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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 14, 2004, 4:43 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Default

Is there a difference in how these would function in my camera? MMC's certainly seem to be much cheaper in cost.
FrankO is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 14, 2004, 4:48 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
sci0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25
Default

MMC and SD are the same size, SD being the newer type. They are faster I believe, and also SD has this new system of copyright protection. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but you can compare MMC and SD by thinking like, an old game boy vs a game boy color. The SD is just a major update but still has the MMC heart.

Personally, I would go with the SD and just eat the difference. I can give you a good price on a new SD card if you know the brand and size you're looking for. 256mb SD cards come in around 50 dollars shipped.
sci0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 9:49 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

FrankO wrote:
Quote:
Is there a difference in how these would function in my camera? MMC's certainly seem to be much cheaper in cost.
Although many models support both Multimedia (MMC) and SD (Secure Digital) cards, MMC cards are DRAMATICALLY slower than even the slowest Secure Digital Cards. Avoid them!

I would strongly recommend sticking to Pansonic Secure Digital if possible (these seem to be much more reliable than many other brands). BTW, Pansonic's 256mb and 512mb SD are rated at 10mb/second. Many other Secure Digital brands are rated at 2 or 3mb/second.

Lexar's "High Speed" 32x cards are also reliable, from reports that I've seen, as are the Simpletech 256mb and 512mb cards. Like Panasonic's larger SD cards, Simpletech's cards in larger sizes are also rated at 10mb/second.






JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 10:35 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default


Well, the Sandisk Standard SD cards certainly have a lot of problems. I've seen numerous reports of cameras that could not function reliably with Sandisk Standard SD (from Konica-Minolta users, Canon SD110 users, HP 850 users, etc.).

Some of these users even tried more than one Sandisk Card with the same problems, then switched to Pansonic or other brands, and their cameras worked fine. BTW, some of these cards work fine, others don't -- so the type of controller/memory cells used may vary between card lots of the same card type.

However, the only credible reports I've seen from camera owners trying to use the new Sandisk Ultra II cards, were due to "out of the box" failures. Replacement Cards worked fine. BTW, these cards (Sandisk Ultra II) do appear to be the fastest cards around (based on benchmarks I've seen) -- even though they are only rated at 9mb/second (and Pansonic and Simpletech cards are rated at 10mb/second).

Personally, I'll stick to non-Sandisk media in Secure Digital (although their other media types seem fine).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 10:40 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
sci0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 25
Default

Yes, I believe you told me to stay away from kingston, so I did, I was just posting some good prices.

I went with transcend, steve mentioned it, it seems to be fast, and relativley cheap.

As far as the Sandisk Ultra II, I read a lot of bad reviews of the card just stop being recognized by the camera and the computer after 2 weeks or so, and then not being able to format it. Then sending it back, and having to wait up to 8 weeks for a new one... That's why I said I would stray away from them. They do seem to be super fast though, 9mb/s both ways (I think I'm doing this off the top of my head) If google didn't yield so many bad reviews I would have went with them.

I also, suggested googling it first, because there are a lot of mixed reviews for it, and that whatever you do, you should research it first anyways. Just a sort of be carefull it might happen to you type of thing.
sci0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 11:05 AM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

sci0n wrote:
Quote:
As far as the Sandisk Ultra II, I read a lot of bad reviews of the card just stop being recognized by the camera and the computer after 2 weeks or so, and then not being able to format it.
Well, this was one of the common problems with the original Sandisk Standard Speed Secure Digital Cards -- typical behavior in some models includedintermittent corrupted files, and/or very slow camera operation (startup times, etc.), followed by a failure of the card to format. Sometimes these cards would work fine for a while before they started displaying symptoms, too.

Konica-Minolta used to post specific warnings about the Sandisk Standard Secure Digital Cards in larger sizes (>128mb) on their web sites for some models. The Japanese site mentioned errors, including failure of the Sandisk Cards to format. The U.S. site just mentioned that use of the Sandisk (standard) 256mb Secure Digital could cause the cameras to malfunction with errors.

