Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Herb Chong]

i never found the wakeup time signficant compared to the write time. Rob's 
site had the *istD tests for about 3 or 4 months before putting it into the 
archive and not updating it for new media.


Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


I found that the *ist D takes noticeably longer to wake up using a MD. The 
Rob

Galbraith tests whilst useful don't take this into account and they don't
include Pentax DSLRs in their tests from recollection?

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[P. J. Alling]

Actually I'm still using it.

Rob Studdert wrote:


On 25 May 2005 at 1:27, P. J. Alling wrote:

 


Maybe, maybe not...

http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/cfcardassnack.html
   



But did it still work?

http://www.sandisk.com/pressrelease/20040823.htm

:-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998


 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?



Hah! :)

I've taken a liking to several Italian Pinot Grigios.  On a hot summer 
evening, very well chilled, with some fresh blueberries and some Blueberry 
Stilton cheese... friends from Canada that never come to visit, I have 
rarely enjoyed anything more.


Give me a break, Man who doesn't wave when passing his friends at the Nakusp 
Esso parking lot.


William Robb 

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Christian]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This one did:
>
> 

Wow...  and I thought having one of my CF cards go through the washing
machine and still working was impressive

Christian

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Cotty]

On 25/5/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I've taken a liking to several Italian Pinot Grigios.  On a hot summer 
>evening, very well chilled, with some fresh blueberries and some Blueberry 
>Stilton cheese... friends from Canada that never come to visit, I have 
>rarely enjoyed anything more.

Snap. Very well chilled ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

Hah! :)

I've taken a liking to several Italian Pinot Grigios.  On a hot summer 
evening, very well chilled, with some fresh blueberries and some Blueberry 
Stilton cheese... friends from Canada that never come to visit, I have 
rarely enjoyed anything more.


Tom C.




From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:23:04 -0600


- Original Message - From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


I'm not arguing that if price were no consideration and that if CF and 
microdrives were equal or close in price, I'd buy CF.  It's the fact that 
their is currently a large disparity in the higher capacity cards/drives 
that makes microdrives attractive.




I'm not arguing price consideration at all.
If you were saying French or California or Oregon wine, I'd be with you all 
the way.


William Robb

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


I'm not arguing that if price were no consideration and that if CF and 
microdrives were equal or close in price, I'd buy CF.  It's the fact that 
their is currently a large disparity in the higher capacity cards/drives 
that makes microdrives attractive.




I'm not arguing price consideration at all.
If you were saying French or California or Oregon wine, I'd be with you all 
the way.


William Robb

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

While only anecdotal,  My 3 year old 1GB microdrive has not been babied for 
the most part.  It was in a PDA in my laptop bag.  Car trunk was near packed 
with the computer bag on top.  Slammed trunk shut.  Retrieved PDA later.  
LCD was cracked and it was inoperable.  Microdrive still functions 
flawlessly and was used to restore new PDA of same model .


Tom C.




From: Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Tom C 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:55:30 +0200

Hello,

I think MDs can be pretty tough - friend has the first 1GB version from
IBM, purchased when it came out, and it still works after two DSLRs in
PJ environment. I think most HDDs have heads that automatically park in 
emergency

position when there is power interruption, and once that happened to
him. Thanks to this list we got a quick help, and the drive is still
working flawlessly.

With todays' DSLRs, 4GB-6GB cards are minimum for RAW files from e.g. D2X
or 1DSII, and the Pentax's upcoming 645D as well. Last time I checked,
the price difference in these sizes was more like 300$ MD compared to
600-900$ for the CF. And the drives are evolving similarly fast as
solid stage.

So in my opinion, they are a valid option.

Good light!
   fra

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

I'm not arguing that if price were no consideration and that if CF and 
microdrives were equal or close in price, I'd buy CF.  It's the fact that 
their is currently a large disparity in the higher capacity cards/drives 
that makes microdrives attractive.




Tom C.




From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:58:06 -0600


- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: CF card: normal or 
Microdrive?




I'm not buying the wine as an investment though...

I'm buying it as an ingestment...


You'd still be better off with a CF card instead.

William Robb

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Frantisek]

Hello,

I think MDs can be pretty tough - friend has the first 1GB version from
IBM, purchased when it came out, and it still works after two DSLRs in
PJ environment. I think most HDDs have heads that automatically park in 
emergency
position when there is power interruption, and once that happened to
him. Thanks to this list we got a quick help, and the drive is still
working flawlessly.

With todays' DSLRs, 4GB-6GB cards are minimum for RAW files from e.g. D2X
or 1DSII, and the Pentax's upcoming 645D as well. Last time I checked,
the price difference in these sizes was more like 300$ MD compared to
600-900$ for the CF. And the drives are evolving similarly fast as
solid stage.

So in my opinion, they are a valid option.

Good light!
   fra

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Mark Roberts]

John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I'm considering buying a 2GB CF card now that prices have dropped.

