Thanks for that summary, Moose, much of which I didn't know.
I have a SD card reader in my MacBook Pro and it works as quickly as
my multi-card readers. Because I have that reader I should prefer to
use only SD cards, but I recognise your points about the robustness of
the CF format and cards.
Chris
On 14 Oct 2009, at 22:44, Moose wrote:
> The big technical problem with the xD format is that it doesn't
> include
> a disk controller in the card. Thus, it depends on the controller
> firmware in the camera. Then Oly added some proprietary format tweaks
> for their panorama feature. The result is a fragile file system where
> doing anything at all to the card in computer or another camera before
> downloading all images may result in permanent loss. Doing anything
> in a
> reader on a computer may result in a card unreadable, and sometimes,
> inexplicably, unformattable by the camera.
>
> Less seriously, they peak out at 2GB and have much slower write times
> than newer CF and SD(HC) cards.
>
> CF remains the best format for serious work. They have built-in
> controllers, so are unaffected by vagaries of cameras and OSs and are
> physically close to indestructible. SDHC cards are close, but not as
> physically tough.
>
> My personal experience is that built-in card readers in computers are
> much slower than the cards are capable of. I never use the one in my
> desktop for image downloads. The small, cheap multi-card reader I
> posted
> about before is MUCH faster.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|