MagicStor 2.2gb microdrive and the EOS 10d

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeff Zawrotny, Oct 8, 2003.

  1. I just recently picked one up, as I'm shooting much more RAW mode these
    days.

    BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.

    It's good for bursts of about 4-5 images, but beyond 6, it pretty
    consistently sh*ts the bed. I've heard it may be a temperature thing - that
    the drive overheats, but as there's no practical way to cool the drive, this
    seems to be an issue that can't be worked around easily.

    Otherwise, it seems ok. You need to format the drive FAT-32 to take
    advantage of all the space on it, but the 10d is cool with that. If your
    camera only handles FAT-16, I believe it'll only format to 1.8gb or so. At
    around $250, it's a good storage to price ratio, but I can't really
    recommend it if you doing anything with it other than landscapes and
    still-lifes.

    - jz
    Jeff Zawrotny, Oct 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeff Zawrotny

    Ed E. Guest

    > BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    > shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    > errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.


    Everyone I've heard from that bought that drive has had problems. To make
    it worse, they're touting that they'll have >10GB drives next year. So more
    people will get burnt if this company stays in business.

    Word of advice - stay away from MagicStor and stick with the better brand
    names.
    Ed E., Oct 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jeff Zawrotny

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Jeff Zawrotny" <> wrote:

    >I just recently picked one up, as I'm shooting much more RAW mode these
    >days.
    >
    >BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    >shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    >errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.


    I lost a bunch of potentially excellent hummingbird shots like this. I
    noticed that there were only 2 RAW shots left on the card, so I switched
    quickly to JPEG (I have the big wheel set up to do that), and started
    blasting away. I saw the "CF full" message, and instinctively popped
    out the CF card. I was shooting JPEGs at this point, so storage should
    have been almost instantaneous, but for whatever reason (possibly
    fragmentation overhead), there were still unwritten JPEGs, and I noticed
    just as I was popping out the card that the red light flickered on. I
    popped in an empty card, and waited for it to do any left over writing,
    but nothing happened. Looking at the file numbers, the camera lost not
    one JPEG (as I expected) but *5* of them. This is ridiculous. This
    means that maybe the camera saw no card at one point, and decided to
    purge 4 unwritten JPEGs. Only one file should be lost popping a card
    out at the wrong time!
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 8, 2003
    #3
  4. Jeff Zawrotny

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > "Jeff Zawrotny" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I just recently picked one up, as I'm shooting much more RAW mode these
    >>days.
    >>
    >>BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    >>shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    >>errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.

    >
    >
    > I lost a bunch of potentially excellent hummingbird shots like this. I
    > noticed that there were only 2 RAW shots left on the card, so I switched
    > quickly to JPEG (I have the big wheel set up to do that), and started
    > blasting away. I saw the "CF full" message, and instinctively popped
    > out the CF card. I was shooting JPEGs at this point, so storage should
    > have been almost instantaneous, but for whatever reason (possibly
    > fragmentation overhead), there were still unwritten JPEGs, and I noticed
    > just as I was popping out the card that the red light flickered on. I
    > popped in an empty card, and waited for it to do any left over writing,
    > but nothing happened. Looking at the file numbers, the camera lost not
    > one JPEG (as I expected) but *5* of them. This is ridiculous. This
    > means that maybe the camera saw no card at one point, and decided to
    > purge 4 unwritten JPEGs. Only one file should be lost popping a card
    > out at the wrong time!


    You are VERY WRONG about the 'almost instantaneous' thing. It takes
    LONGER because the camera must process its local memory to compress the
    image, and THEN write it to the card, and update the directory on the
    card. You are VERY lucky you didn't lose the entire card. If you had
    been shooting several shots in only a few seconds, the camera was trying
    to process all those pictures, and save them. You MUST give it time to
    do its job. Probably it should handle a removed card better (ie, not
    discard the shots in memory), but that doesn't mean you should expect to
    not lose EVERYTHING if you pop out a card that is being written to.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 8, 2003
    #4
  5. Jeff Zawrotny

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>,
    >> "Jeff Zawrotny" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I just recently picked one up, as I'm shooting much more RAW mode these
    >>>days.
    >>>
    >>>BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    >>>shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    >>>errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.

