1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

SDXC Compatibility

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by franklyspeaking, May 9, 2010.

  1. franklyspeaking

    franklyspeaking Mu-43 Regular

    I see here that the Panny line up is SDXC compatible.

    After perusing the Oly site I cannot find anything that definitively states the E-P1, E-P2 or E-PL1 are or are not SDXC compatible. Does anyone know for sure either way? :confused: 

    If the Olympus line doesn't have SDXC compatibility, that is a definite boon to the Panny line-up.
  2. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I don't think current olympus models are SDXC compatible. This said, and I hope I won't sound too fanboïst here, I don't think it's really that important :
    - SDHC goes up to 64 GB ; that's good for about 1500 raw + SF jpgs give or take a few. All things considered, even shooting wildly, that's enough for a week trip. And it's not even cautious, even branded and reputed cards can go dead without warning, so having that much pictures on a single storage is always dangerous.
    - SDXC would be more welcomed for movies. But in any case, the recording limit of the e-pX is set at 2GB (this is an effect of some obscure windows XP limit, that, as always, impact everybody on earth while no other modern operating system suffers from those built-in bugs and plain short-sighted stupidities). So again, you're good for 32 max length sequences of film (about 7 minutes each at full res) in a 64 GB SDHC. Anyhow, not to only bash microsoft here, it's been reported e-pX have a tendency to overheat in movie mode, so much so it can damage itself if continuously filming, so 7 minutes sequences looks like a sound limit. And in any case, if you're half-serious about movie-making, Panasonic has a much more important edge here, being able to produce 1080p movies instead of 720p for Olympus.
    - It's always possible a firmware upgrade could allow sdxc use in the future. My old Pentax *istDL could only use plain SD cards until a welcomed upgrade released while the model was already end-of-lined by Pentax. Wonderful customer support from this brand. Time will tell if Olympus is as much loyal (but alas time has already told former OM users they're unlikely to be).
  3. dcisive

    dcisive Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 19, 2010
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    I don't know about YOU but personally I don't care to sit through more than several minutes of video. I prefer clips assembled to keep it interesting. So the 7 minute limit suites me fine. I have a camcorder which is a hard drive based unit capable of 8 hours of recording if I wish to film an event that is long winded, but I have to tell you typically it loses it's audience quickly when it's that long.
  4. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I don't make a confusion between filming and editing (besides, my wife is a trained video editor, even if she doesn't work in that field anymore). While I totally agree a sequence over 5 minutes better be extremely interesting for me to seat through, I know a couple of news reporters that hit 'rec' on their camcorder as soon as the set foot out of their home and 'stop' when they put their keys back in the lock at the end of the day. You just *never* know when something worth it will happen.

    7 minutes continuous is too short in many cases, even if you intend to make a 30 sec. clip out of your rushes.
  5. franklyspeaking

    franklyspeaking Mu-43 Regular

    I can see the applications for video. Especially in a wedding/event area or even time-lapse photography.
  6. squeegee

    squeegee Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 26, 2010
    I was actually thinking about this recently....

    Back in the good-old-days when people used physical film. How many shots per roll did people get on average?

    To be honest that's actually a question (not a statement), because I never had a camera before the digital age (I was too lazy and cheap to develop film). To the best of my knowledge I seem to recall seeing rolls of 25? maybe the professional rolls were larger? (50? 100?)

    My 4gb card (pretty much the smallest you can buy right now) stores 150 raw+LSF images.
    8 gb = 300
    16 gb = 600
    32 gb = 1200...

    Could you image if you had to sit through and pickout / review / post process 1200 pictures? it already takes me over an hour when I take 100 pictures. 1200 would be 12 hours+ of post processing... I'd give up.
  7. ajramirez

    ajramirez Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 16, 2010
    Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Unless you have one of those 250 exposure backs, or shoot half frame, the most you can get in 35mm is 36 exposures. 120 film in square format is 12 exposures.

    For some reason, it used to take me a lot longer to shoot 36 frames of film than it takes now to shoot 36 digital frames...:smile:

    • Like Like x 1
  8. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    The maximum number of frames was dictated by the inner size of the 135 canister (135 is the name of the 24x36 film canister) ; this maximum was 36 frames, but by carefully loading the film in the dark, you could use the 1st 2 frames that would be pull out to reach the right sprocket (with some cameras). That gave a total of 38 frame including frames 00 and 0. But if you were a self-loader, buying bulk film, you could shoehorn a couple of frames more in reusable canisters, at your own risks of jamming on the rewind (with some film unable to get back in the canister).

