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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 26, 2005, 11:40 PM   #1
Member
 
ccfoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 55
Default

Since the DSLR's I'm shopping for use CF cards/Microdrives, I was wondering what the current performance of the microdrive is.

For normal use, I don't think the performance will matter since all of the DSLRs have enough buffer space to handle shooting-dumping to memory-setting up for next shot.

But when firing off a bunch of shots will the microdrives be able to keep up? From what I can tell, current performance is a minimum of about 57mbit/s for writes on the microdrive. This looks like it is close to CF's 40x speed (6.0 MBs or a little more than 60 mbits).

Do I need to worry? Should reliability/cost be my deciding factors?
ccfoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 2, 2005, 9:57 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 19
Default

LEXAR says with 80x, it can record at 12MB/sec. HITACHI Microdrive says with the generation of 2GB, 4GB, they can record at 4.3 to 7.2 MB/sec.
And I have tested : When shooting 1D Mark II, Lexar 1GB 80x, RAW file, it takes about 5sec. And S3 Pro, Hitachi 4GB, standard RAW (13MB), it takes about 7sec. I don't know the buffer related to the speed or not, but as I see, maybe they are equal in speed. Or Microdrive at about 70x.
trungthu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2005, 11:08 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
memento's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 145
Default

6 MB/s = 48 Mb/s

For reference, 8 bits in a byte.
memento is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2005, 7:23 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

http://65.110.81.28/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

here is a CF performance database in Dslrs. highly reliable for reference. it will save you all that testing work.

its updated about every 3 months or so. there really hasen't been that much going on in cards lately except for the new 6GB MD. that is only starting to make an appearance. expect a increase in transfer rate vs their older ones. still no warranty increase beyond 1 yr though. on the 1Dm2 the differences in speed, in my opinion, does not reflect in the difference in price ($40). and for those that through out the extended temp range difference flag don't bother. i have used the ultra 2 model from -10f (new hampshire) to +115f (kuwait)so far over the past year. none have failed out of 5 2 GB cards. yes i do own (1) 2GB extreme 3.


addendum: for those who fear the changeover from SLC to MLC on the ultra 2 cf cards her is some data from the 1Dm2:

SanDisk Ultra II 4GB, formatted FAT32 with 32K cluster size[suP]8,11[/suP]
(Edge stamp: BH04092X USA)

SanDisk (MLC)[suP]12[/suP]
I
2005/1/15
5.434MB/sec jpg
6.973MB/sec raw

SanDisk Ultra II 4GB, formatted FAT32 with 4K cluster size[suP]8,11[/suP]
(Edge stamp: BH04092X USA)

SanDisk (MLC)[suP]12[/suP]
I
2005/1/15
5.605MB/sec jpg
6.641MB/sec raw

being that the data is for the 4 GB card i expect that the 2GB will be nominally faster as all previous modelas have been so due toaccessing thesmaller volume.


you asked should reliability be a deciding factor. i can answer that 2 ways

1 do you like to see your pictures after you shoot all the time?

2 do i really need to even ask thatquestion?




sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2005, 7:17 AM   #5
Member
 
ccfoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 55
Default

memento wrote:
Quote:
6 MB/s = 48 Mb/s

For reference, 8 bits in a byte.

haha, I just saw these responses and I think I need to have my computer science degree taken away! :?
ccfoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2005, 7:22 AM   #6
Member
 
ccfoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 55
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
you asked should reliability be a deciding factor. i can answer that 2 ways

1 do you like to see your pictures after you shoot all the time?

2 do i really need to even ask thatquestion?

Thanks for all the info. Sorry I'm so late getting back to this, I think my spam filter is blocking my responses from this site.

As to the reliability, if I saw that the Microdrives failed much more than the memory then I wouldn't consider them, though I don't know where I would set the cutoff. I'll look at that link you posted...thanks!
ccfoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2005, 7:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

The older Microdrives were very delicate...the new ones are a lot better...still not as reliatel as a flash-based card, though. I still went with the Hitachi 4gb card with my 20D...just so I can have as much space as I can for as little money. I take good care of my stuff, so I'm not too worried about the Microdrive.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2005, 9:00 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

sjms wrote:
Quote:
...
1 do you like to see your pictures after you shoot all the time?

2 do i really need to even ask that question?
There has never been a photographic system, chemical or digital, which is 100% failure proof. Pretty much all failures are caused by bad handling/opperater error - breaking the glass plate negative, mecury poisoning of the Daguerreotypist, ...

There still might be life left in the microdrive - see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7226, 60G in a camera would make video much more reasonable.
BillDrew 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 9:13 PM.