Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XD vs CF comparison.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:56:14 PM

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

My Oly C-7070 uses both XD and CF cards, I am getting somewhat variable
results with the cards I have on hand. I am looking for a comprehensive
review of flash cards. I am inclined to think that the XD cards are a dead
end.

Comments please.

--

Rudy Benner

Never attempt to reason with people who know they are right.

More about : comparison

Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:47:44 PM

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

"Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
news:11d2oclsepsheea@corp.supernews.com...
> My Oly C-7070 uses both XD and CF cards, I am getting somewhat variable
> results with the cards I have on hand. I am looking for a comprehensive
> review of flash cards. I am inclined to think that the XD cards are a dead
> end.
>
> Comments please.
>


What do you mean 'variable results'? The pictures should be identical, the
cards are only storage media. If you think the pictures are better or worse
that will be because you were shooting differently or consitions were
different. It wont be the cards. If you mean slower to send pictures to,
thats more a function of the ccamera since it should put the picture in fast
storage and then move it to the card whilst you are doing other things,
including taking more pictures.

From what I've noticed XD cards are more expensive than CF or SD, but
perhaps equally importantly there is an issue if you ever change cameras
since its unlikely to use XD.

I have just bought a camera that uses SD which makes the CF cards my old
camera uses useless going forward, but at least they are compatible with my
palm pilot and GPS unit and likely to be compatible with other cameras in
the future.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:47:45 PM

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

"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jd8q9Fo23l7U1@individual.net...
>
> "Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
> news:11d2oclsepsheea@corp.supernews.com...
>> My Oly C-7070 uses both XD and CF cards, I am getting somewhat variable
>> results with the cards I have on hand. I am looking for a comprehensive
>> review of flash cards. I am inclined to think that the XD cards are a
>> dead end.
>>
>> Comments please.
>>
>
>
> What do you mean 'variable results'? The pictures should be identical,
> the cards are only storage media. If you think the pictures are better or
> worse that will be because you were shooting differently or consitions
> were different. It wont be the cards. If you mean slower to send pictures
> to, thats more a function of the ccamera since it should put the picture
> in fast storage and then move it to the card whilst you are doing other
> things, including taking more pictures.
>
> From what I've noticed XD cards are more expensive than CF or SD, but
> perhaps equally importantly there is an issue if you ever change cameras
> since its unlikely to use XD.
>
> I have just bought a camera that uses SD which makes the CF cards my old
> camera uses useless going forward, but at least they are compatible with
> my palm pilot and GPS unit and likely to be compatible with other cameras
> in the future.
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>

Much slower to read and write, by at least a factor of two.

XD cards are 32 meg, 512 meg,
CF cards are 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1 gig.
In all cases, the XD card is less than half as fast to read and write to.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 11:47:46 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:23:00 -0400, Rudy Benner wrote:

> Much slower to read and write, by at least a factor of two.
>
> XD cards are 32 meg, 512 meg,
> CF cards are 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1 gig.
> In all cases, the XD card is less than half as fast to read and write to.

You're way off on sizes and speeds. Although the fastest CF cards
can be more than twice as fast as xD, the xD cards are in turn
faster than a number of existing CF cards, and faster than most
older ones.

Premium prices can be paid for the fastest CF cards, but most
cameras won't perform any more quickly with them. On the other
hand, unless one has an older camera, it probably would be best to
avoid the slower, non-premium cards. Even then, the use of USB 2.0
high speed card readers might make the faster cards worthwhile.

You can easily find 4GB CF cards (probably 8GB too), and xD is
available in 1GB sizes. I bought both xD and CF cards a couple of
weeks ago (both 1GB, both $89) and the CF card was faster, roughly
up to 34x vs up to 60x for the CF card. Maybe one of the 40x or 80x
CF cards would perform better, but that would only be in a small
number of cameras. My own cameras would probably be hard pressed to
show any improvement with cards faster than 12x speed. The 34x xD
cards probably provide more speed than most current cameras can take
advantage of, and many decent CF cards are far slower than this.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:34:13 AM

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

"Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
news:11d32cn8ev5p877@corp.supernews.com...
>

>
> Much slower to read and write, by at least a factor of two.
>
> XD cards are 32 meg, 512 meg,
> CF cards are 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1 gig.
> In all cases, the XD card is less than half as fast to read and write to.
>
>

In 'real life' unless doing a lot of rapid shooting, does that make any
difference?
AFAIK cameras 'always' write the picture to a buffer and it is then written
from there to the card 'in the background'.

