Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve 667 who wrote (15533)	10/12/2000 9:34:15 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Steve, you ask if the MMC and smaller capacity CF are redundant. Because MMC is physically smaller than CF, it will do certain kinds of things better, such as providing the storage for really small music players. This application dooms the players that use Sony's MemoryStick. It's just large enough for potential customers to prefer the MMC. Also, it seems to me that we may see some cameras designed around the MMC, now that capacities of 64 to 128 mb are available. I agree that it's just a matter of time before the more serious photographers will want to own one, if not two 256mb flash cards. Think of taking your Nikon 990 on a long vacation, where it is not convenient to transfer the images to your computer's disk storage. However, I've also found that with my Nikon 950, the tiff images contain really more resolution than I need, except when I want to enlarge only a portion of the frame. I now make most of my shots in jpg, partly, as you have noted, because it takes too long to write a tiff image to the CF. The write time for 2.1 mb resolution is about 30 seconds--far too long. Every sophisticated device involves some sort of compromise. If you want small size, you may sacrifice lens size, aperture, or batteries or electronics. I'd like to know whether the professional cameras by Nikon and Canon, used routinely in news photography, also have slow write times. It's more likely that the flash card is not the bottleneck, but instead, the lack of sufficient buffer that would allow consecutive shots at short intervals, without waiting to write the image to the flash card. To crowd every possible feature into a package as small as the Nikon 990/950 seems almost impossible at the moment, but just wait a couple years. Art

To: Steve 667 who wrote (15533)	10/12/2000 1:26:28 PM
From: C	Respond to of 60323

Steve, Count me as one of those amateurs (in your 3rd market) who wants more than 13 hi-resolution picture capacity. I am just starting my serious "look see" at what is the best way for me to go. The Nikon 990 has certainly got my attention.

To: Steve 667 who wrote (15533)	10/12/2000 1:36:37 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Steve, Your post this a.m. regarding the digital camera market was nearly as long-winded as many of my posts. You are defining yourself as a "prosumer". I think you user experience is unique and the need for exceedingly high resolutuion and accordingly large file sizes is overstated. The average CompactFlash card SanDisk sells is about 1/10th of the maximum capacity announced industry-wide. SanDisk will profit from moderate capacity memory card sales to the masses, not to unique prosumers like yourself. You are the exception, not the rule. All IMHO. Aus