About to buy a digital SLR. It is compatible with both Type I (Compact Flash) adn Type II (Microdrive) memory cards.

Does anyone have any info on the comparison and pros and cons of each? I googled it and only found one technical review.

Thanks

As usual, it boils down to price and size.

Back about 18 months - 2 years ago, the 1gb microdrive was the only game in town for a CF card in that size. IBM has since sold the microdrive business to Hitachi, and they have now come out with a 2gb and 4gb microdrive.

Flash ram has also kept up from a size perspective, and today you now can choose between flash based cards and microdrives in the 1, 2, and 4gb form factors.

The microdrive now costs less than the flash cards for equivalent size (and in some cases a lot less).

For the 1gb card, I'd spend the extra $50 or so and get the flash ram, simply due to the fact that it does not have any moving parts that can possibly fail.

If you want/need 2gb or 4gb, the microdrive is so much less expensive, its isn't funny. No brainer there.

Lots more info here: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...e.asp?cid=6007

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Feb 06, 2004).]

Thanks - and very useful link.....

A Microdrive will drain the battery somewhat quicker, and it is somewhat more fragile than a flash memory card due to it having moving parts, etc. They certainly do cost less at higher capacities.

Personally, I wouldn't want a single card with that much storage space on it. I'd rather stick with 512MB cards or such (512MB is a fairly sweet spot in pricing right now) and spread my photos across more cards. That way, should one fail before I could transfer the photos, I wouldn't lose everything.

The MTBF on both is extremely high. I have the 4Gb Hitachi microdrive for the $/Gb reasons meantioned above. With that drive I can now shoot all my vacation photos in RAW mode for later Photoshop processing. Before the microdrive I would typically fit 200 .jpg shots on a 256Mb CF card. If either one failed, I would lose all the images from that trip.

However, Most of my photography is done less than a day away from home and all I could possibly lose is one days worth of work.

The 4Gb card also makes a dandy way of transfering data of all sorts from one computer to another. 256Mb doesn't cut it for that application.

Check out http://www.dpreview.com if you haven't already.

The biggest knocks on the microdrive are 1) increased sensitivity to shocks or bumps, esp. during read/write operations; and 2) increased latency during writes. If you are in the habit of jostling, bumping, or dropping your camera, or will want to shoot shots in rapid succession, you should consider having a flash card at least as an alternative storage medium.

I assure you, if I were in the habit of jostling, bumping, or dropping my camera, the format of the recording media would be the last of my worries The glass is much more fragile.

FWIW, I had a 340Mb Microdrive fail on me and I decided that it's not suitable for a mobile application like photography. These days I shoot from several 256Mb flash cards and upload to HD or CD-ROM after the shoot.

Speaking of which, have been looking at devices like the Gmini and FlashTrax, but have not decided to take the leap yet. the Gmini is seductively small, but doesn't display RAW format files and it doesn't appear that photos are a large focus for the product.

The FlashTrax, on the other hand, is designed for photos, but it's bulky. However, it uses the same HD that my laptop does, so I have good confidence in its reliability.

The early 340Mb IBM Microdrives are known to have problems. Current Microdrives are as reliable, or more, than solid state and faster.

If you want anecdotal opinions, I had a 256Mb sodid state CF decide it didn't want to give me my images. I finally managed to convince it to yield, but still...

I agree on your first point, but not as much on the second.

The microdrive is still spinning at 3600rpm, is sensitive to pressure on the center of the card, and relies completely on air pressure to float the head above the platter surface.

So: if you drop it, squeeze it too much, or are at higher altitude (>10000 feet), you can have issues.

It also draws more power and has been left behind from a performance perpective with the new "32x/40x/Ultra" flash cards.

I still think they are a great bargain in the >2gb form. <2gb, I'd stick with flash.

A while back I used a 340MB microdrive for my camera. I was unhappy with the time it added to the startup time for the camera - I often had to wait an unacceptably long time to shoot.

I did not have this problem with my solid state CF cards.

The heat is on Hitachi as Toshiba should be coming out with 40Gb microdrives in a regular CF form factor some time this year...

If you have an iPod, there is a HUGE attachment you can put on it to download your digital photos onto it. I think retail price is about 100 USD. store.apple.com has it under iPod accessories. I have no use with it, so I can't say anything