Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

compact flash speeds

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
ian lincoln - 05 Apr 2006 21:57 GMT
i have a 20D so i am assuming it can outpace a standard card.  I have seen
sandisk ultra I ultra II and ultra III.  I think the III came out after the
20D.  Basically how fast should i go before i'm wasting my money.  My
original 300D couldn't make use of anything faster than standard cards.  But
now i'm looking at roughly a 1gb II for more than a standard speed 2gb.
Ed Ruf  (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) - 05 Apr 2006 22:22 GMT
>i have a 20D so i am assuming it can outpace a standard card.  I have seen
>sandisk ultra I ultra II and ultra III.  I think the III came out after the
>20D.  Basically how fast should i go before i'm wasting my money.  My
>original 300D couldn't make use of anything faster than standard cards.  But
>now i'm looking at roughly a 1gb II for more than a standard speed 2gb.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303
--
Ed Ruf    Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Tony Polson - 06 Apr 2006 10:10 GMT
>>i have a 20D so i am assuming it can outpace a standard card.  I have seen
>>sandisk ultra I ultra II and ultra III.  I think the III came out after the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303

That's a useful link, thanks.  It's interesting to note that the
fastest cards, some of which claim "80X" speed, are less than four
times as fast as the slowest.

I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
just that 80X is not credible  ...

;-)
David Dyer-Bennet - 06 Apr 2006 17:52 GMT
> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
> just that 80X is not credible  ...

In my tests, a 133x card came out significantly faster than an 80x
card (7.6MB/sec vs. 4.6, I think it was).
Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

ian lincoln - 06 Apr 2006 22:23 GMT
>> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
>> just that 80X is not credible  ...
>
> In my tests, a 133x card came out significantly faster than an 80x
> card (7.6MB/sec vs. 4.6, I think it was).

I know the lexar is configured for high download speeds from a reader but
what about write speed?  Will my camera buffer empty more quickly?
David Dyer-Bennet - 07 Apr 2006 00:23 GMT
> >> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
> >> just that 80X is not credible  ...
> >
> > In my tests, a 133x card came out significantly faster than an 80x
> > card (7.6MB/sec vs. 4.6, I think it was).

> I know the lexar is configured for high download speeds from a reader but
> what about write speed?  Will my camera buffer empty more quickly?

The speeds I listed were write speeds in my Nikon D200.  That's the
speed that really *matters* to me.

For read speeds...hmm, I only have figures from the 80x card.  That
tested at 9.1MB/sec read (SanDisk USB 2 reader on an XP box).  There
appears to be huge variation in readers and in motherboard USB
support, so that figure only means much on my system.
Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Jim Redelfs - 07 Apr 2006 02:09 GMT
> Will my camera buffer empty more quickly?

Yes.

In fact, I proved it (to myself) just this afternoon when I did a shoot of a
sandlot baseball practice.  I turned on the burst mode, got some really great
sequences and never missed the next shot.  I could barely get the camera away
from my eye before the buffer cleared and the read/write LED went out.

I'm using a 20D with a Sandisk Ultra II 1gb - apparently NOT the newest model
of their "faster" CF card.

I paid just over $65 for another (identical) card the other day.
Signature

           :)
JR

ian lincoln - 07 Apr 2006 12:30 GMT
>> Will my camera buffer empty more quickly?
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I paid just over $65 for another (identical) card the other day.

Great.  i saw that the ultra iii is £5 cheaper than the III.  Now i know its
worth at least investing in the II.
Paul J Gans - 09 Apr 2006 02:12 GMT
>>> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
>>> just that 80X is not credible  ...
>>
>> In my tests, a 133x card came out significantly faster than an 80x
>> card (7.6MB/sec vs. 4.6, I think it was).

>I know the lexar is configured for high download speeds from a reader but
>what about write speed?  Will my camera buffer empty more quickly?

Bingo.  That's the key.  The rest depends on the photographer.
An amateur can download to his computer while eating dinner.
Read speed hardly matters in that case.  It will matter in
others.

  ---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans - 09 Apr 2006 02:10 GMT
>> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
>> just that 80X is not credible  ...

>In my tests, a 133x card came out significantly faster than an 80x
>card (7.6MB/sec vs. 4.6, I think it was).

But, but...  While I will agree that the more speed you
have writing *in the camera* the better, beyond that there
are a number of other factors that enter in.

  ---- Paul J. Gans
David Dyer-Bennet - 09 Apr 2006 17:22 GMT
> >> I'm not saying that four times faster isn't worth paying extra for,
> >> just that 80X is not credible  ...
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> have writing *in the camera* the better, beyond that there
> are a number of other factors that enter in.

I'm not claiming that's all that anybody could reasonably care about;
certainly not.  I'm claiming those are the numbers I bothered to
measure carefully and had to hand :-).
Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.