4Gb CF Card Announced

An anonymous reader writes "Lexar has today announced that it now shipping a 4 GB 40x Compact Flash card. The card's claim to fame is the ability to store 600 RAW images taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera. This card also features Lexar's WA (Write Acceleration) technology which can improve performance further with WA enabled cameras. Because this card is larger than 2 GB, you will need a camera which is FAT32 compliant. This card is available now at the heady price of $1,499 ($0.37/MB). It looks like Lexar has managed to be faster then Hitachi (Former IBM storage division) with their 4Gb Microdrive."

Is 40x worth it?

[tackaberry]

I've been toying with the idea of getting a Lexar Pro (40x) CF card.

Has anyone had any experience using the Pro cards versus the standard, and whether or not the numbers translate into noticible performance gains???

Nevertheless, this particular card is well outside of my range/needs, but a 256 or 512 for my 4.0 megapix is do-able.

But the chokepoint...

[kmak]

is still the time it takes for a camera to transfer from on-memory to the card... no matter how big the card is, until this time is reduced, it'll still be hard for some applications ..

But it's definitely good.. I use a CF-Reader on my laptop instead of a diskdrive, and obviously, a 4 GB CF card would definitely be nice.. now I can easily transfer data between machines!

Of course, again, though, bandwidth is still an issue..

Hooray

[stratjakt]

How long until solid state technology replaces hard drives outright, or at least supplements them?

And, only slightly offtopic, why must PCs have pagefiles created on a hard drive? Why not have a bunch of SDRAM slots, even on a PCI card, and have 4 gigs of uber-cheap PC133, then create a 4 gig swap file in RAM (if not natively supported).

I hate having to swap to HDD, and my only option being super-pricey DDR or RDRAM upgrades.

A machine would do just fine with 256 Megs of Dual-DDR400, and 4 gigs or so of PC133. Then HDD as an absolute last resort. It plugs right in to the tiered-memory architecture, so why would this not work?

Re:$1500?

[Mindwarp]

IBM has been producing Compact Flash Type 2 form-factor micro drives for some time now.

Here's one:

Clicky! [amazon.co.uk]

Cool, but...

[LordYUK]

a quick google search reveals that a 1 GB version is about 170... 170 * 4 = 680. At 1500 bucks, I think I'd rather just keep three other 1 gb sticks in my pocket/camera bag/whatever... granted, if you're a professional photgrapher you might think otherwise, but I recall something that we used a few years back that had to be changed every X number of pictures, what was it, oh yes... film.

I'd say it has to be easier to pop a flash card in and out of a digital camera as opposed to a roll of film... but thats just me.

Re:Why?

[krisp]

Not true. The Nikon D2H (mentioned in this [slashdot.org] previous story) can take 1000-1200 pictures on a single charge. For 1200 pictures, one might need two of these cards, assuming raw 6megapixel photographs.

Re:$1500?

[Keighvin]

It's called an IBM MicroDrive, though it's also resold and branded through Iomega (without any different under the hood). They are mostly CF compatible, though the voltage requirements are a little different so the device needs to be MicroDrive compatible and not just CD.

The 1GB CF form factor drive runs for ~$260 on eBay including PCMCIA adapter for laptiops. Buying 4 of these at that price would save you $460 on the cost of a single 4GB CF.

best quote

[paradesign]

"It would be refreshing to see someone talk about something other than the pursuit of big numbers. " in reference to the expanding storage of CF cards and mega pixel ratings. Seems to apply to more than just cameras. I took it to mean that there should be more of a focus on cost/performance ratio, rather than bleeding edge.

unrelated note... I wish all PCs would come with CF slots on them standard. i think its the best alternative to the floppy. ive even started carrying arround a card reader so i can use CF to replace my stacks of zip disks.

CF

[dodell]

As far as I can tell, this thing is only useful for professional photographers. When getting my picture taken for the cover of Pro. PHP4 MM Programming, I saw that the photographer had several 1GB CF cards strewn over his desk. Digital photos are becoming more popular because people can get them reprinted and such. There's not really a loss in quality either, since the photos are 5-7 megapixels. But you end up getting 27MB TIFF files (in B/W)! I'm sure there are other uses for this sort of storage, but this is the best example I could think of.

