Customer Reviews

SanDisk 64 MB CompactFlash Card

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The CompactFlash Card is so convenient, small, and user friendly. This is a great price for a 64MB CompactFlash Card! The 64 MB card will hold Hundreds of pictures, more than you can take on a weekend. The camera's which use these cards usually have a feature to erase unwanted photos, so you have room on the card for only the photos you want. After you down load the photos onto other storage media, you just erase the card and re-shoot! On a large capacity card like this one you can purchase a SanDisk reader for around $25 to read the card like a Memory Disc and download the photos faster than sending them from the camera.

Okay if you're anything like me, than 64 megs is going to be plenty of space. There's more than enough room for high quality digital picture as well as Mp3's or whatever else you can think of. The only down side to having a larger card is that it takes a while to download or upload information. For that problem there is the viking card reader, at around $60 it's not a bad investment if you're planning on using that card a lot.

I use this CF card with my digital camera and find it quite reliable. Using standard compression on my camera, I could easily take approximately 64 shots (@ 3 megapixels). This saves me the time of always having to delete or offload the pictures into my computer with a smaller CF card.

I couldn't find any differences between the different CF cards that are available from other manufacturers; except for the capacity of the memory. All the CF cards available are the same except for the cost.

Best thing to do is shop around for the best deal/service. Living in Canada, I could only compare with Kodak, Sandisk and Lexar CF cards.

Sandisk was by far the cheapest compared to the other brands.

So far I have taken over 400 shots with no problems. I am quite satisfied and pleased with this CF card's performance.

SanDisk Compact Flash media cards work excellently in all our devices, from the camera to our Psion handheld.What most people don't realize is that the speed at which their device stores information to the card determines how long the recovery time is between pictures or file saving, etc.We've noticed that some people think the compact flash card itself is the problem, when in fact the speed of storage or writing to the cards is ALSO dependent on the performance of the particular camera, handheld, etc. (on board operational RAM/memory, processing chip clock speed). We recommend that before a person buy a desired device that they check/compare magazine reviews, recommendation lists and manufacturer specs to find out how fast a device write/stores. This will save you much frustration later.

When my studio went Digital last year we bought a Kodak DCS 330, after learning with a Kodak DC210Plus, and since we use the camera tethered to a computer by a Firewire, we still need good memory capacity in the camera. With two SanDisk 64MB cards in the camera we have enough memory to hold the images of a Portrait session before transferring them into Photoshop for processing. At 8.65 Megabytes per image, two 64s don't provide very much space so we take a laptop with us in the field for transfer. But a professional absolutely must have rock-solid reliability and we get it with the SanDisk 64s - no hint of noise or problems after over 1,000 images in each disk. They were recommended to me by another Professional Photographer.

The card turned out to be horribly slow. The digital camera takes 4-5 seconds to write to it if more than 100 images stored. First we thought it was due to the size of the card, but having bought a viking and a crucial 64 mb compactFlash card we realise that it is not the size of the card, but the brand of card which is making the process slow.
We later found following comparison which does seem to support our findings that the card IS SLOW..

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/page4.asp?sort=cp995jpeg

I use a 3 megapixel digital camera, and you really cannot function well with it unless you have a big fat memory card. 64 mb is a good amount for this card, because you can get at least 65 pictures (at the top resolution). Also, since it takes a while to fill up a card like this, you don't have to keep stopping to delete pictures when you're supposed to be snapping pictures. The best pictures happen spontaneously, not conveniently after you're done deleting pictures off your memory card. I know that I would much rather fill up this memory card after a few uses, then format the card, rather than take pictures and realize none of them were taken because my card was full. A big memory card saves heartbreak. :)

I have looked at several reviews and tests regarding the SanDisk and Viking cards. These two brands consistantly have the best results. In fact, a few reviews here have pointed this out.

Just stay with the SanDisk or Viking cards--you'll never go wrong.

With the drop in prices on memory cards this is an excellant choice for users of digital cameras and memory hungry devices. I enjoy the ability to shoot over 400 pictures on highest resolution and not worry about not having enough memory. A real bargine at this price.

Used this for the first time in my camera on my vacation to CUBA and took 759 beautiful photos. I was amazed at the quality in such a small card. Good ONE. Good price too.