Compact Flash gone?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

ken - 18 Feb 2006 06:46 GMT

Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
on my next camera.
Does anyone know why they are going out of fashion?
Will SD replace CF for cameras?

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 18 Feb 2006 06:59 GMT

> Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
> I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
> on my next camera.

They still seem to be common on many DSLR's unfortunately.

> Does anyone know why they are going out of fashion?

Physical size.

> Will SD replace CF for cameras?

Seems like it already has for most compact cameras.

MrT.

Reply to this Message

Michael - 18 Feb 2006 08:52 GMT

>> Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
>> I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>> Will SD replace CF for cameras?

I hope CF never goes out, SD's are a pain in the you know where.

Reply to this Message

Jeff R - 18 Feb 2006 09:34 GMT

> >> Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
> >> I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> >
> I hope CF never goes out, SD's are a pain in the you know where.

Why?
They work fine for me.

Are you pushing them into the wrong slot?

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

k - 18 Feb 2006 10:55 GMT

| "Michael"

| > I hope CF never goes out, SD's are a pain in the you know where.

| Why?
| They work fine for me.
|
| Are you pushing them into the wrong slot?

try doing a google search for SD card problem "divide by zero"

hmmm..

just has a brand spanker go belly up on me, unable to format it - ie, dead.
Seems there's some sectors on the disk reserved and if they get damaged it's
all over red rover

Nice people at PLE gave me a new one s we'll see how long that lasts..

data recovery is something I do for others, but believe me, this card was a
goner

n
never seen that with a CF

k

Reply to this Message

Jeff R - 18 Feb 2006 11:45 GMT

> | "Michael"
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> try doing a google search for SD card problem "divide by zero"

Just did that.
Not very conclusive.

> hmmm..
>
> just has a brand spanker go belly up on me, unable to format it - ie, dead.
> Seems there's some sectors on the disk reserved and if they get damaged it's
> all over red rover

We all have anecdotes.
I've *never* had one single problem with any of the dozen or so SDs I've
used.
Which proves exactly as much as your single belly-up.

I see no reason why SDs should be less reliable than CFs - other than
personal prejudices and fixed notions.

> Nice people at PLE gave me a new one s we'll see how long that lasts..
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> n
> never seen that with a CF

Well, I've never seen it with an SD.

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

k - 18 Feb 2006 11:54 GMT

"Jeff R"

| We all have anecdotes.
| I've *never* had one single problem with any of the dozen or so SDs I've
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| I see no reason why SDs should be less reliable than CFs - other than
| personal prejudices and fixed notions.

I do a fair bit of data recovery work and ..

never mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital

"The “Secure” in Secure Digital comes from the card’s origin. To create the
SD card, Toshiba added encryption hardware to the already-extant MMC card,
to calm music industry concerns that MMC cards would allow for easy piracy
of music. ("

foul those sectory - easily done with moving big files - and that's that.
the card is dead.

have a squiz in the mobile market where these cards are popular and you'll
find a *lot* of "aecdotal" evidence .

"The SD Card Association’s current licensing agreement does not allow for
open-source SD drivers, a fact that generates a fair amount of consternation
in the open-source and free software communities. The usual workaround is to
develop an open-source wrapper for a closed-source SD driver available on
the particular platform, but this is far from ideal. Another common
workaround is to use the older MMC mode, which all SD cards are required to
support by the SD standard."

suggesting it's not a *simple* card.. and anything not simple..

"This means that SD is less open than CompactFlash or USB flash memory
drives," er, more 'not good' information

worse

"Documentation for this mode can be purchased from the MMCA for $500; ..MMC
mode does not provide access to the proprietary encryption features of SD
cards, and the free SD documentation does not describe these features. "

basically if you addle the card, that's that.

your anecdotal evidence that the cards are fine because you've never
scrambled one might make you feel good, nice for you - I'm just suggesting
that if anyone addles one don't waste your time trying to salvage it. If
you've scrambled a CF though, come see me :-)

k

Reply to this Message

Jeff R - 18 Feb 2006 12:12 GMT

> foul those sectory - easily done with moving big files - and that's that.
> the card is dead.

