To see which Olympus xD-based cameras are no longer supported by the current breed of cards, check here. With the xD the situation is almost (if not quite) as bad. Yes, these cards were similar to the xD: no controller, either. We've seen that a lot with the SmartMedia standard, where almost any new card size would not work with older cameras.
In the best case, a firmware update may address the problem in the worst - the camera will simply not work with the new card. If a new version of the card changes the physical data structure, the camera will not be able to handle it.
Cards are slightly less expensive, but the camera has to have an intimate knowledge how to manage a card and write to it. In xD-Picture cards, the camera itself is responsible for providing that functionality. If the physical structure of data on the new card model is changed, the new controller on that card will know how to handle that, the camera does not need to. Most importantly, the camera just asks the controller to write some data how this is being done is up to the controller. This costs a bit extra, but provides an additional layer of interfacing between the card and the client device (camera) that layer is responsible, among others, for card maintenance: marking and excluding bad areas, wear leveling (assuring that all areas are used equally, so that the wear spreads off). In the CF and SD cards, the controller is built into the card. The MLC variety sells for less than half of the price of the least expensive SLC version (verified January, 2009). While some bargain Compact Flash and Secure Digital cards use the multi-level cells, most stick to the single-level approach at least you have a choice.įor example, Transcend offers CF cards of both single- and multi-level design.
This makes multi-level cards cheaper to manufacture (per byte), but also slower, more power-hungry, and less reliable (according to the Maximum PC magazine, MLC memory has a life span of about 10,000 write cycles, while SLC - 100,000, a factor of ten!) (There are also eight-level designs, three bits per cell, but this is not important here.)
The xD uses the multi-level (MLC) architecture (this is at least true about the "M" and "M+" types, the latter being the only one currently manufactured I am not sure about the "H" type or the original one, without the letter denomination).Īn MLC memory cell has four (not the usual two) charge states: fully off, slightly on, mostly on, and fully on therefore each cell can store two bits of information, not just one. Technically, there are two reasons behind the inferiority of xD cards as compared to the competing ones (Compact Flash and Secure Digital): Even Fuji, the co-founder of the standard, seems to be backpedaling now from the concept (offering combined xD/SD slots, which accept also the popular Secure Digital cards), only Olympus keeps touting the xD as a great triumph of memory technology. Short and simple: these cards are the slowest-performing, most size-limited, and least widespread on the market, offering nothing in exchange for these limitations except for higher prices. What's wrong with the xD-Picture standard? This thing is the xD-Picture memory card, which Olympus insists on using in all their cameras. I used to be a great fan of the compact C-Series of digital cameras (C-2020Z to C-5060WZ, while they were still made), and I really like their digital SLRs (I am less enthusiastic about their recent compact offerings in this area, though).īut there is one thing from Olympus which I really despise and hate. It is no secret that I like many things Olympus engineers do. My other articles related to the Olympus E-System cameras.