Canon moves to SD from CF for Canon S2 IS

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. Steven M. Scharf wrote:
    []
    Simply from people's comments in this newsgroup. While it's an atypical
    sample, it's a suprising percentage of those who express a view who are
    against proprietary batteries.
    I hadn't seen the R-CRV3 before - thanks for pointing it out.

    It is the fully assembled pack that I would like to see standardised, for
    the benefits of all - around 7V at 1000mAh might be useful.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 24, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    If there has to be a slight increase in camera prices it could
    easily be done without requiring an increase! By that I mean that
    the initial price is already grossly inflated, and future initial
    prices wouldn't have to be determined any differently. Compared to
    most other products, camera prices plummet far more than most other
    things. It's not unusual for them to be sold new for 30% to 40% of
    what they initially sold for just a year or two earlier. Whether
    it's radios, TVs, VCRs or cars, when their prices drop just prior to
    the introduction of new models, it's not often that they decrease
    more than 1/2 the percentage that cameras do. If profits have to be
    maintained, it could easily be done if prices didn't drop so
    swiftly, but whether it will occur this way or not, we'll have to
    wait and see. I imagine the industry's instict would be to take the
    easy way out and simply raise initial prices as you suggest.

    I've never cared much for that design - too many cells, which is
    ok for primary batteries but deadly for rechargeables. Li-ion would
    have a tremendous advantage for higher voltage battery packs as
    they'd need only 1/2 the number of cells that would be required by
    NiCad or NiMH. You're right about the ridiculous contacts. They
    not only waste space, but often are easily damaged and can be
    difficult to connect and remove. On the low end, the rechargeable
    Li-ion battery used in the GameBoy XP seems like a good model. It's
    very small and even from the beginning has been modestly priced.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 24, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    You're right, but only in that they didn't have to switch. But
    there may have been a good reason or two for them to do so. If
    their long range plans don't include CF, they'd have to drop them at
    some point. Some S2 owners would be inconvenienced if they have a
    large supply of CF cards. But others would gain by the decision to
    switch to SD, as their SD cards would have a much greater future
    life, well beyond the S2. If it still used CF cards, the S2 might
    easily be the last camera those CF cards would be used in. A better
    solution might have been to do what a number of other cameras have
    done, which is to offer dual card slots. One for CF and a second
    for the other (SD, xD, MS, whatever). The necessary increase in
    size and cost could be kept small enough to be almost unnoticeable.
    It's not as if the S2 is designed to be able to fit into small shirt
    pockets. This dual card solution has already been used not only by
    Canon in some of its cameras, but by Fuji, Kodak, Konica, Olympus,
    Samsung, Sony and probably other manufacturers as well.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 24, 2005
    #43
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Rick Guest

    Sorry, it made no sense for Canon to move a camera from
    3MP to 5MP, and also change its memory format from one
    that currently supports up to 8GB per card to one that
    currently supports no more than 2GB -- and even the
    2GB's are difficult to find in stock. It's almost as ridiculous
    as Canon's insistence on putting an arbitrary and
    unnecessary 1GB file size limitation on film clips in the S2
    (and S1).

    As time goes on it appears Canon's bean counters are
    getting the best of the company.
     
    Rick, Jun 24, 2005
    #44
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    missingdata Guest

    one.... more.... time....

    You CAN insert a CF card sideways. It DOES want to go. The slot
    provides no resistance to doing so. The side of the card bottoms out
    on the pins. And when an inexperienced user tries to get it 'all the
    way in' [because he knew it was flush with the slot when he took it
    out] he bends the pins. I have seen the result.

    [everyone else 'scuse me if I shout, but it seems apparently necessary]


    BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH SD!
     
    missingdata, Jun 24, 2005
    #45
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    It does make sense, even if you fail to see why. I'm not very
    familiar with the S1. Do you know that it actually supports 4GB and
    8GB cards? Even if 2GB SD cards aren't common today, I'm sure that
    4GB SD cards will be plentiful within a year, and 8 GB SD cards will
    soon follow. With its modest 5MP sensor, most S2 owners wouldn't
    feel the pressure to get 4GB and 8GB cards that owners of cameras
    with 8, 12 and 16MB sensors currently have.

