|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
|
![]()
you always bring that up but it's moot. the lifetime warranty is simple "should it fail" not cycle based. if the card crashes they'll recover it and you get a brand spankin new one. after 1 year and if you do get a failure on th MD what you get is something to help level that uneven table leg at home. that is should it occur.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 25
|
![]()
As I read the various forums and comments on CF cards, it is obvious that different cards are faster in different cameras and some with greater speeds don't work as fast in some cameras. Sooooo.... Lexar is what came with the Nikon 5000. If I get the Lexar 32X WM, will it be as fast as the camera is capable? If so that card seems to take me into the future a bit in case I update later. The pictures I'm getting are awesome. I knew when I bought the camera, that it was old technology, but at $483 brand new with a 4 year replacement guarantee, I couldn't pass it up. I'm printing 13x19" photos to a quality which is great. The speed is my only complaint. But I'm using ScanDisk 4x 128mb cards which others have said crawl instead of walk. I know most anything I buy will be faster, but I'm trying to get advice from those in the know, so I don't waste any money. A friend of mine has an IBM Micro drive 340mb. He has offered to let me try it.
How many times faster will the battery go with a drive over a CF approximately? I don't think the $75 dollars difference between a CF and MD is a significant amount to sway my decision, but speed is. If I'm reading you guys right the speed of a fast 32x card and a micro drive in write mode would be the same. Is that a correct assumption? Thanks for all your help guys. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
|
![]()
as far as the write speeds you got it right on.
power drain- maybe, sorta, woulda, coulda, might be in the realm of 10% or more on a MD and your camera settings. it's all relative. the initial spin ups from start/sleep and writes are the highest draws. a 340 is of a 1st generation design- efficiency is not nearly as good as the 1GB. as far as what came in the box with the camera- nikon sells that space to whoever. in euope i believe you get a sandisk. thats comarketing and brand recognition at its best. i'm just playing devils advocate on that one. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]() Quote:
Your mileage varies: for example I can almost fill the entire microdrive in an hour with one set of battery in the studio (using an external strobe for sync), or I need 2-3 sets of battery to accomplish the same feat in a 12hr period... Another thing to consider is with the larger capacity of the microdrive you'll be just storing pictures(ie keep everything for later use) instead of reviewing and deleting pictures on the smaller cards which actually drain the battery more, since the camera processor has to do all the work. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 25
|
![]()
You aren't going to believe this...
ScanDisk 4x 128mb CF = 1 minute 20 seconds / 15mb IBM Micro Drive 340mb = 4 minutes /15mb I'm buying a CF card thank you. I don't have an explanation, but I know the results. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]() Quote:
As a reference on the D7: IBM Micro Drive 340mb = 17.48s/14.1mb IBM Micro Drive 1Gb = 16.38s/14.1mb ... 15Mb in 4 minutes is like 67kb/s nowhere near it's rated speed! Actually sjms can you check with the D7Hi, but it seems like there's only 4 second difference between raw vs tiff (It's pretty amazing @ only ~.90Mb/s for the D7's write) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 25
|
![]()
A thought occured to me that I had not formatted the drive. I will go home tonight and format the MD and see if that makes a difference.
The guy who loaned it to me had a Canon SLR type digital. This may be totally my fault, but if formatting doesn't work then it is my Nikon 5000 that is bulking at the idea of an MD. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
|
![]()
format it in the camera
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]() Quote:
BTW, why are you using tiff instead of raw. The picture files are smaller in the raw mode (is faster writes), and also preserve the full 12-bit of color instead of tiff, and unprocessed by the camera... This will leave you more leeway in post-process. 8) In raw the writes are only ~12s, I can't see anyone waiting 1m20s between shots!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 25
|
![]()
Formatting the drive reduced the time from 4:00 minutes to :40 seconds. A dramatic and refreshing difference. That is half the time of a 4x Scan Disk CF. I think I'm going to get a CF card after gingerly taking care of my friends MD and making sure nothing happened to it. I take my CF card out a lot to put it in the card reader and pop a picture onto the computer to e-mail somewhere. Thanks guys for all your help and advice. This really helped.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|