Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > CF card not recognized by Windows XP

Reply
Thread Tools

CF card not recognized by Windows XP

 
 
JC Dill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2006
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:38:37 -0500, "Scubabix" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I'm using a Canon EOS 30d. I understand the difference between a CF card
>and a microdrive. My question is, if I can get double the memory on a
>microdrive for the same price as a CF II card,


You might find a MD for a bit less than the same sized CF, but I doubt
that the least expensive MD is really 50% of the price of the least
expensive CF.

> why would I buy the card?


MDs consume more power, so your camera battery will drain faster.

MDs are slower to read/write from, so when you shoot on "drive" mode
your camera buffer will fill faster and empty slower. Even the least
expensive same-size CF is likely to be faster than a MD.

MDs are more fragile, more subject to failure if dropped, and simply
more likely to fail at any given time than CF cards.

My first digicam was a Canon G1 with a 1 GB Microdrive. I loved
having so much room on the card! I never worrried about filling the
card up. When I bought the MD CF cards had much smaller capacities,
so the MD was the only way to get a high capacity card. When I lost
that card a year later, high capacity CF cards were available and
affordable. I replaced it with a CF card and never looked back.

Given the capabilities of the 30D, it would be penny wise and pound
foolish to buy MDs instead of CF cards for it. IMHO buying 2 2GB CFs
@ ~$44 ea:

<http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodule.asp?family=FLASH&tabid=CompactFlash>

instead of 1 4GB MD for $97:

<http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php/masterid=6335636/lot_id=2793980/mode=googleff/>

is a very good decision.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scubabix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
Thanks everyone. I appreciate the input. The knowledge base on this
newsgroup is great.
I don't think the couple of micro seconds read/write speed will matter
either way with my normal shooting. However, I've been known to be a little
tough on breakable items. I think the CF cards, with the dropping prices
would be safer for me.

Rob


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "Scubabix" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I'm using a Canon EOS 30d. I understand the difference between a CF card
> > and a microdrive. My question is, if I can get double the memory on a
> > microdrive for the same price as a CF II card, why would I buy the card?
> > I'd like to hear as many pros and cons about both if you don't mind.

>
> Between the slower read/write speeds and the possibility of mechanical
> failure, I'd avoid microdrives.


<edited, for brevity>

Hello, David:

Hold on, there. Microdrives are typically >faster< than standard CF
cards (and in the higher-capacity models, quite a bit cheaper, as well).


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
ASAAR wrote:

<edited, for brevity>

> Newer cameras such as the 30D probably won't have any problems
> using microdrives, but many older devices worked unreliably (if at
> all) with microdrives due to their greater power requirements. My
> old, small Powershots (S10/S20) warmed up noticeably with use, so I
> imagine that had I used a microdrive with them, they would have
> gotten hotter and battery life would have dropped from fair to poor.



Hello, ASAAR:

Were your little cameras even compatible with Microdrives, in the first
place?


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2006
On 20 Nov 2006 23:47:05 EST, John Turco wrote:

>> Newer cameras such as the 30D probably won't have any problems
>> using microdrives, but many older devices worked unreliably (if at
>> all) with microdrives due to their greater power requirements. My
>> old, small Powershots (S10/S20) warmed up noticeably with use, so I
>> imagine that had I used a microdrive with them, they would have
>> gotten hotter and battery life would have dropped from fair to poor.

>
>
> Hello, ASAAR:
>
> Were your little cameras even compatible with Microdrives, in the first
> place?


I wasn't tempted to even consider them at the time. Years before
I was well aware of problems using microdrives, starting with the
170MB or 340MB versions as used in HP's 100LX and 200LX palmtop
MSDOS computers, which often only worked for a very short time with
freshly charged batteries. The S10/S20 was compatible with Type
I/II CF cards so I had no reason to believe that they would be
incompatible. But back then my first CF card was fairly small
(48MB) because larger ones were too expensive, so that was another
reason to not consider microdrives.

