Fuji 9500 "CF" card

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jem, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. jem

    jem Guest

    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, Dec 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jem

    c Guest

    "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
    c, Dec 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jem

    Sel Guest

    Sel, Dec 2, 2005
    #3
  4. 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)
    Fred Williams, Dec 2, 2005
    #4
  5. jem

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Dec 2, 2005
    #5
  6. jem

    Sel Guest

    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 ........ :)
    Sel, Dec 2, 2005
    #6
  7. jem

    RobG Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > 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
    RobG, Dec 2, 2005
    #7
  8. On $DATE , RobG wrote:

    > ASAAR <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    >
    >> 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)
    Fred Williams, Dec 3, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?VG9hZGll?=

    Nokia 9500 to Vaio via 802.11b

    =?Utf-8?B?VG9hZGll?=, Feb 19, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    =?Utf-8?B?VG9hZGll?=
    Feb 19, 2005
  2. Marco-L
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    512
    Marco-L
    Apr 21, 2005
  3. Pana FZ30 vs. Fuji 9500 :comparation

    , Oct 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    502
    David J Taylor
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. Bob Hewitt

    Fuji 9500 raw

    Bob Hewitt, Oct 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    318
    autodelete
    Oct 12, 2005
  5. Bob Hewitt

    Vivitar Zoom Thyristor 265 and Fuji 9000/9500

    Bob Hewitt, Mar 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    Bob Hewitt
    Mar 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page