xD-Picture Card 512MB Vs. CompactFlash tipo I 512 MB

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nusat, Jul 1, 2004.

  1. Nusat

    Nusat Guest

    Hi there,

    I am planning to buy a compact camera and I am debating between the Fuji
    F450 and the Canon IXUS 500 (comments about them will be highly
    appreciated).

    The main concern I actually have is about its storage media, I know Compact
    Flash is cheapo but has the XD cards some advantages above the CFs?

    Which kind will remain usable with the new cameras coming in next years?

    Regarding the batteries, are the kind Fuji and Canon use standard, not
    proprietary? How much they cost?

    The warranty coberture is similar between them?

    Is there some kind of malfunction know?

    Best wishes!
    Nusat, Jul 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I have an olympus that takes XD cards. AS it only takes XD cards, I don't
    know how the performance compares to SD or CF. The size is certainly nice,
    although it isn't like other formats are large, either. The downside is the
    price. I have bought a couple 256 MB cards at costco for between 75 and 82
    bucks (they have gone up a bit in the last few months). for the 256s, this
    seems to be the best price going.

    There are a few cameras that take XD and other types of media. I'd be
    interested to see a comparison of multiple media in the same camera if
    anyone has done it.

    "Nusat" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I am planning to buy a compact camera and I am debating between the Fuji
    > F450 and the Canon IXUS 500 (comments about them will be highly
    > appreciated).
    >
    > The main concern I actually have is about its storage media, I know

    Compact
    > Flash is cheapo but has the XD cards some advantages above the CFs?
    >
    > Which kind will remain usable with the new cameras coming in next years?
    >
    > Regarding the batteries, are the kind Fuji and Canon use standard, not
    > proprietary? How much they cost?
    >
    > The warranty coberture is similar between them?
    >
    > Is there some kind of malfunction know?
    >
    > Best wishes!
    >
    >
    Justin W. Holmes, Jul 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nusat

    Paul Guest

    !Re: xD-Picture Card 512MB Vs. CompactFlash tipo I 512 MB

    I have an S7000 that uses both XD and CF. I find that the XD is much faster
    and more easier to store because of it's compact size - and also much easier
    to misplace! I think the only concern would be the exposed contact part of
    the XD. I also have an Olympus C300 that uses SMC format. Well, already 3 of
    my SMC are dead because, which I believe, is the exposed contact parts.
    Being exposed, it is so easily scratched and damaged.

    Though my FujiFilm S700 uses both XD and CF, I prefer using the CF as I feel
    it is more reliable and with newer cards, they are faster too. Price wise -
    much, much cheaper! As for usability in the near future, I think CF is the
    way to go. The other format that you might want to consider is SD card.
    Personally, I feel this will be another standard that will last as long as
    the CF card. And there are no exposed contact parts too.

    As for batteries, AA is the way to go for me. They are cheap and easily
    available. I think more and more new camera will not allow the obtion to use
    AA batteries as they are losing money by not been able to sell proprietary
    battery!

    Just my 2 cents thoughts!

    "Nusat" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I am planning to buy a compact camera and I am debating between the Fuji
    > F450 and the Canon IXUS 500 (comments about them will be highly
    > appreciated).
    >
    > The main concern I actually have is about its storage media, I know

    Compact
    > Flash is cheapo but has the XD cards some advantages above the CFs?
    >
    > Which kind will remain usable with the new cameras coming in next years?
    >
    > Regarding the batteries, are the kind Fuji and Canon use standard, not
    > proprietary? How much they cost?
    >
    > The warranty coberture is similar between them?
    >
    > Is there some kind of malfunction know?
    >
    > Best wishes!
    >
    >
    Paul, Jul 2, 2004
    #3
  4. "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:VECFc.425$...
    []
    >
    > Cons: [CF cards] have a higher failure rate particularly when part used


    Any pointers supporting your statement?
    David J Taylor, Jul 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    Pros: CF cards are cheaper, can be used in more appliances

    Cons: have a higher failure rate particularly when part used

    Deciding factor: how important is your data?

