Memory Cards

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    other manufacturers?
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Lichtenstein

    Ron Guest

    "Alan Lichtenstein" <> wrote in message
    news:4cd6ab54$0$31278$...
    > A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    > 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    > manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third party
    > hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about other
    > manufacturers?


    CF cards are used in almost all DSLRs. So CF cards will be around for a
    long time. I for one wouldn't cry if Lexar stopped making any memory cards.
    Their problem may be a shrinking market share.

    Ron
     
    Ron, Nov 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Lichtenstein

    Rich Guest

    On Nov 7, 8:35 am, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    > A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    > 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    > manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards.  I realize that this is third
    > party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    > other manufacturers?


    They must cost more than SD cards to make, purely from a resource use
    standpoint. No wonder they want to do away with them.
     
    Rich, Nov 7, 2010
    #3
  4. Ron wrote:
    >
    > "Alan Lichtenstein" <> wrote in message
    > news:4cd6ab54$0$31278$...
    >
    >> A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that
    >> in 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >> manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >> party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what
    >> about other manufacturers?

    >
    >
    > CF cards are used in almost all DSLRs. So CF cards will be around for a
    > long time. I for one wouldn't cry if Lexar stopped making any memory
    > cards. Their problem may be a shrinking market share.


    I stopped by my local camera shop today after I posted the initial post.
    I mentioned what I had heard and the person I usually deal with said
    that he had heard pretty much the same. I asked him about other
    manufacturers and he said that he heard nothing about their plans. I
    use San Disk anyway, and that initially relieved me, however, he added
    that with reduced competition, he anticipated the CF cards to become
    more expensive.

    I may be wrong, but when comparing similar manufacturer's CF cards to
    their SDHC cards, the CF cards seem to have higher write speeds than the
    comparable SDHC cards. I agree that most dSLR's use CF cards, however,
    many of them have two slots and can take either. Given the differences
    in write speeds, it does appear to me that Lexar's decision to get out
    of the CF business is somewhat strange, as dSLR users would want the
    faster write speeds. Someone had said that the new Nikon 300 has a
    single slot. Not using a Nikon, I wouldn't know anything about that
    claim either. But I would find it odd.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Rich wrote:

    > On Nov 7, 8:35 am, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >
    >>A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    >>2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >>manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >>party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    >>other manufacturers?

    >
    >
    > They must cost more than SD cards to make, purely from a resource use
    > standpoint. No wonder they want to do away with them.


    Understandable, but just as a curiosity, I compared the write speeds of
    a manufacturer's CF and SDHC cards of the same level, and it appeared
    that the CF card has a much faster write speed. I saw that in the
    latest B & H catalog. Admittedly, it could be a misprint, but it was
    repeated, so I'm not sure. I'll have to go and actually see both cards.

    Also, should that be the case, it would appear that most users of dSLR's
    would want the faster write speed, making the decision to stop producing
    the CF cards 'curious' at best.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Alan Lichtenstein

    peter Guest

    On 11/7/2010 3:42 PM, Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >
    >> On Nov 7, 8:35 am, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    >>> 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >>> manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >>> party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    >>> other manufacturers?

    >>
    >>
    >> They must cost more than SD cards to make, purely from a resource use
    >> standpoint. No wonder they want to do away with them.

    >
    > Understandable, but just as a curiosity, I compared the write speeds of
    > a manufacturer's CF and SDHC cards of the same level, and it appeared
    > that the CF card has a much faster write speed. I saw that in the latest
    > B & H catalog. Admittedly, it could be a misprint, but it was repeated,
    > so I'm not sure. I'll have to go and actually see both cards.
    >
    > Also, should that be the case, it would appear that most users of dSLR's
    > would want the faster write speed, making the decision to stop producing
    > the CF cards 'curious' at best.


    We all know that Rich is an accomplished cost analyst and a pillar of
    veracity.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Alan Lichtenstein

    Ron Guest

    "Alan Lichtenstein" <> wrote in message
    news:4cd70ee0$0$7121$...
    > Ron wrote:
    >>
    >> "Alan Lichtenstein" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4cd6ab54$0$31278$...
    >>
    >>> A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar that in
    >>> 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >>> manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >>> party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    >>> other manufacturers?