I think there is one thing doing tests in a lab, and another taking some
shots with your camera. can you see a shot-to-shot dfference in real life, I
wonder?

For me the issue is the compatability (or lack of), eg v few cameras use xD,
v few people sell it, and its more expensive... so I I wont be buying a
camera that uses it :-)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:34:14 AM

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

"Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jdiieFp0hdkU1@individual.net...
>
> "Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
> news:11d32cn8ev5p877@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>
>>
>> Much slower to read and write, by at least a factor of two.
>>
>> XD cards are 32 meg, 512 meg,
>> CF cards are 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1 gig.
>> In all cases, the XD card is less than half as fast to read and write to.
>>
>>
>
> In 'real life' unless doing a lot of rapid shooting, does that make any
> difference?
> AFAIK cameras 'always' write the picture to a buffer and it is then
> written from there to the card 'in the background'.
>
> I think there is one thing doing tests in a lab, and another taking some
> shots with your camera. can you see a shot-to-shot dfference in real life,
> I wonder?
>
> For me the issue is the compatability (or lack of), eg v few cameras use
> xD, v few people sell it, and its more expensive... so I I wont be buying
> a camera that uses it :-)
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>

Like I said in my original post, XD looks like a dead end. I will keep the
512 meg in the camera, just in case. I doubt I will be getting any more.
July 11, 2005 2:34:14 AM

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

Tumbleweed wrote:


>
> In 'real life' unless doing a lot of rapid shooting, does that make any
> difference?
> AFAIK cameras 'always' write the picture to a buffer and it is then
> written from there to the card 'in the background'.

Not 'all' cameras do this. I know several models don't if you shoot in RAW
mode, you have to wait for the camera to finish writing to the card before
you can shoot another.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:34:15 AM

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

Rudy Benner wrote:

> Like I said in my original post, XD looks like a dead end. I will keep the
> 512 meg in the camera, just in case. I doubt I will be getting any more.

FWIW, Olympus just announced a 1GB xD card, manufactured by SanDisk.
But you're right: so far it seems like the only camera makers that use
xD are Fuji and Olympus. And besides, the 1GB card seems to not be
universally compatible: some cameras with xD will take it, some require
a firmware upgrade, and some just won't accept it at all.

Compatibility chart is at:

http://www.sandisk.com/pdf/retail/xd_compatibility.pdf


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:41:55 AM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:45:27 -0400, Isaiah Beard wrote:

> FWIW, Olympus just announced a 1GB xD card, manufactured by SanDisk.
> But you're right: so far it seems like the only camera makers that use
> xD are Fuji and Olympus. And besides, the 1GB card seems to not be
> universally compatible: some cameras with xD will take it, some require
> a firmware upgrade, and some just won't accept it at all.

Don't you think that it's more accurate to say that it's the
cameras (and not any particular card) that may not be universally
compatible? IOW, would any cameras not on the Sandisk 1GB xD
compatibility list ever be able to use any other future cards
greater than 512MB? This wouldn't be much different than older
cameras that are not able to use large CF cards. I don't know if
early Canon PowerShots, such as my S10 would even recognize a 4 or
8GB CF card. But if they did, the camera's firmware of limit of 999
files would make these cards no more useful than 1GB or 2GB cards.

In particular, the Fuji S5100, whose manual only indicates that
cards up to 512MB will work, has no problem with the 1GB xD card. I
assume that it would be able to use larger 2GB and 4GB cards when
they become available, although whether I'd need or want one remains
to be seen. Though haven't checked the list, I'd be surprised if
cameras such as Fuji's A310 (or older) would be able to use much of
the capacity of such large cards, and possibly none of it.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:50:21 AM

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

Stacey wrote:
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>
>
>>In 'real life' unless doing a lot of rapid shooting, does that make any
>>difference?
>>AFAIK cameras 'always' write the picture to a buffer and it is then
>>written from there to the card 'in the background'.
>
>
> Not 'all' cameras do this. I know several models don't if you shoot in RAW
> mode, you have to wait for the camera to finish writing to the card before
> you can shoot another.
>
Probably because RAW mode uses all the buffer ram.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:23:35 AM

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

| You can easily find 4GB CF cards (probably 8GB too), and xD is
| available in 1GB sizes. I bought both xD and CF cards a couple of
| weeks ago (both 1GB, both $89)


Where did you get the xD card from?
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 10:23:36 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:23:35 GMT, colin. wrote:

> Where did you get the xD card from?

