Advantages, disadvantages 1gig and greater Memory cards?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Is there any notable speed difference in using 1gig versus 2gig 80x
    Lexar cards?

    Does any one know if many memory writes and deletes to a memory card
    produce "holes" which affect write speed and to recover requires
    re-formatting?

    I'm planting in the next few months to go with a Nikon DSLR and will
    be shooting RAW and just wondered if there were trade off with the
    lager card? I'm wanting between 3 and 4 gig in cards.


    *******************************************************

    "If you want to know about governments,
    all you have to know is two words: Governments lie."

    I.F. Stone
    American investigative reporter
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John A. Stovall

    John Mares Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is there any notable speed difference in using 1gig versus 2gig 80x
    > Lexar cards?
    >
    > Does any one know if many memory writes and deletes to a memory card
    > produce "holes" which affect write speed and to recover requires
    > re-formatting?
    >
    > I'm planting in the next few months to go with a Nikon DSLR and will
    > be shooting RAW and just wondered if there were trade off with the
    > lager card? I'm wanting between 3 and 4 gig in cards.


    Have to be a good crop to buy a Nikon DSLR!

    :)

    John Mares
     
    John Mares, Jan 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John A. Stovall

    stewy Guest

    wrote:

    >
    > "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Is there any notable speed difference in using 1gig versus 2gig 80x
    >> Lexar cards?
    >>
    >> Does any one know if many memory writes and deletes to a memory card
    >> produce "holes" which affect write speed and to recover requires
    >> re-formatting?
    >>
    >> I'm planting in the next few months to go with a Nikon DSLR and will
    >> be shooting RAW and just wondered if there were trade off with the
    >> lager card? I'm wanting between 3 and 4 gig in cards.

    >
    > Have to be a good crop to buy a Nikon DSLR!
    >

    Regarding 'holes', using iPhoto's 'Erase the pictures and downloading'
    option will close off sections of the media until re-formatted. I use a 1gb
    card and simply keep shooting til the card is full, then re-format to clear
    the card. I believe formatting cards regularly may prolong the life of a
    card - rather like the old FDD format to clear contents or full-formatting.

    Larger cards are popular because you don't have to switch cards so often,
    however if the card goes bad, you've lost everything... Exactly how many pix
    are you planning to take daily? 1gb's worth or more?
     
    stewy, Jan 18, 2005
    #3
  4. stewy wrote:
    > Regarding 'holes', using iPhoto's 'Erase the pictures and downloading'
    > option will close off sections of the media until re-formatted. I use a 1gb
    > card and simply keep shooting til the card is full, then re-format to clear
    > the card. I believe formatting cards regularly may prolong the life of a
    > card - rather like the old FDD format to clear contents or full-formatting.


    Formatting won't prolong the life of the media, but it will assure that
    there are no "holes" that would cause subsequent files to be written in
    non-contiguous blocks(*). Performing a "complete format" (probably only
    available on your PC) will additionally mark off any bad sectors - a
    "quick format" (as your camera likely does) merely resets the file
    allocation table.

    (*) Data stored in non-contiguous blocks will be read at a slightly
    slower rate than data stored in a contiguous block, but it will be
    hardly noticeable when downloading from the media card. Its a bigger
    problem with frequently accessed data on your HDD.

    -Dave
     
    Dave Herzstein, Jan 18, 2005
    #4
  5. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:54:05 GMT, "John Mares" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Is there any notable speed difference in using 1gig versus 2gig 80x
    >> Lexar cards?
    >>
    >> Does any one know if many memory writes and deletes to a memory card
    >> produce "holes" which affect write speed and to recover requires
    >> re-formatting?
    >>
    >> I'm planting in the next few months to go with a Nikon DSLR and will
    >> be shooting RAW and just wondered if there were trade off with the
    >> lager card? I'm wanting between 3 and 4 gig in cards.

    >
    >Have to be a good crop to buy a Nikon DSLR!


    Yep, this is the time to get those Nikon seeds in round.

    Damn spell checker.

    ********************************************************

    "Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim
    Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own
    freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the
    spiritual liberty of others?"

    Robert E. Lee
    Letter to President Pierce
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #5
  6. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:08:09 -0800, Dave Herzstein
    <> wrote:

    >stewy wrote:
    >> Regarding 'holes', using iPhoto's 'Erase the pictures and downloading'
    >> option will close off sections of the media until re-formatted. I use a 1gb
    >> card and simply keep shooting til the card is full, then re-format to clear
    >> the card. I believe formatting cards regularly may prolong the life of a
    >> card - rather like the old FDD format to clear contents or full-formatting.

    >
    >Formatting won't prolong the life of the media, but it will assure that
    >there are no "holes" that would cause subsequent files to be written in
    >non-contiguous blocks(*). Performing a "complete format" (probably only
    >available on your PC) will additionally mark off any bad sectors - a
    >"quick format" (as your camera likely does) merely resets the file
    >allocation table.


    I had read that one should only reformat the media in the camera with
    it's format software.

    >
    >(*) Data stored in non-contiguous blocks will be read at a slightly
    >slower rate than data stored in a contiguous block, but it will be
    >hardly noticeable when downloading from the media card. Its a bigger
    >problem with frequently accessed data on your HDD.


