Reading mode: Light Dark

Microdrive vs. CF media

Go to last post
S

Sam57236

Leading Member
Messages
615
Reaction score
0
Location
Glendora, CA, US
Hi, as for comparisons, I guess numbers do the math for us...yes, the CF cards are faster than a Microdrive in write/read in Digital Cameras...but I have a question.

In comparing a 512MB CF card to a 1G Microdrive...

Is having a CF card that is twice as expensive as a 1G Microdrive really worth it...considering it is less than 1/3 more performance? I know that 1/3 is a ton of performance...but come on...$600 512MB CF or a $300 Microdive?

What do you think?

Sam
 
I guess what I'm really trying to ask is...is it worth the extra $$??? I mean...really?

Or will I, who shoots kids (with a camera) and an occassional baseball game...and a wedding...ever really see the need for a fast card? Will I still be able to get the usage from a Microdrive...or do I need the write speed of the CF?
 
Why are you paying that much for a 512 MB CF? I pay between $200 and $250 for as many as I want, and they are of first quality and speed.

Don Aldridge
Sam said:
Hi, as for comparisons, I guess numbers do the math for us...yes,
the CF cards are faster than a Microdrive in write/read in Digital
Cameras...but I have a question.

In comparing a 512MB CF card to a 1G Microdrive...

Is having a CF card that is twice as expensive as a 1G Microdrive
really worth it...considering it is less than 1/3 more performance?
I know that 1/3 is a ton of performance...but come on...$600 512MB
CF or a $300 Microdive?

What do you think?

Sam
Click to expand...
--
Don
 
Where? And what are they (make, model, speed)? I can get a microdrive for $289...and it has a $50 mail in rebate right now....but then again, what is the failure rate on a microdrive? I know they can be fragile.

Thanks for the input.

Sam
Donald O. Aldridge said:
Don Aldridge
Sam said:
Hi, as for comparisons, I guess numbers do the math for us...yes,
the CF cards are faster than a Microdrive in write/read in Digital
Cameras...but I have a question.

In comparing a 512MB CF card to a 1G Microdrive...

Is having a CF card that is twice as expensive as a 1G Microdrive
really worth it...considering it is less than 1/3 more performance?
I know that 1/3 is a ton of performance...but come on...$600 512MB
CF or a $300 Microdive?

What do you think?

Sam
Click to expand...
--
Don
Click to expand...
--
WTF?
 
http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au
THey have been mentioned again and again in this forum
Sam said:
Thanks for the input.

Sam
Donald O. Aldridge said:
Don Aldridge
Sam said:
Hi, as for comparisons, I guess numbers do the math for us...yes,
the CF cards are faster than a Microdrive in write/read in Digital
Cameras...but I have a question.

In comparing a 512MB CF card to a 1G Microdrive...

Is having a CF card that is twice as expensive as a 1G Microdrive
really worth it...considering it is less than 1/3 more performance?
I know that 1/3 is a ton of performance...but come on...$600 512MB
CF or a $300 Microdive?

What do you think?

Sam
Click to expand...
--
Don
Click to expand...
--
WTF?
Click to expand...
 
well saying a microdive is slower is incorrect

its like saying a apple is sweeter than another , it depends on the mouth its put in

many CF cards are indeed slower than microdrive and the main issue is the camera it is put in,some camera run very poorly with microdrive
Sam said:
Hi, as for comparisons, I guess numbers do the math for us...yes,
the CF cards are faster than a Microdrive in write/read in Digital
Cameras...but I have a question.

In comparing a 512MB CF card to a 1G Microdrive...

Is having a CF card that is twice as expensive as a 1G Microdrive
really worth it...considering it is less than 1/3 more performance?
I know that 1/3 is a ton of performance...but come on...$600 512MB
CF or a $300 Microdive?

What do you think?