B&H (walk-in).
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:41:05 AM

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

In article <11d2oclsepsheea@corp.supernews.com>, Rudy Benner says...
> My Oly C-7070 uses both XD and CF cards, I am getting somewhat variable
> results with the cards I have on hand. I am looking for a comprehensive
> review of flash cards. I am inclined to think that the XD cards are a dead
> end.
>
> Comments please.

xD cards were launched a few years ago as "Extreme Digital" promising
write speeds in the 4-5 MB/s range, which sounded quite fast back then.

The reality is that so far xD cards have been pretty slow in Olympus
cameras, topping out at 1MB/s:
http://myolympus.org/5050/writetime/
http://myolympus.org/5060/writetime/
http://myolympus.org/8080/writetime/

Based on the reviews I've seen, the 7070 tops out at 1.5MB/s write speed
to the memory card. Not sure how fast xD cards are with the 7070, but
probably they are not faster than CF cards, judging from the previous
record of Olympus cameras.

In any case, since CF cards are cheaper, there is no big point in using
xD cards with a 7070 (unless of course Olympus implemented an extremely
slow CF card interface in the 7070, which is unlikely). The only reason
to use xD would be their smaller size or if you want to use the inbuilt
camera panorama function (and in that case you'll need Olympus xD
cards).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 7070 resource - http://myolympus.org/7070/
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:41:06 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:41:05 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> xD cards were launched a few years ago as "Extreme Digital" promising
> write speeds in the 4-5 MB/s range, which sounded quite fast back then.

The 1GB Olympus xD card is rated at 3.5 to 5 MB/s, depending on
the operation.


> Based on the reviews I've seen, the 7070 tops out at 1.5MB/s write speed
> to the memory card. Not sure how fast xD cards are with the 7070, but
> probably they are not faster than CF cards, judging from the previous
> record of Olympus cameras.
>
> In any case, since CF cards are cheaper, there is no big point in using
> xD cards with a 7070 (unless of course Olympus implemented an extremely
> slow CF card interface in the 7070, which is unlikely). The only reason
> to use xD would be their smaller size or if you want to use the inbuilt
> camera panorama function (and in that case you'll need Olympus xD
> cards).

I don't know what speed earlier xD cards are limited to, but the
Olympus 1GB card should be more than twice as fast as the 7070's 1.5
MB/s write speed. Do you think that the 7070 was designed with a
memory bus that operates more slowly with xD than with CF cards?

BTW, the 1GB xD card is the same price as the 1GB Sandisk Ultra II
(both priced recently at B&H). The Sandisk is admittedly a faster
card, but they're both much faster than the 7070's limit. The
Olympus 1GB xD card is considerably faster than the cheaper,
standard Sandisk CF cards, so it appears that xD cards don't incur
nearly the same huge price penalties that they did last year.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:48:24 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3jdrojFpbdepU4@individual.net...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>
>>
>> In 'real life' unless doing a lot of rapid shooting, does that make any
>> difference?
>> AFAIK cameras 'always' write the picture to a buffer and it is then
>> written from there to the card 'in the background'.
>
> Not 'all' cameras do this. I know several models don't if you shoot in RAW
> mode, you have to wait for the camera to finish writing to the card before
> you can shoot another.
>

Thanks for the info.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:37:11 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:58:32 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:41:05 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> xD cards were launched a few years ago as "Extreme Digital" promising
>> write speeds in the 4-5 MB/s range, which sounded quite fast back then.
>
> The 1GB Olympus xD card is rated at 3.5 to 5 MB/s, depending on
>the operation.
>
>
>> Based on the reviews I've seen, the 7070 tops out at 1.5MB/s write speed
>> to the memory card. Not sure how fast xD cards are with the 7070, but
>> probably they are not faster than CF cards, judging from the previous
>> record of Olympus cameras.
>>
>> In any case, since CF cards are cheaper, there is no big point in using
>> xD cards with a 7070 (unless of course Olympus implemented an extremely
>> slow CF card interface in the 7070, which is unlikely). The only reason
>> to use xD would be their smaller size or if you want to use the inbuilt
>> camera panorama function (and in that case you'll need Olympus xD
>> cards).
>
> I don't know what speed earlier xD cards are limited to, but the
>Olympus 1GB card should be more than twice as fast as the 7070's 1.5
>MB/s write speed. Do you think that the 7070 was designed with a
>memory bus that operates more slowly with xD than with CF cards?
>
> BTW, the 1GB xD card is the same price as the 1GB Sandisk Ultra II
>(both priced recently at B&H). The Sandisk is admittedly a faster
>card, but they're both much faster than the 7070's limit. The
>Olympus 1GB xD card is considerably faster than the cheaper,
>standard Sandisk CF cards, so it appears that xD cards don't incur
>nearly the same huge price penalties that they did last year.