    >>
    >>
    >> CF cards are used in almost all DSLRs. So CF cards will be around for a
    >> long time. I for one wouldn't cry if Lexar stopped making any memory
    >> cards. Their problem may be a shrinking market share.

    >
    > I stopped by my local camera shop today after I posted the initial post. I
    > mentioned what I had heard and the person I usually deal with said that he
    > had heard pretty much the same. I asked him about other manufacturers and
    > he said that he heard nothing about their plans. I use San Disk anyway,
    > and that initially relieved me, however, he added that with reduced
    > competition, he anticipated the CF cards to become more expensive.
    >
    > I may be wrong, but when comparing similar manufacturer's CF cards to
    > their SDHC cards, the CF cards seem to have higher write speeds than the
    > comparable SDHC cards. I agree that most dSLR's use CF cards, however,
    > many of them have two slots and can take either. Given the differences in
    > write speeds, it does appear to me that Lexar's decision to get out of the
    > CF business is somewhat strange, as dSLR users would want the faster write
    > speeds. Someone had said that the new Nikon 300 has a single slot. Not
    > using a Nikon, I wouldn't know anything about that claim either. But I
    > would find it odd.


    I have three Canon DSLRs and they all have a single card slot and it is CF.
    As far as price goes, they are all cheap to those of us that have been using
    them for a while. Years ago a 340 MB microdrive type II CF card was over a
    hundred bucks. The CF cards with the largest capacity and fast write/read
    speeds will always have a high price until the newer version comes out.
    Like all electronics, the bigger better widget always costs more!

    Ron
     
    Ron, Nov 8, 2010
    #7
  8. Peabody <> wrote:
    > Well, maybe someone will come up with a superfast version of
    > the current SD-to-CF adapter so SD cards can be used for at
    > least the medium speed requirements at low cost. But SD is
    > a serial device while CF is parallel, and then there's the
    > extra controller used in the adapter process. So the speed
    > you would get from even the fastest adapter might not be so
    > great.



    Just remember that we switched from parallel (P-)ATA to serial
    SATA. Serial connections have speed advantages over parallel ones.
    The controller will be the limiter in the adapter.

    > It's not clear to me that video requires the fastest write
    > speed, since the video is compressed. My guess is the
    > stream of continuous shooting in RAW would present the most
    > rigorous requirement, particularly for those big 20+mp
    > cameras.


    You can always use a buffer for shooting in RAW, once it's full
    you just have to wait a bit. Try that with video ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 8, 2010
    #8
  9. Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2010-11-07 12:42:14 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <> said:
    >
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Nov 7, 8:35 am, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar
    >>>> that in
    >>>> 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >>>> manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >>>> party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what about
    >>>> other manufacturers?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> They must cost more than SD cards to make, purely from a resource use
    >>> standpoint. No wonder they want to do away with them.

    >>
    >>
    >> Understandable, but just as a curiosity, I compared the write speeds
    >> of a manufacturer's CF and SDHC cards of the same level, and it
    >> appeared that the CF card has a much faster write speed. I saw that
    >> in the latest B & H catalog. Admittedly, it could be a misprint, but
    >> it was repeated, so I'm not sure. I'll have to go and actually see
    >> both cards.
    >>
    >> Also, should that be the case, it would appear that most users of
    >> dSLR's would want the faster write speed, making the decision to stop
    >> producing the CF cards 'curious' at best.

    >
    >
    > The older, slower CF cards are being done away with.
    > That leaves the faster, pricier CF cards. So If you can find some of
    > those older slower, less expensive cards running at the same speeds as
    > the fastest SD cards, and you can live with that, buy them up.
    >
    > CF cards are going to cost more because they are not making the slower
    > cards any more, that market need is being filled with SD cards the
    > fastest being 30MB/s.
    >

