CF Format Question

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

I have a Canon EOS 20D, and am new to the world of digital SLR
photography. However, I am somewhat of a computer geek.

I purchased 2 Sandisk Ultra II (1GB) cards for the camera.

While I know that Canon is using the FAT32 file system format for the
CF memory, does anyone know if improvements in performance/speed can be
achieved by using a cluster size other than the default by formatting
the card via Windows as opposed to lettting the camera format the card?

Any other useful hints/tips are appreciated!

Thanks in advance,
Chris

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

"Chris" <ctaliercio@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119449713.349748.301310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Canon EOS 20D, and am new to the world of digital SLR
> photography. However, I am somewhat of a computer geek.
>
> I purchased 2 Sandisk Ultra II (1GB) cards for the camera.
>
> While I know that Canon is using the FAT32 file system format for the
> CF memory, does anyone know if improvements in performance/speed can be
> achieved by using a cluster size other than the default by formatting
> the card via Windows as opposed to lettting the camera format the card?
>
> Any other useful hints/tips are appreciated!
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Chris
>

As the OP said, if you want to reduce the chances of having a problem,
always format in-camera.

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

Thanks Dave.

I posted this question to the Canon technical support people and of
course their response was that they would only support CF formatting
done inside of the camera. They suggested that I not use Windows to do
the formatting.

Given that there is no noticeable difference in performance, I guess I
will simply let the camers format the 2 CF cards I've purchased.

Thanks,
Chris

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

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:01:13 GMT, Iain Laskey, getting his theories
from somewhere in the wildblueyonder wrote:

> Stop thinking of the card as if it were a hard disk - cluster size makes
> no difference and probably doesn't even exist as a concept in a CF card.
> It's just a bunch of memory with an interface to make it look like a hard
> drive for access purposes. (Dunno about the 20 but the 350D basically runs
> DOS.)

You're completely wrong, otherwise images could only be
transferred from the camera via USB, and the cards used wouldn't be
recognized by computers when inserted in card readers, nor would
image recovery software have any chance of success. Cluster size
does make a difference. Perhaps not a speed difference since there
are no physical latencies to deal with as there would be with
microdrives, but if a very large cluster size is used, the number of
images that could be stored on the card could be greatly reduced,
especially if the camera is set to use small (low resolution) files.

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

In article <1119449713.349748.301310@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <ctaliercio@yahoo.com> wrote:

> While I know that Canon is using the FAT32 file system format for the
> CF memory, does anyone know if improvements in performance/speed can be
> achieved by using a cluster size other than the default by formatting
> the card via Windows as opposed to lettting the camera format the card?

Format it in the camera.

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:11:24 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

> Hi,
> So, after all it acts like HD, a storage device.

Yes. And flash cards have been used as low power solid-state
storage devices in PDAs, and before that in hand held computers that
had insufficient battery power for traditional hard drives, long
before they were used in consumer oriented cameras. The first one I
had was a PCMCIA card that had all of 32MB of memory, used in an HP
200lx MSDOS computer (about twice the size of a PDA) as well as in a
laptop. If I put my 512MB xD card in a CF adapter, and put the CF
adapter into a PCMCIA adapter, it works as a storage device with my
desktop computer too, when inserted in its PCMCIA card reader.

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

In article <ahnjb1h2j55pher7ivoe30a2i1l9jccns2@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
(ASAAR) wrote:

> *From:* ASAAR <caught@22.com>
> *Date:* Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:09:28 -0400
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:01:13 GMT, Iain Laskey, getting his theories
> from somewhere in the wildblueyonder wrote:
>
> > Stop thinking of the card as if it were a hard disk - cluster size
> > makes no difference and probably doesn't even exist as a concept in a
> > CF card. It's just a bunch of memory with an interface to make it
> > look like a hard drive for access purposes. (Dunno about the 20 but
> > the 350D basically runs DOS.)
>
> You're completely wrong, otherwise images could only be
> transferred from the camera via USB,
How do you figure that? If it's emulating a hard drive, it will look like
a hard drive to anything that reads it.

> Cluster size
> does make a difference. Perhaps not a speed difference since there
> are no physical latencies to deal with as there would be with
> microdrives, but if a very large cluster size is used, the number of
> images that could be stored on the card could be greatly reduced,
> especially if the camera is set to use small (low resolution) files.
This is possibly an issue but I don't know how deep the emulation goes. It
may be the card just packs in the data. An easy way to check would be to
run a tool that tells you the amount of data versus the storage space
used.



Iain

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

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:11:30 GMT, Iain Laskey wrote:

>>> So, after all it acts like HD, a storage device.
>>
>> Yes.

> Obviously it behaves as if it were a HD otherwise it wouldn't be
> readable in different devices. The issue is what is going on under
> the bonnet, not what the reader sees.

Obviously. But earlier this morning it was quite clear that you
didn't see it that way when you said:

> Stop thinking of the card as if it were a hard disk - cluster size makes
> no difference and probably doesn't even exist as a concept in a CF card.

If CF cards are formatted in camera and then examined by "disk
utility" tools, all of the FAT, directory structures, partition and
cluster information can be seen, otherwise (as I previously said)
the cards wouldn't be recognised as storage devices when placed in
card readers.