    >>
    >>
    >> I lost a bunch of potentially excellent hummingbird shots like this. I
    >> noticed that there were only 2 RAW shots left on the card, so I switched
    >> quickly to JPEG (I have the big wheel set up to do that), and started
    >> blasting away. I saw the "CF full" message, and instinctively popped
    >> out the CF card. I was shooting JPEGs at this point, so storage should
    >> have been almost instantaneous, but for whatever reason (possibly
    >> fragmentation overhead), there were still unwritten JPEGs, and I noticed
    >> just as I was popping out the card that the red light flickered on. I
    >> popped in an empty card, and waited for it to do any left over writing,
    >> but nothing happened. Looking at the file numbers, the camera lost not
    >> one JPEG (as I expected) but *5* of them. This is ridiculous. This
    >> means that maybe the camera saw no card at one point, and decided to
    >> purge 4 unwritten JPEGs. Only one file should be lost popping a card
    >> out at the wrong time!

    >
    >You are VERY WRONG about the 'almost instantaneous' thing. It takes
    >LONGER because the camera must process its local memory to compress the
    >image, and THEN write it to the card, and update the directory on the
    >card. You are VERY lucky you didn't lose the entire card. If you had
    >been shooting several shots in only a few seconds, the camera was trying
    >to process all those pictures, and save them. You MUST give it time to
    >do its job. Probably it should handle a removed card better (ie, not
    >discard the shots in memory), but that doesn't mean you should expect to
    >not lose EVERYTHING if you pop out a card that is being written to.


    I wasn't expecting "no problems" popping out a card while it was still
    being written to. The timing, however, was way out of prediction, based
    on past experience. It had been several seconds since I took the last
    image. This was not the normal JPEG write time, as if I had just shot
    them on an empty card. I didn't shoot the pictures machine-gun style,
    either. There was couple seconds or more between each picture (waiting
    for the hummingbird's torso to hover); plenty of time for the camera to
    keep up. The difference was that the card was almost full, and it seems
    the firmware has a very inefficent way of dealing with memory
    fragmentation.

    The thing that made me screw up was the "CF full" message. The camera
    should have said something else. "CF full" sounds to me like the card
    is not being written to anymore. This is a poor design decision on
    Canon's part. You never tell a user the card is full when it hasn't
    been written to yet. "Writing last files" or some abbreviation would
    make much more sense.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 8, 2003
    #5
  6. Jeff Zawrotny

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >You are VERY WRONG about the 'almost instantaneous' thing. It takes
    >LONGER because the camera must process its local memory to compress the
    >image, and THEN write it to the card, and update the directory on the
    >card.


    Nonsense. JPG files are written to the card in a fraction of the time
    RAW files are. The write times on these cards are so slow that
    compression accelerates the writes, despite CPU overhead.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 8, 2003
    #6
  7. Jeff Zawrotny

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In message <>,
    >>>"Jeff Zawrotny" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I just recently picked one up, as I'm shooting much more RAW mode these
    >>>>days.
    >>>>
    >>>>BIG WORD OF CAUTION: If you overflow the buffer I/O of these guys, they
    >>>>shut down. Write errors. Lost data. Very bad. And once you have right
    >>>>errors on the card, you need to reformat to shoot with it again.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I lost a bunch of potentially excellent hummingbird shots like this. I
    >>>noticed that there were only 2 RAW shots left on the card, so I switched
    >>>quickly to JPEG (I have the big wheel set up to do that), and started
    >>>blasting away. I saw the "CF full" message, and instinctively popped
    >>>out the CF card. I was shooting JPEGs at this point, so storage should
    >>>have been almost instantaneous, but for whatever reason (possibly
    >>>fragmentation overhead), there were still unwritten JPEGs, and I noticed
    >>>just as I was popping out the card that the red light flickered on. I
    >>>popped in an empty card, and waited for it to do any left over writing,
    >>>but nothing happened. Looking at the file numbers, the camera lost not
    >>>one JPEG (as I expected) but *5* of them. This is ridiculous. This
    >>>means that maybe the camera saw no card at one point, and decided to
    >>>purge 4 unwritten JPEGs. Only one file should be lost popping a card
    >>>out at the wrong time!