    All in all, you could achieve 40 frames out of a 24x36 film. More frames required special backs.

    40 was almost too much to handle for most people until the digital age. There are countless stories of minilabs receiving a film beginning on Xmas, interleaved by summer vacations pictures, and ending on the next Xmas.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. franklyspeaking

    franklyspeaking Mu-43 Regular

    You couldn't do a lot of the things in film you can now do in digital. I don't think we should discard extra functionality in digital simply because it wasn't available or more difficult in film. I couldn't "chimp" with film to get the image I want which resulted in wasted frames because I had to take several shots to cover my bases. I'm not ashamed to do so in digital if it get's the image I see in my head.

    Let's take the 1500 shots example given by mauve. In a time lapse scenario where I wanted to lock down a camera (or several cameras preferably) and set them to take a shot every 5 seconds to assemble for a time lapse piece, I'd burn through the 1500 shots in just over two hours of real time shooting. Two hours in nothing in time-lapse photography.

    Professionally, my work involves event production of concerts and trade shows. Many times we are approached to make time-lapse pieces for our clients or internally for marketing media pieces, traditionally time-lapse video has been our solution but video has it's own problems, as the SLR and video technologies have begun to converge it's become an exciting prospect of replacing the use of traditional video with the emerging SLR and even :43: cameras. Anything that would reduce the amount of attention to maintain a time lapse setup seems well worth it to me. This would include being able to throw a 500gb card in each camera, locking it down, doing my initial set-up and coming back in two days to pick everything up. The cost of the :43: equipment makes it even more appealing as it would allow for more redundant coverage to make up for any failures.

    Oh and as far as 1080p versus 720p goes, most of the content you watch on 1080p monitors is captured from 720p cameras or lower standard def cameras that have been up-converted in post. Most studios purchased their high-def equipment before 1080p was released.
  10. DavidB

    DavidB Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 7, 2010
    Melbourne, Australia
    Not all the Panasonic μ4/3 cameras are SDXC-compatible: just the new G2 and G10. I don't think any of the Olympus bodies are yet.

    But as has been pointed out: does it really matter that much yet? We're not seeing these cameras increase their pixel count or file size dramatically yet (my EOS bodies have RAW files over 25MB each) and unless the pixel count does increase it's only the movie files that will chew it up quickly.

    I still hear people saying "I don't want more than 4GB cards as it's a whole 4GB of data at risk". Firstly flash cards are pretty robust so the risk is small, but secondly it's better to think of it not as a certain amount of data on the card, but rather as a certain number of photos. If I was still shooting with a 3Mp DSLR a 4GB card with over 1200 photos on it would seem silly. But in an EOS 5DmkII that card that holds about 150 photos doesn't seem so unwieldy. Thus my own cards for those cameras go up to 16GB (when photographing fast such as when in a helicopter or shooting wildlife action it can be a pain to have to change cards).

    On my G1 my biggest cards are 8GB (>500 photos) and I've only gone that big so far as (a) they're cheap, and (b) with an L-plate on the camera it's even more of a pain to change cards in the field.
  11. franklyspeaking

    franklyspeaking Mu-43 Regular

    Thanks for the answer Dave.
  12. squeegee

    squeegee Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 26, 2010
    On the topic of timelapse photograhy... you realised the olympus cameras don't even have a power plug right? you can't power it through usb or anything, you're going to have to walk up and switch the batteries every few hours anyways... (just in case you weren't turned off olympus enough already). I guess you could get one of those AC->Battery adapters... not sure how well those work.

    As for storage, I guess that's why everyone is crying about tethering. If it were tetherable you'd be writing directly to a computer and you could then have a few terabytes of storage available to you fairly cheap nowadays.

    Interesting thoughts I'd never thought of before.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. franklyspeaking

    franklyspeaking Mu-43 Regular

    squeegee, I was thinking I'd could use a AC adapter but after you posted I searched around and discovered there wasn't one (or at least one I could find). So yeah, that pretty much ends the Olympus time-lapse possibilities.

    Tethering, could work as well for the storage problems but are more expensive to pair with each camera.

    Thanks for all the good info, opinions and perspectives.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.