Here's the last one I bought:
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=82239


-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Cotty]

>> Maybe, maybe not...
>> 
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/cfcardassnack.html
>
>But did it still work?
>
>http://www.sandisk.com/pressrelease/20040823.htm





This one did:






Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Cotty]

On 24/5/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:

>
>I'm considering buying a 2GB CF card now that prices have dropped.
> 
>B&H offer me:
> 
>  Sandisk   $146.95
>  Sandisk Ultra II (60x)$179.95
>  Sandisk Extreme   $199.95
>  Sandisk Extreme III   $219.95
>
>Adorama also have:
>
>  Delkin Pro$199.95
>  Lexar (80x WA)$209.95
>
>
>Does anyone have any recommendations (for or against?)
>
>Will the Ultra II be faster than the basic Sandisk?

I have a 2 gig Lexar 80x  and no problems to report at all. Worked
flawlessly despite:



I would buy again.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Thibouille]

You know the highest point in Belgium is 694 meters or 2277 feet if
I'm not mistaken.
Netherlands is even worse: 322.5 meters :)

2005/5/25, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Haven't read that cute article, but have been in Kansas. Looks flat, but that 
> is illusion. Get out of your car and walk about some. Quit a bit of up and 
> down there. Also the western end is a bit higher than the eastern end, only 
> about 3000 feet however (750/3750). I believe the hightest point in Kansas is 
> about 4000 ASL, so you should have no problem with that microdrive.
> 
> 
> 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
> 
> 
> P. J. Alling wrote:
> > Better than Kansas which is flatter than a pancake...
> >
> > http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
> >
> > Thibouille wrote:
> >
> >> Well, actually not.
> >> Belgium is as flat as 40mm pancake :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thibouille
> >> --
> >> Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
> >>
> >>
> >> 2005/5/24, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know
> >>> about the
> >>> limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
> >>> take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
> >>> that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
> >>> part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
> >>> Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a
> >>> heads-up
> >>> if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
> >>> problem with my posting the information.
> >>>
> >>> Shel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> [Original Message]
> >>>> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>
> >>>> So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> equate
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> with 'don't work well'.
> >>>>
> >>>> For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom C.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>>>> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>>>> Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >>>>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> altitudes,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> above 9,000 feet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From IBM:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
> >>>>> 10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
> >>>>> pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
> >>>>> altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air
> >>>>> molecules
> >>>>> needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing
> >>>>> Surface
> >>>>> (NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> (as
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head
> >>>>> damages the
> >>>>> media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
> >>>>> equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to
> >>>>> maintain the
> >>>>> same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> can tolerate pressure differences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for
> >>>>> operating
> >>>>> altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shel
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Thibouille
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I guess normal is:
> >>>>>>> * faster ?
> >>>>>>> * less power consumption
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> while Microdrive is:
> >>>>>>> * cheaper :D
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> >>>>>>> it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005
> 
> 


-- 
--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 25 May 2005 at 1:27, P. J. Alling wrote:

> Maybe, maybe not...
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/cfcardassnack.html

But did it still work?

http://www.sandisk.com/pressrelease/20040823.htm

:-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[P. J. Alling]

Maybe, maybe not...

http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/cfcardassnack.html

William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: CF card: 
normal or Microdrive?




I'm not buying the wine as an investment though...

I'm buying it as an ingestment...



You'd still be better off with a CF card instead.

William Robb





--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Graywolf]

Haven't read that cute article, but have been in Kansas. Looks flat, but that 
is illusion. Get out of your car and walk about some. Quit a bit of up and down 
there. Also the western end is a bit higher than the eastern end, only about 
3000 feet however (750/3750). I believe the hightest point in Kansas is about 
4000 ASL, so you should have no problem with that microdrive.



graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


P. J. Alling wrote:

Better than Kansas which is flatter than a pancake...

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Thibouille wrote:


Well, actually not.
Belgium is as flat as 40mm pancake :)

--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...


2005/5/24, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 

Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know 
about the

limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a 
heads-up

if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
problem with my posting the information.

Shel

  


[Original Message]
From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not



equate
  


with 'don't work well'.

For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.

Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml

Tom C.






From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700

Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
  


altitudes,
  


above 9,000 feet.

  
From IBM:





"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air 
molecules
needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing 
Surface

(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
  


(as
  

is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head 
damages the

media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to 
maintain the
same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers 
that

can tolerate pressure differences.

The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for 
operating

altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "

Shel


  


From: Thibouille
  
I guess normal is:

* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
  


  


  




 







--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?




I'm not buying the wine as an investment though...

I'm buying it as an ingestment...


You'd still be better off with a CF card instead.

William Robb

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 22:15, Herb Chong wrote:

> according to Rob Galbraith, the *istD is equally fast with high speed solid
> state and Microdrive cards and limited by the relatively slow performance of 
> the
> drive controller in the camera. i don't know if the *istDS is the same.

I found that the *ist D takes noticeably longer to wake up using a MD. The Rob 
Galbraith tests whilst useful don't take this into account and they don't 
include Pentax DSLRs in their tests from recollection?


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[E.R.N. Reed]

Herb Chong wrote:

1G in RAW mode isn't enough for a good hour of shooting. 


Surely that depends on what you are shooting?
(since "what" will influence "how fast")
Also will depend on your shooting style.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Herb Chong]

the Ultra cards are significantly faster than the ordinary Sandisk cards. 
although i use Microdrives most of the time, when it's cold out, i have a 
set of Sandisk Extreme III cards.


Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?