    Sandisk is offering their Extreme Pro SDHC with a claimed write speed of
    45 mb/sec.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 9, 2010
    #9
  10. Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-11-08 16:40:24 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2010-11-07 12:42:14 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Rich wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Nov 7, 8:35 am, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> A friend of mine told me that he had heard from someone at Lexar
    >>>>>> that in
    >>>>>> 2-3 years they would no longer be making CF memory Cards, only
    >>>>>> manufacturing SDHC and micro SD cards. I realize that this is third
    >>>>>> party hearsay, but has anyone else heard that 'hearsay?' And what
    >>>>>> about
    >>>>>> other manufacturers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> They must cost more than SD cards to make, purely from a resource use
    >>>>> standpoint. No wonder they want to do away with them.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Understandable, but just as a curiosity, I compared the write speeds
    >>>> of a manufacturer's CF and SDHC cards of the same level, and it
    >>>> appeared that the CF card has a much faster write speed. I saw that
    >>>> in the latest B & H catalog. Admittedly, it could be a misprint,
    >>>> but it was repeated, so I'm not sure. I'll have to go and actually
    >>>> see both cards.
    >>>>
    >>>> Also, should that be the case, it would appear that most users of
    >>>> dSLR's would want the faster write speed, making the decision to
    >>>> stop producing the CF cards 'curious' at best.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The older, slower CF cards are being done away with.
    >>> That leaves the faster, pricier CF cards. So If you can find some of
    >>> those older slower, less expensive cards running at the same speeds
    >>> as the fastest SD cards, and you can live with that, buy them up.
    >>>
    >>> CF cards are going to cost more because they are not making the
    >>> slower cards any more, that market need is being filled with SD
    >>> cards the fastest being 30MB/s.
    >>>

    >> Sandisk is offering their Extreme Pro SDHC with a claimed write speed
    >> of 45 mb/sec.

    >
    >
    > Not on the SanDisk web site I checked. Unless I missed something you
    > have other sources for. Their fastest SDHC card I see is 30MB/s.
    > < http://www.sandisk.com/products/imaging
    >
    > I even googled "SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC" and it seems tough for them to
    > find.
    > <
    > http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


    My reference, as I stated above was the new B & H catalog. They picture
    a Sandisk SDHC Extreme Pro card with a clear indication on the image of
    the card, a 45 mb/sec speed. Now, as I said, it may be a misprint, or
    simply just plain wrong, but that's were I got the info from.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Nov 9, 2010
    #10
  11. Mark F <> wrote:

    > NOTE: If anyone gets one of the SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC Cards, please
    > try copying a large file from one location to another on the same
    > card. Be sure the file is not cached someplace and is in fact
    > actually copied by reading and writing interspersed on the same card.
    > (It has been my experience that many USB keys and various camera cards
    > cannot handle this operation with many types of hardware.)


    Reading and writing interspersed cannot be handled? How do they
    handle switching between reading and writing at all, then?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 10, 2010
    #11
  12. Mark F <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:13:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> Mark F <> wrote:


    >> > NOTE: If anyone gets one of the SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC Cards, please
    >> > try copying a large file from one location to another on the same
    >> > card. Be sure the file is not cached someplace and is in fact
    >> > actually copied by reading and writing interspersed on the same card.
    >> > (It has been my experience that many USB keys and various camera cards
    >> > cannot handle this operation with many types of hardware.)


    >> Reading and writing interspersed cannot be handled? How do they
    >> handle switching between reading and writing at all, then?


    > For most of the combinations of memory devices, computers, and
    > operating systems that slowed do either:
    > 1. things worked fine


    Huh? I thought they slowed ...

    > 2. things were slow, but constant: in other words, instead
    > of running at say 1/2 of the slower of the device read or write
    > speed, ran at 1/10 to 1/30 of this speed, but the speed
    > was fairly constant when averaged over a second or so.
    > I think that this MIGHT be due to having to flush buffers or
    > physical blocks, or just to "turn around" the hardware from
    > read to write or write to read.


    > However I recently found a several memory models in the same series
    > (SanDisk Extreme SDHC 30MB/s 16GB and 32GB) that seem to be
    > getting I/O errors or making the operating system think there
    > were I/O errors [that the OS didn't log).


    Huh? How do you detect I/O errors that don't show up in the
    logs?

    > I used a SanDisk ImageMate All-in-One SDDR-189,
    > on one machine running Windows XP and on another machine running
    > Windows 7 the speed. I found the speed to be irregular, seeming to
    > pause for more than 30 seconds and then transferring a couple of
    > megabytes of data. This seems to indicate the an I/O error recovery
    > procedure is being entered by either the card or the operating system.