Sam
Click to expand...
 
bumjube said:
well saying a microdive is slower is incorrect
its like saying a apple is sweeter than another , it depends on the
mouth its put in

many CF cards are indeed slower than microdrive and the main issue
is the camera it is put in,some camera run very poorly with
microdrive
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry...I forgot what forum I was in...I was curious about it in the D60. Seems to me the microdrive is slower....compared to the cream-of-the-crop CF cards (those being in the $600-$1000 range). Compared to the Lexar 512 and 1gig...I just don't see how the 1/3 faster speed is worth the twice to 4x cost.

Do you?

(Also...to those of you who keep posting that AU site as a good source of information, stop it. I've been to that site, it is useless to me. I live in the US...all they list there is prices not comparisons.)

Sam
 
Hi Sam
Please take a look at that site again, he has changed his layout. Go to
http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au

and then go to the products page (the red products button at the top of the page) here you will find a comparison table with independant data.

Also he does ship to the US so when you go to the ONLINE STORE page and select NO this will give you the total $A including freight.

If you don't know how to convert to $US go to this site and it will do the conversion for you.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/

A lot of people in this forum have gotten these CF cards even though they live in the US.

Regards Gary

P.S No, I don't work for this Guy even though I live in Australia
 
Okay, now we are getting somewhere! It says the Ridata is faster than the fastest Lexar? And for $250? Why so cheap? The 512MB Lexar is $600 here.

All the same though...is the 512CF card THAT much faster for everyday use than the microdrive? If i'm not shooting lots of series shots...loading up the buffer all the time...will I need the speed?

Thanks

Sam
Gary Bender said:
Hi Sam
Please take a look at that site again, he has changed his layout.
Go to
http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au
and then go to the products page (the red products button at the
top of the page) here you will find a comparison table with
independant data.
Also he does ship to the US so when you go to the ONLINE STORE page
and select NO this will give you the total $A including freight.
If you don't know how to convert to $US go to this site and it will
do the conversion for you.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
A lot of people in this forum have gotten these CF cards even
though they live in the US.

Regards Gary

P.S No, I don't work for this Guy even though I live in Australia
Click to expand...
--
WTF?
 
Hi,

I bought 2 256mb Ridata cards from them, they work great, so far. Very good site, good price and excellent service. And I live in USA, state of Ohio.
AK
Gary Bender said:
Hi Sam
Please take a look at that site again, he has changed his layout.
Go to
http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au
and then go to the products page (the red products button at the
top of the page) here you will find a comparison table with
independant data.
Also he does ship to the US so when you go to the ONLINE STORE page
and select NO this will give you the total $A including freight.
If you don't know how to convert to $US go to this site and it will
do the conversion for you.
http://www.xe.com/ucc/
A lot of people in this forum have gotten these CF cards even
though they live in the US.

Regards Gary

P.S No, I don't work for this Guy even though I live in Australia
Click to expand...
 
Someone has a site comparing speed on the D7i, and the Kingston cards were among the good ones for that camera. 256Mb Kingston is $110 at Buy.com with free shipping. I got two as I just prefer to separate out my stuff to individual cards.

I think the microdrives are a lot more reliable than they were last year, but I still feel more comfortable with solid state. I think it is significant that most data recovery service companies have added microdrive. Long term reliability data suggests the original microdrives were not the most reliable of devices and seemed to dislike high humidity. I’m not sure the 1Gig drives have been out long enough to be confident of their long term reliability. CF cards will almost certainly outlast the camera.

Some cameras are twice as fast with the best CF cards than with microdrive where on others the microdrive is the fastest. I think it is worth your while to find out how it performs on your camera. I write a 9.5Mb raw file in about 7 seconds on the Minolta and I think the microdrive is only slightly longer. The wait would be intolerable on the cameras with the microdrive running at half the speed of good CF. It would be even more significant with a 14Mb TIF.

Several microdrive devotees on the Minolta board say they leave the drive always in the camera to avoid damage. A 1Gig download is about 4 hours through the camera. That would be a big downer for me to be tempted to leave the card in the camera because I was concerned about its fragility. Card readers are so fast and convenient and you would have to pay almost as much for an AC power supply as there is no way you would want to go through two or three sets of batteries for a download.
 
