last 3 years, and it was trauma that ended its life.

Tom
September 27, 2005 5:04:14 PM

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

<lemax@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o bsij15e1umn8coc5a4tb3iunk8dletekm@4ax.com...
>
> Ok, quite a case was presented in favor of the CF cards and against
> being cheap. I am getting it now - figuratively and literally =-)
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> Len

You must not have read my post...that wasn't my point. I use mostly
microdrives
with a few flash CF cards for occasions calling for them. Normally, I find
the
microdrives more convenient and like the fact that one 4GB drive is nearly
perfect for back up on a DVD. Other people may prefer swapping sixteen
256MB
cards over one 4GB drive (a sort of "diversification"), but your camera
still only
has ONE connector that you are wearing the gold off of (best case) so that
it is
susceptible to corrosion or bending the pins on (worst case).

The bottom line is that there are trade-offs with either...pick whatever
best suits
your needs.

George
September 27, 2005 5:06:24 PM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11ji2e74tp8a6aa@corp.supernews.com...
> DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> The primary reason for the altitude limitation on hard disks is
>> that the heads are flying on a cushion of air above the rotating
>> surface. Let the air get thin enough, and the heads are dragging on the
>> surface of the disk platters, damaging both.
>
> Interesting. I've done shooting above 10,000 feet several times in the
> past couple of years, and I'd never heard that microdrives had any
> problem. Good thing I don't use them. :) 
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

That argument doesn't make sense with sealed drives, but it did used to
be true with old removable platter drives.

George
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:55:51 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49eij11ksd0ch8crblv4kis4o0q1mv9pvt@4ax.com...
> On 27 Sep 2005 03:25:10 GMT, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
> wrote:
>
>>According to John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net>:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:43:30 -0400, lemax@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> >What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
>>> >half of the capacity to cost even more?
>>>
>>> Drop that microdrive on a hard surface or try to use it above 10,000
>>> feet and you'll know.
>>
>> Actually -- it will probably work in a jetliner at 10,000 feet
>>or higher -- as long as cabin pressure is fine. Let it get reduced by
>>an accident of some form, however, and you won't be able to make a
>>photographic record of it -- and you may damage the drive enough so
>>you'll have problems reading it later on.
>
> I was thinking more on top of any one of the peaks in North America
> that are over 10,000 feet not an airliner.
>

I shot my D70 with the 2GB Microdrive in Leadville CO (elevation 10,200')
and at the top of Independence Pass (over 12K feet) this summer with
absolutely no problems. I think that keeping the camera (and drive) warm
helps.

Norm
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 6:04:29 PM

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

<lemax@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vmmgj1945gav40oi0ef6c75svnng1lus4i@4ax.com...
>
> Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> prices)?
>
> What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> half of the capacity to cost even more?
>
> Len

Speed Differences
The CF card is Flash Memory. As with other non-volatile memory
technologies, writing requires significantly more time than reading it back.
In Flash, the writing voltages have to be maintained long enough to
(semi)permanently alter the state of the memory cell while with the
microdrive -- like any hard disk -- the writing is done at the rotational
speed of the platter(s).

Cost
As others have pointed out, even though it's significantly smaller than the
one(s) in your computer, the microdrive is just another hard drive and the
technology for manufacturing them is quite mature. Flash is newer and the
production yields from the wafer foundry aren't anywhere near the yields
from the HD platter coating machines.

Reliability and Ruggedness
Of course, the microdrive is a rotating machine and is obviously more
susceptible to damage than a solid integrated circuit, even with it's
internal wires from the circuit traces to the external contacts.

Supply and Demand
Most (semi)professional camera users know how poorly their camera equipment
is handled and prefer the ruggedness of the CF card but if you're careful,
the microdrive should last for years too.

Norm
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 1:49:13 AM

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

Specs suggest that the microdrives should be pretty rugged if handled
sensibly - just wondering if anyone has actually tried them?
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 1:49:14 AM

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

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

| Specs suggest that the microdrives should be pretty rugged if handled
| sensibly - just wondering if anyone has actually tried them?
|


Download the full messages, not just the headers, of all posted messages in this News Group.
You will find posts and replies of those who have experienced catastrophic failures of
MicroDrives.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 1:49:14 AM

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Specs suggest that the microdrives should be pretty rugged if handled
> sensibly - just wondering if anyone has actually tried them?

I've got two Hitachi 4 Gb Microdrives for my Maxxum 7D that I've used
for over ten months and 12,000 images. One time, the camera hiccupped
and scrambled one image; caught it at the time and reshot - no other
problems.

Bob ^,,^
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 1:49:15 AM

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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:06:27 -0700, "Bob Harrington"
<rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote:

>I've got two Hitachi 4 Gb Microdrives for my Maxxum 7D that I've used
>for over ten months and 12,000 images. One time, the camera hiccupped
>and scrambled one image; caught it at the time and reshot - no other
>problems.