Just ordered an Olympus C-7070WZ from B&H & a "Olympus 1GB xD
card from www.costco.com , The xD card was $85.00 USD.

2 things to remember:

<1> Olympus set up the C-7070WZ camera to only do panorama mode with
a "genuine Olympus xD card" & this probably also applies to other
Olympus cameras too.

Seems like just another way for them to get you business
because the 32MB card that comes with the camera is too small to be of
much use, especially for storing panoramas. Anyway, I purchased it
for this camera because I did not wish to loose the option of doing
panoramas & to keep it in the camera as backup memory to my larger CF
cards. So it seems Olympus succeeded & got more of my money because I
did buy their xD card even if Sandisk makes it for them. Costco's
even points out this need for the "Olympus xD" for doing panoramas.

<2> At least 1 or 2 review sights I visited claimed that in-camera
write speeds to the xD cards were slower than the CF cards in the
C-7070WZ. So it would seem that the card is the bottle neck in the
camera, but since I don't plan on using the xD card very much I am
sure it won't be a big deal for me. It would have been nice if they
had provided SD & CF slots in the camera instead of the xD & CF slots
because I think the SD cards have a much longer future & are faster.
However it seems they are sticking with xD so as not to render them of
no value for their customer base that has invested in them & may want
to upgrade to a new camera & still use them.

Such is life, we don't always get what we want, so we usually
settle for wanting what we have. Don't misunderstand, if I like the
camera as much as I hope I will, I will add my voice to Olympus
expressing what I like, dislike & what I would like to see changed or
improved in future models. If enough people do this, it might just
help shape future models, so I hope anyway!

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:37:12 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:37:11 GMT, DHB wrote:

> 2 things to remember:
>
> <1> Olympus set up the C-7070WZ camera to only do panorama mode with
> a "genuine Olympus xD card" & this probably also applies to other
> Olympus cameras too.
>
> Seems like just another way for them to get you business
> because the 32MB card that comes with the camera is too small to be of
> much use, especially for storing panoramas.

While the panorama feature of Olympus cameras using their own
cards might get them a small amount of extra business today, I doubt
that that was the original plan. Only a small percentage of camera
owners take the trouble to do panoramas, even Canon owners (their
Powershot line does panoramas with any/all cards). But for several
years xD cards were far more expensive, almost double that of CF
cards, so I find it very unlikely that the possibility of panoramas
would be enough of an incentive to get people to buy Olympus xD
cards instead of inexpensive CF cards. On the other hand, I imagine
some of the older Olympus cameras might not have had the option of
using CF as well as xD cards. All xD brands were probably just as
costly, and the panorama feature might have sold a few more Olympus
brand xD cards, since there wouldn't have been an additional price
penalty.


> Anyway, I purchased it
> for this camera because I did not wish to loose the option of doing
> panoramas & to keep it in the camera as backup memory to my larger CF
> cards. So it seems Olympus succeeded & got more of my money because I
> did buy their xD card even if Sandisk makes it for them. Costco's
> even points out this need for the "Olympus xD" for doing panoramas.

I wonder if you could use the included 32MB xD card as a small
"panorama buffer", and after each panorama set is taken, copy it to
the CF card and then clear the xD for another set? It might take a
little more of your time to do this, but mountains and lakes will
patiently wait until you're ready to take the next set. :) 


> <2> At least 1 or 2 review sights I visited claimed that in-camera
> write speeds to the xD cards were slower than the CF cards in the
> C-7070WZ. So it would seem that the card is the bottle neck in the
> camera, but since I don't plan on using the xD card very much I am
> sure it won't be a big deal for me. It would have been nice if they
> had provided SD & CF slots in the camera instead of the xD & CF slots
> because I think the SD cards have a much longer future & are faster.
> However it seems they are sticking with xD so as not to render them of
> no value for their customer base that has invested in them & may want
> to upgrade to a new camera & still use them.

