Can the Digital Rebel use WA compact flash?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Phil Stripling, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
    Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
    able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
    updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
    also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
    Website. Naturally, I'm confused.

    Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?
    --
    Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
    http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
     
    Phil Stripling, Dec 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phil Stripling

    Matt Ion Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:

    > Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
    > Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
    > able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
    > updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
    > also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
    > Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
    >
    > Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?


    You're asking two different questions: first, whether "CF-with-WA"
    memory is compatible with Canon cameras (they are), and second, whether
    the DRebel and other Canon cameras take advantage of the WA capabilities
    (that, I don't know specifically)
     
    Matt Ion, Dec 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phil Stripling

    DHB Guest

    On 16 Dec 2004 18:12:16 -0800, Phil Stripling
    <> wrote:

    >Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
    >Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
    >able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
    >updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
    >also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
    >Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
    >
    >Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?


    Sorry,
    but no, the Digital Rebel/300D does"not" support Lexar's WA.
    What has worked well for me is to by a "lifetime" warrantee from a
    major manufactures, such as Lexar & Sandisk.

    Sandisk Ultra II & Lexar's 12x or faster CF cards have
    lifetime warrantees & have become very cost competitive. Some people
    simply by the least expensive cards & have good luck with them, but I
    feel it's better to by from Sandisk or Lexar for important pictures or
    DATA. This becomes especially concerning if your purchasing a large
    card such as a 1 or 2GB CF card. Many will warn you about placing all
    of your eggs in 1 large basket, a legitimate concern. However if the
    type of photography makes a large basket practical, just make sure its
    a quality basket & empty/duplicate it's DATA soon/often, just as you
    should do with your computer's hard drive DATA.

    Anything can & eventually will fail but in the case of quality
    memory flash cards, I think it's far more likely that my camera will
    fail 1st, mainly because it has moving parts.

    Hope the additional information/opinion was helpful.

    Respectfully, DHB
     
    DHB, Dec 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Phil Stripling

    Drifter Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:01:23 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    wrote:

    >Phil Stripling wrote:
    >
    >> Lexar is offering a rebate on their compact flash cards with Write
    >> Acceleration (80X on the card I'm looking at). B&H lists the D70 as being
    >> able to sue WA, but it lists no Canon cameras. They say check Lexar for
    >> updates. No Canon cameras are listed on the Lexar Web site, but the D-70 is
    >> also not listed at the Web site, and it is listed on the B&H
    >> Website. Naturally, I'm confused.
    >>
    >> Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?

    >
    >You're asking two different questions: first, whether "CF-with-WA"
    >memory is compatible with Canon cameras (they are), and second, whether
    >the DRebel and other Canon cameras take advantage of the WA capabilities
    >(that, I don't know specifically)



    Is the rebel CF with WA compatible...Yes
    Does the rebel take advantage of the WA to write faster... not really.

    The 10D does...sort of (personal experience)
    The 20D really does, as do the 1ds et al.


    Drifter
    "I've been here, I've been there..."
     
    Drifter, Dec 17, 2004
    #4
  5. DHB <> writes:

    >SNIP<
    > Many will warn you about placing all
    > of your eggs in 1 large basket, a legitimate concern.


    I'm one of them. I've got a CoolPix 990, and I use a mix of 128 and 256MB
    cards just to lessen the loss when one fails. The one Gig card was only $80
    after the rebate, and that seemed worth the cost. Louise then gets to make
    the choice of filling it up or not. Her interest is in having a speedy
    camera, so the writing speed is important. However, since others have said
    the Digi Reb won't be able to take advantage of that speed, the size is
    moot.

    >SNIP<
    > Anything can & eventually will fail but in the case of quality
    > memory flash cards, I think it's far more likely that my camera will
    > fail 1st, mainly because it has moving parts.


    The problem with a lifetime warranty isn't that the CF is better (it may
    not be*), it's that when it does fail, the data are lost. The maker may
    replace the card, but it's not the card that's lost, it's the very
    important photos.

    While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
    not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
    but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
    the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
    apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
    travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
    functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
    back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
    expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
    who knows?