    While video isn't what I care much about in digital cameras, if I
    did, it would be the large number of cameras that limit clip lengths
    to just a few minutes that I might find annoyable. Anyone that
    truly has a need for unlimited length, multi-GB video files probably
    could find more valid reasons to avoid the S1 and S2 than their 1GB
    file size limit. I guess 8mm and Super-8 film cameras are too far
    before your time to mean much, but people found ways to cope. It
    was called "splicing". I'm sure that computers can do that too. :)

    You might be more concerned if you were an Olympus fan, with the
    upheaval that company is undergoing. Even Kodak is suffering,
    although to a lesser degree. Canon is probably quite pleased with
    the way things are going. It's *you* that either the bean counters
    or the designers are getting to. Make them pay for their abuse.
    Buy a Fuji, Sony, or Konica. Konica's cameras tend to do video
    fairly well, and the Fuji I bought late last year takes high
    resolution videos (with sound) at 30fps, limited only by card size.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #46
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Rick Guest

    Yes, it supports FAT and FAT32. As does the S2.
    How are you sure? SD is quite a bit smaller than CF,
    and it wouldn't surprise me if manufacturers are having
    major yield problems trying to get 4 or 8GB into that
    small a form factor.

    Or, another way to ask the questions is, SD has been
    out nearly as long as CF. So where are the 4 and 8GB
    cards?
    Not true. We have three 2GB SD cards for our S2,
    and between the movie clips, continuous shooting etc
    we manage to fill all of them up every time we go on
    even a weekend trip. It would be much more
    convenient to just have one card in the camera and
    not have to constantly ration.
    You sure have a knack for projection. The point isn't
    who does or doesn't need or want unlimited film clips.
    The question is why the limitation is there when it
    doesn't need to be, and when the industry as a whole
    is removing it?
    We can't stand two of those three manufacturers (esp.
    Fuji, who for some reason think purple casts in images
    are a good thing), and the only Sony we've ever liked
    was the F717 (images from which still require quite a
    bit of post processing, to fix the cruddy contrast and
    poor color response in certain lighting conditions).
    All in all Canon is ~2-3 years ahead of everyone else
    in terms of in-camera processing and raw image quality.
     
    Rick, Jun 25, 2005
    #47
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    SD has always trailed CF in capacity. What makes you think parity
    will ever be reached? If you can shoehorn 8GB into an SD card, you
    should expect CF cards to be able to hold 16GB or 32GB.

    I'm only sure due to seeing continuing trends. Just a few years
    ago people were leery of going beyond the "safe" 128MB CF cards,
    when 256MB was expensive, 512MB just over the horizon, and 4GB and
    8GB CF cards were virtually unimaginable. Manufacturers may be
    having yield problems, but they may also want to squeeze the maximum
    profits out of the older line of smaller 1GB and 2GB cards before
    introducing the larger sizes. I could also ask "How are you sure?"
    that yield problems are responsible for the SD card's timetable.
    The answer is that not being insiders, we can't really know. But if
    another 2 years go by without seeing 4GB SD cards I'll be quite
    surprised, as the introduction of larger sizes has been pretty
    steady for quite some time. Maybe the 4GB SD cards already exist,
    but they're being bought up and hoarded by a certain unnamed
    company, so that they can introduce their tiny new 40GB iPod (with
    no moving parts) in time for the next Christmas selling season. :)

    Are you just looking to argue or do you not understand the meaning
    of words such as "most"? I'll stand by what I said, that MOST S2
    owners don't have your needs or desires. It would be more
    convenient to be able keep a single card in the S2, but that's a
    problem that will solve itself when larger SD cards hit the streets.
    Removing the 1GB video file size limit would make things slightly
    more convenient for *you*, but I doubt that it would make a big
    difference to most S2 owners. The limit could probably be removed
    very easily by Canon with a firmware upgrade, but that wouldn't
    solve the major "convenience" problem you have with your three 2GB
    SD cards. They'd fill just as quickly with three 2GB video files as
    they would with six 1GB video files.

