Re: Microdrive vs CF card
- From: "Ben Brugman" <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:26:09 +0200
"Arthur" <asinko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht news:gWZZe.4213$vw6.2759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Well, as you can see from the name (microdrive), it has a tiny hard
> drive inside. This technology is cheaper comparing to the flash memory
I have here a stack of microdrives, (brand Sinclair) and none of
them do have a drive inside. So the you can not see that from
the name microdrive.
(These Sinclair microdrives are from the early 80ties and where
mass storage devices of that time.).
ben
> (the first one). The first doesn't have any moving parts inside. Thus,
> the second one is much more fragile and consumes more power to operate.
> So, it's your choice...
>
>
> BTW, 12Mbytes/sec ~ 96Mbits/sec...
>
> Arthur
>
> lemax@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Does anybody know why 2 GB Lexar CF w/12 MBytes/sec costs $197.95
> > while 4 GB Sony Microdrive w/97.9 Mbits/sec. cost $189.95 (bhphoto
> > prices)?
> >
> > What is the reason for the Lexar media with the same speed as Sony but
> > half of the capacity to cost even more?
> >
> > Len
.
- References:
- Microdrive vs CF card
- From: lemax
- Re: Microdrive vs CF card
- From: Arthur
- Microdrive vs CF card
- Prev by Date: Re: How may pixels needed to approximate 35mm film?
- Next by Date: Re: DOF in viewfinder different from captured image!
- Previous by thread: Re: Microdrive vs CF card
- Next by thread: Re: Microdrive vs CF card
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