    *In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of replacing
    a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
    under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
    to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.
    --
    Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
    http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
     
    Phil Stripling, Dec 17, 2004
    #5
  6. >Does the digi-reb avail itself of the WA speed?

    The DRebel is pretty slow, so a faster card won't make much difference.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Phil Stripling

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
    > not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
    > but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
    > the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
    > apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
    > travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
    > functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
    > back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
    > expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
    > who knows?


    CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
    times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
    to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
    out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
    can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
    So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
    of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
    would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )

    > *In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of

    replacing
    > a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
    > under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
    > to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.


    That's exactly how it works. Warranties aren't really based on
    longevity, but on the economics of the situation.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Phil Stripling

    Colin D Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:

    > DHB <> writes:
    >
    > The problem with a lifetime warranty isn't that the CF is better (it may
    > not be*), it's that when it does fail, the data are lost. The maker may
    > replace the card, but it's not the card that's lost, it's the very
    > important photos.
    >


    This is also true of film. If the film fails because of irradiation at
    airports, or just a cock-up in processing (which usually is out of your hands)
    then the same applies. The shots are lost.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Dec 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Phil Stripling

    Big Bill Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <>
    wrote:

    >> While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
    >> not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
    >> but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
    >> the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
    >> apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
    >> travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
    >> functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
    >> back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
    >> expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
    >> who knows?

    >
    > CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
    >times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
    >to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
    >out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
    >can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
    >So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
    >of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
    >would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )


    Hmmm...
    Let's do the math on that.
    That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
    card.
    If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
    card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
    300.
    Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
    (obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
    pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
    right?
    That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
    with.
    Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :)
    >
    >> *In fact, the higher price may reflect only the projected cost of

    >replacing
    >> a few cards. How many people will trouble themselves to send a card in
    >> under warranty? (Same as mail-in rebates.) Jack the price of the cards up
    >> to cover that cost, then offer the lifetime warranty.

    >
    > That's exactly how it works. Warranties aren't really based on
    >longevity, but on the economics of the situation.
    >
    >steve
    >


    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Phil Stripling

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Big Bill wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally, I'm
    >>>not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not digital,
    >>>but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
    >>>the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
    >>>apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
    >>>travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
    >>>functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and brought
    >>>back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
    >>>expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
    >>>who knows?

    >>
    >> CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
    >>times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like "up
    >>to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
    >>out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a picture
    >>can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
    >>So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with 1/2
    >>of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how much
    >>would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )

    >
    >
    > Hmmm...
    > Let's do the math on that.
    > That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
    > card.
    > If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
    > card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
    > 300.
    > Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
    > (obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
    > pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
    > right?
    > That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
    > with.
    > Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :)


    Hi...

    I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
    your logic, if I may?

    I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
    in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
    last 3 megs be used.

    So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
    but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
    first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
    any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Dec 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Phil Stripling

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:02:57 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Ken Weitzel
    <> wrote:

    >I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
    >in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
    >last 3 megs be used.
    >
    >So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
    >but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
    >first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
    >any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.


    I believe the cards are designed to even out the use of allocated space to
    prevent just this scenario.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Phil Stripling

    Big Bill Guest

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:02:57 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
    wrote:

    >Hi...
    >
    >I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
    >your logic, if I may?
    >
    >I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
    >in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
    >last 3 megs be used.
    >
    >So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
    >but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
    >first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
    >any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.
    >
    >Take care.
    >
    >Ken


    I'll agree the normal use isn't to fill the card.
    But even an average would be over 4 million shots, if only using the
    card to half capacity. If that's all that's being used, why use a 1
    Gig card?

