2Gig CompactFlash or 2Gig Microdrive

What should I go for. Both are same capacity...

--
*************************************************
Steve Walsh
Email:
MSN Messenger: Same as Above
*************************************************

"Steve Walsh" wrote in message
...
What should I go for. Both are same capacity...

CF is faster, in general.

--

Regards,
Wayne
Nikon D70
18-70 Nikkor
70-300 Nikkor

AND CF doesn't use as much battery power as the CF. Microdrives are also
more fragile . Since CF's are solid sate, there are no moving parts to go
bad.

"Jimmy G" wrote in message
news:1TpCc.1952$rh.239@okepread02...
AND CF doesn't use as much battery power as the CF. Microdrives are also
more fragile . Since CF's are solid sate, there are no moving parts to go
bad.


What Jimmy G said.

Ron

Just curious why you are interested in a drive with such a large capacity
rather than several 256 or 512mb cards? After having drives get corrupted a
couple times and losing all the content I now stick with 256mb and change
when full.

Ken


"Steve Walsh" wrote in message
...
What should I go for. Both are same capacity...

--
*************************************************
Steve Walsh
Email:
MSN Messenger: Same as Above
*************************************************

"IMKen" wrote in message
...
Just curious why you are interested in a drive with such a large capacity
rather than several 256 or 512mb cards? After having drives get corrupted
a
couple times and losing all the content I now stick with 256mb and change
when full.

There is a lot of good reasons why it is better to have 4 x 256 MB cards
than 1 x 1 GB card, and other than organizing different sets of photos etc,
possible failure of one while in the field is a very good reason.
--

Regards,
Wayne
Nikon D70
18-70 Nikkor
70-300 Nikkor

GOOD point!

The ol' "putting all of your eggs in one basket" thing comes to mind.

How about having to change cards every 40-50 pictures? What a drag. I've had
cards from 15mb up to a 4gb microdrive, and I've NEVER lost a picture due to
a failed card. Not in 7 years. Maybe I"m just lucky?

Tom P.

"Ron" somehow managed to post:

"Jimmy G" wrote in message
news:1TpCc.1952$rh.239@okepread02...
AND CF doesn't use as much battery power as the CF. Microdrives are also
more fragile . Since CF's are solid sate, there are no moving parts to go
bad.


What Jimmy G said.

Except I expect he meant to say "CF doesn't use as much battery power
as the Microdrive."

--
HooDooWitch (NaCl - Free)

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/51251.html

"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
s.com...
How about having to change cards every 40-50 pictures? What a drag. I've
had
cards from 15mb up to a 4gb microdrive, and I've NEVER lost a picture due
to
a failed card. Not in 7 years. Maybe I"m just lucky?

Maybe.

However, if you miss a shot due to the failure of your one and only card,
might that not be a bigger drag? ;-)

Different strokes, I guess.

--

Regards,
Wayne
Nikon D70
18-70 Nikkor
70-300 Nikkor