 Sandisk   $146.95
 Sandisk Ultra II (60x)$179.95
 Sandisk Extreme   $199.95
 Sandisk Extreme III   $219.95

Adorama also have:

 Delkin Pro$199.95
 Lexar (80x WA)$209.95

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Herb Chong]

1G in RAW mode isn't enough for a good hour of shooting.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


I agree at the 1GB point, but compare at the 4GB capacity and microdrives 
are significantly less.  I'm taking some long trips where I want more 
storage than 1GB so I don't have to manage alot of CF's.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Herb Chong]

faster cards are much faster on a Firewire CF reader. i use the newest Lexar 
one. easily twice as fast as a USB 2.0 High Speed one.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


I'm not sure that a high speed card is even necessary for transferring to 
the computer. The camera doesn't actually take much advantage of it.  I 
use a USB 2.0 hub and my not particularly special Lexar 1gig card takes 
about 2 minutes to xfer to the computer.  If you can fill up another card 
in that amount of time you have serious issues, (and something other than 
a *ist-D/Ds).

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Herb Chong]

according to Rob Galbraith, the *istD is equally fast with high speed solid 
state and Microdrive cards and limited by the relatively slow performance of 
the drive controller in the camera. i don't know if the *istDS is the same.


Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?


In my opinion the price difference more than outweighs any performance 
concerns.  As far as reliability, I've had no problems with my microdrive.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 19:54, Tom C wrote:

> I guess that's where I differ.  I'm betting it won't fail and that if it 
> did, it's just as likely that it would fail on the 1st shot or the 50th, as on
> the 280th (the number of raw shots I figure I can store).

OK, my card is usually at least at a GB before I pull it out, usually two.

> Actually I'm betting that were it to fail, only a small percentage of the 
> shots would have been keepers to begin with. :)

Har, that I can't help you with.

> I go against the grain a little maybe.  I almost never remove the CF from 
> the camera and I transfer the images using the USB cable.  About the only 
> time I switch cards is if one fills up and I'm not near the PC.  My handling 
> of
> the storage device itself is pretty minimal.

Have you got the *ist D or DS? I find dragging 4GB off the *ist D using the USB 
cable is worse than poking yourself in the eye with a stick (well maybe not 
quite). My PC has a card reader so I pop the card out and read it at full USB2 
speed, I'm always popping my cards in and out of the camera and often in less 
than optimal conditions in the field hence my concern regarding MD robustness.

> That certainly may be true.  I factor in the risks that exist if I were 
> shooting film most of the time, not the least of which in my case has been
> losing exposed rolls, having a jam occur, having the pressure plate roller
> scratch the film, having the lab lose the film, or inadvertently opening the
> back.

I'm so glad that I don't have to deal with these type of problems so often 
these days. If I do shoot film it's either B&W which I process or 120 slide 
which I get D&D processed and stipulate "no cut". For my practical experience 
with digital image making (over 20k shots) I expect that the chance of damage 
or failure is at least two orders of magnitude better than film for the same 
number of exposures.

> Not trying to convert you Rob... just a little good natured discussion.  If 
> MD's
> and CF were the same price I'd go with the CF, no doubt about it, but for half
> the price I'll take my chances with a microdrive.

No problems, the way that you intend to use it I can't see any insurmountable 
hurdles but I've been there and I'm just keen to cite the reasons why I gave it 
up as a bad idea. IMO the more discussion the more ammo other people have to 
help decide if it's the right thing for them too.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 21:20, John Francis wrote:

> 
> I'm considering buying a 2GB CF card now that prices have dropped.
> 
> B&H offer me:
> 
>   Sandisk   $146.95
>   Sandisk Ultra II (60x)$179.95
>   Sandisk Extreme   $199.95
>   Sandisk Extreme III   $219.95
> 
> Adorama also have:
> 
>   Delkin Pro$199.95
>   Lexar (80x WA)$209.95
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any recommendations (for or against?)
> 
> Will the Ultra II be faster than the basic Sandisk?

I doubt it, not at least until Pentax come out with an updated body, not that 
we know if that would even use CF :-(

I've been using a combination of Sandisk Ultra and Ridata 52x cards and there 
is no discernible difference in performance. I've had a few Ridata cards and 
they've been very reliable, their current 2GB Gold Pro II 80X card retails at 
AU$255 + AU$26 DHL Delivery to the US (so all up about US$213.50 at todays 
exchange rate).

Got to the shopping trolley at http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au/ if you are 
interested.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




The cost difference to me in like paying once off insurance, 4GB sure holds 
a
lot of images, I'd be rather irritated if I lost that many in one hit in 
the

case of a failure.



I guess that's where I differ.  I'm betting it won't fail and that if it 
did, it's just as likely that it would fail on the 1st shot or the 50th, as 
on the 280th (the number of raw shots I figure I can store).


Actually I'm betting that were it to fail, only a small percentage of the 
shots would have been keepers to begin with. :)




Your watch has moving parts yes but it has no where near the precision 
required
to cram 4GB on a single platter and it likely won't suffer deleteriously 
from a
decent jarring shock. What was trying to get at is that small and fragile 
is a
bad combination, I agree if MDs are handled carefully they shouldn't fail 
due

to mechanical stress however it's really easy to mishandle CF cards, this I
have first hand experience with.



