Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2003, 10:14 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 26
Default why did Kodak switch from CF to MMC/SD

hi there i am a proud owner of a Kodak dx3600 which uses CF i now see that most Kodak's use MMC/SD why? CF are cheaper and come in bigger capacity now upto 4gig wow in fact Kodak sits on a panel that oversees CF development i am also trying to fing out how big a CF i can put in i now have 256 can i put in more will pictures left work if i put in a 1-4gig?
thank you
thegreatfixer
thegreatfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 20, 2003, 6:03 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

In large volume a CF connector is more expensive than simple MMC/sD contact fingers. It also allow the manufacturer to build smaller camera and not provide the molding for the CF card guides. Bottom line is cost of manufacturing and camera form factor.

A more expensive camera can absorb the cost of the CF connector and can also use the extra capacity of CF... 8).
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 2:33 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

What really disturbs me about the smaller memory cards is when a large camera uses them. Why hp chose to use sd in the 850 when it is already so big, it would be easy to fit cf in it is beyond me. Also, with smaller cameras, i think things such as the canon s400 are already too small and the s400 uses cf. Thus the only plausible reason for most of the camera manufacturers would be trying to get a larger profit margin or cutting costs to cut prices by using sd which is cheaper for them (though it is more expensive to the consumer). In conclusion, that's what we get for letting prices and mp count rule our product selection, consumer oriented cameras that use an inferior storage format, no tiff and other such items.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 8:35 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The other reason to use sD instead of CF beside cost is so that they can be used to review your pictures in PDA's (or store your GPS maps). 8)
Not that sD also helps make the PDA's smaller and keeping the cost down as well... Two birds with one stone! Theses designers are pretty smart aren't they? :lol: :lol: :lol:

...or they they can just past the cost of the CF/adapter jacket to the consumer (ie the HP/Compaq PDAs) and even squeeze out some profit since this jacket/adapter is pretty much essential! :twisted:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 7:23 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 134
Default

i still think cf is the best, and now with the new cf small version coming will also be compatable with an adapter
kschewe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 7:28 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

The best thing about cf is with the right adapters, xd and sd cards can be used in cf devices.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 9:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

Capacity issues aside, why is there a debate about memory types? I bought a digital camera without any consideration as to what memory card it uses. Just bought it and a while after bought a memory card that fits the camera and suits my needs. I don't have any other device using memory cards other than a card reader in the PC (which is faster than downloading from the camera). So, memory type was the least of my concerns when choosing a camera.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 9:29 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Capacity issues aside, why is there a debate about memory types?
Have you bought a high capacity card yet? It depends on your camera but if you plan on shooting other than jpeg (ie raw or tiff) you'll need the bigger card, and usually in other format than CF, their prices are usually at least 40% more... if it exists at all ops:

Why tiff? because it's uncompressed and allows more leeway in post-processing. Why raw? raw is one better than tiff because the files are smaller than tiff, but it's raw 12-bit data from the CCD allowing Photoshop to compute in full 16-bit. BTW jpeg and tiff from the camera are only 8-bit depth... bottom line is your need. If you're satisfy then fine 8) 8) 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 10:36 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

My camera only provides JPEG so high capacity is not needed at all. I have a 128 MB card and I am yet to fill it to capacity during a shooting session. I have gotten up to 130 pictures with still some more room left.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 11:00 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luisr
My camera only provides JPEG so high capacity is not needed at all. I have a 128 MB card and I am yet to fill it to capacity during a shooting session. I have gotten up to 130 pictures with still some more room left.
... That's why you don't have the need: A 128Mb will hold like 12 raw pictures, and may be only 6-8 tiff in a 5Mp camera so it's quite limiting for other people. You'll need like 10 cards. and then there's also issue with speed of the writes which you haven't run into when you shoot only jpegs. The faster the card the more it costs

You don't want to miss a shot while changing cards or can't shoot waiting for the card to finish writing!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.