compact flash vs. IBM microdrive
I have a 256 meg. compact flash card which I am happy with however it is time to get a second card . I can only hold 25 raw pictures now and about 70 large, fine jpegs. I have been thinking about buying a IBM microdrive for $279, the same cost for the lexar 12 x 512 meg compact flash card. Will the IBM 1 gig. drive be as fast as the 12 or 24 speed cfc when shooting raw ?
Any recommendations as the best way to go ? dave
#1. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 0Nikonnut Registered since 03rd Mar 2002Wed 28-Aug-02 01:46 AM
I would go with the 512Mb card as opposed to the microdrive. The 512mb CF card will write faster than the microdrive, will not heat up your camera like the microdrive will , and is not sensitive like the microdrive, should you accidently drop the card, and it will have less battery drain on your camera. The only real advantage of the microdrive is that you get twice the storage capacity for the same amount of money. Most CF cards have a lifetime warranty because there are no moving parts in them to break, whereas the microdrive has a mini hard drive built -in and usually has a one year warranty. This warranty does not cover you if you accidently dropping the card. Microdrives are known to heat up the grip where the card goes into the camera and undo the cement that holds the rubber covering onto the camera.
The Long Island Nikonian
#2. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 0Thu 29-Aug-02 04:31 PM
I have two one-gigabyte IBM Microdrives that I use in my D100. I have shot over 1000 images recently, and I do not remember my camera feeling hot.
I have dropped one of my microdrives twice now, and it is still working.
I do agree that it drains the camera's battery more quickly. I am only getting about 400-500 images with my camera before the battery is dead. Many others are reporting a higher quantity than that. To counteract that I have three batteries with me at all times.
Personally, I like the Microdrives. They are not that expensive at about $250.00 each, and are nice when you take a LOT of images, as I do.
#3. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 2Thu 29-Aug-02 04:46 PM
That reassures me. I have two batteries so getting 400 or more pictures is fine. Have you found that there is a speed difference compared with compact flash ( I have 256 meg. 12 x levar) when shooting raw pictures ie if I were shooting someone going down a water slide and was shooting multiple frames per second will I notice more buffer lag (I think I made up buffer lag) but I think you understand my ? If yes, do you think the difference is significant ? If not, I plan to buy one. Thanks, dave
#4. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 3Thu 29-Aug-02 05:29 PM
I cannot comment on the speed differences, since I have never used anything but Microdrives. My wife uses 128 CF cards in her CoolPix 990, which, although it provides cool images, it is one of the slowest cameras I have ever dealt with.
I have only had my beloved D100 since August 12th, but man have I been putting the images through it. At this rate, I'll have to get much bigger hard drives on my computer.
But, back to the subject. I bought my microdrives at a place called D-Store.com (http://www.d-store.com) They shipped them right away, and the bulk packaged One Gig Drive was only about $240.00.
Personally, I love my Microdrives. I would like to have some nice one-gig flash cards, but I won't pay the $750.00 one of those babies cost. I can shoot as fast as my D100 will shoot till the buffer is full. I shoot only RAW mode, and that means 4 images. It takes about 6 seconds or so to clear the buffer to the microdrive. So, that means that after four fast frames, you would have to wait at least three or four seconds to shoot another.
The D100 is not an F5 when it comes to blasting away at people sliding down waterslides. The speed is limited by the fact that you have a buffer in the first place. You may see a few milliseconds difference in the write speeds to the flash cards, compared to the Microdrives. Is that a big deal? I don't think so. but, obviously, others will not agree.
As to drive longevity? I have no idea. As I say, I've only had these for a couple of weeks. I like them a lot! I hope they last a long time, or at least long enough that flash cards in their range will come down to a more reasonable price range.
Buy ONE card, and see if you like it. That is my advice!
#5. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 3SzennyBoy Registered since 28th Jan 2002Thu 29-Aug-02 06:39 PM
This is a really interesting discussion for me... I'm having the same dilemma about choosing between a few more 256MB CFs (I'm currently using only one 256MB 12x Lexar with an old 64MB 12x Lexar as a spare) or going for the 1GB IBM Microdrive. At the moment, I'm getting about 60 RAW images into the 256MB CF but that still means a constant need to "run back" to the laptop in the middle of processes to download. As a result, I'm constantly using the "fine" jpeg setting and only switching to RAW when required. But shooting at 5fps just yesterday I forgot about which mode I was in (RAW apparently!) and ended up running out of memory!
Regarding the "buffer lag" issue, Darrell is right about it depending on the buffer size on the camera. But apart from that, it also depends on the writing speed from the camera's buffer to the CF or Microdrive. I came across this article in dpreview comparing the various CFs and also the Microdrive on the reading and writing speeds as well as the performance in RAW & JPEG modes (unfortunately the only Nikon used in the test was the CP995). The IBM 1GB Microdrive seems to be a very good overall performer and offers the best $/MB.
Szen ARPS... A London Nikonian
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#6. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 5Thu 29-Aug-02 09:34 PM
thanks for the input. I am going to buy the microdrive. I have also been shooting in jpeg because of the minimal shots I can take on my 256 meg card in raw. By the way Darryl how do you post your messages with that nice logo of you holding the camera ? digital dave
#7. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 6Fri 06-Sep-02 10:50 PM
You simply use basic HTML as found in any good web programming book. But, instead of using the normal < > brackets, you use square braces instead. I create my little logo in a web design program, then modify the code to use square braces instead of < >. I can't display the square braces because this page will convert them to < >. The square braces are just below the curly braces (same keys) to the right of the P key on your keyboard.
<P>Here is a link to my website: <A HREF="http://www.nikond.com">Click Here</A>
Below is an example using the Square braces instead of the < > as you see above:
Here is a link to my website: Click Here
I simply replaced all the < > with braces. In ALL places you MUST replace them. If you create a link it comes out just as you see above. If you include a picture in your HTML code, it shows up. Also, you can drop your carefully designed code into your profile page at the bottom where it asks about your signature, and it will show up in all your posts from then on, without you doing anything else.
Do you like to code HTML? It is not hard, just search on the internet for a basic tutorial and you can put almost anything in your posts.
#8. "RE: compact flash vs. IBM microdrive" | In response to Reply # 7DrMark Basic MemberSat 07-Sep-02 12:55 PM
I bought a 256 card then a 1 gig IBM drive for $330. Took the card and drive to Alaska. Filled them up. I love both. Anything else I would buy would be flash since I have large storage in the microdrive. The other cards I would go with would be the 512 cards nothing smaller. For long trips I would probably take my laptop since I can download them and delete those pictures I don't like. Also take them over if need be.
Buy both don't just go with one system.