Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Memory Cards, Microdrives, Card Readers (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/memory-cards-microdrives-card-readers-51/)
-   -   "Consumable" Flash - Shoot & Store (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/memory-cards-microdrives-card-readers-51/consumable-flash-shoot-store-20371/)

NHL Feb 11, 2004 8:09 AM

"Consumable" Flash - Shoot & Store
 
Great! - Use once... :?

Quote:

... thus giving millions of consumers a major incentive to switch from film to digital photography and providing them with a durable, permanent way to store a lifetime of images...
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040211/115283_1.html

Gandalf065 Feb 11, 2004 11:19 AM

I wonder why people feel the need to have consumables? <sigh> Disposable electronics technology.

Marc H Feb 11, 2004 11:22 AM

I voted no, because it's an crazy idea to use the card just once.


Where i see a possibility for the card is as a cheap backup card, you can carry always with you, and if for some reason your usual card fails, you can always continue on your cheap backup write once card.

BillDrew Feb 11, 2004 11:41 AM

If the price gets down to something like 15% of standard memory cards, I would consider it. Would certainly have a handfull for emergency use at that kind of price, but otherwise, no.

gibsonpd3620 Feb 11, 2004 1:05 PM

Throw away memory cards would have to be very cheap. I can remember that when CD disks cost $11 each and now you can purchase them for less than 10 cents each. It may be possible. The one great advantage of digital is that you can erase bad photos as you are shooting.

NHL Feb 11, 2004 5:16 PM

From the poll # so far... Somebody must have done a very poor marketing reseach!
Quote:

Under the marketing plan, SanDisk will sell 32 megabyte memory cards for about $15. SanDisk executive Kent Perry said he expects the price to fall to about $10 later this year.

Similar cards typically sell for about $20 to $25, although few memory makers sell them at that size, since cards three and four times larger can be purchased for less than $100.

However, SanDisk on the cover of its packaging, markets that 32 megabytes disk as big enough to hold 50 pictures. That would only be true with cameras at a low resolution of 1 megapixel.

Most digital cameras sold are at least 2 megapixels, which can take only 34 pictures, and at 3 megapixels, that 32 megabyte card will only hold about 19 shots. With high-end models of up to 5 megapixels, which are becoming increasingly affordable, the card holds only 11.

Perry acknowledged that the "50 Pictures" figure might be a bit confusing to average consumers, but noted that a chart detailing the comparable capacity is on the back of package. In future, SanDisk is likely to adjust the card's size to meet customer needs, and expects to hold the price constant.

"Our initial push is in food and drug stores where they sell a lot of 1 megapixel cameras, and the initial thought was to pair this with (those) cameras," he said. "Now that distribution is spread out and (some stores) are not selling 1 megapixel cameras, it makes this sell a little harder on 50 pictures."

"We will have to come up with a higher capacity card at the same price point," Kerry said."

The company said it intends later this year to offer 64-megabyte cards -- which it says will hold 100 pictures -- at an initial price of about $25.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040211/tech_sandisk_1.html

Who has 1Mp camera left?
Haven't they seen the next crop of 8Mp cameras on the next aisle @ PMA? :lol: :lol: :lol:

gibsonpd3620 Feb 11, 2004 5:19 PM

NHL

I agree.

Phil

BillDrew Feb 11, 2004 5:40 PM

"From the poll # so far... Somebody must have done a very poor marketing reseach!"

The crowd here is not who they are thinking of selling those cards to - how many people here bought a digicam at a drugstore and thought it was a Real Good Camera? Though at ten bucks it might be fun to duct tape a drug store digicam to a kite - if you could figure out the shutter release. http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/wtf/kite.html is kinda interesting.

The kind of situation a that kind of memory would be usefull is an unusually long vaction. Where you know you will want to shoot more than your current amount of memory won't be enough. That is also when I wouldn't want to spend time squinting at a little LCD figuring out which ones to delete.

Price will detemine if the write-once memory is something I want. Gotta be cheap.

PeterP Feb 12, 2004 3:03 PM

How permanent, in a few years when technology either changes to a new format or it is no longer made and readers become hard to find you will have another pile of usless plastic in the house.