    Nope, that rather sounds like buffering in the OS. Look in
    /var/log/* ... oops, sorry, you are using an inferior OS, ok,
    then look in the log files for any indication of I/O errors.

    > The support people at SanDisk say they tried the same model
    > SanDisk Extreme SDHC 30MB/s card model and the same test but found
    > no problems. They won't let me have a log file or screen capture,
    > so I can't be sure that the even the last guy really did a test that
    > might see a problem.


    Well, I presume he tested it right.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 12, 2010
    #12
  13. Alan Lichtenstein

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Dec 2, 2:53 pm, Mark F <> wrote:
    > I (Mark F <>) wrote in part around 10 Nov 2010:> I recently found a several memory models in the same series
    > > (SanDisk Extreme SDHC 30MB/s 16GB and 32GB) that seem to be
    > > getting I/O errors or making the operating system think there
    > > were I/O errors [that the OS didn't log).

    >
    > > I used a SanDisk ImageMate All-in-One SDDR-189,
    > > on one machine running Windows XP and on another machine running
    > > Windows 7 the speed.
    > > pause for more than 30 seconds and then transferring a couple of
    > > megabytes of data.  This seems to indicate the an I/O error recovery
    > > procedure is being entered by either the card or the operating system.
    > > (I didn't try switching operating systems on the machines.  I also
    > > tried using SDDR-189 with several SanDisk Extreme Compact Flash 60MB/s
    > > 8GB cards. These worked fine on both machines.  Note that this doesn't
    > > mean that the problem is not in the SDDR-189.)

