I disagree. Neither card is any more fragile than the other. The difference between them mechanically is that the SD card has a small switch to hardware-write-lock them, something I wish CF cards had too. The CF card, being larger and heavier, is more susceptible to physical damage when dropped.
All you're doing is creating another "this vs that" mythology. There's really no point to it. G On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The CF cards are sturdier overall. Yes, there can be pin alignment > problems, but the cards themselves are much less fragile. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Why? I see no great advantage to CF over SD. >> >> I've had equipment that used both of these card types for a long >> time. I find the SD format easier to manage because they're smaller, >> but there's nothing much in either direction to choose between >> them. d >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:26 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> But Sandisk Ultra II are much slower than the Transcend 150X. You >>> have to go to the Sandisk Extreme III to top or match the Transcend >>> for speed. I use both Transcend and Sandisk now. I had a Transcend >>> that simply failed right off the shelf. But I had a Sandisk that >>> broke apart when the little plastic bits that separate the contacts >>> started to fall apart. Both could be better. Give me back by CF >>> cards! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