I'd put this right up there with 8-track tapes for storage, they worked but try to use one now.

ohenry Feb 12, 2004 4:11 PM

One of the nice features of digital is never having to say more film please. I like the idea that I can buy my media once and use it many times, over and over. It's like taking 10 pictures on a 24 exposure roll and then going "ok, now what do I shoot to finish off the roll so I don't waste exposures". No, reusable is best for me!

Yaworski Feb 13, 2004 1:00 AM

This whole idea confuses me. Why pay $14 bucks for a 32 MB use once card when I just bought a bunch of reusable cards for $6 each.

I can see some situations where they'd be useful. Things like surveilance photos where you don't want someone to say, "He deleted the frames that show my client is innocent."

For my part, I don't plan to buy one.

Onyx Feb 14, 2004 11:55 PM

It might stand up better in legal matters where the images could be proven to be original, ie. not manipulated.

PKchopper Feb 15, 2004 12:07 AM

Actually I was just thinking about that on the way to work. With a film camera you always have the negative to maintain the integrity of the shot. How does one do that with digital?

NHL Feb 15, 2004 9:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKchopper
Actually I was just thinking about that on the way to work. With a film camera you always have the negative to maintain the integrity of the shot. How does one do that with digital?

... You burn a CD? :?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...onics_mfr.html

BillDrew Feb 15, 2004 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKchopper
Actually I was just thinking about that on the way to work. With a film camera you always have the negative to maintain the integrity of the shot. How does one do that with digital?

Since it is fairly easy to make a phoney shot with film (just shoot a digital picture), having film is in no way a guarentee of anything. Write once memory, CDs, film, .. can all be manipulated.

It is the integrity of the individual presenting the picture that really counts.

videobruce Feb 19, 2004 9:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterP
How permanent, in a few years when technology either changes to a new format or it is no longer made and readers become hard to find you will have another pile of usless plastic in the house.

I'd put this right up there with 8-track tapes for storage, they worked but try to use one now.

What?
8 track isn't being made anymore??????
Guess I'll have to go back to 33's & 45's!


These appear to be marketed for the mass idiots that have trouble inserting the batteries in their walkman!

Of course that EXCLUDES everyone here!

I guess it might catch on. Gotta admit getting batteries at the corner store is handy, why not removable storage?

PeterP Feb 19, 2004 10:09 AM

Heh, I still have a folder of Benny Goodman on 78's but nothing that can play them.
I also remember just installing the new 8track in my AMC Gremlin and watching the tape come out in a rats nest of twisted plastic :) :)

Batteries at corner store? You don't use rechargables? Only thing I have that still uses normal batteries are the home theaters remote(aaa's) and the scale(9v, best to leave it dead :) ).

luisr Mar 9, 2004 1:26 PM

Just thinking and bringing this topic back. This idea is not as crazy as it seems at first. We find it crazy because all of us have computers and big hard drives and CD/DVD writers to handle/store/archive our pictures. However, the average John Doe that only wants to take pictures and doesn't even have a computer could find this idea actually useful. Sure, you can always go to a photo lab and get your pictures transferred to CD but for a non-computer person the idea could be good enough. But those chips must still be cheaper than film anyway.

CastleDude Mar 9, 2004 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luisr
But those chips must still be cheaper than film anyway.

Actually I doubt that the chips will be cheaper. Sure the basic innard is cheap but the packaging is where the money adds up. That little blue wafer that requires assembly will be hard to make for under the cost of a CD that is assembly lined pretty easy.

On the other hand I think I did figure out a market for these things. Tourist traps :roll: er Amusement parks. These could be held in bubble packs for pickup by Ma and Pa that ran out of that new fangled filmy chip stuff. These type of places would have no problem with a quick sale with a big markup rather than some touch intesive CD burn that takes 10 min for a download and burn.

Plus if you are without a backpack or purse carrying a CD is not convienient.

luisr Mar 10, 2004 1:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleDude
That little blue wafer that requires assembly will be hard to make for under the cost of a CD that is assembly lined pretty easy.

Those are assembled in a line too but the capital investment required by the manufacturers would be just the same as for the regular media we all know. Also, it is more expensive to assemble that package than make a CD, as you pointed out.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:10 PM.