    Personally, I keep a 512 meg card loaded unless I'm going out to shoot
    a particular theme (a Zoo, for example); then I load the 1 Gigger, and
    will almost fill it.
    The 512 megger gets used for 'pick-up' shots, and doesn't get anywhere
    near filled before I empty it.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Phil Stripling

    Bill Frank Guest

    "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    news:lKPwd.515288$Pl.203979@pd7tw1no...
    >
    >
    > Big Bill wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:22:54 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>While I agree that buying a better card is worth the money generally,
    >>>>I'm
    >>>>not convinced the card will last longer than the camera. It's not
    >>>>digital,
    >>>>but my Nikon FM2n is 15 years old. I've dropped it onto asphalt and bent
    >>>>the back, dropped it from an airport luggage card onto cement with no
    >>>>apparent damage, had the lens mount vibrate loose, and so on in years of
    >>>>travel and use in rain forests, on beaches, at Burning Man, and it still
    >>>>functions fine. I get it tuned up and cleaned every few years and
    >>>>brought
    >>>>back to spec. I'm not expecting the CF cards to last that long, but I
    >>>>expect the FM2n to keep on going for the foreseeable future. -shrug- But
    >>>>who knows?
    >>>
    >>> CF cards have a limitted life span, you can only erase a block so many
    >>>times before it's going to fail. Manufacturers often make claims like
    >>>"up
    >>>to 100,000 cycles", meaning that's probably the most that you'll EVER get
    >>>out of them, with most failing significantly before that. Taking a
    >>>picture
    >>>can be between 2 and 4 write cycles, and another when you wipe the card.
    >>>So, with 3-5 write cycles per photo, that's a max of 33,000 photos, with
    >>>1/2
    >>>of that more likely. 16,000 shots is still quite a bit, however - how
    >>>much
    >>>would 16,000 exposures of film cost? : )

    >>
    >>
    >> Hmmm...
    >> Let's do the math on that.
    >> That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
    >> card.
    >> If you're using 3 MB per photo (not a bad guess for the DR), a 1 GB
    >> card will hold 333 pics or so. Maybe less in actuality, so let's say
    >> 300.
    >> Now, each of those 300 pictures only takes up 3 MB, not the whole card
    >> (obviously), so we apply that 33,000 cycle to the whole card (or 300
    >> pics) and come up with 9 million pics per 100,000 cycles of the card,
    >> right?
    >> That's a lot more than the 33,000 phots per card you're coming up
    >> with.
    >> Of course math isn't my strong point, so if I'm wrong, be gentle. :)

    >
    > Hi...
    >
    > I'll not take exception to your math, but will debate
    > your logic, if I may?
    >
    > I'm thinking that every time the card is used, the first,
    > in your example, 3 megs is used. Very rarely will the
    > last 3 megs be used.
    >
    > So, the answer may well be somewhere in the middle,
    > but in a worse case scenario I could well use the
    > first 3 megs 100,000 times without ever "touching"
    > any of the rest of the card. Far far fewer pictures.
    >
    > Take care.
    >
    > Ken
    >

    The controller in a CF card writes data evenly across all flash cells. It
    is called wear leveling. Even the FAT is written to a different location.

    Also, most CF cards today have flash cell life between 300,000 and 2,
    000,000 erase write cycles.

    Bill Frank
    CompactFlash Association
     
    Bill Frank, Dec 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Phil Stripling

    Steve Wolfe Guest


    > Hmmm...
    > Let's do the math on that.
    > That 33,000 cycles of use isn't per card, but per byte location on the
    > card.


    Because the card is formatted with a FAT filesystem, every time you take
    a new picture, you're writing to the FAT table, so that area of the card is
    going to get hit pretty heavily.

    In any event, my point was that you'll get a LOT of usage out of the
    camera - even at "just" 15,000 pictures, that's still a lot of pictures.
    Even if you're talking about a $200 2-gig card, that's just over a penny per
    shot.

    steve
     
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 20, 2004
    #14
    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. David G. Young

    Digital Rebel: How Do I Use Flash as Fill?

    David G. Young, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    558
    Braindead Preddy
    Jan 28, 2004
  2. Mike Henley

    Okay... compact film vs compact digital ..

    Mike Henley, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    837
    Anoni Moose
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. Rick S.
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,316
    Ron Hunter
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Lee Chen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    548
    Lee Chen
    Dec 1, 2004
  5. Doug Mitton

    Canon Digital Rebel (300D) Compact Flash Sizes?

    Doug Mitton, Jul 9, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,985
    Doug Mitton
    Jul 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page