I go against the grain a little maybe.  I almost never remove the CF from 
the camera and I transfer the images using the USB cable.  About the only 
time I switch cards is if one fills up and I'm not near the PC.  My handling 
of the storage device itself is pretty minimal.




Because people have asked for it and the companies making the devices see
potential for sales and profit, neither scenario necessarily indicates that
it's actually a good idea for the consumer?



That certainly may be true.  I factor in the risks that exist if I were 
shooting film most of the time, not the least of which in my case has been 
losing exposed rolls, having a jam occur, having the pressure plate roller 
scratch the film, having the lab lose the film, or inadvertently opening the 
back.


Not trying to convert you Rob... just a little good natured discussion.  If 
MD's and CF were the same price I'd go with the CF, no doubt about it, but 
for half the price I'll take my chances with a microdrive.


Tom C.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 5/24/2005 6:21:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will the Ultra II be faster than the basic Sandisk?

Yes. I have two Ultra II cards. I like them. But I haven't tried the other 
ones in your list.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[John Francis]

I'm considering buying a 2GB CF card now that prices have dropped.
 
B&H offer me:
 
  Sandisk   $146.95
  Sandisk Ultra II (60x)$179.95
  Sandisk Extreme   $199.95
  Sandisk Extreme III   $219.95

Adorama also have:

  Delkin Pro$199.95
  Lexar (80x WA)$209.95


Does anyone have any recommendations (for or against?)

Will the Ultra II be faster than the basic Sandisk?

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 17:51, Tom C wrote:

> What I've attempted to say is that, if one wants to save a fair amount of 
> money over a larger size compact flash, a microdrive is a viable 
> alternative.

I agree, it's an alternative.

> All things considered, if I can save $150 - $200 by purchasing a 4GB 
> microdrive instead of a 4GB CF, then I have that much to spend on something
> else, like another lens, or even a second microdrive.

The cost difference to me in like paying once off insurance, 4GB sure holds a 
lot of images, I'd be rather irritated if I lost that many in one hit in the 
case of a failure.

> I'm not arguing for microdrives and against CF.  My watch has moving parts as
> well, lots of things have moving parts.  Whether a microdrive is more reliable
> than a compact flash is likely more a factor of how it's cared for and the
> particular unit that arrived at my door.  I may buy a microdrive tomorrow that
> breaks a month from now, or it may never break and will become obsolete long
> before it matters.

Your watch has moving parts yes but it has no where near the precision required 
to cram 4GB on a single platter and it likely won't suffer deleteriously from a 
decent jarring shock. What was trying to get at is that small and fragile is a 
bad combination, I agree if MDs are handled carefully they shouldn't fail due 
to mechanical stress however it's really easy to mishandle CF cards, this I 
have first hand experience with.

> I'm only pointing out the obvious, that microdrives are made to work with 
> DLSR's and DLSR's are made to work with microdrives, and the price 
> difference for larger capacities is still significant enough to make me 
> ponder.

Because people have asked for it and the companies making the devices see 
potential for sales and profit, neither scenario necessarily indicates that 
it's actually a good idea for the consumer?

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[P. J. Alling]

Better than Kansas which is flatter than a pancake...

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Thibouille wrote:


Well, actually not.
Belgium is as flat as 40mm pancake :)

--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...


2005/5/24, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 


Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know about the
limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a heads-up
if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
problem with my posting the information.

Shel

   


[Original Message]
From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 


So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not
 


equate
   


with 'don't work well'.

For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.

Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml

Tom C.



 


From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700

Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
   


altitudes,
   


above 9,000 feet.

   


From IBM:
 


"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing Surface
(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
   


(as
   


is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages the
media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain the
same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers that
can tolerate pressure differences.

The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for operating
altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "

Shel


   


From: Thibouille
   


I guess normal is:
* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
   

   

   




 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

Dyslexia's setting in.  I obviously meant DSLR... :(

Tom C.






I'm only pointing out the obvious, that microdrives are made to work with 
DLSR's and DLSR's are made to work with microdrives, and the price 
difference for larger capacities is still significant enough to make me 
ponder.


Tom C.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

What I've attempted to say is that, if one wants to save a fair amount of 
money over a larger size compact flash, a microdrive is a viable 
alternative.


All things considered, if I can save $150 - $200 by purchasing a 4GB 
microdrive instead of a 4GB CF, then I have that much to spend on something 
else, like another lens, or even a second microdrive.


I'm not arguing for microdrives and against CF.  My watch has moving parts 
as well, lots of things have moving parts.  Whether a microdrive is more 
reliable than a compact flash is likely more a factor of how it's cared for 
and the particular unit that arrived at my door.  I may buy a microdrive 
tomorrow that breaks a month from now, or it may never break and will become 
obsolete long before it matters.


I'm only pointing out the obvious, that microdrives are made to work with 
DLSR's and DLSR's are made to work with microdrives, and the price 
difference for larger capacities is still significant enough to make me 
ponder.


Tom C.




