Hi,

I just purchased my first digital camera, the Nikon CP 950, and I have a question about CF cards. The camera is supplied with a Lexar 4x USB-enabled (JumpShot-ready, but they don't supply the cable) 8MB CF card.

From all I've been able to gather, an 8MB is sure to be too small. Perhaps I went overboard in the other direction, though, since I ordered a 96MB CF card from Simple Technology. There is no spped rating of any kind on this card.

First of all, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts regarding the size of a 96MB card? Is it just too big for a casual user (which I am, essentially -- although I have a new daughter, which means lots of pics:-).

Also, there is the issue of Lexar Media's supposedly enhanced write times. Their packaging now claims "8X" speed, although I really have no idea what to compare it to. I saw some info regarding their early "4X" cards at the FRCN Digital site (here's a link to that report: http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Lexar64mb.html) and the author found that the larger size of the Lexar card (64MB, in this case) actually SLOWED the speed of image writing/taking, despite the supposed "4X" advantage. This was ostensibly due to the way the camera he used (Nikon CP900) checked the file structure integrity of a card as it wrote -- larger card meant more area to check.

Anyway, bottom line is that I bought the Simple 96MB card because it was the best value per MB ($1.96/MB). However, if it might somehow compromise my picture taking experience with regard to speed, I could certainly exchange it for, say, one of the Lexar "8X" 48MB Jumpshot cards. Those are somewhat more expensive per MB, but if it would truly speed things up, I would be happy to pay more. Also, that Jump Shot cable is pretty neat, I must admit.

Or perhaps I just need a smaller card of any brand -- if, as the author of the above mentioned article suggested, the larger sized cards necessarily slow down the performance of the Nikon Coolpix cameras (assuming taht the 950 behaves similarly to the 900).

Anyone have any thoughts? I could sure use the help.

Thanks,

NV

-- NV (play88@attglobal.net), April 27, 2000

Answers

Ned,

Outside of testing any given card in all available cameras there is no way for me to document the value of Lexar's faster processors. Likewise, the only way to tell if any given camera can make good use of Lexar's faster processor would be to compare a Lexar "X" card with another manufacturer's card of equal size.

Beyond that, Nikon's 900 (and evidently the 950) use a file management system that is outdated (IMHO). Each time the camera writes to the card it examines the card's file system to see what is empty and what is filled. because each write cycle has a lot going on, the actual writing of the information to the card is only a small percentage of the ENTIRE write cycle. Since the faster processors in the Lexar cards only speed the actual write-to-card process, the benefit of the faster Lexar processor is not seen in the Nikon cameras. It remains to be seen if the 990 will benefit from the faster cards. It would be nice if Nikon could update their image processing program, but "it's not my job." ;-)

If it helps at all, a 8x Lexar 96mb card could be a LITTLE faster in your Nikon than a 96mb card from other manufacturers.

With the Nikon cameras, I would recommend two 48mb cards instead of one 96. This would give you 1)Insurance if one of the cards fails, 2) faster processing speeds, and 3) the ability to download images from one card while shooting from the other.

On the other hand, the Sony D770 (a camera I am seriously considering) has been shown to be dramatically faster with the Lexar faster processors.

Hope this answers your question.

-- Randy G. (frcn@cncnet.com), April 28, 2000.

I vote for one big card instead of two little ones. I started out with one 64, then bought two additional 32s, found out the one 64 was plenty, dumped the two 32's on ebay (for more than I paid??!?). I fit all my pics from my trip to greece on one 64MB card. Maybe I didn't take enough pics. :) You can delete your screw ups as you go to make more room. If you're not going to be shooting more than a days worth of pics between downloads, and you're just a casual user, 64MB is probably plenty. Just don't try uncompressed pics.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), April 29, 2000.