Capacity of 1GB SanDisk Ultra vs 1GB Microdrive

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Graham Russell, Nov 5, 2003.

  1. I've just bought a 1GB SanDisk Ultra compact flash card for use with a 10D.
    I also have a 1GB microdrive.. It appears that the formatted capacity of the
    SanDisk card is about 976MB whereas the formatted capacity of the microdrive
    is 1GB. This means that the microdrive holds about 20 more RAW images than
    the flash card.I wasn't expecting this difference in capacity. Is the
    capacity of the 1GB Ultra OK or is it bad?

    Thanks,

    Graham.
     
    Graham Russell, Nov 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Graham Russell

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    Different folks computer differently.
    for example 1KB (kilobytes) is actually 1024 bytes in the PC world.
    However 1K (One Kilo) is actually 1,000.

    So the multiplication factor could be

    X * 1000 or X *1024

    When you are talking Gigabytes, it can make a difference.

    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Nov 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Graham Russell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Graham Russell"
    I see the same type thing when comparing my 1 GB Lexar CF with my 1 GB
    microdrive. I'm sure there's a good reason ...
    Seems to be par for the course. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/
    shows actual capacity for a variety of cards and the microdrives are pretty
    much the only ones with the full listed capacity.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Graham Russell

    Ed Ruf Guest

    More fundamentally, the "correct" measurement makes sole use of powers
    of 2.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Nov 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Graham Russell

    Ron Hunter Guest

    It does, but then so much of a disk is taken up by directories, boot
    sectors, FAT tables, etc. that the difference really isn't too significant.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 5, 2003
    #5
  6. Graham Russell

    Bill Hilton Guest

    The problem is many companies in their advertising use "mega" (which is 2**20
    or 1,048,576) when they should use "million" (which is 1,000,000). And they
    use kilo (2**10 or 1,024) when they should use thousand. It's a "powers of
    two" vs "powers of ten" type thing and companies pick the number that makes
    their product look better.

    Some of these disks use up a bit of space for boot sectors, etc too. What the
    capacity numbers SHOULD say is the actual number of free bytes. At times it's
    bordering on fraud and I'm surprised some publicity hound DA hasn't filed a
    class action suit demanding the disk and memory guys decide on unambiguous
    standards.

    Bill
    (former digital design engineer)
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Graham Russell

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Not too significant?

    { (2^30 - 10^9) / (2^30) } *100 = 6.9%

    If the gas station down the street was off this much they'd surely get
    fined by your state's weights and measures office.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Nov 5, 2003
    #7
  8. Graham Russell

    fruitbat Guest

    But a kilometer is 1000 meters, not 1024... Kilo, mega, giga, etc are
    all established SI prefixes that translate to even powers of 10, so
    companies using mega for 1 million are technically correct. To fix the
    problem, the IEC has actually adopted the horribly silly-sounding
    kibi/mebi/gibi system. So far, I've NEVER heard anyone utter these
    terms in actual speech. At least they're thinking in the right
    direction, though. A binary kilobyte, or kibibyte (or KiB -- yes. the
    k is capital now), is 2^10 bytes. I would have preferred different
    names, but that's life.
    As far as memory cards are concerned, I don't mind that I don't get a
    full 2^30 bytes (Well, 2^29 for the card I'm using right now). 488MB
    is still much larger than the next step down, and that's all I'm
    really concerned with. The numbers are pretty much arbitrary, since
    I'm not thinking "I need EXACTLY n pictures on this card, or it's
    useless!" The difference between 512MB and 512MiB (there, IEC, are you
    happy?) is only 5%, and since the size of the pictures I take
    fluctuates *anyway*, I don't care that it's slightly less than it
    should be, I guess.
    Jeff
    (current digital design engineer)
     
    fruitbat, Nov 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Graham Russell

    Matt Guest

    Cards are formatted too, and there's a certain amount of overhead that
    is inherent in all cards. 976 MB sounds about right.
     
    Matt, Nov 23, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.