Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: ray on 5 Jul 2010 17:40 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:15 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: > On 05/07/2010 19:47, ray wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:48:32 -0500, George Kerby wrote: >> >>> On 7/5/10 9:42 AM, in article 89e9afF852U17(a)mid.individual.net, "ray" >>> <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:33:42 -0500, Neil wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:03:10 +0000, ray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason >>>>>>> why high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a >>>>>>> turn-off, not a feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat >>>>>> buyers - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a >>>>>> camera capable of using CF and SD.ÐøO$ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who can afford A Canon eos 1Ds mk111 ? My pension won't run to it. >>>> >>>> Mine would, but I eschew Canon. >>> >>> Because? >> >> Because they have no support for Linux, I choose to not use their >> products and support folks who do. > > Because the others camera manufacturers support Linux? See other reply. Canon makes things other than cameras - e.g. printers. Until they show a little Linux support, I prefer to ignore all their offerings. I don't expect you or anyone else to be with me - but that is my reason.
From: Robert Coe on 5 Jul 2010 17:52 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:55:27 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: : Bruce wrote: : > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> : > wrote: : > : >>You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I : >>bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot. : > : > : > : > The Olympus SP590-UZ is **NOT** a DSLR. : > : > : Olympus characterizes the camera as simply a digital camera. Since it : has virtually all the features of an SLR, adding that designation, as : per the quote below hardly seems out of place. I won't split hairs : with you. If you want to simply call it a compact SLR, or simply an : Advanced Compact, as the literature appears to indicate. that's fine : with me. However, you should be aware that these cameras have a good : number of the features that full size DSLR's have. I won't get involved : in a discussion designed to split hairs regarding the nomenclature : designation, because that's a pointless discussion which centers on : semantics. However, you should be aware that DP, in its buyer's guide, : and in articles where they have been evaluated by specific camera, : classifies them as Advanced Compacts, with this description: "Full : featured compacts have the controls of a DSLR, including choice of : exposure modes, both auto and manual, auto and manual focus, full : control of ISO and complete choice of white balance...The only thing : they don't have from a functional point of view is interchangeable lenses." : : Given that, one can say that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a : duck, looks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Well, almost, given the : fact that there are differences. Since the manufacturer characterizes : it as a digital camera, with all the features of a DSLR, and the : literature asserts they have virtually all the features of an SLR as : well, it does appear that the characterization compact DSLR could be : quite aptly applied to these cameras. However, if you want to stand on : the fact that they are different in a small technical manner from a true : DSLR, despite the fact that they have all the equivalent functions, : you're right and I won't argue with you, and I'll close with letting you : be right, if that's important. Bail now; you're out of your depth. Either your knowledge of photographic equipment or your command of the English language is insufficient for you to hold your own in this thread. (Hint: You don't know what a DSLR is.) Bob
From: Robert Coe on 5 Jul 2010 18:15 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:37:33 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: : : "Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote in message : news:4qc136hpdtfolfdg2t8scu5tikl3ubq8bk(a)4ax.com... : > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: : > : >>SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why : >>high : >>end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, not a : >>feature. : > : > Well, SD cards do have two advantages over CF cards: : > 1. Size and : > 2. Much less chance of bending pins inside the camera. : : I've read of that happening (bending pins) but I'm damned if I can see how : it's possible. In every camera I own that takes CF cards, the card is guided : so well into the camera, and the pin ends I presume are beveled, . . . how : can any pins get bent? I am reasonably clumsy but have never bent any CF : pins. I've done it in a crappy card reader. Bob
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 18:31 In article <89f1q4F852U22(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > See other reply. Canon makes things other than cameras - e.g. printers. > Until they show a little Linux support, I prefer to ignore all their > offerings. I don't expect you or anyone else to be with me - but that is > my reason. your loss. there are plenty of excellent products that will never support linux.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 5 Jul 2010 19:51
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <89f1q4F852U22(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >wrote: > >> See other reply. Canon makes things other than cameras - e.g. printers. >> Until they show a little Linux support, I prefer to ignore all their >> offerings. I don't expect you or anyone else to be with me - but that is >> my reason. > >your loss. > >there are plenty of excellent products that will never support linux. His gain though, and ours, would be if they did support Linux. They don't, so there is little reason to support them simply because there are virtually always other products from companies that do support Linux. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com |