    >
    > I have since tried 8 other models including 3 from SanDisk.
    > I only tested these models on Windows XP Pro with Service Pack 3.
    > I used a SanDisk ImageMate All-in-One SDDR-189 for the tests.
    >
    > The failure mode was normally the device going offline after
    > the copy seemed to be "stuck" for 30 seconds or so.  Sometimes I
    > got a write-behind failure at this point, sometimes
    > "The system cannot find the file specified."
    > Seems to have depended on the exact operations that I did in
    > setting things up.  Also, with
    > one set of ad-hoc commands used with the SanDisk Extreme 30MB/s
    > 16GB SDHC it seemed like the operation was progressing by
    > a couple of megabytes every 30 seconds or so, but I aborted the
    > operation about 400MB into copying a 2048000000 byte file after
    > a half hour or so, so I don't know if the operation would have
    > ultimately finished.
    >
    > I tried SanDisk Extreme Compact Flash 60MB/s and things worked fine.
    >
    > All of the devices were mounted using in the default Policy.
    > I the cases that I checked this was "Optimize for quick removal".
    > I wasn't able to check if the cases where I saw a write
    > behind failure (instead of the device just going offline)
    > actually had the device mounted for "Optimize for performance"
    > (When I checked after the fact by removing and inserting the
    > card that went offline, I found the card set for quick removal,
    > and when I rebooted and mounted the card it also was mounted
    > for quick removal
    > I did not try any microSDHC, Memory Stick PRO Duo, or other devices
    > form factors, so I don't know if they would work.
    >
    > Here is a summary:
    >  SanDisk Extreme 30MB/s SDHC 16GB SDSDX3-016G-A31 - FAILED
    >  SanDisk Extreme 20MB/s SDHC 16GB SDSDRX3-016G-A1 - FAILED
    >
    >  SanDisk Ultra 15MB/s SDHC 16GB SDSDRH-016G-A11 - worked
    >  Delkin DDSDPRO2-16GB - worked
    >  Delkin DDSDPRO3-16GB 24MB/s Read, 17MB/s write - worked
    >  Kingston SD10/16GB CLASS 10 - worked
    >  Lexar Professional 133x 16GB SDHC 20MB/s LSD16GCRBNA133 Rev A
    >  Panasonic RP-SDW16GU1K 22MB/s - worked
    >
    > I also had some older, slower, lower capacity SanDisk SDHC cards
    > around that all worked.
    >
    > I also had some SanDisk Extreme 20MB/s and 30MB/s
    > cards in lower capacities that all failed.
    >
    > I also noted that:
    > . The capacities of the devices varied from model to model,
    > . I wasn't able to obtain full speed with any of the 20MB/s and faster
    >  devices, but there as an overlap in the speeds for reading from and
    >  writing to, so the failure mode is NOT that I things die with fast
    >  copies.
    > . There was about 980MB of data cached on my system when I did
    >  the copy operation "within" a device.  I noted that the speed
    >  dropped to less than 1/2 of the copy to speed after the cached
    >  data had been exhausted.  The drop to 1/2 speed is expected.
    >  The drop to less than 1/2 speed might be expected from the
    >  seek time of the drive but might also be due to limits in the device
    >  under test, the ImageMate All-in-One, or the USB 2 interface on my
    >  system.
    > . The devices that failed seemed to fail after the cached data was
    >   exhausted.  Depending on the exact way I did the test this
    >   could be after just a few bytes or above 1GB.
    >
    > I have informed SanDisk that their Extreme SDHC cards can't
    > copy within the device.
    >
    > To show how to do testing I just did a retest (on Windows XP) with
    > one of the cards that had failed:
    >  SanDisk Extreme 30MB/s SDHC Class 10 16GB
    >  SDSDX3-016G-A31 UPC 6 19659 04755 9 purchased in 2010 October.
    >  The back of the card says: BL1012014367G
    >  (HD Tune Pro 4.01 Info says that the "Firmware version: is "1804",
    >  but this might actually be the firmware version for the ImageMate,
    >  not the card.)
    >
    > 1. I confirmed that the Policy for it was
    >  "Optimize for quick removal."
    > 2. I had a 2048000000 byte file named A1.TMP of all zeros on my
    >   C drive
    > 3. I used a DOS window and did
    >  COPY A1.TMP N:
    > {the operation ran at about 16400KB/s)
    >  N:
    >  copy A1.TMP b.tmp
    >
    > The operation started at about 17200KB/s
    > After about 1083140480 bytes the operation seemed
    > to get stop making progress.
    >
    > After about 1 minute the COPY operation ended, with the
    > following being displayed:
    >  The system cannot find the file specified.
    >          0 file(s) copied.
    >
    > I removed the card and reinserted it.
    > I did a Properties > Tools > Check Now...
    > No {metadata} errors were found. (I didn't scan for
    > data errors.)
    >
    > The b.tmp file shows as created at 2048000000 bytes allocated.
    >
    > I cannot determine how far the operation actually progressed
    > since both the before and after data would have been zeroes.
    >
    > Event Viewer > System Warnings, all type 51.
    >
    > All say Source: Disk, Event ID: 51
    > Description: "An error was detected on device \Device]Harddisk4\D
    > during a paging operation."
    >
    > I repeated the copy A1.TMP b.tmp part several times.
    > I got 4 events the first time and 10 the second time.
    >
    > I don't know how to easily extract the data.
    > Here is a dump of the data from the latest event,
    >  Event ID 51: at 9:34:26 AM
    >  0000: 03 00 68 00 01 00 b6 00
    >  0008: 00 00 00 00 33 00 04 80
    >  0010: 2d 01 00 00 0e 00 00 c0
    >  0018: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    >  0020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
    >  0028: 5b dd 02 00 00 00 00 00
    >  0030: ff ff ff ff 01 00 00 00
    >  0038: 40 00 00 08 00 00 00 00
    >  0040: 00 20 0a 12 40 02 20 40
    >  0048: 00 00 00 00 3c 00 00 00
    >  0050: 00 00 00 00 c0 28 d1 89
    >  0058: 00 00 00 00 08 b0 e9 86
    >  0060: 00 00 00 00 b0 b4 0c 01  
    >  0068: 28 00 01 0c b4 b0 00 00  
    >  0070: 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
    >  0078: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
    >  0080: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
    >  0088: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  
    >
    > I ran HD Tune Pro 4.01 Error Scan and no problems were found.
    > (The scan seems to run at about 19.1MB/s.) Of course HD Tune
    > Pro doesn't have access to any blocks that the device decided
    > were bad and remapped.
    >
    > Once again, I'd appreciate it if someone could try the tests
    > on any models that failed for me.



    Have you tried a different OS or PC/Mac

    perhaps XP is affecting the results
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 2, 2010
    #13
  14. Alan Lichtenstein

    Bruce Guest

    clarity <> wrote:
    >
    >the future of CF must be in doubt, as now sd production dwarfs cf,;
    >economies of scale sre paramount, as in all industries, imo



    Complete nonsense. The new technology that was recently agreed for
    the next generation of CF cards ensures that CF will not only survive,
    but prosper long in the future.