From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Tom C 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:30:22 -0700

Guess I should interject - Until fairly recently I had only been using
CF cards.  Three Lexar 512mb 40X WA, One Kingston 1mb (slow) and one
Dane Elec 512mb (slow).  I picked up a new 4gb Hitachi microdrive
(latest version) and have done quite a bit of shooting (6000 or so)
with all of them.  I am shooting raw and so write speed is of concern.
For all of this, I have been shooting baseball games (as league action
photographer) and only shooting raw.  Full buffers are of some issue
to me.  In testing all the cards, I have found that there is no write
speed difference in the *istD when writing out raw to card with full
buffer between the Lexar 40x cards and the microdrive.  Battery life
seems a bit shorter, but not by that much - certainly not enough to
bother me.  The two slow cards are almost unusable for me as the shot
to shot time on a full buffer is about 5-6 seconds slower than the 40x
cards and microdrive.

All that being said, I am seeing the price of the microdrives being
about 2 times cheaper.  It is still a viable alternative, but not
quite as compelling as in the past.

I still need CF cards as my CompactDrive won't allow me to download a
microdrive to it.  So once it is full, I am done with that card until
I can dump it on a computer.  With the regular compactflash cards, I
can dump them to the CompactDrive and start shooting again.

--
Best regards,
Bruce

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Bruce Dayton]

Guess I should interject - Until fairly recently I had only been using
CF cards.  Three Lexar 512mb 40X WA, One Kingston 1mb (slow) and one
Dane Elec 512mb (slow).  I picked up a new 4gb Hitachi microdrive
(latest version) and have done quite a bit of shooting (6000 or so)
with all of them.  I am shooting raw and so write speed is of concern.
For all of this, I have been shooting baseball games (as league action
photographer) and only shooting raw.  Full buffers are of some issue
to me.  In testing all the cards, I have found that there is no write
speed difference in the *istD when writing out raw to card with full
buffer between the Lexar 40x cards and the microdrive.  Battery life
seems a bit shorter, but not by that much - certainly not enough to
bother me.  The two slow cards are almost unusable for me as the shot
to shot time on a full buffer is about 5-6 seconds slower than the 40x
cards and microdrive.

All that being said, I am seeing the price of the microdrives being
about 2 times cheaper.  It is still a viable alternative, but not
quite as compelling as in the past.

I still need CF cards as my CompactDrive won't allow me to download a
microdrive to it.  So once it is full, I am done with that card until
I can dump it on a computer.  With the regular compactflash cards, I
can dump them to the CompactDrive and start shooting again.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 4:12:16 PM, you wrote:

TC> Hi Rob,

TC> But for the larger sizes, microdrives are 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of CF.

TC> I don't care that a microdrive may be a second or so slower than a CF card.
TC> It's usually many seconds or minutes before I'm taking the next shot.  With
TC> the *ist D's small buffer, if I was shooting in rapid succession, I'd fill
TC> up the buffer and be waiting awhile anyway, to get the next shot off.

TC> I haven't noticed a huge battery drain with a microdrive... I haven't paid
TC> much attention, but I would think that the power drain would need to be
TC> significant for a casual observer to notice it.

TC> I've had the 1GB microdrive for 3+ years.  Never a problem.   I carry
TC> laptops on a daily basis and with their huge hard drives, have only had 1
TC> fail once in 7 years.

TC> The microdrives are, IMO, an inexpensive, well engineered device, that are
TC> good for their intended purpose.  It's not like using CF is a guarantee
TC> against disaster, and using a microdrive is asking for it.

TC> I might not advocate using microdrives exclusively, but having a couple as
TC> inexpensive alternatives to CF is not a bad way to go.

TC> Tom C.



>>From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
>>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:50:46 +1000
>>
>>On 24 May 2005 at 16:50, Thibouille wrote:
>>
>> > I guess normal is:
>> > * faster ?
>> > * less power consumption
>> >
>> > while Microdrive is:
>> > * cheaper :D
>> >
>> > While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
>> > it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
>>
>>I just rid myself of a 4GB Microdrive, though I never had problems with it
>>I
>>could see the day fast approaching. MDs really chew into battery power in
>>the
>>camera and external battery powered storage devices, they are a bit slow to
>>start up and slower than solid state memory to R/W (noticeable in camera,
>>*ist
>>D).
>>
>>The fact that they are a small mechanical device that is prone to damage by
>>sloppy handling and such high capacity is an eventual recipe for disaster.
>>I'm
>>ploughing the money back into solid state cards which I have never had a
>>problem with and which I have occasionally unintentionally mishandled. The
>>advantage in cost/GB isn't worth it from my experience.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Rob Studdert
>>HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
>>Tel +61-2-9554-4110
>>UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
>>Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>>

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 17:12, Tom C wrote:

> Hi Rob,
> 
> But for the larger sizes, microdrives are 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of CF.

Not now, check prices, 1/2 where I buy, the peace of mind is worth it.

> I don't care that a microdrive may be a second or so slower than a CF card. 
> It's usually many seconds or minutes before I'm taking the next shot.  With 
> the
> *ist D's small buffer, if I was shooting in rapid succession, I'd fill up the
> buffer and be waiting awhile anyway, to get the next shot off.

The buffer takes quite a bit longer to empty to the MD, I've never really 
noticed a difference between SS CF cards but the MD I did.

> I haven't noticed a huge battery drain with a microdrive... I haven't paid 
> much
> attention, but I would think that the power drain would need to be significant
> for a casual observer to notice it.

I used to get half the transfer capacity in the field using my X-S Drive, MD 
use quite a lot more power than SS CF cards.