    Penny pinch = CF
    Critical data = XD

    As well as the upfront cost there is the longer term cost (TCO) I don't know
    on this one as I have not had my xD card long enough

    das B

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:40e4b611$...
    > I have an S7000 that uses both XD and CF. I find that the XD is much

    faster
    > and more easier to store because of it's compact size - and also much

    easier
    > to misplace! I think the only concern would be the exposed contact part of
    > the XD. I also have an Olympus C300 that uses SMC format. Well, already 3

    of
    > my SMC are dead because, which I believe, is the exposed contact parts.
    > Being exposed, it is so easily scratched and damaged.
    >
    > Though my FujiFilm S700 uses both XD and CF, I prefer using the CF as I

    feel
    > it is more reliable and with newer cards, they are faster too. Price

    wise -
    > much, much cheaper! As for usability in the near future, I think CF is the
    > way to go. The other format that you might want to consider is SD card.
    > Personally, I feel this will be another standard that will last as long as
    > the CF card. And there are no exposed contact parts too.
    >
    > As for batteries, AA is the way to go for me. They are cheap and easily
    > available. I think more and more new camera will not allow the obtion to

    use
    > AA batteries as they are losing money by not been able to sell proprietary
    > battery!
    >
    > Just my 2 cents thoughts!
    >
    > "Nusat" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi there,
    > >
    > > I am planning to buy a compact camera and I am debating between the

    Fuji
    > > F450 and the Canon IXUS 500 (comments about them will be highly
    > > appreciated).
    > >
    > > The main concern I actually have is about its storage media, I know

    > Compact
    > > Flash is cheapo but has the XD cards some advantages above the CFs?
    > >
    > > Which kind will remain usable with the new cameras coming in next years?
    > >
    > > Regarding the batteries, are the kind Fuji and Canon use standard, not
    > > proprietary? How much they cost?
    > >
    > > The warranty coberture is similar between them?
    > >
    > > Is there some kind of malfunction know?
    > >
    > > Best wishes!
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 3, 2004
    #5
  6. "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:gXDFc.451$...
    []
    > Apparently the danger is greater or was greater with larger capacity

    cards
    > For example, a 1 gig card may allow half a gig of data before it flops.

    If
    > it was a 256 meg card - well you see what the potential is.
    >
    > For me I interpret this as: it is better to use quite a few smaller

    cards
    > than one great big huge card. All memory cards will fail eventually (or

    so
    > I understand) but it helps to minimise the disruption and loss by having
    > lots of - well you know what I mean. If you dropped one bax of eggs

    would
    > you rather drop a box with 256 or a box with 1024?
    >
    > I hope this helps
    >
    > das B
    > ps - no, I cannot remember the site - his empirical observations

    included
    > repeatedly filling cards with data to capacity until errors were

    observed
    > (another consideration)


    All sounds a bit wooly to me! I can see the argument about number of
    pictures per card, but it works both ways. More cards, more likelihood
    that one card from your set will fail. It really needs someone who
    understands the statistics to advise.

    Yes, I can imagine different sourcing having different failure rates.

    I note that the site is around, but until I see more evidence I don't
    accept that CF and XD cards have any different reliability.

    Thanks,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    Yeah - I discovered a site several months ago

    Someone had performed a full-ish analysis of memory cards including how to
    decipher or interpret the code numbers printed on the card

    It was a long time ago-ish and the recommendation at the time was to run
    with cards made in Japan as opposed to those made elsewhere (higher prone to
    failure rate part way through use.

    This, I understand, is the worse thing. A card that fails from start is a
    good failure A card that fails part way through use eg after you have
    half-filled it, is not a good failure as the data may never be fully
    recovered.

    The analysis I read suggested that some brands source from a variety of
    origins. Thus - out of 2 cards of the same brand one may be sourced in
    Japan (good and usually reliable) and one may be sourced elsewhere (higher
    risk of failure)

    Apparently the danger is greater or was greater with larger capacity cards
    For example, a 1 gig card may allow half a gig of data before it flops. If
    it was a 256 meg card - well you see what the potential is.