It would seem that the camera's design presents the bottleneck,
not the card, if those reviews are accurate. Unless, that is, that
the earlier, smaller xD cards were much slower than the 1G xD card,
whose speed ranges from 3.5 to 5.0 MB/s, since the C-8080 (and
presumably the C-7070 as well) doesn't write to even the CF cards
faster than about 1.5 MB/s. In any case once your C-7070 arrives
you'll be able to determine if it operates at the same speed with
either card, or if it favors the CF card. If speeds appear to be
the same for both, it would be interesting to find out if the
included 32MB card is noticeably slower.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:37:13 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:gn45d1h006rem2jpngop4kt11nhgsfobru@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:37:11 GMT, DHB wrote:
>
>
> It would seem that the camera's design presents the bottleneck,
> not the card, if those reviews are accurate. Unless, that is, that
> the earlier, smaller xD cards were much slower than the 1G xD card,
> whose speed ranges from 3.5 to 5.0 MB/s, since the C-8080 (and
> presumably the C-7070 as well) doesn't write to even the CF cards
> faster than about 1.5 MB/s. In any case once your C-7070 arrives
> you'll be able to determine if it operates at the same speed with
> either card, or if it favors the CF card. If speeds appear to be
> the same for both, it would be interesting to find out if the
> included 32MB card is noticeably slower.
>

I have done comparisons using CF cards of 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1
gig and XD cards of 32 meg and 512 meg. Raw photos were taken, stopwatch
timed from the end of the exposure to the end of the writing to the card. In
every case, the XD card time was at least double the time taken to write to
the CF card. Read times seem to be about the same.

Panorama can only be done on Olympus XD cards and only using their
proprietary software.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:37:14 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:42:43 -0400, "Rudy Benner"
<newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote:

>
>"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>news:gn45d1h006rem2jpngop4kt11nhgsfobru@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:37:11 GMT, DHB wrote:
>>
>>
>> It would seem that the camera's design presents the bottleneck,
>> not the card, if those reviews are accurate. Unless, that is, that
>> the earlier, smaller xD cards were much slower than the 1G xD card,
>> whose speed ranges from 3.5 to 5.0 MB/s, since the C-8080 (and
>> presumably the C-7070 as well) doesn't write to even the CF cards
>> faster than about 1.5 MB/s. In any case once your C-7070 arrives
>> you'll be able to determine if it operates at the same speed with
>> either card, or if it favors the CF card. If speeds appear to be
>> the same for both, it would be interesting to find out if the
>> included 32MB card is noticeably slower.
>>
>
>I have done comparisons using CF cards of 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1
>gig and XD cards of 32 meg and 512 meg. Raw photos were taken, stopwatch
>timed from the end of the exposure to the end of the writing to the card. In
>every case, the XD card time was at least double the time taken to write to
>the CF card. Read times seem to be about the same.

Were the cards of comparable speed?
>Panorama can only be done on Olympus XD cards and only using their
>proprietary software.
>
No, the pano feature in the camera can only be activated with Oly
cards. (Or cards hacked to behave like Oly cards.)
Taking Panorama photos *without* Oly cards is possible, just like with
any other digital cameras.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:30:29 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:42:43 -0400, Rudy Benner wrote:

> I have done comparisons using CF cards of 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1
> gig and XD cards of 32 meg and 512 meg. Raw photos were taken, stopwatch
> timed from the end of the exposure to the end of the writing to the card. In
> every case, the XD card time was at least double the time taken to write to
> the CF card. Read times seem to be about the same.

I understand that. But unlike with CF cards, xD card
manufacturers don't seem willing to disclose the card's speed. If
the 1GB xD card is faster than the cards you compared, then another
test would have to be done. The fact that Olympus (or Sandisk) is
willing to claim 3.5 to 5.0 MB/s for the 1GB card may hint that the
new card is faster than the old ones, and now don't mind disclosing
their speed.


> Panorama can only be done on Olympus XD cards and only using their
> proprietary software.

I understand that, but I'd much prefer a software-only solution
for panoramas were I to take an interest in them. As it is, I
haven't yet tried the panorama hardware-assist available in my Canon
cameras.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:30:30 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:30:29 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:42:43 -0400, Rudy Benner wrote:
>
>> I have done comparisons using CF cards of 128 meg, 256 meg, 512 meg and 1
>> gig and XD cards of 32 meg and 512 meg. Raw photos were taken, stopwatch
>> timed from the end of the exposure to the end of the writing to the card. In
>> every case, the XD card time was at least double the time taken to write to
>> the CF card. Read times seem to be about the same.
>
> I understand that. But unlike with CF cards, xD card
>manufacturers don't seem willing to disclose the card's speed. If
>the 1GB xD card is faster than the cards you compared, then another
>test would have to be done. The fact that Olympus (or Sandisk) is
>willing to claim 3.5 to 5.0 MB/s for the 1GB card may hint that the
>new card is faster than the old ones, and now don't mind disclosing
>their speed.
>
>
>> Panorama can only be done on Olympus XD cards and only using their
>> proprietary software.
>
> I understand that, but I'd much prefer a software-only solution
>for panoramas were I to take an interest in them. As it is, I
>haven't yet tried the panorama hardware-assist available in my Canon
>cameras.

