Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Compact Flash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Fred H
    In my case, Nikon suggests SanDisk or Lexar. They are also common CF here in Sweden.
    I feel that Nikon still is quite behind on their CF-card information. On my D100, they only recommend the tested cards, which includes a couple of Lexars and Sandisks:

    The tested cards are small (256 MB, except for the microdrive) and slow (not updated), so I took my chances with a branded card (Ridata) that was not on the list.

    While your camera might not benefit a whole lot from a faster card, it is interesting to consider. Using the card in a cardreader will be faster (and 1 GB is quite a lot of data, e.g. to transfer over USB1.1), and perhaps a next camera might also benefit from it.

    Lexars added value is recoverysoftware (as Mutz said: you need the jumpshot cable). Considering the price of a Lexar card, it seems like a great deal (when I ordered my cards about a year ago, the price difference with the similarly sized Lexars was much bigger).



    Jörg
    pixar
    Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

    Comment


    • #17
      Using the card in a card reader will be faster
      The main problem for me was the camera speed. I mean the save time between the shootings.
      As I said before, I could reduce this time from 15 seconds in a 2048x1360 resolution to a PQI CF card to 5 seconds to a 128MB SanFlex card, with the same pixel rate.
      I wonder if other brands could considerable reduce this time?

      The transfer speed to the PC is not a major problem for me.

      Fred H
      Last edited by Fred H; 14 July 2003, 01:45.
      It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings...
      ------------------------------------------------

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Fred H
        I wonder if other brands could considerable reduce this time?
        I think it will depend. Some cards now use a Write Accelleration technology (I believe it is Lexar). The camera needs to contain special software in order to cope with that (without this piece of control-software, the card works, but there is no added benefit).

        Here are some timings:
        Nikon announced the 995 on 25 April 2001. It marks the latest incarnation of a series of Coolpix cameras which started back in 1998 with the 900. The design team for the 995 had a tough job, they had to evolve one of the most popular and revolutionary digital cameras produced thus far, the Coolpix 990.

        Detailed review of Nikon CoolPix 995, with actual sample images, and a detailed data sheet.


        According to the latter, your camera should benefit from 12x cards (in some occasions). However, what its internal maximum is, is not mentioned on the test. If 12x is not the maximum the camera is capable of, faster cards will even reduce the time further. Only way to know is to try a faster card....


        Jörg
        pixar
        Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

        Comment


        • #19
          Thanks, Jörg.
          They are very useful readings.
          Fred H
          It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings...
          ------------------------------------------------

          Comment


          • #20
            I haven't decided yet AZ. Tomorrow I'll get my pay-check and I choose one then
            The 256mb Ridata one from powerinnumbers.com.au looks good. I was thinking about a 512mb one but I'm just starting in DP so I can take a 256mb and then when I feel the need for more buy something suitable for my style (IBM MD or 512/1Gb CF), that way I could probably get them cheaper.

            btw. I'm thinking that since CF cards are selled by Mb more or less (128mb -> $50, 256mb -> $100, 512mb->$200 ...). If I want 1 Gb it will be better to buy 4x256mb, so in the case a card breaks or gets corrupted I'll still be able to use the other ones and I would not lose all my photos.

            and yet another thing,here at the bottom of the page there is a comparison of several cards and the MD, and the Ridata one is actually faster than the MD
            <font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="1" >epox 8RDA+ running an Athlon XP 1600+ @ 1.7Ghz with 2x256mb Crucial PC2700, an Adaptec 1200A IDE-Raid with 2x WD 7200rpm 40Gb striped + a 120Gb and a 20Gb Seagate, 2x 17" LG Flatron 775FT, a Cordless Logitech Trackman wheel and a <b>banding enhanced</b> Matrox Parhelia 128 retail shining thru a Koolance PC601-Blue case window<br>and for God's sake pay my <a href="http://www.drslump.biz">site</a> a visit!</font>

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by drslump
              I haven't decided yet AZ. Tomorrow I'll get my pay-check and I choose one then
              The 256mb Ridata one from powerinnumbers.com.au looks good. I was thinking about a 512mb one but I'm just starting in DP so I can take a 256mb and then when I feel the need for more buy something suitable for my style (IBM MD or 512/1Gb CF), that way I could probably get them cheaper.
              Yep, prices keep dropping. About a year ago, Ridata 512 MB was about € 192. 50-80 pictures (as az posted) is a nice number to fit on a card (just think about trips or family events). For traveling however, you might want to look out for more storage.

              btw. I'm thinking that since CF cards are selled by Mb more or less (128mb -> $50, 256mb -> $100, 512mb->$200 ...). If I want 1 Gb it will be better to buy 4x256mb, so in the case a card breaks or gets corrupted I'll still be able to use the other ones and I would not lose all my photos.
              The pricing is not entirely linear. It is quite similar to computer memory. I don't know what the "optimal" MB/$ is, but it could be that 2x256 is slightly more expensive than 1x512. 1 GB cards are more than 2x512 regarding price. You do make a valid point: if problems occur on a card; if the card is smaller, you can't loose as many pictures (worst case scenario). I chose 512 MB as in RAW I can put 50 images on it (90 or so in compressed RAW).

              and yet another thing,here at the bottom of the page there is a comparison of several cards and the MD, and the Ridata one is actually faster than the MD
              Here in another (slightly outdated) test:


              The microdrive perfomance depends on the measurement. Reading/writing a single file is slower if the disk has to spin up. However, if it is already spinning, transfers are fast (don't know the numbers or how it compares to other media). This in turn means that the in-camera microdrive performance will also be more dependant of the camera than other CF storage media (mainly because buffers can optimize the writes, which has a higher impact on the microdrive performance).

              edit: This last point can be seen in the RAW performance of the microdrive in either the Canon 1Ds and the Canon D30 (pages 2-3 of the review).


              Jörg
              Last edited by VJ; 14 July 2003, 04:25.
              pixar
              Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

              Comment


              • #22
                And here is an in-detail CF card performance test (for quite a number of cameras):


                Jörg
                pixar
                Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

                Comment

                Working...
                X