«

Just got a new camera and it was my understanding it used the compact flash
cards. I assumed that is what they meant by the identification as "cf"
card. I that not correct ?

jem

"jem" <> wrote in message
news:aMOjf.9619$...
> Just got a new camera and it was my understanding it used the compact
flash
> cards. I assumed that is what they meant by the identification as "cf"
> card. I that not correct ?
>
> jem
>
>

You are correct. Your camera can use Compact Flash, Compact Flash II, and
MicroDrive cards in the CF slot. It also uses the xD Picture Cards.

Chris

jem wrote:
> Just got a new camera and it was my understanding it used the compact flash
> cards. I assumed that is what they meant by the identification as "cf"
> card. I that not correct ?

Hi Jem

Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster. Most
noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of choice.

--
Sel ........

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Eselorme/photos.html

http://sel.enternet.co.nz/weathersat.html

On $DATE , Sel wrote:

> jem wrote:
>> Just got a new camera and it was my understanding it used the
>> compact flash
>> cards. I assumed that is what they meant by the identification
>> as "cf"
>> card. I that not correct ?
>
> Hi Jem
>
> Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster. Most
> noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of choice.
>

I have one, (called the S9000 on this side of the Atlantic), and I
got tow 512 MB CF cards labelled 80X which I was told is faster
than the xD cards. Was that wrong?

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:13:37 GMT, Fred Williams wrote:

>> Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster. Most
>> noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of choice.
>
> I have one, (called the S9000 on this side of the Atlantic), and I
> got tow 512 MB CF cards labelled 80X which I was told is faster
> than the xD cards. Was that wrong?

An 80x card should be faster than xD cards. (My 1GB xD card is
probably comparable in speed to a 35x CF card). But I have heard,
whether true or not, that in some camera, possibly the S9000/9500,
that if the fastest cards of both types are available the maximum
operating speed is attained with xD cards. When comparing the
review speeds of two cards, the file sizes on each (determined by
resolution & compression) should be the same to get meaningful
results. The number of files shouldn't be too different either, as
the review speed of a card with thousands of images may be slower
than another card having only hundreds of image files on it.

Fred Williams wrote:

> On $DATE , Sel wrote:
>
>
>>jem wrote:
>>
>>>Just got a new camera and it was my understanding it used the
>>>compact flash
>>>cards. I assumed that is what they meant by the identification
>>>as "cf"
>>>card. I that not correct ?
>>
>>Hi Jem
>>
>>Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster. Most
>>noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of choice.
>>
>
>
> I have one, (called the S9000 on this side of the Atlantic), and I
> got tow 512 MB CF cards labelled 80X which I was told is faster
> than the xD cards. Was that wrong?
>
Yes. Check this link.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms9000/page5.asp

I have a 1gb cf and a 512 xd in the camera. There is a marked difference
in speed. Exactly the same as my s7000 was. Don't notice so muich when
taking pics, but do when reviewing.

--
Sel ........

ASAAR <> wrote in
news:

> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:13:37 GMT, Fred Williams wrote:
>
>>> Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster. Most
>>> noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of choice.
>>
>> I have one, (called the S9000 on this side of the Atlantic),
>> and I
>> got tow 512 MB CF cards labelled 80X which I was told is faster
>> than the xD cards. Was that wrong?
>
> An 80x card should be faster than xD cards. (My 1GB xD card is
> probably comparable in speed to a 35x CF card). But I have heard,
> whether true or not, that in some camera, possibly the S9000/9500,
> that if the fastest cards of both types are available the maximum
> operating speed is attained with xD cards. When comparing the
> review speeds of two cards, the file sizes on each (determined by
> resolution & compression) should be the same to get meaningful
> results. The number of files shouldn't be too different either, as
> the review speed of a card with thousands of images may be slower
> than another card having only hundreds of image files on it.
>

I've put a Sandisk UltraII CF card in my S9500 - the write speed is no
faster than the (standard speed) Olympus xD, despite the claimed write
speed improvement. This, I would say, is due to camera limitations. Bit of
a shame really, as I wanted to shoot RAW quickly, but never mind. It works,
and it'll stand me in good stread when I splurge bigtime and buy a dSLR...
maybe (c: The read speed is significantly quicker though.

RobG

On $DATE , RobG wrote:

> ASAAR <> wrote in
> news:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:13:37 GMT, Fred Williams wrote:
>>
>>>> Yep thats correct. It also uses XD cards which are faster.
>>>> Most noticable when reviewing in camera. The XD is my card of
>>>> choice.
>>>
>>> I have one, (called the S9000 on this side of the
>>> Atlantic), and I
>>> got tow 512 MB CF cards labelled 80X which I was told is faster
>>> than the xD cards. Was that wrong?
>>
>> An 80x card should be faster than xD cards. (My 1GB xD card
>> is
>> probably comparable in speed to a 35x CF card). But I have
>> heard, whether true or not, that in some camera, possibly the
>> S9000/9500, that if the fastest cards of both types are
>> available the maximum
>> operating speed is attained with xD cards. When comparing the
>> review speeds of two cards, the file sizes on each (determined
>> by resolution & compression) should be the same to get
>> meaningful
>> results. The number of files shouldn't be too different either,
>> as the review speed of a card with thousands of images may be
>> slower than another card having only hundreds of image files on
>> it.
>>
>
> I've put a Sandisk UltraII CF card in my S9500 - the write speed
> is no faster than the (standard speed) Olympus xD, despite the
> claimed write speed improvement. This, I would say, is due to
> camera limitations. Bit of a shame really, as I wanted to shoot
> RAW quickly, but never mind. It works, and it'll stand me in good
> stread when I splurge bigtime and buy a dSLR... maybe (c: The
> read speed is significantly quicker though.
>
> RobG

Thanks people. I may have been victimized by a case of the
proprietor telling me that the stuff he has in stock is better
than the stuff he'd have to order. No matter. I'm not going to
get an impressive burst mode rate out of the S9000/S9500 anyway.
Whether I wait 2.5 second or 4.5 seconds for a shot to be saved is
usually not a matter of great concern.
Here in southern Quebec, tonight there has been a snow storm that
looks peaceful enough, but it has made the roads very hazardous.
I was caught out in the storm and took the opportunity to shoot a
traffic accident and the police and emergency vehicles. Steadying
the camera was an issue. I didn't have my tripod. The speed of
the storage wasn't. ... Apparently the place where I chose to
park was, for the police. I moved when asked to and there was no
problem. I just failed to put that crisp focus on the shots I
got, although if the full frame is printed even 8 x 10, it's
probably not noticible. Only if cropped and blown up is it a
problem. Quite a storm though... cars off the road everywhere.

--
Regards,
Fred.
(Please remove FFFf from my email address to reply, if by email)