> I've had the 1GB microdrive for 3+ years.  Never a problem.   I carry 
> laptops on a daily basis and with their huge hard drives, have only had 1 
> fail once in 7 years.

The difference between the drive in your lap-top is that it is mechanically 
isolated to a far larger extent, same as my 80GB drive in my external storage 
unit. Something relatively hugh and expensive is far less likely to be 
inadvertently mishandled. I've had quite a few occasions where I've lost grip 
on my CF cards and they've slapped on the table or fallen to the ground in a 
bumping crowd, they have survived and I have complete confidence in them. If a 
MD had have been inadvertently subjected to the same mistreatment I'm sure it 
would have been toast.

> The microdrives are, IMO, an inexpensive, well engineered device, that are 
> good
> for their intended purpose.  It's not like using CF is a guarantee against
> disaster, and using a microdrive is asking for it.

Built into a bigger device I can see the advantage but used as a removable card 
I can't justify using one.

> I might not advocate using microdrives exclusively, but having a couple as
> inexpensive alternatives to CF is not a bad way to go.

I'll be fine from now on with 2 x 2GB SS CF cards and my 80GB drive, no stress.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

Hi Rob,

But for the larger sizes, microdrives are 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of CF.

I don't care that a microdrive may be a second or so slower than a CF card.  
It's usually many seconds or minutes before I'm taking the next shot.  With 
the *ist D's small buffer, if I was shooting in rapid succession, I'd fill 
up the buffer and be waiting awhile anyway, to get the next shot off.


I haven't noticed a huge battery drain with a microdrive... I haven't paid 
much attention, but I would think that the power drain would need to be 
significant for a casual observer to notice it.


I've had the 1GB microdrive for 3+ years.  Never a problem.   I carry 
laptops on a daily basis and with their huge hard drives, have only had 1 
fail once in 7 years.


The microdrives are, IMO, an inexpensive, well engineered device, that are 
good for their intended purpose.  It's not like using CF is a guarantee 
against disaster, and using a microdrive is asking for it.


I might not advocate using microdrives exclusively, but having a couple as 
inexpensive alternatives to CF is not a bad way to go.


Tom C.




From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:50:46 +1000

On 24 May 2005 at 16:50, Thibouille wrote:

> I guess normal is:
> * faster ?
> * less power consumption
>
> while Microdrive is:
> * cheaper :D
>
> While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

I just rid myself of a 4GB Microdrive, though I never had problems with it 
I
could see the day fast approaching. MDs really chew into battery power in 
the

camera and external battery powered storage devices, they are a bit slow to
start up and slower than solid state memory to R/W (noticeable in camera, 
*ist

D).

The fact that they are a small mechanical device that is prone to damage by
sloppy handling and such high capacity is an eventual recipe for disaster. 
I'm

ploughing the money back into solid state cards which I have never had a
problem with and which I have occasionally unintentionally mishandled. The
advantage in cost/GB isn't worth it from my experience.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Rob Studdert]

On 24 May 2005 at 16:50, Thibouille wrote:

> I guess normal is:
> * faster ?
> * less power consumption
> 
> while Microdrive is:
> * cheaper :D
> 
> While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

I just rid myself of a 4GB Microdrive, though I never had problems with it I 
could see the day fast approaching. MDs really chew into battery power in the 
camera and external battery powered storage devices, they are a bit slow to 
start up and slower than solid state memory to R/W (noticeable in camera, *ist 
D). 

The fact that they are a small mechanical device that is prone to damage by 
sloppy handling and such high capacity is an eventual recipe for disaster. I'm 
ploughing the money back into solid state cards which I have never had a 
problem with and which I have occasionally unintentionally mishandled. The 
advantage in cost/GB isn't worth it from my experience.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

I'm not buying the wine as an investment though...

I'm buying it as an ingestment...

Tom C.




From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:55:33 -0600


- Original Message - From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?





In my case, saving money on a 4GB microdrive (only $160)... 4 1GB CF crads 
would be $250-$280, a 4GB flash is $400+.  Buys a few bottles of Italian 
wine.




If you are buying Italian wine, I suggest the 1gig CF cards are a better 
investment


William Robb

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?





In my case, saving money on a 4GB microdrive (only $160)... 4 1GB CF crads 
would be $250-$280, a 4GB flash is $400+.  Buys a few bottles of Italian 
wine.




If you are buying Italian wine, I suggest the 1gig CF cards are a better 
investment


William Robb 

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Thibouille]

Well, actually not.
Belgium is as flat as 40mm pancake :)

--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...


2005/5/24, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know about the
> limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
> take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
> that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
> part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
> Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a heads-up
> if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
> problem with my posting the information.
> 
> Shel
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not
> equate
> > with 'don't work well'.
> >
> > For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> > >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700
> > >
> > >Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
> altitudes,
> > >above 9,000 feet.
> > >
> > >From IBM:
> > >
> > >"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
> > >10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
> > >pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
> > >altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
> > >needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing Surface
> > >(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
> (as
> > >is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages the
> > >media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
> > >equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain the
> > >same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers that
> > >can tolerate pressure differences.
> > >
> > >The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for operating
> > >altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "
> > >
> > >Shel
> > >
> > >
> > > > >From: Thibouille
> > >
> > > > >I guess normal is:
> > > > >* faster ?
> > > > >* less power consumption
> > > > >
> > > > >while Microdrive is:
> > > > >* cheaper :D
> > > > >
> > > > >While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> > > > >it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

And you can tell by how poorly I composed the last paragraph that a few more 
bottles of Italian wine is exactly what I need.


Tom C.






In my case, saving money on a 4GB microdrive (only $160)... 4 1GB CF crads 
would be $250-$280, a 4GB flash is $400+.  Buys a few bottles of Italian 
wine.



Tom C.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Mark Roberts]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>I just worry about putting all my eggs in one basket. I wouldn't 
>want a 4 gig CF card either, although I think CF is less likely 
>to fail than a microdrive. I carry 4 1 gig cards and 3 half gig cards. 
>They'll fit in a pocket. I don't feel encumbered. And
> should one fail, I won't lose all my work. 

My carry-around kit consists of one 2-gig card and two 1-gig cards. I
bought my last 2-gig high speed card for about $150.00.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

I agree in principle, and I plan on emptying the 4GB daily or more often if 
I fill it up sooner.  I, like most people, tend to split the finest of hairs 
on things like this and then split them again. I'm trying to become less 
like myself. :)


There's no guarantees.  With film, it could be bad (out of my control), it 
could be processed wrong (out of my control), the camera could malfunction 
(out of my control).  I see the same situation with digital.  With CF or 
microdrives, either could give up the ghost with no or little warning.


In my case, saving money on a 4GB microdrive (only $160)... 4 1GB CF crads 
would be $250-$280, a 4GB flash is $400+.  Buys a few bottles of Italian 
wine.



Tom C.




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:40:24 +

I just worry about putting all my eggs in one basket. I wouldn't want a 4 
gig CF card either, although I think CF is less likely to fail than a 
microdrive. I carry 4 1 gig cards and 3 half gig cards. They'll fit in a 
pocket. I don't feel encumbered. And should one fail, I won't lose all my 
work. I also take my I-book on trips and location shoots and download the 
cards as soon as possible.

Paul


> I agree at the 1GB point, but compare at the 4GB capacity and 
microdrives

> are significantly less.  I'm taking some long trips where I want more
> storage than 1GB so I don't have to manage alot of CF's.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:48:37 +
> >
> >With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, I can't think 
of

> >any good reason to go with a microdrive. The fewer moving parts, the
> >better.
> >Paul
> >
> >
> > > Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high 
altitudes=,

> >not
> > > that they don't work well.
> > >
> > > Glad we cleared that up.
> > >
> > > Shel
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: 
> > > > Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> > > >
> > > > Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a
> >blanket
> > > > statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a
> > > misleading
> > > > assertion.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[pnstenquist]

I just worry about putting all my eggs in one basket. I wouldn't want a 4 gig 
CF card either, although I think CF is less likely to fail than a microdrive. I 
carry 4 1 gig cards and 3 half gig cards. They'll fit in a pocket. I don't feel 
encumbered. And should one fail, I won't lose all my work. I also take my 
I-book on trips and location shoots and download the cards as soon as possible.
Paul


> I agree at the 1GB point, but compare at the 4GB capacity and microdrives 
> are significantly less.  I'm taking some long trips where I want more 
> storage than 1GB so I don't have to manage alot of CF's.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:48:37 +
> >
> >With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, I can't think of 
> >any good reason to go with a microdrive. The fewer moving parts, the 
> >better.
> >Paul
> >
> >
> > > Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high altitudes=, 
> >not
> > > that they don't work well.
> > >
> > > Glad we cleared that up.
> > >
> > > Shel
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: 
> > > > Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> > > >
> > > > Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a 
> >blanket
> > > > statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a
> > > misleading
> > > > assertion.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

I agree at the 1GB point, but compare at the 4GB capacity and microdrives 
are significantly less.  I'm taking some long trips where I want more 
storage than 1GB so I don't have to manage alot of CF's.


Tom C.




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:48:37 +

With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, I can't think of 
any good reason to go with a microdrive. The fewer moving parts, the 
better.

Paul


> Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high altitudes=, 
not

> that they don't work well.
>
> Glad we cleared that up.
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM
> > Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >
> > Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a 
blanket

> > statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a
> misleading
> > assertion.
>
>

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Shel Belinkoff]

For those who might be interested, this page has a breakaway photo of the
drive, as well as other information.  Kind of interesting if you've never
seen the inside of one of these puppies ;-))

http://www.steves-digicams.com/microdrive.html

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, 
> I can't think of any good reason to go with a microdrive. 
> The fewer moving parts, the better.

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!


I guess normal is:
* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?


I've got 2 1GB Sandisk Ultra II cards... They work just fine. I bought 
them for $140 (2 * 70) back when I got my *istD... Been a happy chap 
ever since...


Boris

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[pnstenquist]

With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, I can't think of any 
good reason to go with a microdrive. The fewer moving parts, the better.
Paul


> Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high altitudes=, not
> that they don't work well.
> 
> Glad we cleared that up.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM
> > Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >
> > Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a blanket 
> > statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a
> misleading 
> > assertion.
> 
> 

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high altitudes=, not
that they don't work well.