    For me I interpret this as: it is better to use quite a few smaller cards
    than one great big huge card. All memory cards will fail eventually (or so
    I understand) but it helps to minimise the disruption and loss by having
    lots of - well you know what I mean. If you dropped one bax of eggs would
    you rather drop a box with 256 or a box with 1024?

    I hope this helps

    das B
    ps - no, I cannot remember the site - his empirical observations included
    repeatedly filling cards with data to capacity until errors were observed
    (another consideration)

    dB


    David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:92CFc.2983$...
    > "bagal" <> wrote in message
    > news:VECFc.425$...
    > []
    > >
    > > Cons: [CF cards] have a higher failure rate particularly when part used

    >
    > Any pointers supporting your statement?
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Nusat

    Tumbleweed Guest


    > "David J Taylor"

    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > wrote in message news:bjDFc.3062$...

    <snip>
    > >
    > > Yes, I can imagine different sourcing having different failure rates.
    > >
    > > I note that the site is around, but until I see more evidence I don't
    > > accept that CF and XD cards have any different reliability.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > David
    > >
    > >

    >



    "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:zDFFc.653$...
    > erm - I think CF card failure is common knowledge in PDA's
    >
    >
    > das B


    That wasnt the issue, the issue is what are the failure rates between the
    different types. And thats probably data that is impossible to collect.

    --
    Tumbleweed

    Remove my socks for email address
    Tumbleweed, Jul 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    erm - I think CF card failure is common knowledge in PDA's


    das B

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:bjDFc.3062$...
    > "bagal" <> wrote in message
    > news:gXDFc.451$...
    > []
    > > Apparently the danger is greater or was greater with larger capacity

    > cards
    > > For example, a 1 gig card may allow half a gig of data before it flops.

    > If
    > > it was a 256 meg card - well you see what the potential is.
    > >
    > > For me I interpret this as: it is better to use quite a few smaller

    > cards
    > > than one great big huge card. All memory cards will fail eventually (or

    > so
    > > I understand) but it helps to minimise the disruption and loss by having
    > > lots of - well you know what I mean. If you dropped one bax of eggs

    > would
    > > you rather drop a box with 256 or a box with 1024?
    > >
    > > I hope this helps
    > >
    > > das B
    > > ps - no, I cannot remember the site - his empirical observations

    > included
    > > repeatedly filling cards with data to capacity until errors were

    > observed
    > > (another consideration)

    >
    > All sounds a bit wooly to me! I can see the argument about number of
    > pictures per card, but it works both ways. More cards, more likelihood
    > that one card from your set will fail. It really needs someone who
    > understands the statistics to advise.
    >
    > Yes, I can imagine different sourcing having different failure rates.
    >
    > I note that the site is around, but until I see more evidence I don't
    > accept that CF and XD cards have any different reliability.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > David
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    i didn't ask the question :)

    a soul in need wants opinions on CF v xD

    I have an opinion
    I shared an opinion

    u got a problem with that?

    das B

    "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
    news:40e723f0$0$16454$...
    >
    > > "David J Taylor"

    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > > wrote in message news:bjDFc.3062$...

    > <snip>
    > > >
    > > > Yes, I can imagine different sourcing having different failure rates.
    > > >
    > > > I note that the site is around, but until I see more evidence I don't
    > > > accept that CF and XD cards have any different reliability.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > > David
    > > >
    > > >

    > >

    >
    >
    > "bagal" <> wrote in message
    > news:zDFFc.653$...
    > > erm - I think CF card failure is common knowledge in PDA's
    > >
    > >
    > > das B

    >
    > That wasnt the issue, the issue is what are the failure rates between the
    > different types. And thats probably data that is impossible to collect.
    >
    > --
    > Tumbleweed
    >
    > Remove my socks for email address
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    PDA's probably do more read writes than a camera
    PDA's are probably get extensive use (eg my PDA gets more daily or weekly
    use than my digital cameras :)
    programs can be stored & run from a PDA memory card


    It really is a question for pro's or for people using cameras on a daily
    basis

    Given the popular choice at pro level seems to be CF I am surprised no other
    poster has expressed a view

    FWIW someone somewhere must be doing a MTF (mean time to failure) stats
    analysis

    but it is a question of is the data being made available to the public

    besides I can't really imagine another memory card being made if the present
    ones are all hunky dory but Sony did - there is an implication ;-)

    das B

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:bjDFc.3062$...
    > "bagal" <> wrote in message
    > news:gXDFc.451$...
    > []
    > > Apparently the danger is greater or was greater with larger capacity

    > cards
    > > For example, a 1 gig card may allow half a gig of data before it flops.

