R
Raist3d
Guest
Umm... Ok.. This is not my point though. My point is that you can do a small camera with compact flash.
- Raist
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Just say no to XD memory!!!
- Thread starter Qwerty13
- Start date
TonyChang
Well-known member
SmartMedia, too, has only had one physical size (which is all CF-I and II apply to -- the physical size of the card, CF-I is 3.3mm, CF-II is 5mm thick). The incompatibilities arise with voltage ratings (SM) and the ability to recognize and interface with specifications that have been changed (SM's jump to 128MB and CF's MicroDrive). Since CF requires a controller on the card and the device, they have to be able to talk to each other -- if there are enough changes, an older CF device will not be able to talk to a newer-spec'd CF card. CF is based on the very old (in the computer world) PCMCIA standard (1990! Oh my!), so how many changes have been made in the intervening 8 years since CF was announced? The spec at compactflash.org says their spec is currently at rev 1.4, but it may not include the latest information since it's dated Jul 1999.
Those tests were basically done by looking at an indicator light on the camera with a stopwatch in hand, so exact performance numbers aren't exactly what you'd call completely accurate. Why the speed scales up with the value of the camera is a bit perplexing, but I'd wager that most CF cameras are somewhere around the CoolPix for read/write performance rather than the $5000 EOS-1D.
True, paper specs don't always stand the test of time, (CF originally said they were coming out in 2, 4 10 and 15MB sizes?) but the most predominant driving factors for xD (for Olympus and FujiFilm anyway) were:
Size -- So it can be used in more and increasingly smaller devices, or take up less real estate in the devices to make room for more features
Controllerless -- Compatible with SM and cheaper to produce
Proprietary -- Don't have to pay royalties to Matsushita or Sony
--
Tony
c2100, c3040, a200, b300, pt010
http://www.pbase.com/indigo68
TonyChang
Well-known member
Yes, but if Canon utilized SD or xD, you can't say the camera wouldn't be smaller.
--
Tony
c2100, c3040, a200, b300, pt010
http://www.pbase.com/indigo68
TonyChang
Well-known member
Put an xD card in a CF adapter and you essentially have an expensive CF card. The adapter must have the CF controller chip necessary to interface with the xD card (which now becomes a glorified memory chip). At that point, you'll have paid for the CF adapter card plus your purportedly overpriced xD card.
--
Tony
c2100, c3040, a200, b300, pt010
http://www.pbase.com/indigo68
M
misha
Guest
Does it need to be though? I'd say it's about as small as is practically useful - any smaller and it will became a toy that's very difficult to handle. Cameras that use SD cards (Pentax Optio, for example) are about the same size. If the small size of XD is aimed at cell phones, etc. it would be more logical for them to be introduced by general electronics companies like Toshiba or Samsung rather than the more camera-centered Fujifilm and Olympus.
--
Misha
Eric Carlson wrote:
.
The Digital Elph's are too small for my hands and I don't have big hands. So making smaller cameras is not of interest to me. Also to compare apples to apples, most digital cameras are point and shoots. They are not made to shoot as fast as a Nikon f5, Minolta Maxxum 9 or a Canon Eos 1v. They are made to shoot as fast as a point-n-shoot camera, which is kind of slow. So IF xd cards are faster, it's being wasted on a ps camera.
.
These acient devices are called ca-mer-as. Most of the digital cameras are based on real film cameras. Which camera takes a better photo: Canon Rebel 2000, Canon Sure Shot 115 or the Canon Elph 370? Ignore the negative size, The Rebel 2000 has the best lens, followed by the SS115 then the Elph. When you make the lens smaller, it tends to suck more.
The Digital Elph's are too small for my hands and I don't have big hands. So making smaller cameras is not of interest to me. Also to compare apples to apples, most digital cameras are point and shoots. They are not made to shoot as fast as a Nikon f5, Minolta Maxxum 9 or a Canon Eos 1v. They are made to shoot as fast as a point-n-shoot camera, which is kind of slow. So IF xd cards are faster, it's being wasted on a ps camera.
R
Raist3d
Guest
I understand that, but my point is that all this stuff of XD is moot if NOBODY ELSE brings out a camera smaller than the S200/S110v. The S200/S110v are small enough already with quite good quality. The S230 looks very promising. My main point is - you can do a veyr small camera in compact flash, and the original poster was talking about "in the future cameras could be made smaller" - they already are small, so blame it on those other manufacturers that haven't done anything smaller already.
- Raist
R
Raist3d
Guest
Bingo!
It doesn't need to.
It doesn't need to.
- Raist
TonyChang
Well-known member
Maybe yes, maybe no, but along the same lines, an identically sized SD or xD camera can be introduced with more features and more megapixels.
SD, which has had time to grow its installed product base -- introduced by consumer electronics giant Matsushita (Panasonic/Technics/Quasar/National/JVC) -- is currently used in digital cameras, camcorders, printers, MP3 players, PDAs and computers.
--
Tony
c2100, c3040, a200, b300, pt010
http://www.pbase.com/indigo68
M
misha
Guest
That's my point - why reinvent the wheel, when there is already the similar-sized, widely accepted SD cards available in larger capacities? This card evolution/confusion is getting worse than the DVD-R/DVD-RW/DVD-RAM/DVD R battle.