Good to know! Interestingly enough, I've been looking at the D7i through the corner of my eye. Let me tell you...1/3 the price of a D60 is damn tempting!

On an off note...how is the long-exposure of the D7i? Can you take a 30 second long exposure with no noise or any other junk that shows up on digital cameras?

Thanks

Sam
slipe said:
Someone has a site comparing speed on the D7i, and the Kingston
cards were among the good ones for that camera. 256Mb Kingston is
$110 at Buy.com with free shipping. I got two as I just prefer to
separate out my stuff to individual cards.

I think the microdrives are a lot more reliable than they were last
year, but I still feel more comfortable with solid state. I think
it is significant that most data recovery service companies have
added microdrive. Long term reliability data suggests the original
microdrives were not the most reliable of devices and seemed to
dislike high humidity. I’m not sure the 1Gig drives have been out
long enough to be confident of their long term reliability. CF
cards will almost certainly outlast the camera.

Some cameras are twice as fast with the best CF cards than with
microdrive where on others the microdrive is the fastest. I think
it is worth your while to find out how it performs on your camera.
I write a 9.5Mb raw file in about 7 seconds on the Minolta and I
think the microdrive is only slightly longer. The wait would be
intolerable on the cameras with the microdrive running at half the
speed of good CF. It would be even more significant with a 14Mb
TIF.

Several microdrive devotees on the Minolta board say they leave the
drive always in the camera to avoid damage. A 1Gig download is
about 4 hours through the camera. That would be a big downer for
me to be tempted to leave the card in the camera because I was
concerned about its fragility. Card readers are so fast and
convenient and you would have to pay almost as much for an AC power
supply as there is no way you would want to go through two or three
sets of batteries for a download.
Click to expand...
--
WTF?
 
Sam57236 said:
On an off note...how is the long-exposure of the D7i? Can you take
a 30 second long exposure with no noise or any other junk that
shows up on digital cameras?
Click to expand...
Not really. It has good noise characteristics set on ASA 100 equivalent but it isn’t magic. It is fairly new and I haven’t had a chance to do long bulb exposures, but from stuff I’ve read from the original D7 it isn’t either great or bad for noise. Terrific camera otherwise. You might go on the Minolta forum and ask about noise specifically in the D7i. I’m sure you’ll get plenty photos to compare.

I really like the camera. Considerations were the 28mm wide and manual zoom and focus rings. I just like having everything you normally access through buttons, dials, rings and switches rather than menus. There is definitely a learning curve to seamlessly operate it, but I like the tactile feedback rather than screwing with menus. Nice sharp lens – they did marvels considering how much harder it is to start from 28mm than 35mm on a zoom.
 
Hey, thanks again. Another question for you regarding portrates...can you take portrates at f/2.8? How is the depth of field in those pix? I know it can't be that great compared to Canon or Nikon glass for the D-SLR's...but will it work? I've been considering the D60 as my camera of choice here solely for the 50mm f/1.4 lense (I know a lot of money to spend for that single feature...of course the speed of the camera has a lot to do as well)...but I need to be able to take portrates...or portrate like shots...nice and sharp up close, blurred in the back.
Thanks again

Sam
slipe said:
slipe said:
On an off note...how is the long-exposure of the D7i? Can you take
a 30 second long exposure with no noise or any other junk that
shows up on digital cameras?
Click to expand...
Not really. It has good noise characteristics set on ASA 100
equivalent but it isn’t magic. It is fairly new and I haven’t had
a chance to do long bulb exposures, but from stuff I’ve read from
the original D7 it isn’t either great or bad for noise. Terrific
camera otherwise. You might go on the Minolta forum and ask about
noise specifically in the D7i. I’m sure you’ll get plenty photos
to compare.

I really like the camera. Considerations were the 28mm wide and
manual zoom and focus rings. I just like having everything you
normally access through buttons, dials, rings and switches rather
than menus. There is definitely a learning curve to seamlessly
operate it, but I like the tactile feedback rather than screwing
with menus. Nice sharp lens – they did marvels considering how
much harder it is to start from 28mm than 35mm on a zoom.
Click to expand...
--
WTF?
 
