problem with xD picture card

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Adam Helberg, Aug 27, 2006.

  1. Adam Helberg

    Adam Helberg Guest

    I bought a 1 Gig Type H Olympus card to use in my Fuji F30 camera.

    Put the card into the camera and formatted in the camera. I took four pictures and
    saved them from the camera to my PC with the FinePix software. Then the problems
    started.

    I took the card out of the camera and put it into my PC's xD card reader. All but one
    of the photos I took was usable the others were not readable. Worse, when I put the
    card back into my camera all but one of the photo files on the card were corrupt and
    not viewable. I reformatted the card again in the camera. Do you have any
    explanation for this?

    Adam
    Adam Helberg, Aug 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adam Helberg

    Guest

    Hi Adam -

    > I bought a 1 Gig Type H Olympus card to use in my Fuji F30 camera.


    I did the same.

    > Put the card into the camera and formatted in the camera. I took four pictures and
    > saved them from the camera to my PC with the FinePix software. Then the problems
    > started.
    >
    > I took the card out of the camera and put it into my PC's xD card reader. All but one
    > of the photos I took was usable the others were not readable. Worse, when I put the
    > card back into my camera all but one of the photo files on the card were corrupt and
    > not viewable. I reformatted the card again in the camera. Do you have any
    > explanation for this?


    My xD card is unreadable by either Linux or Windows XP
    using a 24-in-1 card reader. Linux reports invalid format.
    The F30 manual is very coy about xD compatibility,
    only claiming compatibility with Fuji type M
    and disavowing any card reader compatibility.
    , Sep 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam Helberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On 16 Sep 2006 06:54:23 -0700, wrote:

    >> I took the card out of the camera and put it into my PC's xD card reader. All but one
    >> of the photos I took was usable the others were not readable. Worse, when I put the
    >> card back into my camera all but one of the photo files on the card were corrupt and
    >> not viewable. I reformatted the card again in the camera. Do you have any
    >> explanation for this?

    >
    > My xD card is unreadable by either Linux or Windows XP
    > using a 24-in-1 card reader. Linux reports invalid format.
    > The F30 manual is very coy about xD compatibility,
    > only claiming compatibility with Fuji type M
    > and disavowing any card reader compatibility.


    This is only an assumption, but I'd guess that the F30 is
    compatible with *all* xD cards. I have an older camera, Fuji's
    S5100, bought nearly 2 years ago. At that time 1GB cards didn't
    exist, nor were there any type H cards, and the manual only
    mentioned sizes up to 512MB. It works with every xD card type I've
    tried, be they unnamed, type M or type H. The one problem I've had
    reading the card (using Win XP) was when I tried using a 6-in-1
    Sandisk adapter, and then all cards worked with the exception of the
    type H card, which was visible to the computer, but as a much
    smaller card and the directory was totally garbled. I tried
    formatting the card when it was in the Sandisk adapter and it
    failed. When the computer's slower, built-in card reader is used,
    all cards work without any problems. The card currently has more
    than 600MB of non-photo data files on it (used for transferring
    between computers) and has been used to take pictures with the Fuji
    as well as an Olympus camera. The Fuji is able to show pictures
    taken by both cameras on its display. I can't say what the OP's
    problem really is, but I suspect that your problem may be due to an
    incompatible card reader, and the OP may share that problem. The
    packaging of the Sandisk adapter also mentioned type M
    compatibility, but said nothing about type H cards.
    ASAAR, Sep 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Adam Helberg

    Dave Cohen Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On 16 Sep 2006 06:54:23 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>> I took the card out of the camera and put it into my PC's xD card reader. All but one
    >>> of the photos I took was usable the others were not readable. Worse, when I put the
    >>> card back into my camera all but one of the photo files on the card were corrupt and
    >>> not viewable. I reformatted the card again in the camera. Do you have any
    >>> explanation for this?

    >> My xD card is unreadable by either Linux or Windows XP
    >> using a 24-in-1 card reader. Linux reports invalid format.
    >> The F30 manual is very coy about xD compatibility,
    >> only claiming compatibility with Fuji type M
    >> and disavowing any card reader compatibility.

