www.jr.com
www.computers4sure.com
Lexar 1GB 40X WA ( MarkII ) and Sandisk UltraII 1GB (10D)
Regards,
Scott
scottbergerphoto Cream of the Crop  5,429 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA More info | Jul 26, 2004 19:57 | #16 www.jr.com One World, One Voice Against Terror,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jon Cream of the Crop  69,628 posts Likes: 227 Joined Jun 2004 Location: Bethesda, MD USA More info | Jul 27, 2004 06:38 | #17 MTAtech wrote: The microdrives are unreliable. They break if dropped. The pressure of aircraft ruin them too. Most anything will break if dropped hard enough. Microdrives take a very hard fall before they'll break. If they're in the camera, the microdrive will be the least of your worries. And current microdrives rated MTAtech wrote: The speed is important (and there isn't much of a premium for that speed). The camera buffers a limited number of pictures that could inhibit multiple consecutive shots. Speed may be a factor in some cameras but I have not seen any performance difference on my D60 between microdrives, "regular" CF cards, and high-speed CF cards. Once the buffer's filled, it'll just keep trucking along at 1 fps essentially forever, until I run out of storage, or the battery dies.If you have any concrete examples to the contrary, please share them. Jon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MTAtech Member 99 posts Joined Jul 2004 Location: Long Island, NY More info | Jul 27, 2004 06:57 | #18 Jon wrote: MTAtech wrote: The microdrives are unreliable. They break if dropped. The pressure of aircraft ruin them too. Most anything will break if dropped hard enough. Microdrives take a very hard fall before they'll break.. According to http://www.pcphotoreview.com/memoryguidecrx.aspx MicroDrives have a reputation for being delicate and unreliable. They are more prone to failure since they have moving parts that can wear, or be damaged. But when handled normally and not abused, they are very reliable. Because of their moving parts, MicroDrives use more battery power than flash memory. And compared to new, high-speed CompactFlash cards, MicroDrive seek and write times are fairly slow. But if you need Gigs of cheap digital camera memory, MicroDrives are still the most bang-for-the-buck. 60D, Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 20-40 2.8 DG and remembers when ISO was ASA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
scottbergerphoto Cream of the Crop 5,429 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jun 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA More info | Jul 27, 2004 06:58 | #19 Murph7355 wrote: scottbergerphoto wrote: www.jr.com www.computers4sure.com Lexar 1GB 40X WA ( MarkII ) and Sandisk UltraII 1GB (10D) Regards, Scott Scott I don't know. They are just slightly slower then the Sandisk Extreme and Ultra II's and I got a really good price on them with no tax or shipping from www.computers4sure.com One World, One Voice Against Terror,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jon Cream of the Crop 69,628 posts Likes: 227 Joined Jun 2004 Location: Bethesda, MD USA More info | Jul 27, 2004 07:10 | #20 MTAtech wrote: Jon wrote: MTAtech wrote: The microdrives are unreliable. They break if dropped. The pressure of aircraft ruin them too. Most anything will break if dropped hard enough. Microdrives take a very hard fall before they'll break.. According to http://www.pcphotoreview.com/memoryguidecrx.aspx MicroDrives have a reputation for being delicate and unreliable. They are more prone to failure since they have moving parts that can wear, or be damaged. But when handled normally and not abused, they are very reliable. Because of their moving parts, MicroDrives use more battery power than flash memory. And compared to new, high-speed CompactFlash cards, MicroDrive seek and write times are fairly slow. But if you need Gigs of cheap digital camera memory, MicroDrives are still the most bang-for-the-buck. ". . . have a reputation . . ." Any hard facts on current models? The same applies to write times - how do they perform in specific cameras relative to other media? When I'm taking pictures, I'm not concerned with theoretical laboratory results; I want to know what's going to happen with my camera. Jon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Boosting1Bar Senior Member 713 posts Joined Feb 2004 Location: Florida More info | Jul 27, 2004 07:31 | #21 I have a Sandisk UltraII 1gb, an UltraII 256mb, and a regular Sandisk 512mb card. I notice a significant difference in buffer clearing times with the UltraIIs as opposed to the regular card. If you think you're going to use the burst mode of the camera even once it's worth it in my opinion to get the faster card. Regards,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MTAtech Member 99 posts Joined Jul 2004 Location: Long Island, NY More info | Jul 27, 2004 07:41 | #22 That is an excellent example. My major point was, why argue about this? The cost difference between the regular Compact flash and the Ultra II is so minimal that it isn't worth discusing. 60D, Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 20-40 2.8 DG and remembers when ISO was ASA
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nosquare2003 Senior Member 861 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2003 Location: Hong Kong, China More info | Jul 27, 2004 07:43 | #23 Jon wrote: MTAtech wrote: The microdrives are unreliable. They break if dropped. The pressure of aircraft ruin them too. Most anything will break if dropped hard enough. Microdrives take a very hard fall before they'll break. If they're in the camera, the microdrive will be the least of your worries. And current microdrives rated MTAtech wrote: The speed is important (and there isn't much of a premium for that speed). The camera buffers a limited number of pictures that could inhibit multiple consecutive shots. Speed may be a factor in some cameras but I have not seen any performance difference on my D60 between microdrives, "regular" CF cards, and high-speed CF cards. Once the buffer's filled, it'll just keep trucking along at 1 fps essentially forever, until I run out of storage, or the battery dies.If you have any concrete examples to the contrary, please share them. Jon, I've used Microdrive for 2 years and I agree with you.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CyberDyneSystems Admin (type T-2000)  More info | Jul 27, 2004 11:18 | #24 scottbergerphoto wrote: Murph7355 wrote: scottbergerphoto wrote: www.jr.com www.computers4sure.com Lexar 1GB 40X WA ( MarkII ) and Sandisk UltraII 1GB (10D) Regards, Scott Scott I don't know. They are just slightly slower then the Sandisk Extreme and Ultra II's and I got a really good price on them with no tax or shipping from www.computers4sure.com Frankly, WA is "bunk"... even in a Nikon "WA" enabled camera.. GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is IoDaLi Photography 1803 guests, 120 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
