CF dying?

(Mike S.) wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
[...]
wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
ther won't.

exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.

Thank you, good to know.

jue

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
news

"Alfred Molon" wrote:

Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...

My first dcams were Sony (S85 and F707) which use the far superior memory
stick; I've always thought the pins that CF uses are a disaster asking to
happen. A bit of dust on the connector, and your camera needs a trip to
the mfr. I've seen lots of bent pins in that sort of connector in the
past.

And MS is one more example of Sony killing a format by trying to rule the
world with a proprietary solution. As a corporation, they are insane.


So maybe this is good news.

(Our CEO just bought a portable DVD player, and it has an SD card slot, so
it does seem that SD is winning.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
and my card reader will read.

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM"

Certainly today's capacities are more than enough for today's cameras
and camera technology.
But I cannot and will not predict what the future might bring. But who
would have imagined 10 years ago that people would use hard drives to
store feature-length and high-quality movies? Maybe in 3 years you won't
rent a cumbersome VHS tape (oh, wait, that's DVD nowadays) at
Blockbuster but instead plug your personal memory card into a machine at
your grocery store and download the latest movie while paying for your
bread and butter.

jue
Hi,

Some people use SD cards in devices other than digital still cameras.
For example, there are digital audio recorders that take SD cards,and
could well use 2 GB or even 4 GB. I myself get about 300 JPEX pix on a 1
GB card, and would rather use several separate cards for extensive
picture taking, rather than putting 1,000 pictures all on one card that
might possibly fail.

At least we have a choice.

Morton Linder

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
and my card reader will read.

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM"

Certainly today's capacities are more than enough for today's cameras
and camera technology.
But I cannot and will not predict what the future might bring. But who
would have imagined 10 years ago that people would use hard drives to
store feature-length and high-quality movies? Maybe in 3 years you won't
rent a cumbersome VHS tape (oh, wait, that's DVD nowadays) at
Blockbuster but instead plug your personal memory card into a machine at
your grocery store and download the latest movie while paying for your
bread and butter.

jue

Yeah, and I remember Steve Jobs saying no one would ever need more than
16k of Ram, either.
I don't see why that isn't done now. Certainly a 4GB card is more than
enough to store most movies, some even in HD.

l v wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
[snip]
I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.

YMMV. A 512mb card holds approx 34 - 50 shots on my camera. It's 10MB
camera and the sizes of the RAW images vary in size. A 2gb cards holds
about 136 images.

A huge camera does not necessary mean an expensive DSLR camera where the
owner has deep pockets. 10MB pxl count is no longer a huge camera.

True, but then most people using P&S cameras aren't storing images in an
inefficient storage format like uncompressed RAW, either. If you stored
..jpg files, then how many pictures would those cards hold? Most of use
have no use for RAW, and wouldn't know what to do with it if our cameras
had it.

Mike S. wrote:
In article ,
Jürgen Exner wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote:

Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
so-called "professional" DSLRs.
On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
after the previous war of confusion.

The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
the exFAT format.

exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.



Hummm. Not in my list of fixes. Unless it is included in SP3, I don't
have it, but then I don't need it, either.

dwight wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Guess I'd better stock up now. I just bought the Canon 50d, and I was
surprised to see that it still takes compact flash.

CF cards are the perfect size for us older folks with fumble fingers. SD
cards are pushing the limit, and those damn microSD things (my cellphone
uses them) are flat-out ridiculous. There's no doubt that we could have
memory cards in even smaller sizes, but the limiting factor is and always
will be the human hand.

dwight


Yep, just like keyboards. I have managed to lose several SC cards, so I
really favor the larger format.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use for
SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB.

"GB is ok for photos but once you start taking video footage a 2GB card
doesn't seem that big any more, especially that the latest cameras will now
take "HD" footage.
I actually bought a 4GB SDHC card a few weeks ago.
Regards Mike.

Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB.


I have 11 GB of CF cards total. I consider it enough, not too much.

I have to be able to carry cards and (charged) batteries for
up to two weeks shooting in areas where there is no way to
charge a battery (short of solar cells of course) especially one
big enough to run a laptop computer. I have come close to
filling up the 11 gigs.

A picture takes up about 9 megabytes, 11 gigs is thus roughly
1200 pictures. This seems a lot until you start taking
panoramas. Them when you decide you need HDR panoramas
(e.g. inside Carlsbad Caverns) everything double. I'm
talking 500 megabytes per final picture!

Doug McDonald

On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:27:29 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Thomas T. Veldhouse
says...

That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.

Still, even if you shoot RAW it's not wise to keep thousands of shots on
a single card. If something happens to that card you might lose
thousands of shots.

On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
losing the card or bending pins.

When 32 gb cards come down in price a bit, that's what I will buy.
Should be enough for most 2 week excursions, and I won't have to take
the card out till I get home.

Wally