Memory cards reliable enough?

On 2015-07-13 01:16:39 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:08:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-12 23:21:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:57:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:10:24 -0500, philo wrote:
On 07/12/2015 09:57 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 04:53:24 -0500, philo wrote:

I have a 32gig card in one camera and a 64gig in the other and can shoot
for months on a card.

Why? Serious question.

After I download the images from my card to my computer I format the
card.

It seems that what you do is leave the images on the card and continue
to shoot. I don't see any advantage to that.

Am I missing something?

Never had a problem with one but I copy the images to several different
computers on a regular basis

If redundancy is the goal, it's not necessary to retain the images on
the card. They can be copied to other devices other ways.


The card holds so many images I have no worry about it getting
filled...I can format the card every six months if I want.

I am thinking of just keeping them , when full for one more b/u though


Your system is your system, but I am curious. I don't see the point
of retaining the images on the card. Doing it, you have to take the
extra step of including in the upload instructions to only upload
those that haven't been uploaded before. Don't you?

Nikon's View NX2 does that automatically. That's one of the reasons I
still use it even though I have LR.

So does Lightroom. In the import dialog just check, "Don't Import
Suspected Duplicates", and while you are at it check, "Make a Second
Copy To: (in my case an external drive)"
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_216.jpg
That way I have killed two birds with one stone.

But we don't know what Philo uses. We don't know if he uses LR, do
we?

If you check the attributes you will discover that I was resonding to
Eric, not Philo.

I don't ever check the "Don't Import Suspected Duplicates". I'm not
at all sure that LR will be able to tell if an image is a duplicate
when I'm shooting a baseball game using continuous. Sometimes the
second or third frame has something in it - the ball, a facial
expression - that the other frames don't have.

If you don't change file names in the import destination folders, LR
will ID all duplicates by name.

The file name generated by the camera is what controls duplicates
nothing else. If you have 20 identical shots using continuous, all 20
shots will be there, they are not duplicates they have different file
names/numbers generate in the camera. So all the balls and facial
expressions are there.

I don't rename originals in the folders, I only rename image files in
collections. I add to collections from the folders.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
says...

Your system is your system, but I am curious. I don't see the point
of retaining the images on the card.

You do it to have an additional copy, which doesn't hurt unless you need
the memory card space.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case
of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

I've never had a card fail on me. I have cards in various sizes that
I've collected over the years: 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, & 32GB. I have
Sandisk, Lexar, and Duracell (made by Dane-Elec), and Transcend.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015071207534598521-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-07-12 12:59:17 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-07-11 16:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards,
so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in
case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards
are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card
into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?


I don't recall them being considered unreliable. Indeed we all cried
the chorus of better to get solid state memory than the small
spinning mass disks that were cheaper (and far as I can tell no
longer marketed).

There are all sorts of stories of lost cameras found years later with
all the data intact. Indeed a recent camera was fished out of a lake
6 years after it was lost and all the photos were retrieved and the
owner eventually located.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.3136501

Then

there was this one.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-reunites-lost-waterlogged-camera-owner/

That said, any electronics can fail. I bring a laptop and offload
images to the laptop as I go. There are other solutions as well that
include data tanks and uploading images to a "cloud" account on the
fly.

You can even operate your own 'cloud' drive at home and send the
images there.

The trouble of course, on the road, is getting sufficiently high
bandwidth connections to the net. In some places it's hard to get
something that can reliably and quickly take off the 5 - 10 GB+ of
images one can easily shoot in a day.

This has been my travel fail safe redundant storage. It does full and
incremental backups.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck

When I became interested in photography and got my first DSLR, a 256MB
card cost around $80.00 and would hold about 32 RAW images from camera.
I bought a Tripper with a 30GB hard drive to use to off-load my files
once the memory card was full, I carried it around with me.

http://photo.net/equipment/digital/tripper/

The cost of the thing would have bought me three additional 256MB cards
but the Tripper holds 30GB which was large at the time. I was a newbie
so wasn't considering backing up my files "in the field", just
off-loading the files so I could use the memory card again. The Tripper
still works too. I haven't used it in some time and found some of my
original images that I took still on there. I think that a 1TB device
that can transfer at USB 3 speeds would be nice to have.

On 2015-07-14 18:33:27 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015071207534598521-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-07-12 12:59:17 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-07-11 16:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?


I don't recall them being considered unreliable. Indeed we all cried
the chorus of better to get solid state memory than the small spinning
mass disks that were cheaper (and far as I can tell no longer marketed).

There are all sorts of stories of lost cameras found years later with
all the data intact. Indeed a recent camera was fished out of a lake 6
years after it was lost and all the photos were retrieved and the owner
eventually located.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.3136501

Then

there was this one.
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-reunites-lost-waterlogged-camera-owner/

That said, any electronics can fail. I bring a laptop and offload
images to the laptop as I go. There are other solutions as well that
include data tanks and uploading images to a "cloud" account on the fly.