    >
    > This is only an assumption, but I'd guess that the F30 is
    > compatible with *all* xD cards. I have an older camera, Fuji's
    > S5100, bought nearly 2 years ago. At that time 1GB cards didn't
    > exist, nor were there any type H cards, and the manual only
    > mentioned sizes up to 512MB. It works with every xD card type I've
    > tried, be they unnamed, type M or type H. The one problem I've had
    > reading the card (using Win XP) was when I tried using a 6-in-1
    > Sandisk adapter, and then all cards worked with the exception of the
    > type H card, which was visible to the computer, but as a much
    > smaller card and the directory was totally garbled. I tried
    > formatting the card when it was in the Sandisk adapter and it
    > failed. When the computer's slower, built-in card reader is used,
    > all cards work without any problems. The card currently has more
    > than 600MB of non-photo data files on it (used for transferring
    > between computers) and has been used to take pictures with the Fuji
    > as well as an Olympus camera. The Fuji is able to show pictures
    > taken by both cameras on its display. I can't say what the OP's
    > problem really is, but I suspect that your problem may be due to an
    > incompatible card reader, and the OP may share that problem. The
    > packaging of the Sandisk adapter also mentioned type M
    > compatibility, but said nothing about type H cards.
    >

    I can't help out with problem at hand, but the inference that built in
    card readers are slower than external ones bother me. Who the hell wants
    slow built in readers, particularly when it's unlikely any given
    individual will ever use more than one or two of them. What is going on
    in the minds of the manufacturer, don't they realize this sort of thing
    could damage the reputation of an otherwise decent machine.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Sep 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Adam Helberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:50:03 GMT, Dave Cohen wrote:

    >> When the computer's slower, built-in card reader is used,
    >> all cards work without any problems.

    >
    > I can't help out with problem at hand, but the inference that built in
    > card readers are slower than external ones bother me. Who the hell wants
    > slow built in readers, particularly when it's unlikely any given
    > individual will ever use more than one or two of them. What is going on
    > in the minds of the manufacturer, don't they realize this sort of thing
    > could damage the reputation of an otherwise decent machine.


    You may have missed a thread or two where this was recently
    discussed. You're right, manufacturer's shouldn't use substandard
    hardware in new machines, but it happens. In this case it was a new
    HP computer purchased just two months ago, and according to HP's
    rep's, their current top of the line home PC. I'd be suspicious of
    similar Compaq computers as well. But that's not all. I don't have
    a broadband internet connection, and was disappointed that dialup
    modem performance was so much poorer with this powerful computer
    than with my last one. One would reasonably be able to assume that
    an Athlon64 X2 4200+ CPU running WinXP with 2GB of memory should be
    able to do at least as well as a 200mhz PentiumPro running Win95
    with only 96MB of memory, but no. Not only was its throughput much
    slower (about 40% slower on average), but it was much less reliable,
    with occasional errors and disconnects, with all of the ISPs that I
    use. I attributed it to a cheap WinModem that was installed in one
    of the PCI slots so I replaced it several days ago with a better but
    also inexpensive Zoom modem that uses a DSP chip, and so doesn't
    have to rely on poorly written Windows software to manage a
    WinModem's data transfer. I should have done that 2 months ago.
    Fortunately, the rest of the computer is well built, uses good
    components, and runs reliably. HP's petty corner cutting to save a
    few dollars by using the cheap stuff (modem, card reader) may, and
    should tarnish their reputation, which hasn't been doing all too
    well lately. But I can't really say that they're the only company
    that engages in this practice. At least the fixes, once one is
    aware of the problems, are simple and inexpensive.
    ASAAR, Sep 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Adam Helberg

    John Turco Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    >I don't have
    > a broadband internet connection, and was disappointed that dialup
    > modem performance was so much poorer with this powerful computer
    > than with my last one. One would reasonably be able to assume that
    > an Athlon64 X2 4200+ CPU running WinXP with 2GB of memory should be
    > able to do at least as well as a 200mhz PentiumPro running Win95
    > with only 96MB of memory, but no. Not only was its throughput much
    > slower (about 40% slower on average), but it was much less reliable,
    > with occasional errors and disconnects, with all of the ISPs that I
    > use. I attributed it to a cheap WinModem that was installed in one
    > of the PCI slots so I replaced it several days ago with a better but
    > also inexpensive Zoom modem that uses a DSP chip, and so doesn't
    > have to rely on poorly written Windows software to manage a
    > WinModem's data transfer. I should have done that 2 months ago.



    Hello, ASAAR:

    You need a US Robotics (or USR "clone") hardware-based modem, if you
    want reliable connections and high throughput. That's all I use, in my
    own computers, and they range from an ancient Pionex 486DX2/66MHz/32MB
    RAM (my first PC, in 1995) to a home-built, Pentium III 1050MHz/1GB box.

    Mine are ISA cards, too. Grab a cheap, secondhand PCI unit, off eBay,
    and enjoy the ultimate in dial-up performance.

