Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why DSLR still use CF card?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why DSLR still use CF card?

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:i195q2$l46$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:19:29 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> : : "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message :
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> : : > (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a minute
>> with
>> : > his usual anti-DSLR rant!)
>> : : Yep, there he is, right on cue. The one thing you can say for him is
>> that he isn't lazy.

>
> What's the chance you chaps can stop rattling on about him?



I suspect two chances:
slim ^ none.

--
Peter
Who remembers the lsmft cry.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
"Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...


> What they mean is that there are 19 million people who know that it isn't
> spelled "Linix". ;^)


Didn't Linux need a security blanket?
Remember his sister Lucy keep pulling the football away from Charlie Brown?


--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
Peter wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:i195q2$l46$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:19:29 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>> : : "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message :
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> : : > (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a
>>> minute with
>>> : > his usual anti-DSLR rant!)
>>> : : Yep, there he is, right on cue. The one thing you can say for him
>>> is that he isn't lazy.

>>
>> What's the chance you chaps can stop rattling on about him?

>
>
> I suspect two chances:
> slim ^ none.


Let's hope they prove us both wrong.....
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2010
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:41:17 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: As I have said before, I would value a small sensor digital camera for
: >: some macro work on account of its greatly increased depth of field.
: >: There is also the value of having a camera that is small in size and
: >: light in weight and therefore relatively inconspicuous.
: >
: >It occurs to me that the relative inconspicuity of P&S cameras took a
: >significant hit when they stopped putting proper viewfinders in them.
:
:
: You have never heard of electronic viewfinders (EVFs)?
:
: Poor you.

Yeah, poor me.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
Savageduck wrote:
>
> On 2010-07-04 09:21:14 -0700, Gary Edstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> said:


> > The big advantage with staying with CF is that many people out there,
> > like myself, have quite an arsenal of CF chips and don't want to be
> > forced to buy different chips when buying a new camera. It's like one
> > of the big reasons for choosing a Canon 50D when I upgraded from the 20D
> > for me was that I didn't want to have to buy a whole new set of lenses.
> > The same can hold for CF chips.
> >
> > Gary

>
> Another point of agreement. However some of those early CF cards are of
> such small capacity, they gather dust today.



My very first memory card purchase, ever, was a used 16MB CF. On Half.com
<http://www.half.com>, in March of 2002; it was $12.30 USD ($10.00 + $2.30
shipping).

I'd gotten it, for my Kodak DC3200 ($75.88 display model, at Office Depot),
obtained in late February '02. The DC3200 (1MP, fixed focus lens) was only
my second digicam, and the initial one with a memory slot.

By the way, I still have the 16MB baby (and all the other cards I've bought,
since then).

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

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
nospam wrote:
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Except for the read-only tab (which is of little use in
> > cameras) there is nothing an SD card can do better, and lots
> > it can do worse. Try handling SD cards in thick gloves, just
> > for fun.

>
> sd cards are immune to bent pins since there aren't any pins to bend in
> either the card or the card cage. yea i know, you've been using cf for
> decades and never had a bent pin. go ask a camera repair shop how often
> it occurs. it's funny how the first thing they do when a customer has a
> problem with a camera is look into the slot. you don't see them doing
> that with sd.
>
> sd cards are more resistant to moisture than cf since there are no
> holes along the bottom.
>
> sd card cages are physically smaller which means smaller and lighter
> cameras (which a lot of people want) or more room for other stuff in a
> same size camera (which other people prefer). they're also less
> expensive which means the cameras can be less expensive as well (or the
> same price with more features).
>
> sd cards are vastly more popular, which means prices are lower,
> especially when they go on sale. i rarely see cf cards on sale, but i
> often see sd cards practically given away for free.



Back in March of this year, I saw a few Lexar 64MB CF cards, inside
a local "Big Lots" store. Their price stickers had "$41.19" printed
on them; out of sheer curiosity, I asked a cashier some questions.

He said the cards carried 50%-off discounts (thereby dropping their
cost to around $20.60 apiece, I'd surmised).

Which was still far too high, obviously. I wondered about it, but,
he could only explain that Big Lots just gets such close-out items
from other places, and isn't very knowledgeable of them.

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

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-20-2010
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:201007040740318930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> > On 2010-07-04 07:03:10 -0700, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> >
> >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote:
> >>
> >>> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why
> >>> high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off,
> >>> not a feature.
> >>
> >> I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat buyers
> >> - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a camera
> >> capable of using CF and SD.

> >
> > ...and that is what I have with my D300s.

>
> But not my 7d
>
> That is the one feature I wish my camera had. Not a deal breaker as I
> already had plenty of CF cards but I do wish it used SD cards also like the
> Nikon.



Not exactly DSLR-related, but:

The stupidest trend, in recent years, is placing the SD card slot inside the
battery compartment. It's imbecilic and inconsiderate of the manufacturers!

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

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
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
Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? Jürgen Exner Digital Photography 28 12-18-2008 10:49 PM
Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? Don Stauffer Digital Photography 3 11-09-2008 02:31 AM
Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? Steve Digital Photography 5 11-08-2008 01:26 PM
Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? Eric Stevens Digital Photography 2 11-07-2008 07:07 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM



Advertisments