What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Atom, Jul 11, 2006.

  1. The Atom

    The Atom Guest

    What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?



    .................................................................
    Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
    >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

    -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
     
    The Atom, Jul 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Atom

    Pete D Guest

    Way to small!

    "The Atom" <> wrote in message
    news:44b40c48$0$7166$...
    >
    > What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    >
    >
    >
    > ................................................................
    > Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
    > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

    > -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
    >
     
    Pete D, Jul 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David H. Lipman, Jul 11, 2006
    #3
  4. The Atom

    Scott W Guest

    David H. Lipman wrote:
    > From: "The Atom" <>
    >
    > |
    > | What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    > |
    >
    > Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are too sensitive to
    > G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory Cards, while having
    > lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.
    >
    > --
    > Dave
    > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    > http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

    I don't believe these are drives meant to go in a compact flash slot
    but rather a USB mini drive.

    Thay are really small in terms of how much they can hold, I would go
    instead with the WD 120 GB portable drive, very small and Costco has
    them pretty cheap.
    http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=199

    I have the older 80GB version and it works very well, powers off of the
    USB port.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 11, 2006
    #4
  5. The Atom

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:55:02 GMT, David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:


    >From: "The Atom" <>


    >|
    >| What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    >|


    >Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are too sensitive to
    >G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory Cards, while having
    >lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.


    It depends on your application. Have you priced an 8G flash card lately?

    The HDs are cheaper, higher capacity, and less reliable. They're probably
    faster for writing. I personally wouldn't get one, but a professional
    photographer's needs might need the capacity over reliability.
     
    AZ Nomad, Jul 11, 2006
    #5
  6. From: "Scott W" <>

    | I don't believe these are drives meant to go in a compact flash slot
    | but rather a USB mini drive.
    |
    | Thay are really small in terms of how much they can hold, I would go
    | instead with the WD 120 GB portable drive, very small and Costco has
    | them pretty cheap.
    | http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=199
    |
    | I have the older 80GB version and it works very well, powers off of the
    | USB port.
    |
    | Scott

    OK. I missed that. If these are standard ATA/EIDE 2.5" hard disks in an external USB v2.0
    based chassis then its would be good. Except how is it to be implemented.

    When I heard 4GB and 8GB, these are sizes of devices for Compact Flash or other memory
    solution that goes in the camera. 2.5" drives in external chassis offer >40GB ~ 120GB.

    If it is a hard disk that fits into the camera body and is used to directly store graphic
    files then I would say its use is contraindicated. I would suggest a high capacity, solid
    state, Flash RAM memory card be used.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Jul 11, 2006
    #6
  7. The Atom

    JohnR66 Guest

    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:55:02 GMT, David H. Lipman
    > <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>From: "The Atom" <>

    >
    >>|
    >>| What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    >>|

    >
    >>Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are
    >>too sensitive to
    >>G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory
    >>Cards, while having
    >>lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.

    >
    > It depends on your application. Have you priced an 8G flash card lately?
    >
    > The HDs are cheaper, higher capacity, and less reliable. They're probably
    > faster for writing. I personally wouldn't get one, but a professional
    > photographer's needs might need the capacity over reliability.


    Are you kidding? If I were a pro, I'd want reliability. I'd want to reduce
    the chances that equipment failure could wipe out a shoot.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Jul 11, 2006
    #7
  8. The Atom

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > David H. Lipman wrote:
    >> From: "The Atom" <>
    >>
    >> |
    >> | What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    >> |
    >>
    >> Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are
    >> too sensitive to
    >> G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory
    >> Cards, while having
    >> lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Dave
    >> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    >> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

    > I don't believe these are drives meant to go in a compact flash slot
    > but rather a USB mini drive.
    >
    > Thay are really small in terms of how much they can hold, I would go
    > instead with the WD 120 GB portable drive, very small and Costco has
    > them pretty cheap.
    > http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=199
    >
    > I have the older 80GB version and it works very well, powers off of the
    > USB port.
    >
    > Scott
    >

    I have the 120GB version. Great stuff. One thing is it won't run without AC
    adaptor on some computers that have limited USB power (older standards).
     
    JohnR66, Jul 11, 2006
    #8
  9. David H. Lipman, Jul 11, 2006
    #9
  10. The Atom

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:50:21 GMT, David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:


    >From: "JohnR66" <>



    >|
    >| Are you kidding? If I were a pro, I'd want reliability. I'd want to reduce
    >| the chances that equipment failure could wipe out a shoot.
    >| John
    >|


    >:)


    >The last thing you want is to loose data.
    >You can't make up for lost "art".


    You'd loose data if your media was full and you tried to take a picture.
     
    AZ Nomad, Jul 12, 2006
    #10
  11. From: "AZ Nomad" <>


    |
    | You'd loose data if your media was full and you tried to take a picture.

    Huh ?

    At that moment your camera will decrement the number of available photos from 1 to 0 and you
    wouldn't be able to take the next shot w/o replacing the memory card/storage media.

    The concept of full media doesn't play in this discussion because no matter what format of
    storage you use in any given camera you can't write to a device that's "full" with no room
    left.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Jul 12, 2006
    #11
  12. The Atom

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:26:17 GMT, David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:


    >From: "AZ Nomad" <>



    >|
    >| You'd loose data if your media was full and you tried to take a picture.


    >Huh ?


    >At that moment your camera will decrement the number of available photos from 1 to 0 and you
    >wouldn't be able to take the next shot w/o replacing the memory card/storage media.


