| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2004 09:55:30 PM · #1 |
Like after so many shots, rewritting and erasing pictures and files, do they lose the ability to hold as much? Just wondering if I should be predicting when I should buy a new card or not.
Clint
|
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:00:15 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:01:21 PM · #3 |
Almost 10,000 shots on my memory stick and no sign of wearing out. I would think that the only thing you would have to worry about is if you dropped the card from a high place. But then again it probably still would hold up.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:01:52 PM · #4 |
| One of my two 1gb IBM Microdrives just died the other day. It was a sad day :) |
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:02:46 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by arnit:
One of my two 1gb IBM Microdrives just died the other day. It was a sad day :) |
Now those have moving parts in them like cpanaioti showed us they will wear out faster.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:03:04 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:22:22 PM · #7 |
Flash memory, which is the basis of all solid state memory cards & sticks (note I qualified by saying solid state) does have a maximum number of write cycles. The chips themselves are rated for a minimum of at least 10,000 cycles (may be more today, my info is a bit old...) but in any case they do tend to last far longer. Just not guaranteed to do so.
Brings to mind an interesting story about a piece of equipment in our factory. The manufacturer thought it would be a good idea to use a 1GB flash card as the boot drive. Loads the OS and runs a single application from this drive. Problem is, the constant read/write cycles destroy the card about every 6-12 months.
edit: fixed typo
Message edited by author 2004-04-25 22:23:31.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2004 10:51:45 PM · #8 |
I just rolled my G2 over again--that's over 20,000 shots. Both of my two 256 MB cards which I've had pretty much since the first week of owning the camera are still fine.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 12:23:43 AM · #9 |
ok while the subject is on cards can they also be used in 2 or more cameras, and still have a good lifespan?
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 12:30:41 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I just rolled my G2 over again--that's over 20,000 shots. Both of my two 256 MB cards which I've had pretty much since the first week of owning the camera are still fine. |
Uh, by "write-cycles" wouldn't they mean the number of times the card is filled and then cleared, not each time a file is written to it?
I've used cards back and forth between an Olympus and a Fuji, on both PC and Mac -- they just usually create their own folder in which to store the captured images. I can't see how there would be a significant power difference between cameras, although some run hotter than others -- that migh make a difference. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 01:03:21 AM · #11 |
Do you re-format to clear the card or just erase all the images? Is there a difference in longevity if one method is used more than the other?
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 01:06:47 AM · #12 |
I just dump them in the trash when I'm done transferring them to a hard-drive/backup. I've only reformatted a card once, when it had been used on more than one camera, and I was selling it to someone else so they'd only have the one folder to deal with.
I have no idea if that affects the lifespan though ... it's just what I do 'cause I'd never get around to re-formatting the cards.
Message edited by author 2004-04-26 01:07:51. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 01:30:58 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I just rolled my G2 over again--that's over 20,000 shots. Both of my two 256 MB cards which I've had pretty much since the first week of owning the camera are still fine. |
Uh, by "write-cycles" wouldn't they mean the number of times the card is filled and then cleared, not each time a file is written to it?
I've used cards back and forth between an Olympus and a Fuji, on both PC and Mac -- they just usually create their own folder in which to store the captured images. I can't see how there would be a significant power difference between cameras, although some run hotter than others -- that migh make a difference. |
I would assume it's rated at cycles per logical sector, since this is not a media that needs to be erased all at once. Data is written and erased in logical sectors. |
|
|
|
04/27/2004 05:13:40 PM · #14 |
| Sandisk's memory cards come with a lifetime warranty, so with them this would never be a concern. I would not think there would be a limit since you are basically switch a bit on or off. |
|
|
|
04/27/2004 05:51:45 PM · #15 |
Yes they wear out. Flash memory is typically rated for a number of write cycles. (The underlying design assumption is that you normally read flash more than you write to it)
They will actually start getting smaller over time too, as bad areas are removed from active use.
Sandisk do have a lifetime warranty, so that they will replace a card that has failed. This does not mean that cards do not fail :)
They are usually good for about 100,000 to 300,000 write cycles per sector.
Message edited by author 2004-04-27 17:52:17.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2004 06:44:47 PM · #16 |
| So does that mean you should try and fill your card each time before emptying it, so that you don't wear out the "first" sectors before you ever use the later ones? |
|
|
|
04/27/2004 07:17:00 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So does that mean you should try and fill your card each time before emptying it, so that you don't wear out the "first" sectors before you ever use the later ones? |
Most decent CF controllers will balance the wear by storing data in different physical parts of the chip, so that the wear is more even.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2004 07:47:33 PM · #18 |
| You are using "CF Controller" in its generic sense, as in any flash memory controller (I still have SmartMedia cards)? Might that also mean a greater likelihood of problems in moving the card between units, with different firmware and software? |
|
|
|
04/27/2004 09:29:02 PM · #19 |
I was actually meaning CF in its literal, Compact Flash sense - which has the controller on board the device.
The other media has the controller in the actual camera - it then becomes more dependant on the actual design on how the memory is used.
Compact flash ends up being more flexible by keeping the control in the media, but it means its also a bit larger.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2004 12:10:09 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I was actually meaning CF in its literal, Compact Flash sense - which has the controller on board the device.
The other media has the controller in the actual camera - it then becomes more dependant on the actual design on how the memory is used.
Compact flash ends up being more flexible by keeping the control in the media, but it means its also a bit larger. |
That makes sense -- thanks! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 04:06:39 AM EDT.
