Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:17:36 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4074543698
X-Received-Bytes: 2195
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/29/2017 10:09 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"> wrote:
>>>>>> It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
>>>>>> save your money.
>>>>> higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
>>>>> the camera can fully utilize it.
>>>> It depends.
>>> only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.
>>> for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
>>> the computer.
>> Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
>> photography, unless you are a photo journalist.
> maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.
> that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
> usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
> rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
> out.

Uh huh!