    CF volumes are more than enough to obtain economies of scale. Once
    you have reached a certain point in terms of production volumes,
    doubling or even quadrupling production has almost no effect on unit
    cost.

    CF volumes are way above that point, so no further economies of scale
    are available. Plus, CF is used for many applications other than
    photography.
     
    Bruce, Feb 23, 2011
    #14
  15. Alan Lichtenstein

    ASCII Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >clarity <> wrote:
    >>
    >>the future of CF must be in doubt, as now sd production dwarfs cf,;
    >>economies of scale sre paramount, as in all industries, imo

    >
    >
    >Complete nonsense. The new technology that was recently agreed for
    >the next generation of CF cards ensures that CF will not only survive,
    >but prosper long in the future.
    >
    >CF volumes are more than enough to obtain economies of scale. Once
    >you have reached a certain point in terms of production volumes,
    >doubling or even quadrupling production has almost no effect on unit
    >cost.
    >
    >CF volumes are way above that point, so no further economies of scale
    >are available. Plus, CF is used for many applications other than
    >photography.


    Since you appear to be an apologist for 'CF', maybe you can explain why the
    fragile (bendable) pin arrangement of their sockets plus almost 4X the
    physical size of SD makes the CF cards likely to persist in the face of SDHC
    or SDHX?
    Sure there are some legacy devices that will still need them even as their
    number dwindles, just as there are still 8-track players and sony beta format
    tape players. I haven't seen many 8 or even 5 inch floppies lately however.
     
    ASCII, Feb 23, 2011
    #15
  16. Alan Lichtenstein

    Bruce Guest

    ASCII <> wrote:
    >Bruce wrote:
    >>clarity <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>the future of CF must be in doubt, as now sd production dwarfs cf,;
    >>>economies of scale sre paramount, as in all industries, imo

    >>
    >>
    >>Complete nonsense. The new technology that was recently agreed for
    >>the next generation of CF cards ensures that CF will not only survive,
    >>but prosper long in the future.
    >>
    >>CF volumes are more than enough to obtain economies of scale. Once
    >>you have reached a certain point in terms of production volumes,
    >>doubling or even quadrupling production has almost no effect on unit
    >>cost.
    >>
    >>CF volumes are way above that point, so no further economies of scale
    >>are available. Plus, CF is used for many applications other than
    >>photography.

    >
    >Since you appear to be an apologist for 'CF', maybe you can explain why the
    >fragile (bendable) pin arrangement of their sockets plus almost 4X the
    >physical size of SD makes the CF cards likely to persist in the face of SDHC
    >or SDHX?



    Since you seem to be an apologist for 'SD', maybe you can explain why
    the fragile arrangement of their contacts plus their thin, light and
    flimsy form factor that means they blow away easily if dropped in
    breezy conditions makes the SD cards likely to persist in the face of
    the rugged reliability of CF?

    I have never had any problems with the contact pins of CF cards
    despite using them professionally in some very harsh conditions on
    construction sites. They are not in any way "fragile" because
    properly designed CF slots guide the card in to ensure precise
    engagement. In contrast, I have had to replace two sets of SD card
    contacts on different cameras because they are not as reliable.

    There can be problems with pins on cheap CF card readers that aren't
    properly designed or maufactured, but there are also problems with
    cheap SD card readers. Buy cheap junk, expect problems.

    The repair workshop I use is the UK's largest authorised repairer of
    Canon and Nikon equipment. The manager tells me that camera CF card
    slot repairs are very rare, whereas SD card slot contacts are much
    more likely to need replacement.

    [From Wikipedia:
    Compared to other portable storage, CF cards are considered more
    rugged and durable to many "in the field" photographic shocks, impacts
    and accidents. CompactFlash cards are capable of withstanding more
    physical damage in comparison to other, flimsier designs.]

    Amateur users who place few demands on their equipment will be
    perfectly happy with SD cards. If their flimsy little card blows away
    in the wind, who cares? What is the loss of a few mediocre snapshots
    compared with losing a day's work that is vital for a professional's
    business and reputation?

    That's why most professionals strongly prefer CF and leave the flimsy
    little SD cards to amateurs.
     