I just checked an S10 review and it confirmed my assumption:

> On the right side of the camera is the Compact Flash compartment, the S10
> is one of the first cameras (second from Canon) which will accept the new
> Compact Flash Type II standard. The only difference between Type II and
> Type I is the thickness of the package (by about 2 millimeters).
>
> . . .
>
> This added thickness opens up possibilities for higher capacity, and this is
> perfectly demonstrated in IBM's innovative 340MB MicroDrive, a
> micro-miniature hard drive which is almost silent, low power and perfect
> for digital cameras. Other manufacturers are now bringing out new
> Type II cards including much larger capacity flash memory cards


> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons10/page4.asp


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
ASAAR wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2006 23:47:05 EST, John Turco wrote:
>
> >> Newer cameras such as the 30D probably won't have any problems
> >> using microdrives, but many older devices worked unreliably (if at
> >> all) with microdrives due to their greater power requirements. My
> >> old, small Powershots (S10/S20) warmed up noticeably with use, so I
> >> imagine that had I used a microdrive with them, they would have
> >> gotten hotter and battery life would have dropped from fair to poor.

> >
> >
> > Hello, ASAAR:
> >
> > Were your little cameras even compatible with Microdrives, in the first
> > place?

>
> I wasn't tempted to even consider them at the time. Years before
> I was well aware of problems using microdrives, starting with the
> 170MB or 340MB versions as used in HP's 100LX and 200LX palmtop
> MSDOS computers, which often only worked for a very short time with
> freshly charged batteries. The S10/S20 was compatible with Type
> I/II CF cards so I had no reason to believe that they would be
> incompatible. But back then my first CF card was fairly small
> (48MB) because larger ones were too expensive, so that was another
> reason to not consider microdrives.


<edited, for brevity>

Hello, ASAAR:

My original digicam (Largan Lmini 350, circa 2001) is limited to a scant
2MB of internal memory, with no provision for a card of any kind. Having
a (Sony) CDD resolution of a lowly 350,000 pixels (640x480), the file
sizes of its images are usually well under 100KB.

In 2002, I upgraded to a Kodak DC3200 (1MP). It has a CF slot, and
my very first card purchase was a used Lexar 16MB ($10.00, Half.com
<http://www.half.com>). Pretty tiny, eh?

My newer Kodaks all take SD, and I've built up a fairly deep arsenal of
media of both types. I own far more CF's, but the largest is "only"
512MB; although fewer in number, my top SD's are higher capacity, with
two 1GB babies and a 512MB one.

Which is good, as my P850 (5MP) and DX6490 (4MP) really need the added
space.


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>


PS: I've never even >seen< a Microdrive, in person.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
On 25 Nov 2006 00:01:55 EST, John Turco wrote:

> My original digicam (Largan Lmini 350, circa 2001) is limited to a scant
> 2MB of internal memory, with no provision for a card of any kind. Having
> a (Sony) CDD resolution of a lowly 350,000 pixels (640x480), the file
> sizes of its images are usually well under 100KB.
>
> In 2002, I upgraded to a Kodak DC3200 (1MP). It has a CF slot, and
> my very first card purchase was a used Lexar 16MB ($10.00, Half.com
> <http://www.half.com>). Pretty tiny, eh?


When I got my Powershot S10 (early 2000) I thought that I'd be
using it mainly for 640x480 (and smaller) internet images. But I
quickly discovered that it provided stiff competition for my Nikon
film equipment, which was soon retired.

Yep, 16MB is small for a CF card, but I paid a lot more than $10
several years before that for 4MB and 8MB PCMCIA cards using flash
RAM for an HP 200lx. I don't recall what I paid for the smallest
memory chips, but my first computer used 2102 static RAM ICs which
each held 1024 bits of data. So a large memory board fully
populated with 64 of them provided a whopping 8KB of memory!

 
Reply With Quote
 
JC Dill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:22:57 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Yep, 16MB is small for a CF card, but I paid a lot more than $10
>several years before that for 4MB and 8MB PCMCIA cards using flash
>RAM for an HP 200lx. I don't recall what I paid for the smallest
>memory chips, but my first computer used 2102 static RAM ICs which
>each held 1024 bits of data. So a large memory board fully
>populated with 64 of them provided a whopping 8KB of memory!


In 1979 my father paid ~$500 for the TRS-80 "expansion interface" with
32K of memory (and ports to attach the single-side-single-density
floppy drives), bringing the TRS-80 system up to 48k of memory.

