External flash w/ a 602

chris gunn · Jul 30, 2002

Arcording to one of Steves reviews, the Ridata CF1 is faster than
the Micro Drive (on some nikon).

A poster said his Ridata CF1 was good for 63s of VGA video.

This suggests that CF1 will never be able to replace the MD for long
VGA video.

However, perhaps a fast CF2 could, such as the Protec or Simpletech
both of which seem to have a similar performance to the MD.

Anyone out there with a 602 and a fast CF2 card?

Cheers!

Gunn

jkirk@oz · Jul 30, 2002

KC63881 said:
KC wrote:
even if all flash cards use the same flash chips, there's a crucial
difference between SM and CF. There's no I/O controller built-in
for SM while there's one for CF. Hence, proper implementation on
the camera is important to get the best speed out of SM and
Fujifilm seems to have done it extremely well. That's why you could
fill up a SM with vga video and slightly over a min for the fastest
CF cards out there.

TECHNICALLY speaking, using a DEDICATED controller IS ALWAYS FASTER and better. I've been designing Flash "loaders" in Hardware and Software for years. NO SOFTWARE is better than a "good" hardware I/F. PERIOD. Fuji did NOT necessarily do a better job, it MAY have been deliberate for all I know. What my point is - The controller on CF doesn't just "run" the Flash chips, it also "PRESENTS" a PCMCIA ATA IDE interface to the outside world, which somewhere along the line, is stuffed.

There is nothing "NEW" or "BETTER" in writing a software based Flash "loader", all techies know the available algorithms.

KC63881 said:
I have a RiData 20x 256MB CF but I recently got a 128MB SM to
record longer clips of video.

Same here.

KC63881 said:
KC63881 said:

jkirk@oz wrote:
Ravman is correct, but I'd like to add a couple of points -

Click to expand...

KC63881 said:
KC63881 said:

1/ SM is NOT faster .. all Flash "CARDS" use the same Flash chips.
The stuff-up has something to do with "poor?" implementation / use
of ATA IDE standards. Even so you can get 63 secs at a time with
most fast CF I cards, Ridata and Lexar are two very good names (I
use both).

Click to expand...

jkirk@oz · Jul 30, 2002

chris gunn said:
chris gunn said:

jkirk@oz wrote:
Ravman is correct, but I'd like to add a couple of points -

Click to expand...

chris gunn said:
chris gunn said:

1/ SM is NOT faster .. all Flash "CARDS" use the same Flash chips.
The stuff-up has something to do with "poor?" implementation / use
of ATA IDE standards.

Click to expand...

chris gunn wrote:
Then it IS faster.

ACK ... well .. yeah kinda .. sheesh

chris gunn said:
chris gunn said:

Even so you can get 63 secs at a time with
most fast CF I cards, Ridata and Lexar are two very good names (I
use both).

Click to expand...

chris gunn said:
Ridata did well in the Dpreview review. You have the 512mb?
I was going to ask just the question you just answered!!! 63s huh!?

I tried a 512MB, it was fine (same recording time), but decided to go for 256MB for "risk factors". Don't ask "why" 63-65 secs, seems to be what many people get. I actually prefer these "short" clips, lets me recompose and rezoom etc.

chris gunn said:
chris gunn said:

3/ Even though its not really a minus, SM is being replaced
sometime in the future (may NOT actually be dropped, no one is
sure).
JKirk

Click to expand...

News Flash !! Now we're sure

SM is NOT being discontinued, and will be further developed.

chris gunn said:
Didn't I hear someone is coming out with a 512mb SM card?

YES they're out.

chris gunn said:
Cheers!
Gunn

jkirk@oz · Jul 30, 2002

chris gunn said:
chris gunn wrote:
Arcording to one of Steves reviews, the Ridata CF1 is faster than
the Micro Drive (on some nikon).

Which "proves" that TECHNICALLY CFI "IS" faster. Some techie at Nikon obviously studied the CFI Interface properly

chris gunn said:
A poster said his Ridata CF1 was good for 63s of VGA video.

Well I did, as well as many others.

chris gunn said:
This suggests that CF1 will never be able to replace the MD for long
VGA video.

Never say "never"

We're in the hands of corporations who don't have to answer for their decisions. Even with their HUGE R+D budgets, how many times have they "stuffed" something up on just about EVERY model? Understanding corporations would be like trying to understand women

chris gunn said:
However, perhaps a fast CF2 could, such as the Protec or Simpletech
both of which seem to have a similar performance to the MD.

The NEW CF Interfaces show GREAT promise !! We can only hope.
Cheers2, JKirk

chris gunn said:
Anyone out there with a 602 and a fast CF2 card?
Cheers!
Gunn

jkirk@oz · Jul 30, 2002

ben king said:
Ben King wrote:
I disagree with you about the 1 gig microdrive. I don't think they
are fragile and prone to failure from shock.

