Old discussion, I know. But....CF vs. Microdrive

[fwhitesides]

I've read some threads here about CompactFalsh vs MicroDrive, but most of them seem to be quite old. I'd like to start a new dialog on the debate.

When I bought my DRebel last weekend, I also picked up a Sandisk Ultra 512mb CF card. It works great, but I really wonder about the alleged speed hit when switching to the MicroDrive. According to Sandisk, the write speed is around 9mb/s, whereas the MicroDrives are about 4mb/s. Given that the DRebel has a big buffer, will this difference in write speed make a noticeable difference in performance?

Most of what I shoot (and will shoot) will not make use of the 2.5fps capabilities of the camera. Considering that 99% of my pics will be shot slower than 1 fps, will using a MicroDrive hamper my shooting? I shoot primarily in RAW, but occasionally in Large/Fine JPEG.

I'd like to hear from folks who actually own and use MicroDrives to see what they say about reliability and performance, although everyone's input is welcome.

[David Wild]

I use a 1GB microdrive in by 10D, and have had no problems with it. I think, though, that now that CF cards have come down in price, I would have bought two 512MB cards instead - just to spread the load.

[iwatkins]

A while ago it was no contest. If you wanted large capacity you went with Microdrives.

But nowadays the price difference isn't so huge.

So you have to weigh up the supposed slower speeds with the Microdrives against the slightly higher cost of CF.

To me it is no contest. CF is solid state, less to go wrong, uses less power, faster (by all accounts) and possibly more reliable.

I actually don't want 2, 3 or 4GB of storage tied up in a single expensive card. I want several smaller ones.

Just my opinion.

Cheers

Ian

[defordphoto]

I have two 1Gb IBM micros and love them. They haven't even hicupped once. But, yes, I do know they will eventually, but so will (eventually) any CF card, though maybe not as quickly.

That being said I will be picking up 1Gb CF cards next time around now that the price has come down. When shooting sports I prefer 1Gb cards over 512's.

I, like many others, have no desire for anothing bigger than 1Gb cards. Of course now if I had a 1Ds, I'd be singing a different tune.

[fwhitesides]

iwatkins wrote:
But nowadays the price difference isn't so huge.It seems like a big gap to me. I just checked one site that had a 2gb CF card for $549 and a 2.2gb MD for $214. Also they listed a 1gb CF card for $249 and a 1gb MD for $174 (not including a $20 rebate). I call that a big difference, especially on the 2gb cards. I'm not made of money, so to me, the choice is going to have to be the MD. (Here's the link to the site, by the way: http://www.flash-memory-store.com/cf.html ).

I've poked around on the web and seen a 2gb CF card for $459, but that's still way more than the MD. Do you really think there is THAT MUCH difference in performance to justify the extra money? Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places for cheap prices.

[defordphoto]

Yikes! You're right. Been awhile since I have shopped. The price point at 1Gb is less extreme, but still significant:

1Gb Hitachi MD: $139
1Gb Ridata CF: $239 (Pro 40/52X Card)

So, even though that's not the best comparison -- best would be the cheaper and slower Viking cards -- MD's are still a good buy and they do NOT fail as often as some people say, but you do need to be a little more gentle with them.

[CyberDyneSystems]

With CF cards available for $200.00 or less (rght now a Viking 1 gig is $159.00 with rebate) I personally will stick with solid state memory over moving parts.

RE: 2.2 gig Microdrives

DON"T get it if it is anything other than IBM/Hitachi.

The other brands are "MAgicstor" and they are trash.

[defordphoto]

I would love to have a couple of those Ridata 40/52's! Yummy!

[fwhitesides]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
The other brands are "MAgicstor" and they are trash.Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

Actually, I just saw something that might work for me. It's one of those portable storage devices that has a HD built in. This one also plays MP3s, and you can get it without a drive so you can install your own (and maybe save some cash):
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/insidecomputer/xprowi8icare.html

The reason I want big time storage is because I'm going to Germany (and a few other countries) this summer and I don't want to have to take my laptop. A handheld portable HD will do the trick.

[CyberDyneSystems]

That is a great solution,. there is a thread in here about the X-drive which is an early no frills portable battery operated hard drive with card slots.. it has been a great solution to the issue you mention.

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11563

X-drive thread... :)

[RichardtheSane]

Microdrives are much less tolerant to shocks.
I wouldn't like to trust a MD after I have dropped, wheras CF would survive - it is lighter too so doesn't fall as hard.
I have a 1gb MB as my current largest card and I would say I don't use it often :)

[fwhitesides]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11563

X-drive thread... :)Thanks Cyber! I'll probably pick up another 512mb CF card (bringing my total to 2) and an X-Drive for the trip to Europe. I really want to be able to shoot everything in RAW, and I can't afford to buy several 2GB CF cards.

[SWPhotoImaging]

I have owned a 1GB IBM microdrive since I first bought my Canon S40 in 2002. The IBM Microdrive has been completely dependable, never causing me any problem. I carried it in my S40 on several cross-country motorcycle rides.

I now own a 10D, and have invested in two 1GB CF cards, since technology has made flash memory so much more affordable.

Here are my observations:

In a side-by-side test, I have timed the following operations.

Using a 9-shot (full-buffer) continuous shooting mode, with the same low-contrast scene, the three memory cards turned in the following times between last shutter click and final write (write light went out).

Sandisk Ultra-II 1GB CF card - 20 seconds

Lexar 1GB 40x CF card - 22 seconds

IBM 1GB Microdrive - 23 seconds

I have however observed that in actual shooting situations, with larger images, the IBM drive is significantly slower to finish writing between shots than either of the flash cards is. If I can set up a real-world outdoor test sht that will remain consistant long enough,maybe I can provide actual measurements as to how much slower the microdrive is. It seems to methat I have observed times that are as much as twice as long to complete writing in very-large (raw) file shooting situations.

Just my $0.02 . . .

[motophoto]

ive been a fan of solid state (non-micro drive) since a little mishap with gravity.

the solid state cards stand up to a little more abuse since there is less that can break.

[imago57]

I own both Microdrive (1Gb) and CF card and I see a serious difference in write/read speed. Once your buffer is full it takes a lot longer to the microdrive to show you the images on the panel than the CF. Also, if you are planning on using a portable drive to download your images from your cards be aware of the extra usage of power of the microdrive vs. the CF card.

[chris.bailey]

I had nothing but trouble with Microdrives and lost a load of holiday snaps as a result. As a result I now have 4 Sandisk 512mb cards and a Flashdisk which is a great solution. MD's also use a fair bit more battery power.

[SWPhotoImaging]

Battery usage was a major problm for me in the S40. On long trips, I wouldn't even use the MD, due to the battery drain. In my 10D, with the dual-battery BG-ED3, I don't think it's all that noticable, but the slow write time did make me stop using it.

Cometo thinkof it,I never use it for actually taking pictures anymore . . . . Anyone in the market for a IBM 1G MD in excellent condition?

[CyberDyneSystems]

RichardtheSane wrote:
Microdrives are much less tolerant to shocks.
I wouldn't like to trust a MD after I have dropped, wheras CF would survive - it is lighter too so doesn't fall as hard.
I have a 1gb MB as my current largest card and I would say I don't use it often :)

I actually dropped my 512 Viking CF card at the shore.. it fell about 6 feet.. bounced off a rock... and landed in salt water.

This was in July.

I still use that card regularly!

Now,. I'm not saying that EVERY CF card will survive EVERY bad fall like the one I had... but I just can't imagine a microdrive surviving without divine intervention.

[2new]

I have owned an IBM Microdrive for more than 20 months and have never had a problem. With the larger capacity I rarely, if ever, have to take it out of the camera in a shooting situation. The only shock I need to concerned with, is if I drop the camera and then the MD will not be my biggest concern. The write speeds of my Microdrive surpass many of the older CF cards. That being said, I am waiting for some updated ‘write performance tests’ using a 300D and the higher speed CF cards that are available today. If the prices keep dropping on the CF cards I will get a 1GB CF card down the road.


http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/

[jazt]

I have owned a IBM 1G for 30 month's. At the time the $/per KB was a better value. It has never failed.

I recently bought a 512MB Ultra 30X Transcend which works fine. I compared these with others that my friends use. In simple stop watch comparisons I found most of the CF cards performed within 5-10% of each other.

The bottleneck appears to be the Canon 10D. So, purchase of 40X or CA cards is not worth it.

Below is a link to Rob Galbraiths CF performance database. He has a very extensive comparision.

In summary, today, I would by 512KB (2 or more) cards because they are $/per KB a better value. This gives you the flexibility of multiple cards, and the saftery of a second card if one fails or is lost.


http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

CompactFlash Performance Database

Friday, November 28, 2003 | by Rob Galbraith


..."The CompactFlash Performance Database is a regularly-updated compilation of write and read speed test results, vendor information and technical background designed to aid the serious and professional photographer in selecting camera storage media for a pro digital SLR.

Currently, 48 CompactFlash cards are benchmarked in the database, from 13 different vendors. Most of these cards have been tested in 15 different cameras (subject to the availability of cards and cameras simultaneously). Links to the write speed test results for each camera are in the popup menu above; important background information is found below...."

[CyberDyneSystems]

Jazt,

My findings have been the same re: CF card performance,.

Although I did not compare a Microdrive at the time,. I did a side by side of three cards (buried somewhere in this forum) Incluidng a Sandisk "Standard" a Viking 512 "standard speed" and a Transcend 30X speed.

The test did indeed show that the difference was only about 15% speed advantage given to the transcend that claims a speed advantage of 3,000% (30X100%)

The 15% was measuerd after a burst of 9 RAW files.. which would equal only a 1.6% increase in data transfer rate per shot.

[fwhitesides]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I actually dropped my 512 Viking CF card at the shore.. it fell about 6 feet.. bounced off a rock... and landed in salt water.
At the shore? I take it you are in NJ?

[2new]

jazt - thanks for the link! Great site for CF card data.