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2011
    #16
  17. Alan Lichtenstein

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/24/2011 10:43 AM, Bruce wrote:

    > Since you seem to be an apologist for 'SD', maybe you can explain why
    > the fragile arrangement of their contacts plus their thin, light and
    > flimsy form factor that means they blow away easily if dropped in
    > breezy conditions


    This must be the silliest argument I've ever seen on newsgroups in a
    while. Given the capacities of cards, even a trigger-happy amateur will
    have a very hard time filling one and so would rarely experiences the
    urge to swap cards in the wild.

    And if you still want to talk about dropping the memory card outdoors,
    tell me how you remove sand & dirt that entered the contacts slots of a
    CF card.
    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 24, 2011
    #17
  18. Alan Lichtenstein

    Bruce Guest

    Ofnuts <> wrote:
    >On 02/24/2011 10:43 AM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >> Since you seem to be an apologist for 'SD', maybe you can explain why
    >> the fragile arrangement of their contacts plus their thin, light and
    >> flimsy form factor that means they blow away easily if dropped in
    >> breezy conditions

    >
    >Given the capacities of cards, even a trigger-happy amateur will
    >have a very hard time filling one and so would rarely experiences the
    >urge to swap cards in the wild.



    Yes, that's why SD cards are best suited to amateur use.


    >And if you still want to talk about dropping the memory card outdoors,
    >tell me how you remove sand & dirt that entered the contacts slots of a
    >CF card.



    Thank you so much for dreaming up yet another non-existent "problem".

    The robustness and reliability of CF is not in doubt. If you are
    happy with SD, that's fine, but there is no need to diss a product
    (CF) that has a long track record, a bright future and very strong
    support from its professional users.

    SD cards are like consumer-grade lenses. Cheap and nasty, and good
    enough for the vast majority of amateurs. Sadly, because so many
    amateurs like to be seen toting professional DSLRs, there is now a
    demand for SD card slots in 'pro' cameras.

    Personally, I would rather have twin CF slots, but the demand from
    wannabees is such that manufacturers feel they have no option but to
    comply. Perhaps twin CF slots and a free SD-CF adapter would keep the
    consumer-graders *and* the pros happy? Or would that be just *too*
    complex for an amateur to operate?
     
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2011
    #18
  19. Alan Lichtenstein

    ASCII Guest

    Bruce wrote:
    >
    >Since you seem to be an apologist for 'SD', maybe you can explain why
    >the fragile arrangement of their contacts plus their thin, light and
    >flimsy form factor that means they blow away easily if dropped in
    >breezy conditions makes the SD cards likely to persist in the face of
    >the rugged reliability of CF?


    Maybe because not all users of SD cards aren't so fumble fingered
    as to have them blow away in the wind,
    besides with 8gb of memory I hardly ever remove them from the camera
    until I'm safely back home.
    In the SanDisk ImageMate Multi-Reader here I have had to wiggle CF cards
    sometimes to get their pins into the socket whereas the SD simply slide in for
    a tight fit, have yet to experience contact failure.
    I still have a few CF from previous cameras I use for external storage,
    but am glad the current camera uses SDHC.
     
    ASCII, Feb 24, 2011
    #19
  20. Alan Lichtenstein

    Bruce Guest

    ASCII <> wrote:
    >Maybe because not all users of SD cards aren't so fumble fingered
    >as to have them blow away in the wind,
    >besides with 8gb of memory I hardly ever remove them from the camera
    >until I'm safely back home.



    Most amateurs find SD cards perfectly satisfactory. They don't tend
    to go out shooting in adverse conditions. They don't take cards out
    of the camera other than indoors. So it doesn't matter to an amateur
    how flimsy they are, or whether they blow away in the wind. SD cards
    are well suited to that market.

    CF cards appeal strongly to a different market, one that amateurs
    simply don't understand. As this thread proves. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2011
    #20
    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. Video cards and TV Capture cards

    , Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    833
    jda^fx
    Jan 31, 2004
  2. Mulperi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    655
  3. zxcvar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    915
    Joe Hotchkiss
    Nov 28, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    550
    stewy
    Jan 17, 2005
  5. Replies:
    17
    Views:
    2,939
    ASAAR
    Aug 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page