MICRODRIVE [2]: Seagate attacks!
Written: Jan 20 '06 (Updated Jan 23 '06)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Cost per GB, 2 MB cache, overall speed (compared to other microdrives)
Cons: Slow write (compared to flash), power consumption, very little data available
The Bottom Line: A solid shot at the market leader. War is declared in "microdrive world".
|
|
|
| theuerkorn's Full Review: Seagate (ST68022CRK) 8 GB Hard Drive |
Only a few weeks after I got a 4 GByte microdrive and concluded that it's great but not as good as flash drive, somehow Seagate caught me by surprise and got me with that irresistable offer of a 8 GByte drive for little more than I "just" paid for 4GByte. Injustice? You bet, but sweet redemption nevertheless. (from a power user's perspective)
IN A NUTSHELL
Despite demand for multiple GByte fueled by an ever rising MPx count in professional and consumer grade cameras, 8 Gbyte may still not be on everybody's wish list. In case you never used RAW format due to file size, this is your excuse to change that perspective. However, if convenience overrides quality and flexibility, then much smaller memory cards will continue to serve you well for a few years to come.
Big boy Seagate isn't too established in the microdrive (or 1" hard drive), but of course has significant knowledge on how to build good hard drives. That shows and performance leaves microdrive grand daddy in the dust, though the difference is less dramatic that the expression suggests. Despite higher performance, it appeals to budget-minded users that can't afford flash cards. The real surprise is that Seagate offers both, more speed and cheaper drives.
The capacity of 8 GByte yields more than 900 pictures (RAW) in my Canon EOS 20D and well above 2000 pics in the highest quality JPEG setting. You certainly will need to pack a bunch of batteries to fill that kind of storage. (Of course, >10 MPx is becoming popular and that cuts total number of pictures down a little bit.
Performance is improved over Hitachi's microdrive, but doesn't match Ultra II or Extreme III compact flash cards. Read performance is good enough for daily use, but writing might slow down fast devices. (Keep in mind that many consumer grade devices may not be able to handle more than 14x anyway.) Once 8 GByte are full, it takes a long time to transfer picture to the computer, but that should be not too much of a problem for most users.
As with other microdrives, increased power consumption and reduced robustness and temperature range may be factors to consider before jumping on this bargain.
DETAILS
Compatibility: [****-] As a CompactFlash Type-II device it requires a device that's capable to accept the slightly taller shape compared to the popular Type-I. Type-II and "CF+" interface typically go hand-in-hand, but it would not be a bad idea to check if your device is officially compatible with microdrives and supports FAT32, since FAT16 can only handle up to 2.14 GByte. The microdrive comes pre-formatted to FAT32. There has been a black market for extracted hard drives (muvo mp3 players) which don't work in digital cameras as their firmware doesn't handle the "CF+" interface. So stay away from dubious offers.
Performance: [**---] Just like the Hitachi , it's a 3,600 rpm hard drive with generally the same mechanism. Spin-up time is a relatively swift 1.2 sec - 2 sec. I repeated my benchmark for this microdrive by copying an even mix of large files (8 MByte) and smaller ones (10 kByte) onto and from the drive (total 404 MByte). Write performance clocked in at roughly 2.5 MByte/sec (or 16x)! That's 25% faster than the Hitachi drive -- at least in raw numbers. Reading is also faster with about 7.2 MByte/sec (or 48x) and that would be about 40% better compared to the Hitachi . While that's still a far cry from today's high speed flash like SanDisk's Extreme III, most consumer devices will barely be able to use that kind of speed. Using my EOS 20D as a reference, there is no noticeable difference under normal use between the Hitachi and the Seagate drive -- as expected due to the camera's buffer.
Most of the speed improvements in this benchmark using mixed file sizes may be contributed to the large 2 MByte cache onboard the Seagate microdrive (since spindle speed is the same). This seems to help with typical inefficiencies that small files have to cope with. (The large files in this test exceed the cache and would not be using it anyway.)
Robustness: [**---] There is very little information available of how the Seagate microdrive holds up to mechanical stress (i.e. shock and vibration). Following CompactFlash guide lines, the microdrive is likely rated at 2000 G max. impact (single shock, 1 ms) when in the park position. Beyond that there are practically no numbers available but Seagate is very proud of their "RunOn Technology" and "G-Force protection" (parking the head whenever not reading data), claiming to make the hard drive tougher and more reliable. Pardon me if I am not going to test the limits, as I actually paid for this item and have no intentions to break it for argument's sake. However, judging from the mechanics there is no good reason for a major difference to the established Hitachi microdrive, especially since Seagate keeps quiet about the actual specs. Of course one could argue that Seagate might have more expertise in making reliable hard drives.
Either way, keep in mind it's a miniature hard drive and use it with caution. Don't squeeze it or write on it with a ball point. Always store it in the included container, and stay away from strong magnets. When it comes to robustness, Flash is likely to win the battle everytime.
Power Consumption: [***--] As a hard drive spinning at the same 3600 rpm as the Hitachi, overall consumption is to be expected in the same range -- considerably more power than comparable flash drive. Oddly though, the Seagate seems to drain my battery in the Canon EOS 20D slightly quicker -- I am guessing around 40% compared to Flash and about 15% less battery life compared to the Hitachi drive. However, this is very subjective as different shooting conditions (i.e. use of IS) vary the base line dramatically.
Above observation leads me to the conclusion that the Segate microdrive draws slightly more than the Hitachi 's 760 mW when writing and 42 mW in standby. Nevertheless, CompactFlash like SanDisk's Extreme III is still a distant winner with 200 mW during writing and 2.5 mW in standby.
Cost: [****-] Considering the current $40 rebate by Seagate for 8 GByte drives, the resulting $156.- for 8 GByte make the Seagate the cheapest microdrive in that size, and flash drives starting at more than $700 (8 GByte) are in a whole different league. The ST1 clearly rules the roost in this segment when purchase price is the winning argument. Cost of ownership depends on usage. In extreme conditions it may be cheaper to buy a high-performance flash memory card than replace broken microdrives (due to excessive vibration). Oddly, Seagate makes no claims towards reliability (typically measure in load and unload cycles).
Competition: Seagate heated up the microdrive market with the recent introduction of the ST-1 drive. Performance and price are compelling arguments to to consider the Seagate over the Hitachi. Where else do you get 8 GByte of storage for $156.-? It will also have an effect on Hitachi, who is now forced to respond. And with that capacity, flash memory will have a hard time to sustain the current high prices. Reliability, however, remains a concern as Seagate doesn't give too much info and I have actually seen reports where a minor drop would essentially kill the microdrive.
© 2006, theuerkorn
ONLINE Resources
- Manufacturer's site
www.seagate.com/products/consumer_electronics/st1series.html
- Hitachi Microdrive 4GB
- SanDisk Ultra II
- SanDisk Extreme III.
- Apple iPod Nano
- Palm LifeDrive
- Canon EOS 20D
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.