Glad we cleared that up.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM
> Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
>
> Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a blanket 
> statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a
misleading 
> assertion.

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

Not a problem at all Shel.  It's just that you started out with a blanket 
statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a misleading 
assertion.


For many people they work just fine.  It is good to know their altitude 
limitations, as you said.  I don't work as well at 10,000 ft either.


It's the same specification as for computers and laptop PC's in general, 
most any device containing a hard drive.


Tom C.




From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:39:03 -0700

Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know about the
limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a heads-up
if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
problem with my posting the information.

Shel


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not
equate
> with 'don't work well'.
>
> For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700
> >
> >Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
altitudes,
> >above 9,000 feet.
> >
> >From IBM:
> >
> >"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
> >10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
> >pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
> >altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
> >needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing 
Surface

> >(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
(as
> >is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages 
the

> >media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
> >equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain 
the
> >same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers 
that

> >can tolerate pressure differences.
> >
> >The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for 
operating

> >altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "
> >
> >Shel
> >
> >
> > > >From: Thibouille
> >
> > > >I guess normal is:
> > > >* faster ?
> > > >* less power consumption
> > > >
> > > >while Microdrive is:
> > > >* cheaper :D
> > > >
> > > >While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or 
is

> > > >it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
> >
> >
>

Re: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[P. J. Alling]

I'm not sure that a high speed card is even necessary for transferring 
to the computer. The camera doesn't actually take much advantage of it.  
I use a USB 2.0 hub and my not particularly special Lexar 1gig card 
takes about 2 minutes to xfer to the computer.  If you can fill up 
another card in that amount of time you have serious issues, (and 
something other than a *ist-D/Ds).


Thibouille wrote:


I guess normal is:
* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...


 




--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Which was exactly the point of the post.  Some people don't know about the
limitations of the drives, and many people who live at lower elevations
take trips and vacations into the mountains.  In many parts of the world
that means elevations above 9000 feet.  Just driving around the western
part of the US puts you at higher elevations frequently.  I believe
Thibouille lives in or near a mountainous area and the post was a heads-up
if he does and is considering using a microdrive.  You seem to have a
problem with my posting the information.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not
equate 
> with 'don't work well'.
>
> For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
> >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700
> >
> >Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high
altitudes,
> >above 9,000 feet.
> >
> >From IBM:
> >
> >"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
> >10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
> >pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
> >altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
> >needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing Surface
> >(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered
(as
> >is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages the
> >media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
> >equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain the
> >same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers that
> >can tolerate pressure differences.
> >
> >The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for operating
> >altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "
> >
> >Shel
> >
> >
> > > >From: Thibouille
> >
> > > >I guess normal is:
> > > >* faster ?
> > > >* less power consumption
> > > >
> > > >while Microdrive is:
> > > >* cheaper :D
> > > >
> > > >While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> > > >it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
> >
> >
>

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

So don't use it in those applications... that specification does not equate 
with 'don't work well'.


For you who lives essentially at sea level, it wouldn't be a problem.

Luminous Landscape has an article regarding microdrive usage.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/4gb-hitachi.shtml

Tom C.




From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:47:13 -0700

Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high altitudes,
above 9,000 feet.

From IBM:

"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing Surface
(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered (as
is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages the
media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain the
same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers that
can tolerate pressure differences.

The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for operating
altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "

Shel


> >From: Thibouille

> >I guess normal is:
> >* faster ?
> >* less power consumption
> >
> >while Microdrive is:
> >* cheaper :D
> >
> >While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> >it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Microdrives don't work well, and may even fail to work, at high altitudes,
above 9,000 feet.

>From IBM:

"The Microdrive does need "AIR" to float the heads and typically above
10,000 ft the mass of the air is too low and the drive requires a
pressurized environment similar to an aircraft or spacecraft. At high
altitude the air bearings begin to loose support from the air molecules
needed to provide the "air bearing" for the Negative Air Bearing Surface
(NABS) design of the head. If this "air bearing" is removed or lowered (as
is the case with low density air at high altitudes) the head damages the
media and you could have loss of data. The drive is vented to maintain
equal pressure inside and outside to provide the air and to maintain the
same pressure. This eliminates the need for sealed and rigid covers that
can tolerate pressure differences.
 
The OEM Functional specification defines the warranty range for operating
altitude as 3,000 M or 9,000 ft (3ft/M) "

Shel 


> >From: Thibouille

> >I guess normal is:
> >* faster ?
> >* less power consumption
> >
> >while Microdrive is:
> >* cheaper :D
> >
> >While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
> >it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Tom C]

I use both 1GB Flash and 1GB microdrives.  I find no important noticeable 
difference in performance.  I just bought a 4GB microdrive for $160.  Have 
not put in camera yet.


In my opinion the price difference more than outweighs any performance 
concerns.  As far as reliability, I've had no problems with my microdrive.


Tom C.




From: Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: CF card: normal or Microdrive?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:50:33 +0200

I guess normal is:
* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?

--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...

CF card: normal or Microdrive?

[Thibouille]

I guess normal is:
* faster ?
* less power consumption

while Microdrive is:
* cheaper :D

While I'm at it, does High Speed card really matter in a D/Ds? Or is
it only useful when reading back in a card reader on the Computer?
 
--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...