    It really is about who does or doesn't need or want unlimited film
    clips. If unlimited length film clips were as important to the
    majority of the public as they are to you, I'm sure that Canon would
    have designed the S2 differently. The answer to your question is
    that the limitation hasn't been removed as quickly as you desire
    because Canon thinks that it doesn't need to be. You and a thousand
    other disgruntled Canon owners could abandon them and switch to
    Samsung, and Canon's "bean counters" would hardly notice.

    Irrational biases do little to convince people that you should be
    taken seriously. I'm surprised that anyone using the royal "we" in
    their speech would object to the color purple. :)

    Canon makes some nice cameras (I own a few) but it only takes a
    little time over at dpreview.com to see that some of their products
    have more "purple" problems than some of Fuji's. If you check the
    reviews of 8MB P&S cameras at dpreview, Sony has the biggest problem
    with purple, even though most or all of the other cameras use Sony's
    8MB sensor. If you really want to see atrocious purple, check out
    some of HP's cameras. And if in-camera processing and raw image
    quality are that important to you, almost any DSLR would be
    preferred, even the older ones with sensors smaller than 6MP, and
    they probably don't cost very much these days, and have to
    additional advantages. They use CF cards and don't do video. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #48
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Would you also wish for non-standard sized tires on your car or bike?
    Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for common housing lumber?
    Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for electrical outlets?
    Would you also wish for non-standard sizes for photographic paper?

    On the other hand
    Would you really wish for standard sizes for pens and pencils?
    Would you really wish for standard sizes for pants and blouses?
    Would you really wish for standard sizes for kites and balloons?
    Would you really wish for standard sizes for chairs and couches?

    My point is that standards often work.
    And often they might stifle competition.

    They need to be intelligent.

    I, for one, vote for standard-size batteries.
    It is those who purchase cameras with non-standard batteries which are
    at fault (nobody else as you can't blame the corporation for attempting
    to maximize profits at your expense).

    In the end, they will sell MORE cameras if we had standard-sized
    batteries!
    Put it this way: Would they sell as many flashlights as they do if
    every one came with a differently sized battery?

    I think not.

    Let the manufacturer actually concentrate on making a BETTER
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #49
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Hi ASAAR,
    You've been reasonable so I'll tell it to you straight by using a
    well-known automotive analogy.

    Does General Motors make their own tire?
    No.
    They concentrate on making cars.

    Same thing with camera manufacturers.
    I doubt ANY make their own battery (I'd guess they just brand them).

    Let them concentrate on making cameras - not non-standard batteries.
    CCN

    BTW, ASAAR, I think your arguments are thoughtful and precise!
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #50
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Sometimes. Sometimes not.

    Especially when the variety benefits us not (which is the case here
    with flash cards and batteries).

    For example, if every car brand came with its own infant seat gear so
    that you could only buy a manufacturers' car seat, would be benefit
    from this variety or not?

    As another obvious example, similar to batteries, if every brand of
    stapler used a differently sized staple, would be really benefit from
    the immense variety?

    As yet another obvious example, similar to memory media, if every
    computer came with a different operating system and
    manufacturer-specific non-USB non-Firewire interface, would be really
    benefit from the variety.

    In all the cases above, and in the specific case of memory cards and
    camera batteries, the consumer benefits not from the variety.

    Standards are what made the world own computers.
    Standards are what electrified the world!
    Standards are why you can talk to your friend across town on a cell
    phone.

    Standard batteries and flash media would benefit us, the consumer, far
    more than it would be a disadvantage to evolution!