--
Misha
Nik Coolpix
Member
R
Raist3d
Guest
Yeah, some of those. I mean those that haven't done a small camera already.
- Raist
TonyChang
Well-known member
On the technical side, SD is designed somewhat like CF, where it requires a controller chip on the card to interface between the memory and the device. This adds to the cost of the componentry, so theoretically a 128MB SD card will always cost more than a 128MB xD card when using the same memory chip components.
Based purely from a business standpoint, I'd say Olympus and FujiFilm's main contention is that they don't own the proprietary rights to SD and were clinging to the remnants of a format quickly nearing the end of its technical lifecycle. To that end, they created their own xD format that is (hopefully) sure to live long and prosper.
--
Tony
c2100, c3040, a200, b300, pt010
http://www.pbase.com/indigo68
Nik Coolpix
Member
... says WHO??? just because YOU don't think cameras and mem modules and whatever coming our way, need to be smaller or have this or that interaction w communication devices - today or tomorrow - is a pretty odd reason for bashing new technology!!!??? i mean, the solution to YOUR and the original poster's problem is simply to buy products that are to YOUR like - biG or sm@ll. don't go anywhere near future XD/XXD/XX? products at your local camera store, if it makes you feel anguished - it's as simple as that, really...
best rgds,
Nik Coolpix
http://www.pbase.com/nik
Nik Coolpix
Member
tony - you write a lot of good and interesting stuff in this matter. thanks for sharing. just thought i'd say that.
rgds,
Nik Coolpix
http://www.pbase.com/nik
M
misha
Guest
That's always the case with a standard - some invent it, others license it - that's not a good (in terms of consumer convenience) reason for late-comers to each advance their own format. Even from a business point of view I'm not sure it's a winning proposition. Olympus have attracted numerous enthusiasts with their cameras, who trade up every couple of years to a new Olympus model - now they take this drastic turn, introducing a proprietory and untested media; some Olympusheads may opt for the better established formats like the CF or SD when upgrading, particularly if the price of XD cards is high initially.
--
Misha
Nik Coolpix
Member
... don't know bout the rest of the world, but in SWEDEN the XD's will be same or less as SM to purchase. i run a the photo'n'video department in a store in STOCKHOLM, and i got our prices fr OLY and FUJI last week. i pay a couple of euros - same in USD - less for a 64 mb XD when compared to same size SM, so we will probably sell at same price or slightly less to consumer.
rgds,
Nik Coolpix
http://www.pbase.com/nik
Eric Carlson
Veteran Member
I see what you mean. You've convinced me that they should stop making smaller cameras, and that cameras should not interoperate with devices like cell phones and PDA's.
--
Eric Carlson
Veteran Member
Size, yes; shape, no. There are two slightly different shapes of SmartMedia cards. The notch is on one side for 3.3 volt cards, and the notch is on the other side for the less common 5 volt cards.
--
You can talk technically all you want but:
CF cards have greater capacity than anything else.
CF cards are currently cheaper (and as other memory comes down, they will probably drop too. In fact, they usually drop before the others)
CF cards are accepted in more digital cameras than any other type of memory.
CF cards are accepted in the pro cams.
CF card may not be the fastest but they are fast enough for most users, even pro. (even the slowest CF card is fast enough for a pro doing still life or portraits. Try cranking a Hassleblad film winder to see what your time between shots is compared to a digital witha slow card).
CF cameras are small enough. Make them any smaller and you'll need a jewelry screw driver to press the buttons.
If XD wants to suceed, they must make the larger cards available soon. Since they aren't available at all, things don't look too good. If SD wants to suceed they need to lower the prices and get inside some real cameras. (Panasonic, Kyocera, Konica, 1/2 of Minolta, 1/2 of Kodak, and Leica don't make squat in a digital camera world dominated by Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Fuji).
I might sound anti technology or anti future etc, but I don't want to own a Betamax tape in a VHS world. I am confident that CF will remain the bigger standard for many years to come but I also don't want you to own an obsolete technology either.
CF cards have greater capacity than anything else.
CF cards are currently cheaper (and as other memory comes down, they will probably drop too. In fact, they usually drop before the others)
CF cards are accepted in more digital cameras than any other type of memory.
CF cards are accepted in the pro cams.
CF card may not be the fastest but they are fast enough for most users, even pro. (even the slowest CF card is fast enough for a pro doing still life or portraits. Try cranking a Hassleblad film winder to see what your time between shots is compared to a digital witha slow card).
CF cameras are small enough. Make them any smaller and you'll need a jewelry screw driver to press the buttons.
If XD wants to suceed, they must make the larger cards available soon. Since they aren't available at all, things don't look too good. If SD wants to suceed they need to lower the prices and get inside some real cameras. (Panasonic, Kyocera, Konica, 1/2 of Minolta, 1/2 of Kodak, and Leica don't make squat in a digital camera world dominated by Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Fuji).
I might sound anti technology or anti future etc, but I don't want to own a Betamax tape in a VHS world. I am confident that CF will remain the bigger standard for many years to come but I also don't want you to own an obsolete technology either.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum