Superstitious nonsense for the most part. Digital cameras almost exclusively used the FAT32 format until about 2010, because it;s compatible with everything since Win95, it has no patent protection if the DOS 8.3 filename convention is not used in conjunction with long file names, it's simple, it works with large partitions (but not really large partitions). If you have a camera that uses FAT32, you can probably do deletions how you please, and format the card with a PC, Mac or Linux, or the camera.
But if you use SDXC storage, that spec. uses exFAT, or FAT64, by Microsoft. Not every computer has a driver for exFAT, so cameras make themselves look like USB FAT32 hard drives to the PC operating system. But if you remove the SDXC card and attach it directly to an old PC, the camera can't fool the PC operating system, and there's a chance of wrecking the format if you try to write to the card, or getting gobbledy gook reading it.
A royalty is paid to Microsoft on every device that uses SDXC cards, and every SDXC card, because exFAT is part of the SDXC specification, and Microsoft owns exFAT. Plain FAT32 won't work with partitions over 32GB or files larger than 4GB. A good rule of thumb is to use a PC made during the last nine years, and you should be fine.
But there's always the possibility of camera firmware bugs, so thoroughly test file transfers and card formats with some worthless shots before you rely on it. You can also google, i.e. "Nikon D500 firmware bug" or whichever body you have.
If it works with one machine but not the other, what is the difference?
Operating system
Software version
It's probably one of those two things. I would probably call Canon if it was me.
I want the front filter not for protection from breakage, but just to keep the front element clean. Many lenses that use rear mounted filters have protective glass on the front installed by the manufacturer. My 200-400mm f/4 has a protective glass front, but no filter threads.
PhotogHobbyist wrote:
There is no one business or group responsible for the cost of medical care or medications.
Once a medication is developed the developing company has a patent on it for a period of years. After that time, and without changing the formula, the drug/medicine is considered open and other pharmaceutical companies can begin manufacturing the generic version of it. That usually lowers the price for the generic but not always the original brand name.
Someone mentioned that Medicare does not set the prices for drugs, however it does set the amount permitted for charges of so many procedures, processes, tests and equipment. Medicare may say that procedure X is limited to a charge of $150.00 while the hospital or doctor needs to get $400.00 for it. The insurance companies only pay the $125 and the patient may be required to pay the additional $25. In that case the hospital or doctor loses more than half the charge. I recently made a visit to the Emergency Room for abdominal pains and discovered I needed gall bladder surgery. For that visit, the charges were paid by insurance and I owed nothing. However the insurances, Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid only about 25% of the charges made because that is all the insurance companies said was allowed. At the time I was paying over $700 a month for my insurance. No wonder medical charges are so high and insurance companies can pay very high salaries and bonuses to their upper echelons of management.
There is no one business or group responsible for... (
show quote)
NO!, drug companies are responsible for the high cost of drugs. Drug companies in the USA lobbied congress to write Medicare Part D suchwise that the government is legally forbidden to use its massive buying power to negotiate lower prices from drug companies.
The newest hepatitis C drugs sell for $60,000-$90,000 per full treatment. I think they could probably sell for less and still generate a profit. The generation of antiv***ls before that sold for $30,000 per treatment. I think those could have been sold more cheaply also.
The US FDA (hired guns for the pharmaceutical cartel) is holding up approval of insulin that competes with the major 2 available currently.
And, $8,400/year for health insurance doesn't sound like a lot. Many routine procedures cost insurance companies in the tens of thousands of dollars. For more complicated procedures it can easily run into 6 figures.
HardwareGuy wrote:
At one time, diabetes was a death sentence.The researchers who discovered insulin sold the formulation for something like $5 as a gift for mankind almost a hundred years ago.
Look what's become of their discovery by greedy pharma.
100 years ago they used porcine and bovine insulin to treat diabetes. In 1955, insulin was sequenced and it's exact structure was discovered. In 1978, production of synthetic human insulin by recombinant DNA method began.