    > If
    > > it was a 256 meg card - well you see what the potential is.
    > >
    > > For me I interpret this as: it is better to use quite a few smaller

    > cards
    > > than one great big huge card. All memory cards will fail eventually (or

    > so
    > > I understand) but it helps to minimise the disruption and loss by having
    > > lots of - well you know what I mean. If you dropped one bax of eggs

    > would
    > > you rather drop a box with 256 or a box with 1024?
    > >
    > > I hope this helps
    > >
    > > das B
    > > ps - no, I cannot remember the site - his empirical observations

    > included
    > > repeatedly filling cards with data to capacity until errors were

    > observed
    > > (another consideration)

    >
    > All sounds a bit wooly to me! I can see the argument about number of
    > pictures per card, but it works both ways. More cards, more likelihood
    > that one card from your set will fail. It really needs someone who
    > understands the statistics to advise.
    >
    > Yes, I can imagine different sourcing having different failure rates.
    >
    > I note that the site is around, but until I see more evidence I don't
    > accept that CF and XD cards have any different reliability.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > David
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 4, 2004
    #11
  12. "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:v1JFc.1387$...
    []
    > besides I can't really imagine another memory card being made if the

    present
    > ones are all hunky dory but Sony did - there is an implication ;-)
    >
    > das B


    Simply to tie people into another proprietary standard!

    I suspect that some people may view CF as a little big for some cameras,
    hence the need for a smaller card. You are correct in that computer usage
    will involve a differenr read/write pattern to camera usage. I think it
    is the number of write cycles that is limited, not the number of read
    cycles, but I might be wrong on that.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 4, 2004
    #12
  13. "bagal" <> wrote in message
    news:AIYFc.144$...
    > discovered this
    >
    > may help?
    >
    > http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/


    Thanks for that. It took a few attempts to get it to load.

    It seems that the site is concentrating on video use, rather than still
    camera usage which may make a difference. There may be many more writes
    to the card. To compare reliability rates between CF and XD, I think you
    would need to compare the number of failing cards with the actual numbers
    of the cards out in the field. I don't see either set of figures there.
    As there are far more CF cards out there than XD, I would expect there to
    be far more reports of CF failures.

    One other thing I would take issue with is his recommendation to format
    with Windows 2000/XP. My recommendation is always format in the camera,
    because there is no confusion about which file system to use (FAT, FAT32
    or NTFS) and there is no chance that some Norton-like incomplete format
    will be made.

    An interesting page, none the less.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Nusat

    bagal Guest

    discovered this

    may help?

    http://www.propassion.nl/finepix/


    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:O3PFc.3431$...
    > "bagal" <> wrote in message
    > news:v1JFc.1387$...
    > []
    > > besides I can't really imagine another memory card being made if the

    > present
    > > ones are all hunky dory but Sony did - there is an implication ;-)
    > >
    > > das B

    >
    > Simply to tie people into another proprietary standard!
    >
    > I suspect that some people may view CF as a little big for some cameras,
    > hence the need for a smaller card. You are correct in that computer usage
    > will involve a differenr read/write pattern to camera usage. I think it
    > is the number of write cycles that is limited, not the number of read
    > cycles, but I might be wrong on that.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >
    bagal, Jul 4, 2004
    #14
    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. Simon McMenzie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    Simon McMenzie
    Dec 8, 2003
  2. Gregory Coats

    Will SanDisk 512 CompactFlash work in 5700

    Gregory Coats, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    381
    Hansepie
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. Kralizec Craig
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,259
    Kralizec Craig
    May 17, 2006
  4. photoshare

    Viking 512MB CompactFlash Deal

    photoshare, May 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    241
    Tom Scales
    May 7, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    604
Loading...

Share This Page