Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Memory Cards, Microdrives, Card Readers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 11, 2004, 7:51 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

Hi skuliaxe


Good points...

Unlike a lot of dig photographers, I have never used a USB cable with my dig cameras. The cables gather dust, lol!

I use a 6-in-1 reader and edit select all,edit copy, edit paste to hard drive then go back to media and edit select all, delete.

Never had a problem with the media...yet...(knock on that hollow wood between my ears! ha, ha)
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 8:11 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

I've never used anything but the USB connection between my camera and computer. It does take about 20 minutes to download about 750M from my 1G microdrive, but that hasn't been a problem at all. When I get back from shooting that much, I always have that amount of time to spend unloading the car, kicking the cat, ... which can be done while the download is going on. I do have an AC adapter so the camera isn't running off the batteries while that is going on - highly recomnded if you go that route, power failures during data transfer can result in all kinds strangness. That means I only handle the microdrive twice/year when I remove it and put it back to reseat the connections. There shouldn't be any problems with using a card reader if the card is handled with care, but I have the AC adapter and don't see any reason to add to my desk clutter with yet another device.

Your money - your choice.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 8:48 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO until someone use RAW that person has no need for microdrives. .. Like Bill has pointed out previously 512MB cards have the capacity of one roll of film in RAW which are restrictive when you're on location hence the need for a portable hardisk device or a laptop for downloading. Theses portable devices BTW are not as rugged as the microdrive design which can withstand thousands of G's drop.

Microdrives always have a love and hate relationship with photographers: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...-hitachi.shtml

:-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 5:52 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

What I'd like to know is what camera's RAW mode creates a 12 Megabyte file as mentioned above! Other than the Canon1Ds & the Kodak/Nikon DSLR's, none should- that RAWfile size is far from common. TIFF is another story if you werereally referring tothat format.My Digital Rebel, a 6MP SLR, creates 6.5 MP RAW files.My 512MB Sandiskflash cards holdsaround 65RAW images.Last time I filled my1GB card up it held 146 RAW images.



OK, OK. I see. This is of those "6 megapixel that makes you think it's 12 megapixel" cameras. What a waste of storage.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 9:00 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
What I'd like to know is what camera's RAW mode creates a 12 Megabyte file as mentioned above! Other than the Canon 1Ds & the Kodak/Nikon DSLR's, none should- that RAW file size is far from common. TIFF is another story if you were really referring to that format. My Digital Rebel, a 6MP SLR, creates 6.5 MP RAW files. My 512MB Sandisk flash cards holds around 65 RAW images. Last time I filled my 1GB card up it held 146 RAW images.



OK, OK. I see. This is of those "6 megapixel that makes you think it's 12 megapixel" cameras. What a waste of storage.
I took the number from the review at dpReview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms7000/page9.asp). Unless Fuji is using some kind of strange definition of "RAW", that is the direct output of the sensors with no kind of interpolation at all - though dpReview does call it a 12Mp RAW image. I don't know what the bit depth of the Fuji is, nor do I know how efficient the compression algorithm is.

Keep in mind that what you call "a waste of storage", some folks call "an improvement in quality", and just about everyone calls "mostly an advertising gimick".
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2004, 10:31 PM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Not to belittle the Digital Rebel which only has 1 RAW mode, one can select 6 different RAW options on the 10D with the highest being 8MB: My Lexar's 1G 40x hold only about 113 RAW images, but the 1G microdrives can hold over 120 RAW images (they actually format as 1G and not as 982 something like the Lexar's)

For comparison a $200 4G Microdrive can hold 452 images at the same settings... of course selecting lower setting like RAW+s can get you over 600 images, but storage is cheap! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 7:32 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

NHL...gee whiz...

Whodafigured???

I did not know a 1G Compact Flash was only 982 MB.

Interesting...

Thanks for the "heads up".
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 9:22 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

digcamfan wrote:
Quote:
I did not know a 1G Compact Flash was only 982 MB...
This hold true for every other sizes of flashes as well 512MB, 4G etc. Which means that even if the pricing are on par between both devices --> you're actually paying more for flash over Microdrives ($/MB wise) :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 12:34 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Not to belittle the RAWoptions the 10D offers, butthe actualRAW file the 10D produces stays one size-the various RAWoptions onlychange the size of the embedded JPEG files, which, again,would be nothingmorethan "wasted storage space" to me-if you picked the 8MB optionaround1.5additional MBis added per file (not the RAW image itself)just to get a bigger JPEG, which is quite a lotonce you get up to 50-60 or more images on one card if what you're after is to shoot in RAW format.If I want a JPEG file I'll shoot in that format in the first place or output one through Capture One after the fact so I don't clutter up my CF card.

It is a bit frustrating to buy a 512 MB CF card & have it format as 487MB, or 1GB format as 978.:O



Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2004, 6:06 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
...If I want a JPEG file I'll shoot in that format in the first place or output one through Capture One after the fact so I don't clutter up my CF card.
True, but...

Again what your view as "wasted storage space" is a convenience feature that folks with large and cheap microdrives can afford: How do you review your RAW files in the fields or on vacation unless you're tied to a laptop or computers?
Using your camera on location involves constantly removing/inserting (and also uploading/downloading) the flash cards and strain your eyes on a tiny camera display...

Some PDA's or backup devices (another hardisk) with larger color screen can display RAW pictures from their embedded JPEG with full zoom capability. Using small jpegs RAW will only let you display fixed thumbnails with none of that capability for close examination, but its a choice that I have. This is not an option for smaller CF cards owners who can't afford the "wasted storage space" is it?

http://www.smartdisk.com/Products/Di.../FlashTrax.asp


BTW
Quote:
... or 1GB format as 978. :O
I believe you just lost a couple of MB... This is how the CF algorithm works as bad blocks are marked as un-usable, and removed from the FAT table. If you read the above application guide, the flash programming (ie erase/write time) actually get quicker as they age!
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 2:02 PM.