secure digital and multimedia cards

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by geepeetee, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. geepeetee

    geepeetee Guest

    Hi

    Can anyone tell me what is the difference between these, my camera acepts
    both but mmc seems to be slightly cheaper

    thanks

    Gary
    geepeetee, Jun 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. geepeetee

    CeeBee Guest

    "geepeetee" <> wrote in rec.photo.digital:

    > Hi
    >
    > Can anyone tell me what is the difference between these, my camera
    > acepts both but mmc seems to be slightly cheaper



    SD no doubt will eventually become the standard; preventing this now are
    indeed the high(er) price per MB, which results in unavailability or
    extreme high costs of GB cards. Furthermore by now SD is faster than
    MMC.


    --
    CeeBee


    EMH Mark I: "Stop breathing down my neck."
    EMH Mark II: "My breath is merely a simulation."
    EMH Mark I: "So is my neck. Stop it anyway."
    CeeBee, Jun 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. geepeetee

    Pete Guest

    On 25 Jun 2004 01:20:59 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

    > Furthermore by now SD is faster than MMC.


    I have been trying to find out *how much* faster. Sandisk's web site tells
    you how fast their Ultra II devices are, but I couldn't find anywhere where
    they tell you how slow the MMC devices are!
    Pete, Jun 25, 2004
    #3
  4. geepeetee

    Ron Hunter Guest

    geepeetee wrote:

    > Hi
    >
    > Can anyone tell me what is the difference between these, my camera acepts
    > both but mmc seems to be slightly cheaper
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > Gary
    >
    >

    Don't know where you get MMC cheaper. I really don't know the
    difference, but the MMC cards are MUCH more expensive around my part of
    the world.
    Ron Hunter, Jun 25, 2004
    #4
  5. geepeetee

    CeeBee Guest

    Pete <> wrote in rec.photo.digital:

    > I have been trying to find out *how much* faster. Sandisk's web site
    > tells you how fast their Ultra II devices are, but I couldn't find
    > anywhere where they tell you how slow the MMC devices are!



    IIRC access time of SD is about 25% faster, read/write spead about twice
    as fast.


    --
    CeeBee


    EMH Mark I: "Stop breathing down my neck."
    EMH Mark II: "My breath is merely a simulation."
    EMH Mark I: "So is my neck. Stop it anyway."
    CeeBee, Jun 25, 2004
    #5
  6. geepeetee

    Dave Haynie Guest

    On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:32:56 -0700, Pete <> wrote:

    >On 25 Jun 2004 01:20:59 GMT, CeeBee wrote:
    >
    >> Furthermore by now SD is faster than MMC.

    >
    >I have been trying to find out *how much* faster. Sandisk's web site tells
    >you how fast their Ultra II devices are, but I couldn't find anywhere where
    >they tell you how slow the MMC devices are!


    MMC are all guaranteed to work at 2MB/s; I'm not sure if they come in
    higher speed grades or not.

    The smaller SD cards run at 10MB/s, the larger cards (around 512MB or
    more) run 20MB/s. As it's a synchronous interface (eg, clocked
    entirely by your camera, not the card), your camera is primarily
    responsible for the effective speed (unlike Compact Flash, for
    example, which is an asynchronously clocked interface, the speed being
    based on a handshake protocol between the card and your camera).

    Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
    | Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
    "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com
    Dave Haynie, Jul 3, 2004
    #6
    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. KerplunKuK

    Secure and non secure warnings

    KerplunKuK, Aug 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    536
    Blinky the Shark
    Aug 24, 2004
  2. Richard
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    264
    David J Taylor
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. sgbrix
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    421
    sgbrix
    Dec 19, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    562
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    613
Loading...

Share This Page