I'm sure it is easy/possible to do so if you really try, but practically
speaking, the biggest files I move are around 10-12Mb.

> have a squiz in the mobile market where these cards are popular and you'll
> find a *lot* of "aecdotal" evidence .

Uh huh.
And this would be *compared* to CF cards?

> your anecdotal evidence that the cards are fine because you've never
> scrambled one might make you feel good, nice for you - I'm just suggesting
> that if anyone addles one don't waste your time trying to salvage it. If
> you've scrambled a CF though, come see me :-)

Don't own one. Not likely.
Do they get scrambled often? Do you get much work fixing them?

Geez - Pentax engineers (and lots of other manufacturers) must be really
stupid to specify SD cards exclusively. Its a shame that their
multi-million dollar R&D efforts haven't benefited from Wiki-research,
isolated anecdotes and paranoid theories.

Still - there's not much talent out there.

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

k - 18 Feb 2006 12:43 GMT

yup..

| > your anecdotal evidence that the cards are fine because you've never
| > scrambled one might make you feel good, nice for you - I'm just suggesting
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| Don't own one. Not likely.
| Do they get scrambled often? Do you get much work fixing them?

they *do* scramble, more frequantly than hard drives.. a reasonable amount,
but I get more hard drives to fix..

| Geez - Pentax engineers (and lots of other manufacturers) must be really
| stupid to specify SD cards exclusively. Its a shame that their
| multi-million dollar R&D efforts haven't benefited from Wiki-research,
| isolated anecdotes and paranoid theories.

no, they're on a winner! Buy the card - oh, you've scrambled it? buy
another!

why *else* would you use a closed sourse card with it's own special sectors

put it this way, if M$ released *special* hard drives with protected sectors
and bunged them in all the IBM's, do you think fiolks would stop buying
IBM's ?

no, they'd live with it.. even knowing (later, after the purchase) that the
drives may one day be unrecoverable..

it's simple.

CF = solid state hard drive

SD = solid state HD WITH special encrypted sectors.

sectors go bad.

normal unencrypted memory can always be formatted & resored

encrypted memory once formatted becomes unusable. no longer SD compliant
therefore dead.

k

Reply to this Message

Jeff R - 18 Feb 2006 13:24 GMT

> "Jeff R" <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> no, they're on a winner! Buy the card - oh, you've scrambled it? buy
> another!

Oh come on....
(Geez - I though *I* was cynical...)

Planned obsolescence is one thing, but deliberately engineering-in an item
in order to make a few bucks more when it predictably goes blooey.
Nuts!
Imagine the consumer backlash.

> why *else* would you use a closed sourse card with it's own special sectors

I don't give a rats how the sectors are managed, so long as it works the way
it is designed to work - which, by all (well - *most*) accounts, it does.
I don't expect to move 100Mb+ files with it, and I'm certainly not going to
frig with its fat (so to speak).

> put it this way, if M$ released *special* hard drives with protected sectors
> and bunged them in all the IBM's, do you think fiolks would stop buying
> IBM's ?

Silly analogy. PCs are overwhelmingly popular *because* they could be (and
were) cloned by cheaper OEMs.

> no, they'd live with it.. even knowing (later, after the purchase) that the
> drives may one day be unrecoverable..

I doubt that.
Who buys a true blue IBM nowadays?

> it's simple.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> encrypted memory once formatted becomes unusable. no longer SD compliant
> therefore dead.

Not convinced.
For every common commercial encryption method, there is a practical
workaround.
Maybe the SD workaround just hasn't been made available yet.

Any-which-way, my personal experience (which is all I'm really happy to rely
on) suggests that SDs are just fine. CFs probably are too, but I don't use
them, so don't know.

I still don't buy the suggestion that Pentax engineers are *that* stupid.

Thanks for the interesting SD info, though.

--
Jeff R.

> k

Reply to this Message

k - 18 Feb 2006 13:57 GMT

| Oh come on....
| (Geez - I though *I* was cynical...)

hahaha, hasn't anyone told you I'm a grumpy bastard hermit who wanders the
streets muttering obscanities and proclaiming we're all going to die?