It's possible that microdrives are better built than they used to be.
When the D1x came out we got 14 microdrives added as a bonus to the 14
cameras we ordered. They were brand name 1 GB microdrives. Four
years later can you guess how many microdrives are still working?
Zero. Do you know how many failed with irreplaceable images on them?
All of them.
We still have a drawer full of 4 MB compact flash cards that are
pretty much useless because they're too small for anything.
Anonymous
September 29, 2005 5:47:54 PM

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

From: "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid>

|
| Didn't find anything about a RECALL listed there, just a firmware update
| and the following information ...
|
| "Recent instances of lost images have been reported by customers using
| Lexar Professional 80x and other makes of CompactFlash cards in the
| Canon cameras listed above. Canon and Lexar both extensively test their
| products prior to release to ensure compatibility across product lines.
| In this instance, both companies investigated the occurrences and were
| able to identify the problem through extreme testing and found the
| reported problems to be rare and difficult to reproduce."
|
| Pertinent Facts:
| 1. Affects only the Canon cameras listed.
| 2. Canon AND Lexar BOTH extensively test ... prior to release ...
| 3. BOTH companies investigated ... extreme testing ... rare and
| difficult to reproduce.
| 4. Lexar is making arrangements to release a firmware update ...
| incorporating a correction to the problem with the Canon cameras listed
| above.
|
| Nothing made by the hand of man is perfect. What I see is a company
| willing to stand behind their product, and make it right when a defect
| does appear.
|
| OTOH, the Canon website just gives "Information Not Available".

There was a Lexar advisory notice posted on June 1, '05 on their web site.

The fix was a FirmWare update.

In reference to... "...the Canon website just gives "Information Not Available". "
I believe the URL had pointed back to Lexar with a model and version number information of
affected cards.

A search of this News Group found...

Subject: Lexar 80X data corruption problems with Canon DSLR's
Post Date: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:47 PM

"I've had the occational data corruption problems with my new Rebel XT with 2
of my 3 Lexar 80X CF cards, and have lost a number of images. It's good to
see that both Lexar and Canon have addressed the problems. Lexar has online
RMA form and hopefully Canon will soon release a firmware to fix the
problem. I've just completed the Lexar RMA form and now waiting from Lexar
to send me instructions on how to send the CF cards back to them, and they
will either send me new cards or update the firmware. I don't believe the
firmware are user-upgradeable. Here are the links:

http://www.lexar.com/support/cust_advisory.html

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052001canonlexarale...

http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2005/05/27/lexarc...

cheers,
Franco"


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Anonymous
September 30, 2005 2:26:09 AM

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

"Arthur" <asinko@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht news:gWZZe.4213$vw6.2759@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
> drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory

I have here a stack of microdrives, (brand Sinclair) and none of
them do have a drive inside. So the you can not see that from
the name microdrive.
(These Sinclair microdrives are from the early 80ties and where
mass storage devices of that time.).

ben

> (the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
> the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
> So, it's your choice...
>
>
> BTW, 12Mbytes/sec ~ 96Mbits/sec...
>
> Arthur
>
> lemax@nospam.com wrote:
> > Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> > while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> > prices)?
> >
> > What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> > half of the capacity to cost even more?
> >
> > Len
Anonymous
September 30, 2005 5:55:39 AM

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

According to no_name <no_name@no.where.invalid>:
> John A. Stovall wrote:

[ ... ]

> > Tell that to all of us who had 80x 1gig Lexar CF cards recalled. I'll
> > stick with SanDisk Extreme III's.
> >
> > http://www.lexar.com/support/cust_advisory.html
>
> Didn't find anything about a RECALL listed there, just a firmware update
> and the following information ...
>
> "Recent instances of lost images have been reported by customers using
> Lexar Professional 80x and other makes of CompactFlash cards in the

Note at the bottom of that section the following:

======================================================================
To update firmware on your card please visit our RMA page.
======================================================================

And clicking on that brings you to a list of the affected batch numbers
of the cards. (Neither of my 1GB 80X cards were on that list, and I
don't use a Cannon DSLR, so I had no problems.

> Pertinent Facts:
> 1. Affects only the Canon cameras listed.

There was a bug in the listed card batch numbers which
apparently could affect the use of the cards in other than Cannon
cameras -- it was just that some artifact of how Cannon accessed the
cards was far more likely to cause problems than any other combination.

> 4. Lexar is making arrangements to release a firmware update ...
> incorporating a correction to the problem with the Canon cameras listed
> above.

Thus the "RMA page" link.

> Nothing made by the hand of man is perfect. What I see is a company
> willing to stand behind their product, and make it right when a defect
> does appear.

I feel that Lexar did as well as they could under the
circumstances. I must admit to being pleased that I did not have to
send mine in, FWIW.

> OTOH, the Canon website just gives "Information Not Available".

They probably consider it a "solved problem" now.

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 ---
!