I just worry about putting all my eggs in one basket. I wouldn't want a 4 gig CF card either, although I think CF is less likely to fail than a microdrive. I carry 4 1 gig cards and 3 half gig cards. They'll fit in a pocket. I don't feel encumbered. And should one fail, I won't lose all my work. I also take my I-book on trips and location shoots and download the cards as soon as possible. Paul
> I agree at the 1GB point, but compare at the 4GB capacity and microdrives > are significantly less. I'm taking some long trips where I want more > storage than 1GB so I don't have to manage alot of CF's. > > Tom C. > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive? > >Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:48:37 +0000 > > > >With 1 gig CF cards now selling for eighty bucks or so, I can't think of > >any good reason to go with a microdrive. The fewer moving parts, the > >better. > >Paul > > > > > > > Actually what i said is that they don't work well =at high altitudes=, > >not > > > that they don't work well. > > > > > > Glad we cleared that up. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > Date: 5/24/2005 10:02:27 AM > > > > Subject: RE: CF card: normal or Microdrive? > > > > > > > > Not a problem at all Shel. It's just that you started out with a > >blanket > > > > statement "Microdrives don't work well", and I thought that was a > > > misleading > > > > assertion. > > > > > > > > > >