;)

| Planned obsolescence is one thing, but deliberately engineering-in an item
| in order to make a few bucks more when it predictably goes blooey.
| Nuts!
| Imagine the consumer backlash.

the SD card HAS faults!

| I don't give a rats how the sectors are managed, so long as it works the way
| it is designed to work - which, by all (well - *most*) accounts, it does.
| I don't expect to move 100Mb+ files with it, and I'm certainly not going to
| frig with its fat (so to speak).

| Silly analogy. PCs are overwhelmingly popular *because* they could be (and
| were) cloned by cheaper OEMs.

no, It's not silly - it's what *is* happening with the release of 'Secure'
digital cards!

| Who buys a true blue IBM nowadays?

sad geeks

oh, and TP lovers ;)

| Maybe the SD workaround just hasn't been made available yet.

er.. that's the problem!

| Any-which-way, my personal experience (which is all I'm really happy to rely
| on) suggests that SDs are just fine. CFs probably are too, but I don't use
| them, so don't know.
|
| I still don't buy the suggestion that Pentax engineers are *that* stupid.

nah, they're just happy with a small, cheap card. bugs included.

| Thanks for the interesting SD info, though.

you're welcome :)

As long as people actually *know* what's going on, there's a chance to
change things

Reply to this Message

k - 18 Feb 2006 16:19 GMT

more:
The digital rights management scheme embedded in the SD cards is defined as
the Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) by the 4C Entity and is
centered around use of the Cryptomeria cipher (also known as C2). The
specification is kept secret and is only accessible to licensees. DVD-Audio
use a very similar scheme known as Content Protection for Prerecorded Media
(CPPM).

yay - DRM built right into the media :-(

k

Reply to this Message

Michael - 18 Feb 2006 16:25 GMT

>>>> Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
>>>> I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Are you pushing them into the wrong slot?

it's not the slot, its the lock switch on the side of the card
take it out of camera and stick in in computer and the switch slips to
half locked. so take it out slide to un lock and and try again.
I eventually ended up using a razor blade to cut the knob off
and leave it permanently unlocked.

also too easilt damaged by static because of the copper contacts on the
back.

CF is the best, no lock, no exposed contacts, more rigid.

Reply to this Message

k - 19 Feb 2006 07:54 GMT

"Michael"

lucidly penned:

| CF is the best, no lock, no exposed contacts, more rigid.

apparently the folks at Pentax are deemed to dim to realise this too ;)

k

Reply to this Message

kosh - 20 Feb 2006 20:17 GMT

> "Michael"
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> k

and canon hav egone backwards by mostly shifting to sd

Reply to this Message

ken - 20 Feb 2006 21:54 GMT

That was my original question. Any ideas of why Canon switched?

Reply to this Message

POTD.com.au - 21 Feb 2006 00:55 GMT

> That was my original question. Any ideas of why Canon switched?

Smaller lighter for compact cams, plus bending pins with CF has been a
problem for some.... that's my guess. :-)

Cheers

Rusty
http://www.pixelpix.com.au

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 24 Feb 2006 21:11 GMT

>> That was my original question. Any ideas of why Canon switched?
>
> Smaller lighter for compact cams, plus bending pins with CF has been a
> problem for some.... that's my guess. :-)

Saw a D70 with a CF card shoved in backwards, card stuffed, D70 on its way
to get repaired. Must have been a very ham fisted dimwit that did it.

Reply to this Message

Mr.T - 22 Feb 2006 00:39 GMT

> That was my original question. Any ideas of why Canon switched?

You disagree with my reply that it is mainly to do with physical size then?
Are you searching for a conspiracy?

MrT.

Reply to this Message

alx - 18 Feb 2006 08:04 GMT

not on DSLR's. Still very much de rigeur.

> Compact Flash seems to be just about gone on new cameras.
> I have a Canon IXUS with CF cards and was hoping to be able to use them
> on my next camera.
> Does anyone know why they are going out of fashion?
> Will SD replace CF for cameras?

Reply to this Message