Deductive Minds Wanted - CF card issue

[sgust]

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>here's the catch, that based on probabilities. They can fail far sooner or far later. He says it just as likely to fail in 1 year as it is to last 10</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> There is no understanding of probability in that statement. It's dead wrong without actual sample data and distributions.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just stating what I took from a conversation with someone who knew what he was taking about. I don't think the 1 year, 10 year numbers were meant to be exact, just an approximation to make the point that there is a high level of variability in how long SD cards last. As far as it being dead wrong 'till the data is show, that's new logic to me.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>It is the logic that is used to make trouble in almost every forum thread, Siegfried. By intent.</p>

 

[peter_langfelder]

<p>FWIW, I had pretty much the same issue with my 5D Mark II and a Lexar 16GB card some time ago. Returned the card to Lexar (under warranty), they sent me a new one which promptly developed the same problem. Each time I lost a couple images that were corrupted, and once had to use a file recovery software because the card could not be read in any of my cameras or card readers (the partition table or some such thing must have gotten corrupted). I'm guessing that (at least in my case) it could be some subtle hardware incompatibility between the card and the camera which from time to time causes a corruption of the data on the card. I stopped using the Lexar card (only one I had); none of my other cards (Sandisk, Kingston, A-Data, Transcend) ever had this kind of a problem. Needless to say, have avoided buying Lexar ever since. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as it being dead wrong 'till the data is show, that's new logic to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's wrong because you don't have the shape of the curve for the distribution of failures. Once you have some evidence of that distribution, you can make statements like you made.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is the logic that is used to make trouble in almost every forum thread,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Logic is a terrible thing, isn't it? If we could just be right by making earth is flat statements like Don points out, then we could say whatever we want and nobody could point out that something is wrong.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>Jeff, do you have <em>any</em> idea of how you portray yourself?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Yes. A person who doesn't think science works by guessing, conjecturing and making things up, and by making illogical statements. I'm not a tin hat type.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I rest my case.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>Ah, so Ann *is* a tin hat type!</p>

<p>Who appointed Ann as policewoman of photo.net?</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, do you have <em>any</em> idea of how you portray yourself?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The irony!<br /><br />Come on, Ann. Just once 'fess up and show a sign you recognize that your pre-conceived notion (in this case, about something as cut and dry as the UDMA standard!) was simply incorrect. And that <em>your</em> questioning of the quality/reliability of the simple, to-the-point, and <em>correct</em> information posted by others in response to your comments was the only contentious thing going on. If you're going to take it personally when the correct information is succinctly provided, than why not make the equally personal gesture - just this one time - of simply saying, "Oh! I guess I was wrong, and didn't mean to introduce unfounded guesses into a simple technical discussion." Just the once.<br /> <br />You jumped right to questioning and challenging the messengers, rather than thanking them for trivially simple info you could have had in a trice if you'd spent as much time looking it up yourself as you spent typing in your strange challenge. Which is familiar ground. I'm having deja vu! You've rested your "case" about Jeff, but haven't even acknowledged that leaping right to casting doubt about the facts wasn't constructive. And you wonder why feathers get ruffled? The whole idea of these forums is to inform with the facts, and to leave an informative thread behind. That seems like such a simple goal. People who put in time towards that goal do indeed get a little defensive when someone seems to be working against it.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>She's a Nikon user, she's just over here to be annoying.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>deja vu - indeed.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I am not going to do that, Matt.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>If you keep this up, this will happen (or is already happening):</p>

<p>1) People will stop asking questions<br>

2) People will stop helping one another<br>

3) We will be left with the trouble makers that almost never contribute with good adwise.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>Ann:</p>

<p>"I am not going to do that, Matt."<br>

<br>

Unwilling to ever admit that she's wrong ... yet lecturing others on their supposed shortcomings.<br>

</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>So Don, what good adwise do you have for the OP?</p>

[sgust]

<blockquote>

<p>It's wrong because you don't have the shape of the curve for the distribution of failures. Once you have some evidence of that distribution, you can make statements like you made.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff,<br>

I'm not sure I should even be engaging in this off topic, but here it goes anyway. First off, I was just repeating something someone told me that I trust is knowledgeable and honest because I thought it might contribute to the topic at hand. I never had access to the graph showing the failure/time curve. I realize this is second hand information and therefore less trustworthy. But seeing as this just an informal venue for posting your 2¢, I found it appropriate none the less. I was never trying to put my comment out there as a proven fact. I stated from the beginning that it was something that had been told by someone I consider knowledgeable about electronics.<br>

And I still maintain that failure to provide evidence doesn't equate with being wrong.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>To the OP</p>

<p>Your CF card is failing, they do this, all electronics will fail. If you are lucky, they will fail while you still have warranty and can get a free replacement.</p>

<p>My nephew had a brand new card (SD card of course) fail in his D5100 after less than 3 weeks of use, it was under warranty and he got a free replacement.</p>

<p>You should always have a spare card, they will fail</p>

<p>And if the problem is with the camera, it will be evident once you start using your spare card and the problem recurs. </p>

<p>Note to everyone, you are NOT helping the original poster</p>

<p> </p>

[jamesgysen]

<p>Thanks All, and thank you Lorne. I do have spares so no worry there, unfortunately the warranty is up on this card so best to not chance it and just let this one go. </p>

<p>Regards, James.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>You guys are such suckers for Ann Overland's transparently trolling posts. I suspect that she's a complete charlatan into who's trap you've all unfortunately been snared.</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>We will be left with the trouble makers that almost never contribute with good adwise.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<br />What good "adwise" have you given? Making ridiculously incorrect statements about provable technical issues is the opposite of good "adwise."

 

 

<blockquote>

I suspect that she's a complete charlatan into who's trap you've all unfortunately been snared.

</blockquote>

 

<br />Always possible. But better to make sure people have good information than listen to her technical non-facts and non-logic. Oddly enough, she doesn't seem to believe that logic matters on technical issues and it would be bad for the site to think that's acceptable "information."

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>1) People will stop asking questions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope not! The greatest risk on that front is that people's questions will be answered, unapologetically, by members giving out <em>incorrect</em> information. If <em>that</em> keeps up, PN's reputation is history.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2) People will stop helping one another</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt that. But the purpose of this side-bar nag-fest is to avoid a drift towards a site that confuses typing words with providing actual insight and correct information. It's really bad for the site to play host to regular bursts of dis-information, when it comes to specific topics like this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3) We will be left with the trouble makers that almost never contribute with good adwise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is exactly what a couple of us are trying to correct, right in this thread. Your Trollirony is strong, complaining about that which you're so fond of doing! But I am looking forward to the good advise you're just waiting (so far, anyway) to give to the OP. We've covered the fact that CF cards fail, and that new UDMA cards will be a perfectly good choice as a spare/replacement. You've said that such cards don't fail, and that you doubt UDMA cards would be compatible. You've got evidence in front of your very eyes that correct those two mistaken assertions, but you're sticking, for some reason, to your trouble-making guns. Mark's right, that you obviously do this on purpose, but <em>why</em> is always a bit of a mystery.<br /><br />James: I treat memory cards like Soviet dis-armament. Trust, but verify! And have a backup plan! The moment you get even a whiff of odd behavior from a card, yank it from use (so that you'll experience minimal risk of over-writing valuable data), drop in your spare, and work over the cranky card using recovery tools, once you get back to the ranch.</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"So Don, what good adwise do you have for the OP?"<br>

<br>

Well, the best ad wise I can offer is follow a B&H ad.<br>

<br>

You?<br>

</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>"You guys are such suckers for Ann Overland's transparently trolling posts. I suspect that she's a complete charlatan into who's trap you've all unfortunately been snared."<br>

<br>

I've gone to her profile page, and have concluded that when she's not an active troll, she is at best a concern troll.<br>

<br>

And I suspect she's not really a she. And most certainly, not a photographer in any serious sense.<br>

</p>

[don_baccus]

<p>Siegfried Gust ...</p>

<p>"I never had access to the graph showing the failure/time curve."<br>

<br>

I don't think you should've been beaten up so harshly. On the other hand, electronic and electro-mechanical devices do tend to have failure rates on the "infant mortality" end of the scale. So a normal distribution likely won't fit.<br>

</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p> I suspect she's not really a she. And most certainly, not a photographer in any serious sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I share these suspicions, but thought it best not to state them earlier.</p>