Wouldn't it be easier to go CompactFlash to IDE ?
You can even get a convenient faceplace for it, so
you can plug in the CF from the outside of the
computer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0T72954
This is the cheapest CF I could find to plug into that
for a test. 4GB capacity, 8MB per second.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA12K0TH9133
The Transcend product is probably something from
the NOR Flash era. That's what a capacity of 128MB
suggests to me. Kinda small compared to the NAND
Flash of today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactflash
CompactFlash has an IDE emulation mode. Which is why that
simple-minded passive adapter, works to allow a CompactFlash
to be connected to an IDE ribbon cable. I was suggesting
it, as it allows larger CF devices to be used.
--
At the risk of sounding redundant, which is why the wiki link, in the
first place
(guilty! I didn't read it ... though why, necessarily, would I if that
SDHC I own, burdensome Sony 32GB, it is, to be disappointed once
ported to a USB flashstick [Kingston controller] for recurrent OS file
management errors)
...let's see...
"2010, Sandisk, Sony and Nikon proposed a next generation card format
to the CompactFlash Association which would come in a similar form
factor as CF/CFast but be based on PCI Express instead of Parallel ATA
or SATA" ...way cool: already saw one, a "next gen" SSD anchored in
PCI-E slot (mondo bucks, tho, bloodymayhem cuttingedge richkid stuff,
&etc.)
"CF cards use the IDE protocol which can index large volumes by using
pseudo head, track, sector coordinates. That they just kept working as
capacities grew, although FAT32 support is used above 2 GB. That makes
the protocol more stable and extensible although the next revision is
CFast (Compact-Fast) which is based on the SATA protocol.
///
SD cards use their own protocol which was extended to go beyond 2 GB
up to 32 GB with the introduction of SDHC (there were a few 4GB SD
cards but not very compatible) and then to support up to 2 TB with the
introduction of SDXC. The SD to SDHC transition if you remember was
particularly painful. . ."
Bam...we're talking pretty, pretty pictures. P-IDE/SATA is a matter
of convenience, obvious to present ramifications, although
fundamentally to manners of getting those pictures directly onto
expedient PC buses.
..."The main difference in cost probably comes from economies of
scale. For a long time SD cards were more expensive, but now they've
become cheaper as they've become easier to manufacture and require
less materials. Meanwhile, due to their bulk, consumers have fallen
out of favor with CF and prefer SD."
..."For SD, the controller for reading the card resides in the
reader...CF OTH controller resides in the card. This allows for some
interesting things [like "bigger" hmm? -fl] ... however, it means
extra expense in the production of the cards. The faster the card, the
better the controller has to be and the bigger the cost difference to
a comparable SD card. ...which is better, it really depends on the two
cards and the reader being used."
OK, 4 to 16GB is feasible for me. OUCH...
http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-Compact-Flash-Card-400X/dp/B002WE4H8I
(Told you that damn SONY SDHC card purchase still haunts me;- but
what, really, then was I to do...works as far as I can tell fine in my
Canon camera. I can shoot long movies. In order to have gotten this
whole thing right, in the first place, I'd have to have know, when
buying the camera, advantages you bring to CF, to have bought a
different camera -- if that's entirely even feasible;- come on, Nikon
and Canon, they're stalwarts -- right up to press-grade at least for
Nikon. ))
Honestly gives me the heebie-jeebies, though, what I see happening,
the horrors, invoved with a factory formated SONY SDHC on FAT32 file
manipulations through the Kingston USB to Flash adaptor. Could be
remotely wrong, and shoot-the-moon with one of the SATA/SDHC Singapore
adapter specials...heh.