    My humble opinion,
    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #51
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    There was absolutely no reason why Canon had to switch
    I agree.
    And I did NOT buy an SI S2 for that reason alone!

    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #52
  13. Rick wrote:
    []
    Whilst as a generalisation this may be true, the comparison between the S2
    IS and other cameras at dpreview shows it not to be true for that
    particular model at least. Panasonic and others were months if not years
    ahead of Canon.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 25, 2005
    #53
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Rick Guest

    I'm not talking about purple fringing, I'm talking about an
    overall purple cast in the color response (most visable with
    whites and near whites) from the Fuji cameras we've worked
    with. It's to the point where, when we're browsing images
    online at Pbase and elsewhere, we can tell a Fuji image from
    one of these cameras immediately, even before looking at its
    EXIF data. Just horrid, at least compared to Canon.
     
    Rick, Jun 25, 2005
    #54
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    Then you get a company like Ford that gets a company like
    Firestone to make tires that they know will be deadly, but hasn't
    the strength or resources to withstand the pressure.

    You might be right, but how many companies are owned or controlled
    by giants, such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries? There may be
    independent camera and battery companies whose independence may be
    less than we assume. Sanyo makes more than batteries. You're
    probably right with respect to Kodak, who probably just brands their
    batteries. But even if all of the battery an camera manufacturers
    were completely independent, it might make good business sense for
    both sides to keep things the way they are now. A certain
    percentage of highly overpriced batteries would continue to be made
    and sold, and that would benefit both the manufacturers and the
    camera companies that get their share of the profits.

    I agree with that. But if camera manufacturers decided get
    together and agree on a couple of standard Li-Ion designs (shape &
    size of the case, and voltage/mah capacity) I'd be all for it,
    whether they manufactured them themselves, or coerced the battery
    companies into making them. But thought would have to go into the
    spec's. We wouldn't want the so-called standard batteries to be
    replaced 20 years later by a new set due to short sightedness in the
    first set's original designs.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #55
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    I was wondering if it was fringing or an overall cast you were
    referring to. In any case, my first Canon digital (the S10) had a
    slightly annoying bluish cast to its pictures, but that could be
    compensated for in software. In-camera adjustments can also be
    made with some of the newer, better models. I don't work with RAW
    files (yet) but assume that Fuji owners that do don't get the blues.

    How does Canon compare with Olympus, whose cameras seem to have a
    reputation for producing superior color?
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #56
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    Rick Guest

    I've only used the C-7000 and C-5050, and both had
    excellent color response -- although the C-7000 had
    other problems such as fringing and frequent moire
    where there shouldn't have been any.
     
    Rick, Jun 25, 2005
    #57
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Sorry, but the CF card is designed to prevent this if the camera is
    properly designed. If you can do this with your camera, GET RID OF IT!
    A CF card in a properly designed slot will NOT go in wrong!
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 25, 2005
    #58
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    Leonard Guest

    Speculation: SD card interfaces are cheaper to make than those for CF.
    Speculation 2: All new Canon compacts will use SD cards.

    SD has obvious advantages in the very compact cameras. And using a
    single type of memory interface across the range ought to be a
    cost-saver.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Jun 25, 2005
    #59
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Skip M Guest

    You have non standard size tires and wheels on your car, you have a choice
    of 14", 15" 16", 17", 18", 19" 20" 22" and others, plus widths varying from
    155mm to 375mm, depending on wheel size.
    You think there are standard sizes here? We have to deal with sensors/film
    that produce 8x12 images and print those images on 8x10, 4x5, 4x6, 11x14 and
    16x20 paper, or 4x6, 8 1/2x11, 11x17 or 13x19 inkjet paper.
    Good point, one reason I won't buy a Rebel XT as a back up for our 20Ds is
    that it uses a different battery, and on reason I won't buy one of several
    P&S digitals it that they don't use CF cards, of which we have several
    already on hand.
     
    Skip M, Jun 25, 2005
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.