    Keep the Zoom around, as a paperweight. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Sep 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Adam Helberg

    ASAAR Guest

    On 18 Sep 2006 04:35:37 EDT, John Turco wrote:

    > Hello, ASAAR:
    >
    > You need a US Robotics (or USR "clone") hardware-based modem, if you
    > want reliable connections and high throughput. That's all I use, in my
    > own computers, and they range from an ancient Pionex 486DX2/66MHz/32MB
    > RAM (my first PC, in 1995) to a home-built, Pentium III 1050MHz/1GB box.
    >
    > Mine are ISA cards, too. Grab a cheap, secondhand PCI unit, off eBay,
    > and enjoy the ultimate in dial-up performance.
    >
    > Keep the Zoom around, as a paperweight. <g>


    Thanks. I actually asked for a USR modem, but as Staples was the
    second store I was in that didn't have them, I chose the Zoom modem
    after seeing that it, too, used a DSP. I've used many USR modems,
    going back to the introduction of their first 2400b external version
    which cost me as much as some complete computers sell for today,
    somewhere between $400 and $500. But it was less than half the
    price of a similar Hayes modem from that era. :) I've also had
    previous experience with an older ISA bus Zoom modem (Model 2929)
    which worked perfectly, as does this new one. Only once has it
    failed to connect at high speed (33kb vs. the usual 50+kb), and that
    occurred during a heavy rain storm, during which time 33kb was the
    highest connect rate it could manage when trying several ISPs. But
    even at 33kb its throughput was greater than the HP supplied Agere
    soft-modem managed when it was connected at 50kb. Also, unlike the
    Agere modem, I've used it with 4 and 5 programs simultaneously
    connected and transferring data, and have yet to experience any data
    errors. The Agere modem routinely had problems with one ISP if more
    than one program was connected to it.
    ASAAR, Sep 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Adam Helberg

    John Turco Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    >
    > On 18 Sep 2006 04:35:37 EDT, John Turco wrote:
    >
    > > Hello, ASAAR:
    > >
    > > You need a US Robotics (or USR "clone") hardware-based modem, if you
    > > want reliable connections and high throughput. That's all I use, in my
    > > own computers, and they range from an ancient Pionex 486DX2/66MHz/32MB
    > > RAM (my first PC, in 1995) to a home-built, Pentium III 1050MHz/1GB box.
    > >
    > > Mine are ISA cards, too. Grab a cheap, secondhand PCI unit, off eBay,
    > > and enjoy the ultimate in dial-up performance.
    > >
    > > Keep the Zoom around, as a paperweight. <g>

    >
    > Thanks. I actually asked for a USR modem, but as Staples was the
    > second store I was in that didn't have them, I chose the Zoom modem
    > after seeing that it, too, used a DSP. I've used many USR modems,
    > going back to the introduction of their first 2400b external version
    > which cost me as much as some complete computers sell for today,
    > somewhere between $400 and $500. But it was less than half the
    > price of a similar Hayes modem from that era. :) I've also had
    > previous experience with an older ISA bus Zoom modem (Model 2929)
    > which worked perfectly, as does this new one. Only once has it
    > failed to connect at high speed (33kb vs. the usual 50+kb), and that
    > occurred during a heavy rain storm, during which time 33kb was the
    > highest connect rate it could manage when trying several ISPs. But
    > even at 33kb its throughput was greater than the HP supplied Agere
    > soft-modem managed when it was connected at 50kb. Also, unlike the
    > Agere modem, I've used it with 4 and 5 programs simultaneously
    > connected and transferring data, and have yet to experience any data
    > errors. The Agere modem routinely had problems with one ISP if more
    > than one program was connected to it.



    Hello, ASAAR:

    Modems with Texas Instruments chipsets (e.g., USR) are superior, from
    what I've read and experienced. Among other things, they're more robust
    and harder to knock off-line, than competing models.

    Rockwell may be the earth's main supplier of modem chipsets, but,
    biggest isn't always the best. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Sep 19, 2006
    #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. Fanta
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,587
    Fanta
    Aug 31, 2003
  2. Need opinions - good picture - bad picture

    , Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    848
    yonzie
    Mar 17, 2005
  3. Ace
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    511
    Randy Berbaum
    Sep 17, 2005
  4. Harlen Ng
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    734
    GregS
    Nov 11, 2005
  5. Daniel Rocha

    (June, 19th) Picture of the Picture

    Daniel Rocha, Jun 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    390
    George Kerby
    Jun 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page