You don't need to.
The "assist" is only a series of lines superimposed on the preview, in
order to let you know how much to overlap the succeeding pictures.
You don't need that. A 30% overlap will suffice; more is not bad. If
you can't estimate an approximate 1/3 overlap, maybe panoramas aren't
your thing. :-)

Making the static panorama, such as, for example, those here:
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/pano/arizona.html, does not need any
special equipment; the photographer just decides what he wants the
pano to include, then shoots using an overlap to ensure continuity,
then stitches the photos together, either manually or with panorama
software. Olympus has no special lock on either the overlap technique
or software. You can just do it.

IMO, Olympus' implication that you need their cards is nothing other
than marketing.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:45:43 PM

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

In article <vp84d11754g1gc5trqoa39t35mmoe60254@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...

> I don't know what speed earlier xD cards are limited to, but the
> Olympus 1GB card should be more than twice as fast as the 7070's 1.5
> MB/s write speed. Do you think that the 7070 was designed with a
> memory bus that operates more slowly with xD than with CF cards?

Yes. Well, at least this was the case with the 5050, 5060 and 8080.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:45:44 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:45:43 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

>> I don't know what speed earlier xD cards are limited to, but the
>> Olympus 1GB card should be more than twice as fast as the 7070's 1.5
>> MB/s write speed. Do you think that the 7070 was designed with a
>> memory bus that operates more slowly with xD than with CF cards?
>
> Yes. Well, at least this was the case with the 5050, 5060 and 8080.

That may be, but what I haven't heard yet is confirmation that
older xD cards were relatively fast. If they were, it would make
the camera's design responsible for the xD slowness. But if the
problem was due to slow xD cards (and they tend to not advertise
their speed) then xD cards equivalent to 8x CF cards would
definitely be a bottleneck. 12x cards might or might not, as their
performance approaches that of the camera. But even then, would the
12x designation represent the minimum or the maximum of the
individual Read and Write speeds? If a card was rated at 12x for
"reading" in a card reader, "writing", or copying files to the card
might be no faster than 8x, and such a card might easily be bettered
in the C-7070 and C-8080 by the latest 1GB xD cards. But now that
the 1GB cards are available, it should be an easy matter to see if
the camera's xD performance is as poor as it has long been assumed.
If the speed of older xD cards is known, this might not be
necessary, but as I've said, I don't know how fast or slow older xD
cards actually are . . . I'd prefer discovering that it was the
card, and not the camera that was the bottleneck, as I'm tempted to
get one, and if they perform quicker with the 1GB cards there'd be
one less reason to wait for their replacements.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:57:50 PM

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

In article <gn45d1h006rem2jpngop4kt11nhgsfobru@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...

> Only a small percentage of camera
> owners take the trouble to do panoramas,

I'm one of those people...


> cards, so I find it very unlikely that the possibility of panoramas
> would be enough of an incentive to get people to buy Olympus xD
> cards instead of inexpensive CF cards.

A couple of years ago I bought an 128MB Olympus xD card just for that.
Then I discovered PTGUI and stopped using the xD card.

> I wonder if you could use the included 32MB xD card as a small
> "panorama buffer", and after each panorama set is taken, copy it to
> the CF card and then clear the xD for another set? It might take a
> little more of your time to do this, but mountains and lakes will
> patiently wait until you're ready to take the next set. :) 

It is possible, but you are limited to 32 MB, which is enough if you
shoot JPEG panoramas but too little for a RAW panorama.
By the way, in the 5050 and 8080 if you copy from xD to CF, the folder
counter increases by one and the picture counter resets to 0. This
messes up your picture numbering.

> It would seem that the camera's design presents the bottleneck,
> not the card, if those reviews are accurate.

Exactly - the camera is the bottleneck. The 7070 tops out at 1.5MB/s.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:57:51 PM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:57:50 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

>> Only a small percentage of camera
>> owners take the trouble to do panoramas,
>
> I'm one of those people...

Is that because you have a real interest in panoramas, an interest
in exploring all of your camera's capabilities, or both? :) 


>> cards, so I find it very unlikely that the possibility of panoramas
>> would be enough of an incentive to get people to buy Olympus xD
>> cards instead of inexpensive CF cards.
>
> A couple of years ago I bought an 128MB Olympus xD card just for that.
> Then I discovered PTGUI and stopped using the xD card.

