From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The cost difference to me in like paying once off insurance, 4GB sure holds
a
lot of images, I'd be rather irritated if I lost that many in one hit in
the
case of a failure.
I guess that's where I differ. I'm betting it won't fail and that if it
did, it's just as likely that it would fail on the 1st shot or the 50th, as
on the 280th (the number of raw shots I figure I can store).
Actually I'm betting that were it to fail, only a small percentage of the
shots would have been keepers to begin with. :)
Your watch has moving parts yes but it has no where near the precision
required
to cram 4GB on a single platter and it likely won't suffer deleteriously
from a
decent jarring shock. What was trying to get at is that small and fragile
is a
bad combination, I agree if MDs are handled carefully they shouldn't fail
due
to mechanical stress however it's really easy to mishandle CF cards, this I
have first hand experience with.
I go against the grain a little maybe. I almost never remove the CF from
the camera and I transfer the images using the USB cable. About the only
time I switch cards is if one fills up and I'm not near the PC. My handling
of the storage device itself is pretty minimal.
Because people have asked for it and the companies making the devices see
potential for sales and profit, neither scenario necessarily indicates that
it's actually a good idea for the consumer?
That certainly may be true. I factor in the risks that exist if I were
shooting film most of the time, not the least of which in my case has been
losing exposed rolls, having a jam occur, having the pressure plate roller
scratch the film, having the lab lose the film, or inadvertently opening the
back.
Not trying to convert you Rob... just a little good natured discussion. If
MD's and CF were the same price I'd go with the CF, no doubt about it, but
for half the price I'll take my chances with a microdrive.
Tom C.
