XD is much much slower and much more expensive than either CF or Microdrive..

CF and Microdrive are actually the same format - they will both fit in the CF "slot". The difference is that CF uses flash memory, while microdrives use a mini-hard drive. It used to be that the only way to get really big capacities (like 2GB or 4GB) was to use a microdrive, but now flash memory equals microdrives in capacity, are cheap, faster, and are more reliable and durable since there are no mechanical parts..

Kodachromeguy wrote:.

Do any of you have experiences with the durability of xD, CF, ormicrodrive media?.

I recently ordered an Olympus E-330. The manual says three kinds ofmedia can be used: xD, CF, and Microdrive. The manual mentionedthat the microdrive needs gently handling, but it sounded like theywere warning about gross abuse like shaking the camera while it issaving a file. I plan to take the camera to Nepal and will berecording in RAW and SHQ jpeg, so about 20 mb total per frame. Haveany of you used the microdrives and had problems? In the archives,one person said he regularly used his at above 12,000 ft altitude..

PS, I plan to back up my files occasionally using a Delkin Anywheredevice to copy files to a USB stick..

Thanks!The Kodachromeguy..

I haven't noticed xD being that much slower than CF, but micro drives (which are the same format size as CF cards) are definitely more fragile than either CF or xD. I have a SanDisk Ultra II CF card that has been through a wash and dry cycle and shows no signs of fatigue after several years..

Also, xD cards are on the way out. Most manufactures that use that size card are switching to SD cards. If you have the choice, go with CF. If you ever decide to go for a dSLR, most of them use CF cards..

Brian A...

Here is DPReview's timing test for the E-330:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page11.asp.

As you can see in file flush, with fast CF cards you can get an unlimited JPG burst (buffer can write to card faster than camera can write to buffer), while the xD card gets maxed out at 8 frames, and you have to wait 9.7 seconds for it to clear..

For RAW the difference is more obvious - ~4.5 seconds for CF to clear the entire 4 image buffer, and 40 seconds for xD to clear the same buffer..

I would not recommend an xD card whatsoever, and also for the reason hugowolf mentioned, since xD seems on the way out from recent Fuji trends...

Agreed..

While I like xD's size and am generally used to the format (I've owned loads of Fuji cameras), they're pretty slow. Specifically buffer writing and image playback..

Also, according to the relevant camera's performance, xD seems to suffer on the E330 compared to excellent performance from the CF cards..

I hope you got my point,Redandwhite from Malta.Photos at > http://redandwhite.deviantart.com..

1. xD and CF are both flash memory cards... they both hold up well to abuse. The down side of xD cards is their small size compared to CF cards... I like bigger cards to handle I personally have dropped more sd and xD cards than CF cards..

2. xD cards come in three flavors.... plain, "M" type and "H" type. The "M" type are on sale every where and are VERY slow. The "H" type are actually pretty fast compared to the other two. Don't know the specs, but real world in my Fuji S3 bodies the "H" xd beat out any CF cards.



3. Microdrives are really just teeny-tiny hard drives. Because of that they have an altitude limitation... check the manufacturer's website for altitude specs (what is altitude of OP's planned trip to Nepal?)..

4. Some make/model of cameras tend to work better with xD than others. Depends..

5. The price per gig is probably better for CF card than "H" xD..

6. My observations on different forums is that there is a worse chance of corrupting data to a microdrive from abuse (drop, etc.) than a flash card.... but maybe a better chance of retrieving data from a corrupted microdrive than a CF flash card..

7. My real world experience in using both a "H" xD card and a Microdrive or CF flash card in my Fuji S3's is the the xD cards take a lot of time to erase or format... but are faster in storing data out of the camera buffer than either a CF or microdrive. I have used a couple 4gb microdrives and a bunch of 2 and 4 gb CF cards. The microdrives SEEM to be faster than the CF flash cards when "empty" but "SEEM" to slow down as they fill up (disk head seek/travel time??)...

... their price-per-gigabyte advantage is essentially gone, and their speed advantage disappeared several years ago..

I've never had one fail ... I still have several ... but I just don't use them anymore. Too slow.KP.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htmhttp://www.phillipsphotographer.comVoted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati MagazineI don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!If science proved that plants have feelings, would all of the vegans die out?..

I was only referring to personal experiences. I really don't use a P&S when for shooting bursts of shots and I have low expectations of shot to shot timings for this type of camera. Downloading images from an xD card via a card reader seems to be only a little.

Slower than doing the same with a 'fast' CF card this is when I would really notice a difference, since I'm working with hundreds of images at a time..

I'm not claiming that an xD card is as fast as a CF card, just that I haven't found it a problem. The speeds of reading from an internal buffer and writing to a card are highly dependent on internal interfaces and busses. So much so, that it is really impossible to say that one media type is slow than another based on this type of analysis. (My Canon 5D buffer to card times are much faster than my 300D buffer to card times, using the same card. Reviewing images on the same 4GB card is painfully slow on the 300D compared to the 5D.).

I still would recommend avoiding xD cards..

Brian A..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

Here is DPReview's timing test for the E-330:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page11.asp.

As you can see in file flush, with fast CF cards you can get anunlimited JPG burst (buffer can write to card faster than camera canwrite to buffer), while the xD card gets maxed out at 8 frames, andyou have to wait 9.7 seconds for it to clear..

For RAW the difference is more obvious - ~4.5 seconds for CF to clearthe entire 4 image buffer, and 40 seconds for xD to clear the samebuffer..

I would not recommend an xD card whatsoever, and also for the reasonhugowolf mentioned, since xD seems on the way out from recent Fujitrends...

Thank you all for your comments. I think I will buy some CF cards, and I see that they are available as large as 4 gb. I will be taking a small Fujifilm F31fd as a backup, so I will have a spare xD card with me just in case. Someone asked about altitude. I will be walking to above 5000 m, but may not have enough energy to drag the camera out of the pack by then. Afterwards, the group will travel to Angkor Wat, which should offer astonishing opportunities for architectural photography.

Thanks again!The Kodachromeguy..