    >The concept of full media doesn't play in this discussion because no matter what format of
    >storage you use in any given camera you can't write to a device that's "full" with no room
    >left.


    A device that is 4 times the size isn't going to get full so quickly.
    I can't believe I have to explain this.
     
    AZ Nomad, Jul 12, 2006
    #12
  13. David H. Lipman, Jul 12, 2006
    #13
  14. The Atom

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:06:58 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:50:21 GMT, David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>From: "JohnR66" <>

    >
    >
    >>|
    >>| Are you kidding? If I were a pro, I'd want reliability. I'd want to reduce
    >>| the chances that equipment failure could wipe out a shoot.
    >>| John
    >>|

    >
    >>:)

    >
    >>The last thing you want is to loose data.
    >>You can't make up for lost "art".

    >
    > You'd loose data if your media was full and you tried to take a picture.

    A successful pro. would be able to afford and actually have a surplus of
    storage media so that the chance of losing images is so small as to be
    non-existant.

    --
    Neil
    Delete l to reply
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jul 12, 2006
    #14
  15. The Atom

    J. Clarke Guest

    Neil Ellwood wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:06:58 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:50:21 GMT, David H. Lipman
    >> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>From: "JohnR66" <>

    >>
    >>
    >>>|
    >>>| Are you kidding? If I were a pro, I'd want reliability. I'd want to
    >>>| reduce the chances that equipment failure could wipe out a shoot.
    >>>| John
    >>>|

    >>
    >>>:)

    >>
    >>>The last thing you want is to loose data.
    >>>You can't make up for lost "art".

    >>
    >> You'd loose data if your media was full and you tried to take a picture.

    > A successful pro. would be able to afford and actually have a surplus of
    > storage media so that the chance of losing images is so small as to be
    > non-existant.


    A pro doesn't use the card for long term, the card is used between the time
    the shot is taken and the time that it is loaded onto the
    multiply-redundant storage in the server. During that period having "a
    surplus of storage media" doesn't help unless the shot is taken several
    times on different media.
    >


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 12, 2006
    #15
  16. The Atom

    Guest Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:09:48 +1000, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >Way to small!
    >
    >"The Atom" <> wrote in message
    >news:44b40c48$0$7166$...
    >>
    >> What do you think of the 4GB and 8GB GigaBank Mini HDs?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> ................................................................
    >> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
    >> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

    >> -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
    >>

    >

    I think you'd need a Die-Hard truck battery
    to supply the power to take all the pictures.

    <rj>
     
    Guest, Jul 13, 2006
    #16
  17. The Atom

    C J Southern Guest

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    news:W6Vsg.6511$bd4.4799@trnddc01...

    > Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are

    too sensitive to
    > G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory

    Cards, while having
    > lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.


    Out of interest, how many microdrives have you PERSONALLY had fail?
     
    C J Southern, Jul 13, 2006
    #17
  18. The Atom

    Ray Fischer Guest

    C J Southern <> wrote:
    >"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message


    >> Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs are

    >too sensitive to
    >> G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory

    >Cards, while having
    >> lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.

    >
    >Out of interest, how many microdrives have you PERSONALLY had fail?


    One. Electronics failure, not mechanical. Hitachi. Sent it in under
    warranty and they replaced a 2GB microdrive with a 4GB microdrive.

    No photos lost so I'm quite happy.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jul 13, 2006
    #18
  19. "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:44b5ee3b$0$34522$...
    >C J Southern <> wrote:
    >>"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message

    >
    >>> Nix them. Go for Flash RAM based memory cards instead. The mini HDs
    >>> are

    >>too sensitive to
    >>> G'force, shock, and vibration and thus could lead to data loss. Memory

    >>Cards, while having
    >>> lower capacity, are magnitudes greater in their reliability factor.

    >>
    >>Out of interest, how many microdrives have you PERSONALLY had fail?

    >
    > One. Electronics failure, not mechanical. Hitachi. Sent it in under
    > warranty and they replaced a 2GB microdrive with a 4GB microdrive.
    >
    > No photos lost so I'm quite happy.


    Yeah.

    It seems that 2 or 3 times a year the "Microdrive" topic comes up - and
    everytime there seems to be a chorus of people say "stay away from them
    because they're a hard drive, and everyone knows that hard drives are prone
    to breaking".

    It's usually worthy of note that few, if any, of the chorus members making
    the said same statements have every owned one - it just seems to be one of
    those computer mantras that gets passed along to successive "generations".

    The irony appears to be that the newer variety are designed for such things
    as MP3 players designed to be carried whilst jogging - with at least one
    manufacturer even going so far as to make a little animation of how the
    drive is designed to momentarily shut down if it detects an excessive knock.

    All the current evidence suggests that it's quite safe to do things with
    them whilst they're going that you really wouldn't want to subject your
    camera to - or put another way - if you're handling your camera with all due
    care then the drive will in all likelihood be operating well within safety
    margins.
     
    Mick Anderson, Jul 13, 2006
    #19
    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 J Taylor

    If you have 4GB, are you getting 4GB?

    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,323
    Roger
    Feb 2, 2006
  2. MaryL

    New GigaBank Elite (I/O Magic) problems

    MaryL, Jun 9, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    711
    MaryL
    Jun 9, 2007
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    893
  4. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    471
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
  5. Spin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    723
    Tim Slattery
    Aug 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page