I paid ~$400 for a 1 GB microdrive in 2000 (used in my Canon G1).

A friend bought 1 GB flash cards this past summer for ~$49 each at
Fry's - could have got them cheaper online but needed them
immediately.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
 
Reply With Quote
 
Linkd@mindspring.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:22:57 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 25 Nov 2006 00:01:55 EST, John Turco wrote:
>
>> My original digicam (Largan Lmini 350, circa 2001) is limited to a scant
>> 2MB of internal memory, with no provision for a card of any kind. Having
>> a (Sony) CDD resolution of a lowly 350,000 pixels (640x480), the file
>> sizes of its images are usually well under 100KB.
>>
>> In 2002, I upgraded to a Kodak DC3200 (1MP). It has a CF slot, and
>> my very first card purchase was a used Lexar 16MB ($10.00, Half.com
>> <http://www.half.com>). Pretty tiny, eh?

>
> When I got my Powershot S10 (early 2000) I thought that I'd be
>using it mainly for 640x480 (and smaller) internet images. But I
>quickly discovered that it provided stiff competition for my Nikon
>film equipment, which was soon retired.
>
> Yep, 16MB is small for a CF card, but I paid a lot more than $10
>several years before that for 4MB and 8MB PCMCIA cards using flash
>RAM for an HP 200lx. I don't recall what I paid for the smallest
>memory chips, but my first computer used 2102 static RAM ICs which
>each held 1024 bits of data. So a large memory board fully
>populated with 64 of them provided a whopping 8KB of memory!


Gosh please do not bring back memories. I remember the 2 meg memory
cards that I gladly paid $500 dollars each for 2. This was for a 286
to take advantage of extended memory using a All Charge Card. Anyone
remember them?
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
ASAAR wrote:
>
> On 25 Nov 2006 00:01:55 EST, John Turco wrote:
>
> > My original digicam (Largan Lmini 350, circa 2001) is limited to a scant
> > 2MB of internal memory, with no provision for a card of any kind. Having
> > a (Sony) CDD resolution of a lowly 350,000 pixels (640x480), the file
> > sizes of its images are usually well under 100KB.
> >
> > In 2002, I upgraded to a Kodak DC3200 (1MP). It has a CF slot, and
> > my very first card purchase was a used Lexar 16MB ($10.00, Half.com
> > <http://www.half.com>). Pretty tiny, eh?

>
> When I got my Powershot S10 (early 2000) I thought that I'd be
> using it mainly for 640x480 (and smaller) internet images. But I
> quickly discovered that it provided stiff competition for my Nikon
> film equipment, which was soon retired.
>
> Yep, 16MB is small for a CF card, but I paid a lot more than $10
> several years before that for 4MB and 8MB PCMCIA cards using flash
> RAM for an HP 200lx. I don't recall what I paid for the smallest
> memory chips, but my first computer used 2102 static RAM ICs which
> each held 1024 bits of data. So a large memory board fully
> populated with 64 of them provided a whopping 8KB of memory!



Hello, ASAAR:

You're definitely more of an old-timer than I am. I purchased my first
computer (which I still have) in 1995; it was a Pionex 486DX2/66MHz
tower, containing 4MB of RAM. The following year, I expanded its memory
to 32MB (resulting in a vast boost of system speed, I might add), along
with making numerous other hardware upgrades.

Sadly, in the year I put the machine into semi-retirement (2000),
Pionex, itself, went out of business.

Mere coincidence, you scoff? :-J


Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Card reader suddenly not recognized (XP SP2) TommyC Digital Photography 15 02-08-2007 04:34 PM
Firewire PCI card not recognized clarencehoser Computer Support 10 05-03-2006 02:06 AM
Wireless card not recognized =?Utf-8?B?QW1pZQ==?= Wireless Networking 0 01-04-2006 07:30 PM
Internal wireless network card not being recognized =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iIFM=?= Wireless Networking 2 01-20-2005 08:21 PM
Re: Transcend Card Reader TS64MFLRD7 not recognized by Windows XP Marvin Margoshes Digital Photography 1 08-22-2003 07:46 PM



Advertisments