Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: Neil on 5 Jul 2010 07:33 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:03:10 +0000, ray wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote: > >> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why >> high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, >> not a feature. > > I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat buyers > - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a camera > capable of using CF and SD.ÐøO$ Who can afford A Canon eos 1Ds mk111 ? My pension won't run to it. -- Neil - reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.
From: ray on 5 Jul 2010 10:42 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:33:42 -0500, Neil wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:03:10 +0000, ray wrote: > >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote: >> >>> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why >>> high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a >>> turn-off, not a feature. >> >> I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat >> buyers - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a >> camera capable of using CF and SD.ÐøO$ > > > > Who can afford A Canon eos 1Ds mk111 ? My pension won't run to it. Mine would, but I eschew Canon.
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 5 Jul 2010 10:48 John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:46:50 -0400, in > <f8e236ltmp1dj2pcb9t24bd4kf2uq37bp5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >> >>>SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any >>>camera I know of. >> >>Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified >>to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you >>own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera". >> >>It does work both ways, doesn't it? > > > It does, as should be clear if you actually read what I write, > instead of dashing off a silly off-point response. > He may have a point. The SanDisk III UDMA is rated at 60mb/s while the San Disk Extreme Pro is rated at 90 mb/s. Whether you see a difference may indeed depend on whether or not your camera's buffer can react that fast. The new standard is supposed to accommodate the crop of new cameras coming out with increased buffer speed and volume and HD capability, or so the literature I read says. However, for the most part, unless one owns a top of the line current pro model, one would likely not notice any difference, making you correct. A material point I corroborated based on my experience in an earlier response. However, let us attribute the differences between both of you to an economy of words in a Usenet post, and perhaps move on to a more quantitative and qualitative discussion about the merits.
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 11:08 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:48:41 -0400, in <4c31f0e7$0$31273$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >John Navas wrote: > >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:46:50 -0400, in >> <f8e236ltmp1dj2pcb9t24bd4kf2uq37bp5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas >>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any >>>>camera I know of. >>> >>>Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified >>>to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you >>>own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera". >>> >>>It does work both ways, doesn't it? >> >> >> It does, as should be clear if you actually read what I write, >> instead of dashing off a silly off-point response. >> >He may have a point. The SanDisk III UDMA is rated at 60mb/s while the >San Disk Extreme Pro is rated at 90 mb/s. Whether you see a difference >may indeed depend on whether or not your camera's buffer can react that > fast. The new standard is supposed to accommodate the crop of new >cameras coming out with increased buffer speed and volume and HD >capability, or so the literature I read says. However, for the most >part, unless one owns a top of the line current pro model, one would >likely not notice any difference, making you correct. A material point >I corroborated based on my experience in an earlier response. > >However, let us attribute the differences between both of you to an >economy of words in a Usenet post, and perhaps move on to a more >quantitative and qualitative discussion about the merits. Works for me. :) -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Allen on 5 Jul 2010 11:10
Alan Lichtenstein wrote: <snip> > > As far as the difference between SD and CF, never having used SD, I > can't speak intelligently about that, except that I purchased a compact > SLR for my wife, who is photographically challenged, and uses a micro SD > card. Since I do all the changing, size is a factor, and I'm not > thrilled with the micro card. In particular storing a filled card in > the field. They're so small, they're easy to lose, even with the card > reader that I use as a storage unit since it is less likely to get lost. > I suppose the SD would be only slightly better. Please tell us what camera uses only a Micro SD card, so I can avoid it like plague-carrying fleas. I have no problem with standard-size SDs, but a Micro not enclosed in a full-size adapter would be an absolute nightmare for me. Allen |