DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> CF vs xD cards
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/30/2007 02:22:05 PM · #1
Compact Flash or xD, which is a better card to use and why?

My camera takes both and currently has a CF card in it. I believe the xD cards are a bit cheaper and wanted to find out some more before I get more memory.

Thanks :)
12/30/2007 02:29:12 PM · #2
I think CF is cheaper and comes in higher capacity.
12/30/2007 02:52:49 PM · #3
XD cards max out at 2GB. CF cards are available up to 16GB, run faster, and cost about 1/3 the price of XD. Most external card readers don't support XD either.
12/30/2007 03:02:41 PM · #4
My computer's reader lists xD, but there is difinitely not a place for CF cards and when transferring from camera to computer it takes forever... it must be the old USB 1 or something. That was part of my reasoning for looking at the xD, to speed up the transfer process. Maybe I'll look for a speedy card reader instead.

Thanks for the input.
12/30/2007 03:10:36 PM · #5
I was just checking out the max CF card for my camera and it tops out at 8 GB but I found this too...

"What type of USB connection is used?

The EVOLT E-500 is USB Auto-Connect (mass storage) and is compliant with USB 2.0 Full-Speed specifications."

Hmmm... It sure doesn't act like it and that was one of the complaints when reading reviews.
12/30/2007 03:20:09 PM · #6
FWIW, even if the camera's connection is 2.0 compliant, it's going to be slower than a reader.
12/30/2007 03:22:40 PM · #7
Originally posted by secretagent65:

The EVOLT E-500 is USB Auto-Connect (mass storage) and is compliant with USB 2.0 Full-Speed specifications."

That's marketing-speak. "USB 2.0 Full-Speed" = USB 1.1 (slow). The *real* USB 2.0 interface is called "USB 2.0 Hi-Speed." From the USB developers' site: "Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed." If you really want fast downloads, use a CF card and Firewire card reader.

Message edited by author 2007-12-30 15:24:21.
12/30/2007 03:26:33 PM · #8
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by secretagent65:

The EVOLT E-500 is USB Auto-Connect (mass storage) and is compliant with USB 2.0 Full-Speed specifications."

That's marketing-speak. "USB 2.0 Full-Speed" = USB 1.1 (slow). The *real* USB 2.0 interface is called "USB 2.0 Hi-Speed." From the USB developers' site: "Avoid using terminology such as USB 2.0 Full Speed, Full Speed USB or USB 2.0 which can be confusing for consumers whose expectation is that a USB 2.0 product is by definition high-speed." If you really want fast downloads, use a CF card and Firewire card reader.


@scalvert: you probably mean Firewire 800. From my recent tests FW400 was about the same as USB2.0 Hi-speed. At least for external hard drives.
12/30/2007 03:39:24 PM · #9
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

@scalvert: you probably mean Firewire 800. From my recent tests FW400 was about the same as USB2.0 Hi-speed. At least for external hard drives.

The FW800 interface is indeed the fastest card reader available, but even a Lexar FW400 reader (I own both) will outperform most USB 2.0 readers.
12/30/2007 09:30:31 PM · #10
Thanks for all the great info... now how do I find out if my firewire port is 800 or 400? I'm checking in the device manager and is says - RICOH OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 Host Controller.
12/30/2007 09:33:28 PM · #11
Originally posted by secretagent65:

Thanks for all the great info... now how do I find out if my firewire port is 800 or 400? I'm checking in the device manager and is says - RICOH OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 Host Controller.


' . substr('//www.transintl.com/images/firewire800wfeet300.jpg', strrpos('//www.transintl.com/images/firewire800wfeet300.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/30/2007 09:51:31 PM · #12
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:


' . substr('//www.transintl.com/images/firewire800wfeet300.jpg', strrpos('//www.transintl.com/images/firewire800wfeet300.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


That's obviously some sort of external device... what I was wondering though was how to tell on one's computer, not the external device. My device manager wasn't too specific and probably has a generic driver for my firewire port. I'll check the HP website and look up the specs for my computer. :)
12/30/2007 09:53:05 PM · #13
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

@scalvert: you probably mean Firewire 800. From my recent tests FW400 was about the same as USB2.0 Hi-speed. At least for external hard drives.

The FW800 interface is indeed the fastest card reader available, but even a Lexar FW400 reader (I own both) will outperform most USB 2.0 readers.


I have a USB 2.0 Hi Speed reader (actually several of them) and can read a full 4Gb off the card in about 20 minutes. (back when I was using 1Gb cards and it was reading the full 1Gb in 5 minutes, it seemed "fast", now it feels like it takes forever)

I also have two Firewire readers (400 only) and they read the same 4Gb card in about 4 minutes. That's 1/5th the amount of time. I much prefer Firewire.

As for external hard drives ... the speeds seem "similar" though I generally feel prefer the speed of my firewire drives over my USB 2.0 drives but the difference is not nearly so obvious.

Message edited by author 2007-12-30 22:11:52.
12/30/2007 10:09:52 PM · #14
the xD in the olympus allows you to shoot in panorama mode... the cf's don't.
12/30/2007 11:43:39 PM · #15
Wow. I didn't know anyone was still using xD cards. I have an Olympus C740 and never used it anymore, but I loathe those blasted xD cards. So bloody proprietary. It was hard getting a card reader that reads them although I think I now have two that do.
12/30/2007 11:51:14 PM · #16
Originally posted by secretagent65:

That's obviously some sort of external device... what I was wondering though was how to tell on one's computer, not the external device.

It's almost certainly FW400. Very few PCs have FW800 built-in. If you look (closely) at the image Nikolai posted, you'll see that the connectors are different. FW400 is a relatively narrow connector, squared on one side and rounded on the other. FW800 is squared all around, with a couple of ridges on one side.
12/31/2007 02:33:29 PM · #17
Originally posted by annasense:

the xD in the olympus allows you to shoot in panorama mode... the cf's don't.


Hmmm... then I may have to get one small one ( 1 GB) just for that. Thanks :)
12/31/2007 02:35:39 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

It's almost certainly FW400. Very few PCs have FW800 built-in. If you look (closely) at the image Nikolai posted, you'll see that the connectors are different. FW400 is a relatively narrow connector, squared on one side and rounded on the other. FW800 is squared all around, with a couple of ridges on one side.


The pic is a little small for me to notice the difference. However, I do know that my computer has the old style port going in. Thanks for the tip.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/05/2019 03:41:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/05/2019 03:41:42 PM EST.