From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: CF cards apparently not dead yet
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:44:19 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <ovpqir01b2r@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <0006b719-570c-4f61-a7dd-8ff25252f8ba@googlegroups.com>
<MPG.34891a724d696eaf98cf29@news.supernews.com>
<ovn6hb0mmk@news4.newsguy.com> <291120171552201340%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovnquv0fjr@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172155172901%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovns9h1g4h@news3.newsguy.com> <291120172209102843%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<ovnt8j0glb@news3.newsguy.com> <fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>
<301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Reply-To: peter.new.nospam@verizon.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: p7ea33f13863c92274e208514b25af98c3de94796341bab63.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <301120171254418909%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1524818887
X-Received-Bytes: 3436
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/30/2017 12:54 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<fp6v1d5cdqqtjp87njgo0gbkddantkdplm@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>
>> I must not be part of "the rest of the world".
> 
> very true.
> 
>> The time it takes for
>> a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
>> at all.  Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage.  My
>> usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
>> start the upload.
> 
>> While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
>> camera and put it in the charger.  By the time I finish doing that,
>> and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.
> 
> you must not shoot very many images at a time.
> 
>> Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
>> waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews.  I know I can set LR to
>> generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
>> don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.
> 
> that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.
> 
>> It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
>> those extra minutes.  I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
>> my email or a newsgroup.
> 
> i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
> which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
> with video).

Nobody realized what a busy person you are.



> 
> a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.
> 
> newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes.
> 


-- 
PeterN