There are always bound to be a few exceptions, and didn't mean
that nobody would use that as a reason to purchase an Olympus xD
card. Just that the manufacturer should have know that they
couldn't count on that factor being enough to increase sales by a
large amount.


>> I wonder if you could use the included 32MB xD card as a small
>> "panorama buffer", and after each panorama set is taken, copy it to
>> the CF card and then clear the xD for another set? It might take a
>> little more of your time to do this, but mountains and lakes will
>> patiently wait until you're ready to take the next set. :) 

> It is possible, but you are limited to 32 MB, which is enough if you
> shoot JPEG panoramas but too little for a RAW panorama.
> By the way, in the 5050 and 8080 if you copy from xD to CF, the folder
> counter increases by one and the picture counter resets to 0. This
> messes up your picture numbering.

It might mess up the numbering, but it could be a useful
workaround to force the use of new folders if (as I've theorized in
another thread) that the sharp reduction in performance after taking
many pictures with 4GB cards is due to having too many files in a
single folder. Or does Olympus already have folder limits, as do
some Canon cameras?

I realize that RAW provides the potential for the highest quality,
but would it help that much with panoramas? Maybe it's due to not
taking pictures where the air is the best, but in scenic shots taken
across lakes in western NJ, I've found that atmospheric haze
severely limits resolution of objects photographed on the other side
of the lakes. Same with shots in NYC of the Empire State Building's
tower, but the city air wouldn't be assumed to be limpid even on the
best of days. Do RAW files provide benefits to panoramas in areas
other than resolution?
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:45:41 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:48:12 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>> I understand that, but I'd much prefer a software-only solution
>>for panoramas were I to take an interest in them. As it is, I
>>haven't yet tried the panorama hardware-assist available in my Canon
>>cameras.
>
> You don't need to.
> The "assist" is only a series of lines superimposed on the preview, in
> order to let you know how much to overlap the succeeding pictures.
> You don't need that. A 30% overlap will suffice; more is not bad. If
> you can't estimate an approximate 1/3 overlap, maybe panoramas aren't
> your thing. :-)

They may not be, but I'll try it eventually. I'm aware that the
"guide" lines aren't necessary, but they might be of more use in the
Canon than in my Fuji, which shows virtually 100% of what will be
included in the image, taking guesswork out of estimating the
necessary overlap.


> Making the static panorama, such as, for example, those here:
> http://pic.templetons.com/brad/pano/arizona.html, does not need any
> special equipment; the photographer just decides what he wants the
> pano to include, then shoots using an overlap to ensure continuity,
> then stitches the photos together, either manually or with panorama
> software. Olympus has no special lock on either the overlap technique
> or software. You can just do it.

You and I may not need any special equipment, but Jim Porter,
author of the article "Panoric Photography With Your Digital Camera"
in the July 2005 "Shutterbug" seems a bit ambivalent. After giving
the impression that taking panoramas is relatively easy and doesn't
require much special equipment, the then goes on to say that besides
needing a level, "The absolute necessary piece of equipment . . . is
a tripod with a sliding plate camera mount" (which may also be
called an adjustable plate, a slide mounting plate, or a sliding
rail). He also strongly recommends a rotating head mount (panning
head mount) and thinks it would be nice to also have an "L" mount.
Then, since it's bad practice to rotate the camera on its tripod
mount, he adds "It is very important to be sure that the optical
node of the camera lens is your pivot point", so that has to be
figured out, and recalculated if a zoom lens will be used at
different focal lengths.

He might have a valid point for panoramic shots that need to also
include many nearby objects, but I think that most people, using
simpler techniques and equipment would be able to produce very nice
panoramic shots, and you're evidently one of them. I wonder what
the displacement error of an object at 50 meters would be if the
camera was rotated about its tripod socket instead of the lens's
nodal point. The author suggests that the correct nodal point could
be checked by panning the camera and looking through the eyepiece to
see if a displacement error can be seen (of the near vs. distant
objects). Seems to me that the cost of the necessary additional
hardware to do this might easily pay for another camera, and I'm not
sure that I'd be able to see a difference unless the near objects
are much closer to the camera than would be typical in panoramic
shots.

Once I'm able to post this followup I'll check your link
(arizona.html), but right now my ISP is down.

