Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Is there a technical reason why Compact Flash is expensive comparedto SDXC?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Is there a technical reason why Compact Flash is expensive comparedto SDXC?

 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2012
On 17/09/2012 15:14, Mark F wrote:
> Is there a technical reason why Compact Flash is expensive compared to
> SDXC?


Yes. CF is an older larger format and has a fairly sophisticated drive
controller inside the package. It looks to the outside world like a
small IDE drive. You could even get real IBM microdrives in that format.

sD was newer and simpler looking pretty much like bare serial flash ram
with buffering only. Physically smaller and cheaper to make.

Whether the price differential now reflects true cost of manufacture is
another matter. In part CF is now an old format on its way out. It isn't
doing bad though for a memory technology invented in 1994.
(plenty of other formats have been and gone in that time)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
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: Is there a technical reason why Compact Flash is expensive compared to SDXC? nospam Digital Photography 0 09-17-2012 03:19 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
A technical question from a non-technical person. Any suggestions appreciated. Graham Cross VOIP 2 01-27-2005 09:13 PM
Compact cameras with 640X480 with ulimited recording times that use Compact Flash? Lee Chen Digital Photography 5 12-01-2004 05:34 PM
I Gb compact flash vs 512Mb (or even 256) compact flash Rick S. Digital Photography 33 09-13-2004 09:07 AM



Advertisments
 



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57