    I wasn't considering speed of downloading from the media card to the
    PC/MAC but rather from the camera buffer to the card internally.


    ********************************************************

    "Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim
    Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own
    freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the
    spiritual liberty of others?"

    Robert E. Lee
    Letter to President Pierce
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 18, 2005
    #6
  7. John A. Stovall

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:08:09 -0800, Dave Herzstein
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>stewy wrote:
    >>
    >>>Regarding 'holes', using iPhoto's 'Erase the pictures and downloading'
    >>>option will close off sections of the media until re-formatted. I use a 1gb
    >>>card and simply keep shooting til the card is full, then re-format to clear
    >>>the card. I believe formatting cards regularly may prolong the life of a
    >>>card - rather like the old FDD format to clear contents or full-formatting.

    >>
    >>Formatting won't prolong the life of the media, but it will assure that
    >>there are no "holes" that would cause subsequent files to be written in
    >>non-contiguous blocks(*). Performing a "complete format" (probably only
    >>available on your PC) will additionally mark off any bad sectors - a
    >>"quick format" (as your camera likely does) merely resets the file
    >>allocation table.

    >
    >
    > I had read that one should only reformat the media in the camera with
    > it's format software.
    >
    >
    >>(*) Data stored in non-contiguous blocks will be read at a slightly
    >>slower rate than data stored in a contiguous block, but it will be
    >>hardly noticeable when downloading from the media card. Its a bigger
    >>problem with frequently accessed data on your HDD.

    >
    >
    > I wasn't considering speed of downloading from the media card to the
    > PC/MAC but rather from the camera buffer to the card internally.
    >


    A rather more important consideration, from the practical point of view.
    It is rare that one is in a big hurry to read the pictures into the
    computer. Also, cameras usually have much slower processors than
    computers, and would be more impacted by having to search for the next
    unused 'sector'. It might be hard to measure such a delay, but why take
    a chance. Formatting is usually faster than deleting all the pictures
    on the camera.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 18, 2005
    #7
  8. John A. Stovall wrote:

    > Is there any notable speed difference in using 1gig versus 2gig 80x
    > Lexar cards?
    >
    > Does any one know if many memory writes and deletes to a memory card
    > produce "holes" which affect write speed and to recover requires
    > re-formatting?
    >
    > I'm planting in the next few months to go with a Nikon DSLR and will
    > be shooting RAW and just wondered if there were trade off with the
    > lager card? I'm wanting between 3 and 4 gig in cards.


    I have 512 MB, 1GB, 2GB, and 4GB cards, used in Canon 10D and
    1D Mark II cameras. I have not seen any issues with up to 2 GB.
    On 4GB cards, I have seen a slowing of write speed in the camera
    when the card is 80+ % full and there are a lot of jpeg images
    so many files on the card (on the 1D II). I bought a second
    4GB card (both lexar 80x) so I'll see if this problem occurs
    again, or was a problem with the one card. I sometimes
    reformat the cards in the camera, never on a PC. I've never
    lost any data.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 19, 2005
    #8
  9. "Dave Herzstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > stewy wrote:

    ....
    > (*) Data stored in non-contiguous blocks will be read at a slightly
    > slower rate than data stored in a contiguous block, but it will be
    > hardly noticeable when downloading from the media card. Its a bigger
    > problem with frequently accessed data on your HDD.

    ....

    While this is certainly true for rotating magnetic media (ie. hard drives),
    why should non-contiguous clusters have any bearing on the read time
    of a FLASH memory card? The time to read any given cluster should
    be constant. Now I can see that there may be more reads of the FAT
    if the FAT entries fall across multiple clusters, but that should completely
    insignificant for any real world cases.


    --
    Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
    space)[com]
    ===============================
    "I see you coming / To the end of the day
    And was it worth it? / No one can say
    I see your face / It is ghostly pale
    Into the sunset / We are watching you sail"
     
    Dan Wojciechowski, Jan 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Dan Wojciechowski wrote:
    > "Dave Herzstein" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> stewy wrote:

    > ...
    >> (*) Data stored in non-contiguous blocks will be read at a slightly
    >> slower rate than data stored in a contiguous block, but it will be
    >> hardly noticeable when downloading from the media card. Its a bigger
    >> problem with frequently accessed data on your HDD.

    > ...
    >
    > While this is certainly true for rotating magnetic media (ie. hard
    > drives), why should non-contiguous clusters have any bearing on the
    > read time
    > of a FLASH memory card? The time to read any given cluster should
    > be constant. Now I can see that there may be more reads of the FAT
    > if the FAT entries fall across multiple clusters, but that should
    > completely insignificant for any real world cases.


    But the number of I/O operations differs, and hence the time spent in the
    OS differs. If the OS is not well written (and it has limited space in
    the firmware), the extra I/Os to read fragmented files, and particularly
    fragmented directories, may matter. One needs to perform actual tests on
    the device rather than guessing the outcome.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joeblow
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    joeblow
    Jun 1, 2004
  2. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    23,364
  3. Moe
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    5,511
    Journalist-North
    Feb 19, 2004
  4. Info Dude

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Digital Photography

    Info Dude, Oct 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,219
    John Turco
    Oct 14, 2006
  5. SMS
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,646
    ASAAR
    Nov 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page