I think that the price to pay for CF is way too heavy for this card to fit into general use. CF cards don't have the longest lifespan in the world either. Until these prices go down, I don't think CF will become a really hot item. I mean, look at iPods. 20GB of storage at less than half the price (and it'll play your MP3s).

The other disappointment regarding the price is that it's too high to push the prices down on 1GB models, so we won't see these being shoved into consumer electronics anytime soon either.

I think that by the time CF gets to be reasonably priced, other devices of similar size and much higher capacity will be available. I don't have a good feeling about the lifespan of CF.

On the other hand, I'd like to know some of the uses that this card may see. I may be completely oblivious to its practical usage. Feel free to enlighten me as to where this could be used, what it will replace, and whether or not the price is right for that application.

You'd pay $1,500 for that?

[BTWR]

Why would someone pay $1,500 for this when 1 Gigabyte cards have now dipped below $100? Besides the fact that these 4GB cards will be $500 or less in a year (ok, maybe 18 months), what possible advantage is there over four 1GB cards at a fraction of the cost (despite the convinience, which is certainly not worth $1000)?

When The Price Drops

[mustangsal66]

Think about it... 6 Divx movies in the palm of your hand...

Now to create a card reader/decoder for my DVD player...

Re:CF

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm where you have been for the last five years?

CompactFlash is most popular type of flash cards. It's very reasonable priced, 256MB CF card costs only $48 and it's enough for ordinary use. There are also smaller densities available.

"I mean, look at iPods. 20GB of storage at less than half the price (and it'll play your MP3s)."

You can't connect your iPod to your camera.

Re:Hooray

[stratjakt]

But why the high costs and niche market? I envision a product that costs say 200 bucks and gives you a couple gigs of lower-performance high-latency RAM.

But now instead of 1 or 2 gigs of high-performance RAM, you only need 256 megs or so, so you wind up saving money in the long run, and having a much peppier, and more robust PC to show for it.

I just dont understand why this isnt happening. It seems like a sure-hit product that would sell like hotcakes.

Failure rates and mirrored arrays

[tinrobot]

What's the MTBF on these things? I've had CF cards go bad on me before, and it's always a bummer when you lose photos. I personally think it's best to go with several mid-sized cards rather than one gargantuan one. That way, if a single card goes bad, you don't lose everything. Even for pro-tographers who take zillions of pictures, it's a good idea. Changing a CF card takes less time than changing a roll of film, so it won't interrupt the workflow all that much. Plus it might save you a major headache should you lose everything.

On the same lines, I think someone should come out with a redundant flash card. Instead of a single 4GB card, perhaps two 2GB cards in one, with the storage mirrored as in a RAID. I know some people might pay extra for the added security/redundancy.

Re:Why?

[interiot]

• And when you're a professional (or semi-professional), which is what this product is aimed at, you're probably not shooting .jpg anymore.

There's really no reason [tawbaware.com] to use raws over jpegs.

Re:These things rock!

[Lumpy]

I am currently using one of the Lexar 2GB cards for a Hard Drive on an embedded box that I put together.

what the hell for? 2GB is way too much storage needed for an embedded device. Hell I can fit my OS apps and about 12 days worth of data and logs on a 8meg CF card.

Also you need to be using the correct filesystem, anything but a Flash filesystem will hose that card within days, you need to spread out the writes to keep from wearing out the flash in an address range.

2GB flash in an embedded system... What the heck for??

Re:Why?

[afidel]

Very wrong, at least for Canon cameras, Canon's raw format captures the data as it is coming off the image censor. By saving this information post processing can be done on the raw data rather than the interpretation of the processing chip and the JPEG engine. For instance I have seen images had contrast improved without upsetting the shadow details which just isn't possible with normal post processing on a regular image, if you've ever see it you will know how superior to dumb Photoshop filters it is.

