What is this "integrated" memory of the Casio Ex?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joe" <joewasik@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114998251.091783.286010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello, My old Canon Sd300 "disappeared". I hope its new owner is happy
> with it. Anyway, in shopping for a replacement ultra-compact, I found
> the Casio Ex series, but am worried about the "integrated" memory that
> the review at CNet talks about. Its SD card is just an expansion. The
> review of the Canon lists the SD card as its memory. I'm not sure what
> this means for the Casio.
>
> I also looked at the Sony ultra-compact. A facinating little unit, but
> that Memory Stick makes it a no-go.

Why aren't you buying another SD300?

I'm curious, as I'm considering it for myself.

What's keeping you from going back to it?

Thanks,
Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello. Thanks for your advice. I now understand the purpose of the
integrated memory. And I agree with you that this is only a marginally
useful feature. Regarding the low-light (ISO) performance, I find that
many digital cameras seem to exhibit this behavior, i.e., graininess in
low light. Perhaps you're saying that the Casio is worse than most. I
do really like that big 2 inch viewscreen on the back of the Casio,
though. That's pretty cool.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:48:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>> Hello. Thanks for your advice. I now understand the purpose of the
>> integrated memory. And I agree with you that this is only a marginally
>> useful feature. Regarding the low-light (ISO) performance, I find that
>> many digital cameras seem to exhibit this behavior, i.e., graininess in
>> low light. Perhaps you're saying that the Casio is worse than most. I
>> do really like that big 2 inch viewscreen on the back of the Casio,
>> though. That's pretty cool.
>>
>Internal memory is a very handy feature. It eliminates the need to
>include a memory card in the package, and the camera can use unused
>portions for its workspace. Most cameras store things like burst mode
>shots, bracketing photos, and last picture in burst shots in internal
>ram. It is also used for the compression process, and for holding
>picture data while it is being written to the card. Generally, the more
>of it you have, the better your camera will work for you.

I doubt that this is the same kind of storage and I doubt that it is
used for such features. Granted, the camera needs internal memory to
store bracketing photos etc.. but the internal 11mb flash storage will
be too slow to use for that.

andyt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andy Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:48:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>Hello. Thanks for your advice. I now understand the purpose of the
>>>integrated memory. And I agree with you that this is only a marginally
>>>useful feature. Regarding the low-light (ISO) performance, I find that
>>>many digital cameras seem to exhibit this behavior, i.e., graininess in
>>>low light. Perhaps you're saying that the Casio is worse than most. I
>>>do really like that big 2 inch viewscreen on the back of the Casio,
>>>though. That's pretty cool.
>>>
>>
>>Internal memory is a very handy feature. It eliminates the need to
>>include a memory card in the package, and the camera can use unused
>>portions for its workspace. Most cameras store things like burst mode
>>shots, bracketing photos, and last picture in burst shots in internal
>>ram. It is also used for the compression process, and for holding
>>picture data while it is being written to the card. Generally, the more
>>of it you have, the better your camera will work for you.
>
>
> I doubt that this is the same kind of storage and I doubt that it is
> used for such features. Granted, the camera needs internal memory to
> store bracketing photos etc.. but the internal 11mb flash storage will
> be too slow to use for that.
>
> andyt
>
It IS used for storing the picture data for writing to the card, at
least in some models. While I rarely use the internal picture storage
on my camera, it is nice that it is there in case I fill a card. Since
my camera writes data from the movie mode to internal memory, or to the
card, the writing speeds shouldn't be too slow for other uses. The
processors in P&S cameras aren't the Cray's of the camera industry.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andy Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:01:16 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Andy Turner wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:48:50 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hello. Thanks for your advice. I now understand the purpose of the
>>>>>integrated memory. And I agree with you that this is only a marginally
>>>>>useful feature. Regarding the low-light (ISO) performance, I find that
>>>>>many digital cameras seem to exhibit this behavior, i.e., graininess in
>>>>>low light. Perhaps you're saying that the Casio is worse than most. I
>>>>>do really like that big 2 inch viewscreen on the back of the Casio,
>>>>>though. That's pretty cool.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Internal memory is a very handy feature. It eliminates the need to
>>>>include a memory card in the package, and the camera can use unused
>>>>portions for its workspace. Most cameras store things like burst mode
>>>>shots, bracketing photos, and last picture in burst shots in internal
>>>>ram. It is also used for the compression process, and for holding
>>>>picture data while it is being written to the card. Generally, the more
>>>>of it you have, the better your camera will work for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt that this is the same kind of storage and I doubt that it is
>>>used for such features. Granted, the camera needs internal memory to
>>>store bracketing photos etc.. but the internal 11mb flash storage will
>>>be too slow to use for that.
>>>
>>>andyt
>>>
>>
>>It IS used for storing the picture data for writing to the card, at
>>least in some models.
>
>
> Which models, and do you have a reference for that info? I'd like to
> read it.
>
>
>
>>While I rarely use the internal picture storage
>>on my camera, it is nice that it is there in case I fill a card.
>
>
> Sure, though since I use a memory card reader to retrieve my photos,
> using the internal memory would involve me digging out the camera
> cable and installing software!
>
>
>
>>Since my camera writes data from the movie mode to internal memory
>>or to the card, the writing speeds shouldn't be too slow for other uses.
>
>
> You'll almost certainly find that the quality of movie is effectively
> throttled by the write speed. Take a movie, 10 secs long and see how
> big the file is. Then compare that to taking 20 full size photos
> (which your camera ought to be able to do in 10 seconds), and see how
> big the files add up to then. You'll see that it's a *lot* more data
> and there's no way it could write it to flash storage in time.
>
>
>
>>The processors in P&S cameras aren't the Cray's of the camera industry.
>
>
> It's not the processing, it's the amount of data gathered vs the write
> speed.
>
>
> I just think you're confusing the camera's internal RAM with a
> camera's internal flash storage. The formar is volatile, the latter is
> persistant and therefore takes longer to write to.
>
>
>
> andyt
>
Well, my camera is a still camera. It does 320x240 movies at 20fps.
With Quicktime (.mov) compression, it writes just fine to an average SD
card. Only limit is how large you want the file to be. As you mention,
it does take a lot of memory.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net