Philippe Amard wrote:
> Thanks Jim,
>
> it explains things about the xD, a lot ...
> Is CF much better? they're so huge and don't fit into laptops either BTW
>
The big technical problem with the xD format is that it doesn't include
a disk controller in the card. Thus, it depends on the controller
firmware in the camera. Then Oly added some proprietary format tweaks
for their panorama feature. The result is a fragile file system where
doing anything at all to the card in computer or another camera before
downloading all images may result in permanent loss. Doing anything in a
reader on a computer may result in a card unreadable, and sometimes,
inexplicably, unformattable by the camera.
Less seriously, they peak out at 2GB and have much slower write times
than newer CF and SD(HC) cards.
CF remains the best format for serious work. They have built-in
controllers, so are unaffected by vagaries of cameras and OSs and are
physically close to indestructible. SDHC cards are close, but not as
physically tough.
My personal experience is that built-in card readers in computers are
much slower than the cards are capable of. I never use the one in my
desktop for image downloads. The small, cheap multi-card reader I posted
about before is MUCH faster.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|