ClubSNAP Photography Forums

Go Back   ClubSNAP Photography Forums > Equipment Discussions > Fujifilm


 
Thread Tools
Old 10th December 2003   #1
airphoto38
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East
Posts: 43
Default Fastest & most reliable CFII with S2 Pro

Can anyone recommend the fastest & most reliable CFII with S2 Pro?
Thank you in advance.

Cheers
airphoto38 is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #2
mpenza
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 13,397
Default

not too sure why you want CF II but there are fast CF I cards around.

check this out: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-6014 for performance of CF I and CF II cards tested.

do take note of that the difference in write times may not translate to significant real-life experience. e.g. if a file is 3MB, it'll take 1.7s to write to the fastest card right now on the list (Sandisk Extreme 1GB) and 1.88s to write to a cheaper card like Transcend 45x 1GB.

Last edited by mpenza; 10th December 2003 at 10:15 AM.
mpenza is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #3
Bluestrike
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: There lor~
Posts: 4,843
Default

Just my personal view.

If the card going to stay in the camera all the time, my best bad will be the Microdrive. Cheap and relatively fast. Since S2 support Firewire, I'm sure the transfer speed to the Pc thru the Camera will be fast enough.
Bluestrike is offline  
Sponsored Link
Old 10th December 2003   #4
Jay
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East
Posts: 689
Default

Yes, Microdrive! S2 was designed for it.
Jay is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #5
sfhuang
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 972
Default

Originally Posted by mpenza
not too sure why you want CF II but there are fast CF I cards around.
pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought that CF I cards do not work on S2 pros?
sfhuang is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #6
Kei
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,090
Default

Originally Posted by sfhuang
pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought that CF I cards do not work on S2 pros?
Yes, it's supported on S2
Kei is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #7
Jay
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East
Posts: 689
Default

Originally Posted by sfhuang
pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought that CF I cards do not work on S2 pros?
You can throw all the CF and microdrive at it and it will work
It furthermore support Smart Media too!
Jay is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #8
MrBram
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jakarta
Posts: 41
Default IBM Microdrive 1GB

it is NOT as fragile as a lot of people say. It writes faster than most CFs

I have been using mine for almost a year with no problem at all.Not even bad sector.
MrBram is offline  
Old 10th December 2003   #9
sfhuang
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 972
Default

Originally Posted by Jay
You can throw all the CF and microdrive at it and it will work
It furthermore support Smart Media too!
thanks Kei and Jay.
sfhuang is offline  
Old 12th December 2003   #10
Jay
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East
Posts: 689
Default

Hey Airphoto38 & SFHuang,

Forgot to mention that the S2 support up to 2G because of the software bits addressing for storage capacity. Therefore its safer to use the IBM microdrive should you decide on it.

Happy snapping
Jay is offline  
Old 13th December 2003   #11
airphoto38
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East
Posts: 43
Default

Just to share.........

I have bought the IBM 1GBMD and used it on 3024 x 2016 pixels.(2.2MB)
After capturing, need to wait for quite a while before the image appear on the LCD for viewing.
Wondering if this is the appropiate pixels(2.2MB) to set or should I set it to a lower pixels(1.3MB) for A4 print only.

Thanx
airphoto38 is offline  
Old 13th December 2003   #12
chriszzz
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 655
Default

Originally Posted by airphoto38
Just to share.........

I have bought the IBM 1GBMD and used it on 3024 x 2016 pixels.(2.2MB)
After capturing, need to wait for quite a while before the image appear on the LCD for viewing.
Wondering if this is the appropiate pixels(2.2MB) to set or should I set it to a lower pixels(1.3MB) for A4 print only.

Thanx
You should, as long as your storage allows, shoot at the highest resolution and highest quality. You can always resize (downsize) it later on your computer, but you cannot upsize it effectively. What if you took a shot in a million, and later found that it is a low resolution, low quality, highly compressed shot ? It'll break your heart.

Secondly, you are confusing size ( 2.2MB, 1.3MB ) with resolution. Size of the file in MB is a function of the resolution AND the JPG compression. So 2 files of the same resolution and different quality level will have vastly different size. If you are running out of space on your CF card, it's better to drop quality first, before dropping resolution.
chriszzz is offline  
Old 13th December 2003   #13
Jay
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East
Posts: 689
Default

Originally Posted by airphoto38
Just to share.........

I have bought the IBM 1GBMD and used it on 3024 x 2016 pixels.(2.2MB)
After capturing, need to wait for quite a while before the image appear on the LCD for viewing.
Wondering if this is the appropiate pixels(2.2MB) to set or should I set it to a lower pixels(1.3MB) for A4 print only.

Thanx
Agree with Chrizzz..
I have the same configuration and always shoot at 6mb pixels. However I dont downsize it as I believe the hight quality provides me better details visually.
If you are low on storage, its better to get another 512 or 1GB piece.
Jay is offline  
Old 15th December 2003   #14
Fundee
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UP NORTH
Posts: 714
Default

as for me my 1GB MD is always in my camera. i do my transfer via firewire, only once in a blue moon i transfer via adapter..
Fundee is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 03:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2009 ClubSNAP.com
Page generated in 0.10705 seconds with 7 queries