    >>
    >>You are VERY WRONG about the 'almost instantaneous' thing. It takes
    >>LONGER because the camera must process its local memory to compress the
    >>image, and THEN write it to the card, and update the directory on the
    >>card. You are VERY lucky you didn't lose the entire card. If you had
    >>been shooting several shots in only a few seconds, the camera was trying
    >>to process all those pictures, and save them. You MUST give it time to
    >>do its job. Probably it should handle a removed card better (ie, not
    >>discard the shots in memory), but that doesn't mean you should expect to
    >>not lose EVERYTHING if you pop out a card that is being written to.

    >
    >
    > I wasn't expecting "no problems" popping out a card while it was still
    > being written to. The timing, however, was way out of prediction, based
    > on past experience. It had been several seconds since I took the last
    > image. This was not the normal JPEG write time, as if I had just shot
    > them on an empty card. I didn't shoot the pictures machine-gun style,
    > either. There was couple seconds or more between each picture (waiting
    > for the hummingbird's torso to hover); plenty of time for the camera to
    > keep up. The difference was that the card was almost full, and it seems
    > the firmware has a very inefficent way of dealing with memory
    > fragmentation.
    >
    > The thing that made me screw up was the "CF full" message. The camera
    > should have said something else. "CF full" sounds to me like the card
    > is not being written to anymore. This is a poor design decision on
    > Canon's part. You never tell a user the card is full when it hasn't
    > been written to yet. "Writing last files" or some abbreviation would
    > make much more sense.


    I would agree that the message was misleading, but the expectation of a
    write to the card of only 2 seconds doesn't match what I have observed
    from my nephew's 10D. Much would depend on the CF card speed as well.
    And memory fragmentation wouldn't have anything to do with it since CF
    cards (other than MicroDrives) don't have mechanical access mechanisms.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Jeff Zawrotny

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You are VERY WRONG about the 'almost instantaneous' thing. It takes
    >>LONGER because the camera must process its local memory to compress the
    >>image, and THEN write it to the card, and update the directory on the
    >>card.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense. JPG files are written to the card in a fraction of the time
    > RAW files are. The write times on these cards are so slow that
    > compression accelerates the writes, despite CPU overhead.


    That depends on the camera, the way JPEG is done, and the speed of the card.
    Ron Hunter, Oct 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Jeff Zawrotny

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >I would agree that the message was misleading, but the expectation of a
    >write to the card of only 2 seconds doesn't match what I have observed
    >from my nephew's 10D. Much would depend on the CF card speed as well.


    There is no such thing as fast card performance inside a 10D. The cards
    are bottlenecked by the camera.

    >And memory fragmentation wouldn't have anything to do with it since CF
    >cards (other than MicroDrives) don't have mechanical access mechanisms.


    Wouldn't or "shouldn't"? Perhaps the camera moves existing data around
    or something, who knows, but it is a fact that when the card is almost
    full, writes several times longer than usual.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 10, 2003
    #9
    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. Pumpkin King

    Experiences with 2.2GB Microdrive and EOS 1D?

    Pumpkin King, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    335
    Pumpkin King
    Nov 20, 2003
  2. Mr Bump
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    337
    Mr Bump
    Jun 3, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    353
  4. Alex
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    674
    andre
    Sep 21, 2004
  5. MagicStor Plus 2.2GB Microdrive?

    , Dec 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    844
Loading...

Share This Page