Sam said:
Hey, thanks again. Another question for you regarding
portrates...can you take portrates at f/2.8? How is the depth of
field in those pix? I know it can't be that great compared to
Canon or Nikon glass for the D-SLR's...but will it work? I've been
considering the D60 as my camera of choice here solely for the 50mm
f/1.4 lense (I know a lot of money to spend for that single
feature...of course the speed of the camera has a lot to do as
well)...but I need to be able to take portrates...or portrate like
shots...nice and sharp up close, blurred in the back.
Thanks again
Click to expand...
Nowhere close to a genuine portrait lens with a big hunk or say f1.2 glass on a 35mm camera. Not only does 2.8 have more depth of field in the first place, but CCDs have more depth of field than film.

Minolta suggests you use longer focal lengths. I’ve always liked portraits at 135mm for big blowups, but everything being relative a 135mm portrait with any digital is not going to blur the background as much as a similar shot with a 35mm camera. I would guess that you would do almost as well with the Minolta at 135mm as a f1.4 50mm lens though. A 50mm lens has a lot more depth of field than a longer focal length and generally doesn’t make a good portrait lens. Faces just look better at 80mm and above and the background is easier to get right.

All that being said, all you need with digital is to establish a decrease in focus with distance. It is really easy to select the background in Photoshop and apply whatever blur you need. If you don’t have an increase of blurring with distance it just doesn’t look right, but you can surely get enough with the Minolta lens to be credible. While you have it selected you can tweak the saturation down a bit and maybe add a tiny touch of noise to the background. You can end up with a really pro looking portrait fairly quickly, so the increased depth of field with CDDs and the 2.8 limitation doesn’t bother me.
 
slipe said:
Minolta suggests you use longer focal lengths. I’ve always liked
portraits at 135mm for big blowups, but everything being relative a
135mm portrait with any digital is not going to blur the background
as much as a similar shot with a 35mm camera. I would guess that
you would do almost as well with the Minolta at 135mm as a f1.4
50mm lens though. A 50mm lens has a lot more depth of field than a
longer focal length and generally doesn’t make a good portrait
lens. Faces just look better at 80mm and above and the background
is easier to get right.
Click to expand...
which is what is great about the 50mm lense on the D60....it is equivelent to a 80mm lense at f/1.4 with the multiplier affect.
slipe said:
All that being said, all you need with digital is to establish a
decrease in focus with distance. It is really easy to select the
background in Photoshop and apply whatever blur you need.
Click to expand...
I really need to learn the latest versions of Photoshop...(sigh)
 
Sam57236 said:
which is what is great about the 50mm lense on the D60....it is
equivelent to a 80mm lense at f/1.4 with the multiplier affect.
Click to expand...
I thought you were referring to 50mm 35mm equivalent. That sounds like a nice portrait lens and you won’t get equal background blurring with the Minolta lens. Keep in mind that you won’t get as good a background blur as you would with a f1.4, 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera either. CCDs have a better depth of field.
Sam57236 said:
I really need to learn the latest versions of Photoshop...(sigh)
Click to expand...
As long as you pay attention and do your best to blur the background when you shoot, you can definitely use Photoshop to make a Minolta portrait look like it was taken with a pro portrait lens. You have to take it into Photoshop to smudge out the laugh lines and remove the zits anyway, so you might as well blur the background.

Everyone throws the Photoshop name around like a mantra. That sort of thing can be done just as easily with PSP or PhotoImpact for a fraction of the cost. I’m stuck with Photoshop because I’ve used it for 7 years and I’m too lazy to learn to use a new program. I have to admit though that I don’t do that much that can’t be done with intermediate image editors. I have Photoshop 7 enroute so I haven’t compared it, but PSP 7 from minor dabbling seems to do better with vector files and lettering than my current Photoshop 5.5. Adobe wants you to buy Illustrator so it limits the vector capabilities where PSP and PhotoImpact aren’t limiting their product so you buy another of their high priced products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top