You can even operate your own 'cloud' drive at home and send the images there.

The trouble of course, on the road, is getting sufficiently high
bandwidth connections to the net. In some places it's hard to get
something that can reliably and quickly take off the 5 - 10 GB+ of
images one can easily shoot in a day.

This has been my travel fail safe redundant storage. It does full and
incremental backups.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

When I became interested in photography and got my first DSLR, a 256MB
card cost around $80.00 and would hold about 32 RAW images from camera.
I bought a Tripper with a 30GB hard drive to use to off-load my files
once the memory card was full, I carried it around with me.

http://photo.net/equipment/digital/tripper/

The cost of the thing would have bought me three additional 256MB cards
but the Tripper holds 30GB which was large at the time. I was a newbie
so wasn't considering backing up my files "in the field", just
off-loading the files so I could use the memory card again. The
Tripper still works too. I haven't used it in some time and found some
of my original images that I took still on there. I think that a 1TB
device that can transfer at USB 3 speeds would be nice to have.

My original ColorSpace UDMA was 250GB. I have since increased the
capacity to 500GB and added a new battery. They are a tad pricey for
the higher capacity models given current 2.5" HDD prices. Today I could
have upgraded to 1GB for the $70 it cost me to go from 250GB to 500GB.

What I like about the UDMA (or UDMA2) is the ability to make
incremental backups all without having a computer anywhere in sight. It
takes up little space in my bag, an I can always fit it in a pocket.

It is a solid part of my redundant travel backup protocol, and it
proved its value when my D300 was stolen during my 2009 trip to South
Africa. I only lost 4 shots taken on the day the camera was stolen.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
says...

Like I said, it's his system and he can do what he thinks is best for
him. I just don't understand the logic.

An extra thumb drive with the same Gigabyte capacity of the card is
less expensive if he wants just an extra copy.

The extra drive costs money and you have the additional step to copy the
images to the drive. But if you just don't delete the images from the
card (unless the card is full), you have an additional copy at no
additional cost and no additional effort.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:33:27 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

The Tripper still works too.

Be very grateful. I recently dug an old Zip drive out, and it took me
3 days of research to find out how to get the old files off of it. I
have learned it is not a good idea to backup and forget.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Be very grateful. I recently dug an old Zip drive out, and it took me
3 days of research to find out how to get the old files off of it. I
have learned it is not a good idea to backup and forget.

other than finding a functioning zip drive, what else is there?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:57:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Be very grateful. I recently dug an old Zip drive out, and it took me
3 days of research to find out how to get the old files off of it. I
have learned it is not a good idea to backup and forget.

other than finding a functioning zip drive, what else is there?

I had the Zip drive, it's the functioning part that was hard. It was
an early parallel port drive, and there is zero support for those on
Win 8.1. I realized at one point that I still had a Win 98 laptop
lying about, but it still took a lot of research, and some obscure
tweaks. Running in compatibility mode was not the usual simple remedy.

If nothing else, there are companies out there that can recover backup
files going way back in time, even to DOS. No one wants to install Win
ME or 95 on a computer just to get old files, especially when you're
not sure that there's anything in the backups that you don't already
have elsewhere. Organization really is all it's cracked up to be. And
organizing things, including all my computer files is one project I
finally started, but it's also the project that's kept me from
anything remotely related to photography for weeks.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Be very grateful. I recently dug an old Zip drive out, and it took me
3 days of research to find out how to get the old files off of it. I
have learned it is not a good idea to backup and forget.

other than finding a functioning zip drive, what else is there?

I had the Zip drive, it's the functioning part that was hard.

that's because zip drives are junk.

you're lucky you didn't have one with the click-of-death.

It was
an early parallel port drive, and there is zero support for those on
Win 8.1. I realized at one point that I still had a Win 98 laptop
lying about, but it still took a lot of research, and some obscure
tweaks. Running in compatibility mode was not the usual simple remedy.

a usb zip drive would have solved the problem.

If nothing else, there are companies out there that can recover backup
files going way back in time, even to DOS. No one wants to install Win
ME or 95 on a computer just to get old files, especially when you're
not sure that there's anything in the backups that you don't already
have elsewhere.

which is why backups need to be in a non-proprietary format and on
non-proprietary media.

then all you need to do is plug in the backup drive and copy what you
want. should the hardware interface change, get an adapter or new
enclosure.

Organization really is all it's cracked up to be. And
organizing things, including all my computer files is one project I
finally started, but it's also the project that's kept me from
anything remotely related to photography for weeks.

organization is something a computer does *much* better than a human,
with the additional benefit of greatly increasing the amount of time
you have to do more enjoyable things.