I am just presenting my "side" too, I HOPE you never do have problems. I nearly bought a MD, but after "reading" MANY threads on failure rates, decided against it (until they've been out there a bit longer). BUT let me say this - If someone asked me to drop my CF cards from 6 feet repeatedly onto concrete to prove a point, I'd have NO qualms. In fact I've done it ;-)

Would you do that to your MD ??? EVEN if I did "fracture" a solder joint, I CAN fix it in 5 minutes, NOT SO a MD.
JKirk

ben king said:
The card I own is on it's second digital camera. I've used the card
in my first digital, a casio qv4000, and the 602. Most of the time
I toss the camera in the trunk of my Goldwing, just in case I
happen upon a great photo opportunity.

ben king said:
IMO the microdrive support of the 602 was a major factor in my
purchase decision.
--
Regards,
Ben

You are not what you own.
C-2100, Fuji S602, and a 20 year old Mamiya

chris gunn · Jul 30, 2002

jkirk@oz said:
jkirk@oz said:

jkirk@oz said:

Even so you can get 63 secs at a time with
most fast CF I cards, Ridata and Lexar are two very good names (I
use both).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jkirk@oz said:
I tried a 512MB, it was fine (same recording time), but decided to

I went to their web page. They claim they have about the same speed.

jkirk@oz said:
go for 256MB for "risk factors". Don't ask "why" 63-65 secs, seems

It must have to do with how long before the buffer fills.
The specs don't mention supporting CF1 at all, I think the hardware
on the 602 which deals with CF1 is speed limited to that degree.
I.E: 63s is the max that is obtainable for any CF1 card. I'm just guessing
though of course!

There must be someone here with a fast CF2, I will start another post!

jkirk@oz said:
jkirk@oz said:

Didn't I hear someone is coming out with a 512mb SM card?

Click to expand...

YES they're out.

Nice, but I think the specs say the 602 is limited to 128mb SM 8-(

--
cheers!

Gunn

KC63881 · Jul 30, 2002

No need to be worked up. Anyway, I didn't mention anything about "SOFTWARE"? Fujifilm's implementation is likely to be hardware based and dedicated for SM transfers. That's how I would do it too.

I guess all techies are not equal too. Just look at the difference in performance of different CF cards.

jkirk@oz said:
TECHNICALLY speaking, using a DEDICATED controller IS ALWAYS FASTER
and better. I've been designing Flash "loaders" in Hardware and
Software for years. NO SOFTWARE is better than a "good" hardware
I/F. PERIOD. Fuji did NOT necessarily do a better job, it MAY have
been deliberate for all I know. What my point is - The controller
on CF doesn't just "run" the Flash chips, it also "PRESENTS" a
PCMCIA ATA IDE interface to the outside world, which somewhere
along the line, is stuffed.
There is nothing "NEW" or "BETTER" in writing a software based
Flash "loader", all techies know the available algorithms.

chris gunn · Aug 15, 2002

jkirk@oz said:
jkirk@oz said:

jkirk@oz said:

Even so you can get 63 secs at a time with
most fast CF I cards, Ridata and Lexar are two very good names (I

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jkirk@oz said:
I tried a 512MB, it was fine (same recording time), but decided to
go for 256MB for "risk factors". Don't ask "why" 63-65 secs, seems

I am confused about this. You have the Ridata 20x CF card, and
you get ~~63s of video.~~

Recently a fellow posted his Ritek (same company, performance I think?)
gets the full card. 7min for 512mb.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=3195885

Also, there are reports from Belgium that the Ridata can record the full card.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=3171193
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=3153985

So whats the story? The 602's in belgium are different?
Cards sold as Ritek and Ridata are slightly different?
Your card needs to be wiped clean before you will be able to get full usage?

--
cheers!

Gunn

jkirk@oz · Aug 16, 2002

chris gunn said:
chris gunn wrote:
I am confused about this. You have the Ridata 20x CF card, and
you get 63s of video.
Recently a fellow posted his Ritek (same company, performance I think?)
gets the full card. 7min for 512mb.
Also, there are reports from Belgium that the Ridata can record the
full card.

Yeah I saw those reports and other odd ones filtering around. I've tried a few 20X Ridata cards (from 3 sources) and get EXACTLY 63-55 Secs each time. Maybe? some new speed chips are being released or an updated controller? I know there's been some advancement in Flash but can't find a clue if it's being implemented. Maybe these FEW reports are mistakes, I haven't seen anyone backing one up. Either way, Faster Flash IS around the corner.
JKirk

chris gunn said:
So whats the story? The 602's in belgium are different?
Cards sold as Ritek and Ridata are slightly different?
Your card needs to be wiped clean before you will be able to get
full usage?
cheers!
Gunn

Search

External flash w/ a 602

chris gunn

Veteran Member

jkirk@oz

Veteran Member

jkirk@oz

Veteran Member

jkirk@oz

Veteran Member

jkirk@oz

Veteran Member

chris gunn

Veteran Member

KC63881

Veteran Member

chris gunn

Veteran Member

jkirk@oz

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts