I suspect that the speed differences noted between 2 and 4GB CF cards
(where the 4GB card is slower) are due to formatting for FAT32 instead
of FAT16. More overhead for handling lots of small clusters.
I saw a post recently where someone claimed to have formatted FAT32 with
the computer and upped the cluster size to something much larger.
Perfectly rational thing to do with images and large CF cards. However,
I don't think I'd choose to always format at the computer to get a small
boost in performance. The camera software needs to be optimized and I
doubt anyone is even thinking about issues like cluster size. It
doesn't make a lot of sense to use a large cluster size on your PC but a
CF card, despite its ability to do random access is, in actual usage,
almost exclusively a sequential device.
Chuck Norcutt
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> That's good news - and it's MUCH cheaper than the Sandisk Extreme III
> around these parts. Interesting that the 4gb version is somewhat slower.
> I've tended to work on the basis in the past that I'd rather go on a
> trip with two half-size cards for safety - that is, I feel safer with
> two 2gb cards than one 4gb card. Gives some protection against card
> failure and is often a cheaper option. And in this case, faster! :-)
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|