Any using the Transcend Ultra 4GB in a Canon S3 IS ?? does it work ok?

bitwisebob wrote in
:
I worry more about the card going bad and losing lots of shots on a
single large GB card. Less likely, or less of a loss using more
smaller cards. A trade off I guess.

Lots of small cards become easy to lose when are continuoually swapping
them out in the field. A 2GB or 4GB card should last you a full day or
more so you can pull it in cleaner, more controlled location.

How often do SD memory cards go bad? I have never had that happen to me.

sally wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote in
:
About a year and a half ago, I bought a 256meg card for 'only' $64!

You got ripped off. A year ago, 1GB SD cards were selling in that range.
Yes, but 6 months earlier, they weren't. The prices have dropped
sharply in the past 18 months.
Just my luck!

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:41:50 +0000 (UTC), sally
wrote:

Lots of small cards become easy to lose when are continuoually swapping
them out in the field. A 2GB or 4GB card should last you a full day or
more so you can pull it in cleaner, more controlled location.

How often do SD memory cards go bad? I have never had that happen to me.

that's food for thought, good points

---
Bob Anderson*Bitwisebob
Eugene Oregon

bitwisebob wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:41:50 +0000 (UTC), sally
wrote:

Lots of small cards become easy to lose when are continuoually swapping
them out in the field. A 2GB or 4GB card should last you a full day or
more so you can pull it in cleaner, more controlled location.

How often do SD memory cards go bad? I have never had that happen to me.

that's food for thought, good points

---
Bob Anderson*Bitwisebob
Eugene Oregon

I have never had either an SD or a CF card fail. I have lost a couple
of pictures due to batteries going dead while trying to write the the
card, but the other pictures were ok.
I would bet that failures of flash media are vastly less frequent than
failures of HD or optical storage.

bitwisebob wrote:
Upgraded my S1 IS with a new S3 IS, now I need new memory cards, and
with the larger image size looking at the biggest cards I can get.

This one looks good,
Transcend Ultra Speed 4GB Secure Digital (SD) Flash Media Model

But will it work in the S3 IS ?
Any one using this combo?

Other recommendations welcome.

SD is standardized up to 2GB only. Therefore it is really hit and miss if
the manufacturer of your camera and the manufacturer of that SD card and the
manufacturer of your card reader had the same idea about how to extend SD
(not SDHC) beyond 2GB.
Furthermore, are you certain that your camera supports FAT32? If it supports
FAT16 only then you wouldn't be able to use the memory beyond 2GB anyway.

I would stick with 2GB cards for SD.

jue

In Jürgen Exner
wrote:

bitwisebob wrote:
Upgraded my S1 IS with a new S3 IS, now I need new memory cards, and
with the larger image size looking at the biggest cards I can get.

This one looks good,
Transcend Ultra Speed 4GB Secure Digital (SD) Flash Media Model

But will it work in the S3 IS ?
Any one using this combo?

Other recommendations welcome.

SD is standardized up to 2GB only.

The S3 IS supports SDHC, so there's no reason to use questionable 4GB
"SD" cards.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

DJohns wrote:
Transcend's 4GB cards can indeed be formatted to FAT16 if need be

Sure, I never said otherwise.

and still use the full 4GB of space.

Unless you create muiltiple partitions [1] or use a non-standard sector
size, no, you cannot. The maximum file system size of a single FAT16
partition using standard 512 bytes per sector is limited to 2GB.

modes (as available in CHDK).
using CHDK,
you can't however use CHDK's auto-booting feature then.
Be advised, that if you are using this for CHDK purposes, even though CHDK has
which only concerns users of CHDK. They had to find a unique partition format
now a menu option in newer builds of CHDK.)

You seem to be rather preoccupied by CHDK. It might interest you (or not)
that the file system does not care about and has no dependencies on said
CHDK. Actually CHDK is completely irrelevant in the context of file system
limitiations.

jue

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:49:17 GMT, Jürgen Exner wrote:

DJohns wrote:

and still use the full 4GB of space.

Unless you create muiltiple partitions [1] or use a non-standard sector
size, no, you cannot. The maximum file system size of a single FAT16
partition using standard 512 bytes per sector is limited to 2GB.


You need to stop living in a virtual world basing everything on what you read on
web-pages and newsgroups, just like the rest of the morons in this newsgroup.
Try living in the real world and you'll find out just how very wrong you are.

Anyone with the least bit of experience and true information has left usenet
long ago from having to deal with idiots like you and the rest of the resident
trolls that infest this place. They should rename newsgroups to just
cyber-lifer's foolsgroups to be more accurate.

Between the spam and the resident fools there's nothing left.

DJohns wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:49:17 GMT, Jürgen Exner wrote:

DJohns wrote:

and still use the full 4GB of space.

Unless you create muiltiple partitions [1] or use a non-standard sector
size, no, you cannot. The maximum file system size of a single FAT16
partition using standard 512 bytes per sector is limited to 2GB.


You need to stop living in a virtual world basing everything on what you read on
web-pages and newsgroups, just like the rest of the morons in this newsgroup.
Try living in the real world and you'll find out just how very wrong you are.

Yeah, right. Don't let facts deter you from your crusade.

*PLONK*

jue