Can my Canon Powershot A50 utilize the extra writing speed of Lexar Medias 4X & 8X CompactFlash cards? I am ready to invest in memory, but cannot determine whether, for my camera, the extra money will be worth it. I wonder is possibly if my Powershot A50 has inherent speed limitations. Thanks!

-- Phaedra Savage (psavage@saber.net), August 21, 2000

Answers

Thank you John at The Shutterbug for responding to my email to them regarding the above question. John tells me that, as he understands it, my digicam WILL be able to utilize the faster write speed of the Lexar Media CF. CF cards are software driven, as opposed to smart media cards which are hardware drive. Most digicams using CF utilize buffer memory & in the case of my Canon A50 the buffer memory is small. The much faster write time of the Lexar Media 4X & 8X CF means a quicker recovery of available buffer memory & less time between shots. Thanks to John at The Shutterbug for taking the time to explain this critical point!

-- Phaedra Savage (psavage@saber.net), August 23, 2000.

I don't want to impugn anyone else's opinion, but almost every newer camera has buffer memory. In fact, if it has any sort of a burst mode it's pretty much a necessity in order for the processor to have time to process and compress an image prior to storing it in removeable memory like CF & SM without tying the camera up for too long at a time. Of course, how much buffer memory does vary...

The main difference between CF & SM is that each CF card has a controller built into it, SM based systems have the controller built into the camera. In either case, the controller will usually be waiting on the processor to extract an image from the buffer memory, process it, compress it and write it to the controller which will in turn directly access the memory and write the data. It doesn't make a difference whether it's a CF or SM based system.

The faster throughput, which by the way is not 4 or 8X's faster than other cards, but that many times faster than some other arbitrary speed(possibly the 1X CD speed of 150KB/sec.), will only be of benefit to you if the camera can extract data from the buffer memory, compress it, and write it out to the memory controller faster than a conventional card could store it. But, it's increasingly possible as microprocessors and controllers, through necessity, seem to be getting remarkably faster with each generation.

The best way to tell if the card is worth the extra money is to try it... I know, not a lot of help when deciding to buy one or not. But, it might help you decide whether to spend extra for one if considering buying more of them.

A fair test might consist of shooting exactly the same scene on a tripod and timing how long the camera is tied up for both single shots and buffer filling bursts. It'd probably be a good idea to turn the flash off so recharge doesn't interfere with capture speed, etc. You can tell when it's done because the viewfinder light should be lit while saving. You can either time the whole process of capturing images and saving them or start timing at the end of a burst and see how long the LED in the viewfinder stays on since you're only looking for a relative speed difference between the two cards. Just use the same timing method for both. It's probably easier to time in burst mode for most cameras, because in single shot mode it can be difficult to consistently take the next shot as soon as timing permits .

How about letting us all know if the A50 performs better with the 4X or 8X card vs. the one that comes with it?

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@surferz.net), August 23, 2000.

You know, I was reluctant to even dip my toe into the murky waters of the digicam world, & now I am reminded of why! Believe me, I never had any intention of abandoning my beloved, dependable, SLR gear that I've used happily for decades & which has almost come to replace my hands & eyes. But with regard the fast write CF: after an *exhaustive* price search, I ordered a Lexar 128MB 8X CF with jumpstart cables included for just about $2 a MB & now I'm not going to give the speed issue another thought--this rapidly changing technology is a path that may not lead in the direction of photography as I know & love it! I bought this little Canon supplementally, because of it's diminutive size, rugged features, & optical quality--I never imagined I'd see anything from it like what I've come to depend on from my old SLRs. And too, I'd never give up my mystical all nighter's in my wet darkroom, fingers in the developer. But nevertheless, If I notice anything worth reporting aftering using the faster CF, I'll report.

-- Phaedra Savage (psavage@saber.net), August 23, 2000.

Wow, you think digital is murky compared to the red bulbed mechanics of the darkroom and classic photography? It always seemed to me that there was so much more arcane knowledge needed to go the wet route. :-) I guess it's all a matter of background and what you're most comfortable with when dealing with things. As far as getting answers goes, it's no more confusing than any other subject I've ever had the pleasure(?) of researching... Unfortunately, knowledgeable salespeople seem to be far and few between, probably because in part of distribution channels being used. Photography people don't necessarily grok digital, but many are trying -and succeeding quite nicely it seems! Just think, 10-20 years to really learn darkroom work and in six months you'll be an old hand at digital... ;-) It's a steep hill, but a short one, and once you hit the top it's even grade, maybe even a few degrees of downhill.

As far as spending more for a faster jumpshot card goes, it sounds like you did fine! The best price I could find for a regular 128MB card was $239 according to www.pricewatch.com . If you only paid $15-20 more for the jumpshot and faster throughput that sounds like a VERY fair deal to me.

I've seen speed comparisons made with Nikons and various CF cards, and been unimpressed, but that doesn't mean that other cameras won't be able to take advantage of the speed. Either way you got a good deal, maybe a great one if it works out.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@surferz.net), August 23, 2000.