[later]
Just checked that site and what I could see of the panoramas seemed
nice, but I wasn't able to see the higher resolution versions. I
could only access a single narrow vertical strip of the higher res.
images. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but assume it
wasn't. The [next] and [previous] buttons took me to similar narrow
strips of entirely different shots, evidently from different
categories. For instance, one took me from a strip of the Glen
Canyon Dam to a strip of a FunRun-Bridge panorama.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 7:09:27 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:57:50 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <gn45d1h006rem2jpngop4kt11nhgsfobru@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...
>
>> Only a small percentage of camera
>> owners take the trouble to do panoramas,
>
>I'm one of those people...
>
>A couple of years ago I bought an 128MB Olympus xD card just for that.
>Then I discovered PTGUI and stopped using the xD card.
>
Snip
>
>> It would seem that the camera's design presents the bottleneck,
>> not the card, if those reviews are accurate.
>
>Exactly - the camera is the bottleneck. The 7070 tops out at 1.5MB/s.

Sadly I too am 1 of those that has never used the panorama
assist mode included with any of my Canon cameras. It's a nice
feature but I have not had enough need for it & I have only just begun
to get into doing more than the most basic picture editing.

Does sound to me like specialized panorama software would
likely do a much better job than something bundled with the camera, so
if or when I get into it, I will likely be doing so with specialized
software. The main reason I also ordered the 1GB xD card was to be
able to use it as an overflow buffer for my CF cards. This because
it's a lot faster to press 1 button than to power down the camera,
change the CF card & power back up. If I have the time, no problem
but if the card is beginning to fill up & there is no break in the
action, then I have 1 button access to a 1 GB xD card @ the ready.

Thanks for the heads-up about the numbering problem when doing
an in camera transfer from the xD to CF. Hopefully this will not be a
problem if I remove the card & download it in an external reader or
use the built-in USB 2.0 interface to transfer the files to PC.

Thanks again to all for the added info. it's keeping me
learning while I await the delivery of my C-7070WZ. Nearly all of my
digital experience has been with a few Canon P&S's & a DSLR, so the
Olympus interface will take me some getting used to & it certainly has
much more user options than any P&S type camera I own or have ever had
to deal with.

Something else to learn, hopefully the effort will be well
worth it for the many added features it has over my other Canon P&S
cameras & in some cases, my DSLR as well.

Respectfully, DHB

..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:31:09 AM

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

Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> writes:

>You don't need to.
>The "assist" is only a series of lines superimposed on the preview, in
>order to let you know how much to overlap the succeeding pictures.
>You don't need that. A 30% overlap will suffice; more is not bad. If
>you can't estimate an approximate 1/3 overlap, maybe panoramas aren't
>your thing. :-)

On the Canon's I've used, panorama mode doesn't superimpose any lines.
Instead, it shrinks the camera image displayed in the LCD to 2/3 of its
normal size, giving room for 1.5X as much width. Then it shows the
right half (if you're in left-to-right mode) of the previous frame on
the left side of the LCD, so you can line up the next image with it. If
you get the alignment perfect, you get a series with about 50% overlap.

However, I regard the *main* usefulness of panorama mode is that it
locks the exposure conditions, shooting all frames with the same
aperture and shutter speed as the first one (which is metered
normally). You can always do this yourself on a camera with full
manual controls, but most P&S cameras don't have manual controls. Some
Canon have an "autoexposure lock" mode that does this too, but not all.
But even very low-end ones have panorama mode.

Dave
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:23:24 PM

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

In article <q4q5d1t7mrsg2oacj4lbb9p6i0342dn6fq@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...

> Is that because you have a real interest in panoramas, an interest
> in exploring all of your camera's capabilities, or both? :) 

A real interest in panoramas. 20% of the photos at my site at
www.molon.de are panoramas. The panorama technique is necessary to
obtain higher resolutions or when the lens I have is not wide angle
enough.

> It might mess up the numbering, but it could be a useful
> workaround to force the use of new folders if (as I've theorized in
> another thread) that the sharp reduction in performance after taking
> many pictures with 4GB cards is due to having too many files in a
> single folder. Or does Olympus already have folder limits, as do
> some Canon cameras?

The folder count goes (probably) up to 10000, then probably resets to 0.

> I realize that RAW provides the potential for the highest quality,
> but would it help that much with panoramas? Maybe it's due to not
> taking pictures where the air is the best, but in scenic shots taken
> across lakes in western NJ, I've found that atmospheric haze
> severely limits resolution of objects photographed on the other side
> of the lakes. Same with shots in NYC of the Empire State Building's
> tower, but the city air wouldn't be assumed to be limpid even on the
> best of days. Do RAW files provide benefits to panoramas in areas
> other than resolution?

It's just that I shoot everything in RAW. And by the way, with RAW you
don't have to lock the white balance before shooting the panorama
sequence and you get smaller deviations between the images, because no
image processing takes place in the camera.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
!