Re:4Gb or 4GB

[AKnightCowboy]

Before further bashing the Slashdot editorial staff, you may wish to note that editors rarely submit the stories. Slashdot readers submit the stories, along with the headlines.

Before calling them "editorial staff" note that by not proofreading the submissions they are not editors, merely approvers.

Re:Too big

[afidel]

For the ultimate story of CF rugidness you have to see This [digitaljournalist.org] link.

Wow! Closing In On Mechanical HDs

[istartedi]

My primary drive is 8 GB. Windows uses only half of it (other half is BSD). Yes, I have another drive in there too. Obviously, I don't store a lot of music and video. The point is, it's looking more and more realistic for at least some users like myself to have totally solid-state PCs. Quiet PC nirvanna; just around the corner.

Re:Who needs this space? I DO!

[mrycar]

As a 10D user, shooting raw. I currently consume about 4 512MB cards during a shoot.

After the first two cards, I find myself slowing down in the picture taking, which is not necessarily a good thing.

If I had 4GB, I would use it.

I also use these cards to transfer data between work and home, or between friends computers and mine. The size of the data transferred frequently exceeds my capacity.

Now all we need to do, is to have them work on the price. If that price was for 40Gb then I may consider it, but as it is, I'll buy 4 1GB cards and save a few bucks.

Re:Why?

[echucker]

Ask anyone shooting underwater photos why they don't want to change cards - it means more surface time, and less time actually shooting.

Re:CF

[Glonoinha]

Additionally :

Drop a iPod down a flight of stairs (or more directly, a hard drive).
Drop a compact flash card down a flight of stairs.

Guess which is going to still work.

Granted this is an extreme to point out the stress handling capabilities of the media, but in a hostile environment CF has merits over hard drives.

Bah bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Cripes. Better be for some hardcore professionals. For $1,499, I could buy an ultra mini laptop, like those Sony U1 or U3 models, or their newest one (I forget the model).

Most professionals who are going to opt for this card are going to carry high end, $2,000+ cameras. Near all of these, even the older models, have high speed connections to write directly to drives, e.g. over firewire. Most already carry a camera bag for lenses for the SLR style digital cameras, so strapping a laptop the size of your hand to the small of your back is minimal.

The only folks I see really with the need for this GB, for now, is those with absurdly high megapixel cameras (8+MP), use the high end cameras in close quarters, lightweight applications, or needing high mobility (nature photography, maybe war zones), and the like.

Hard Drive Replacement?

[DonGar]

Larger compact flash cards are now big enough to act as replacements for hard-drives for small/special purpose PCs. For example, my firewall, even with all of it's logging only needs about 200M of storage.

I could use a CF card to build a small/slow PC with no moving parts (fanless also). That seems like it would be a lot more reliable.

However, how well do Compact Flash cards deal with continuous writing and rewriting? How long could a card handle the data being logging to disk from my firewall before it starting having errors?

How much of a problem would the slower write times be? In the case of the firewall, I would expect there to be enough ram to keep the slow CF read/write times from being a problem, but how much difference is there overall?

Re:Still not a little hard drive replacement

[FrankDrebin]

While a CF is not a good choice for a "tradition HD" application, I would suggest that under certain conditions, a CF *can* be a good HD. For example, with embedded Linux you might mount certain partitions (e.g. /usr) as read-only which could either be on the CF, or if speed is needed part of an initrd. Certain writeable partitions (e.g. /dev, /var, /tmp) normally on your system can be a ramdisk (RAM is cheap), avoiding the flash altogether. And if you want persistent storage for other paritions (e.g. /home, /www), you may use a file system that is flash-friendly, as you suggest in your post.

Perhaps the biggest waste of a CF would be as a swap partition, it probably wouldn't last long.

Re:Just get 4 1GB Microdrives

[Anonymous Coward]

Who takes 150 RAW 6MP files in a row? A professional -- probably an event, wedding, or school portrait photographer.

Imagine being a photographer shooting kids getting their diplomas at graduation. They're not going to stop while you wait for your camera to clear its buffer and reload your CF card. Right now somebody in this situation has to shoot at lower resolution or lower quality.