Although, they have removed these specific warnings now for the models they posted them with. Now,they just don't show the larger Sandisk SD cards on the "tested cards" list in their compatibilty charts (they simply removed references to them, including warnings). I suspect this was due to pressue from Sandisk (speculation on my part).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 11:34 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Default

I have 2 Sandisk cards, one is a regular 256 and then I have a 512 Ultra II. I haven't had any issues yet and hopefully won't. I have been shooting in Tif mode so I eat memory. My camera is a Pentax Optio 555. My camera does not, as far asI can tell, have RAW format. It seems to me(but I am fairly ignorant) that TIF is the best quality for making prints. From what I understand you lose data every time you save or resave jpeg format....... What the hell do I know:?, I'm still learning.
FrankO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 1:42 PM   #8
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

FrankO wrote:
Quote:
I have 2 Sandisk cards, one is a regular 256 and then I have a 512 Ultra II. I haven't had any issues yet and hopefully won't. I have been shooting in Tif mode so I eat memory. My camera is a Pentax Optio 555. My camera does not, as far asI can tell, have RAW format. It seems to me(but I am fairly ignorant) that TIF is the best quality for making prints. From what I understand you lose data every time you save or resave jpeg format....... What the heck do I know:?, I'm still learning.
Not all cameras seem to have problems with the slower (standard) Sandisk media, so perhaps you'll never have any with your 256mb SD card. However, I've seen quite a few reports from Sandisk SD users, indicating failures months later, followed by an inability to format the cards.

There are two main parts to flash memory cards, the controller and the memory cells. Memory cells go bad over time. So, flash memory cards aredesigned to automatically and transparently map out memory cells that go bad (or when they reach a predefined limit of erase/write cycles).

My theory is that something is wrong with the way this is working in Sandisk's standard cards, causing a higher number ofcard failures in devices, compared to some of the competing cards. However, this is only a theory (especially when I've seen reports of replacement Sandisk SD failing to work in some devices, too -- with another brand working fine).

As far as the newer Ultra II cards, I have not personally seen many problems reported(only out of the box failures, which a replacement card corrected). Hopefully, they will continue to work fine for you.

Yes, you are correct that TIFF provides the highest quality. JPEG is "lossy" compression method. As a result, too much compression can cause JPEG Artifacts and loss of detail. You're also correct that saving a JPEG file again can result in more degradation of an image.

However, because TIFF takes up a LOT of space, and typically slows down camera operation (i.e., cycle times) dramatically, many users avoid this format and prefer to shoot in JPEG instead.

When shooting in higher quality (least compression) JPEG modes, with many cameras, image quality differences between TIFF and JPEG are not noticeable. Also, if editing an image, you can always use the highest quality (lowest compression) JPEG compression method -- reducing any further degradation of an image.

Whenever possible, try not to edit or resave a JPEG more than once -- always starting out with the original file, if you decide to do something else with it later (versus starting out with a file that has already been edited and resaved). Never overwrite the original image files.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 2:17 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 56
Default

so now i have a few more questions, maybe i should start a thread but oh well, i would like to hear what some of you on this thread think.

i've read the E-tellers background of many place mentioned included this latest one zipzoomfly.com and i wonder how good they are on sending you the stuff without problems? there are hundreds of e-tellers out there like buy.com butterflyphoto.com. vanns.com tiger direct.com ect....how do you know you are getting good service and new products, i've heard of horror stories about un-bundeling of products, i e-mail these companies and no answer....uhmmm

Next is for Jim C

You say that "There are two main parts to flash memory cards, the controller and the memory cells. Memory cells go bad over time. So, flash memory cards aredesigned to automatically and transparently map out memory cells that go bad (or when they reach a predefined limit of erase/write cycles"

does this mean that after time like a lith-ion battery it just goes dead and you need to replace it?

at above link i noticed a 1gb SD card for a very good price 229.0and company transcend, the 512mb is 100 bucks. i am going on a trip in 2 month and i am new, a 512 card will give me about 200 pictures, it is possible that i fill this thing up and i won't have excess to a computer to download till i get home, so i was thinking of maybe a 1gb card 45x since price is good, but if it dies in 2 to 3 years the 2x expense for nothing....

what do people think.. 2.5 week trip to Croatia, is 512 good on a 4megapix camera, in this case FZ10 Panasonic.



later




Belz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2004, 2:25 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Default

Well, I have to overwrite the original because I only have so many SD cards. If only I were rich! What I do is write from the card to a CD and save it that way b4 I empty the card.I always make 2 CD's just for redundancy's sake. Then I do whatever editing I need to do from there.

I wonder what kind of data loss I would experience if I were shooting at 2592*1944 megapixels at the highest quality jpeg setting. One photo in TIF is about 14.5 MB as compared to 1.5 MB in jpeg. That indicates to me that there is a tremendous difference in data stored, although to the naked eye it may be totally nondetectable.... 5 years it won't even matter, it'll all be faster and better.

I have yet to take any pictures to be printed so I will make a comparison at that time.
FrankO 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 6:07 AM.