aaww c'mon guys!

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

ian lincoln - 06 Apr 2006 16:18 GMT

How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 06 Apr 2006 18:09 GMT

>How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.

It seems that something like a Sandisk Ultra II is faster than the
camera. So getting the more expensive Extreme cards are just fluff.

Having said that, if you use a card reader, the read speed of the
Extreme cards are higher and you can download your photos a fair bit
faster.

Have a look at this for more info:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

Reply to this Message

Frank ess - 06 Apr 2006 21:15 GMT

>> How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of
>> money.
>
> It seems that something like a Sandisk Ultra II is faster than the
> camera. So getting the more expensive Extreme cards are just fluff.

I heard/read that the Extreme versions are more durable in extreme
conditions?

Signature

Frank ess

Reply to this Message

Kinon O'cann - 07 Apr 2006 01:16 GMT

>>> How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of
>>> money.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I heard/read that the Extreme versions are more durable in extreme
> conditions?

Maybe. SanDisk only says that these cards have been 'tested' at high and low
temps. There isn't a lot that different in the top end cards from the lower
priced cards.

Reply to this Message

Kinon O'cann - 07 Apr 2006 01:15 GMT

> How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.

If you're only shooting one frame every few seconds, anything will do. If
you're constantly shooting stuff RAW at full speed, check the charts on
www.robgalbraith.com and see which one is fastest. The plain vanilla SanDisk
units are a lot faster than you would think, so unless you really need top
speed, they may be enough.

Reply to this Message

Jon B - 07 Apr 2006 20:55 GMT

> > How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> units are a lot faster than you would think, so unless you really need top
> speed, they may be enough.

In half the tests I've seen the standard blue Sandisks are the slowest
cards on test, particularly the 512mb card (I paid particular interest
in that one as I have one...) [1], I've just picked up the Ultra II as
it was often twice the speed of a regular blue sandisk, and only a
smidgen slower than the extreme III, it was also not much more for the
ultra II over the standard blue.

[1] Check the results for the 10D and 1D where it was tested.

Signature

Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.

Reply to this Message

tomm42 - 07 Apr 2006 03:15 GMT

The San Disk Ultra II would probably be fine, a friend used Lexar 80xWA
cards with his D20. I would think the Lexar 133 or the San Disk Extreme
III might be over kill, but if you are shooting sports they maybe what
you need. I'd just check Rob Galbraith's site
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

Tom

Reply to this Message

ian lincoln - 07 Apr 2006 13:03 GMT

> The San Disk Ultra II would probably be fine, a friend used Lexar 80xWA
> cards with his D20. I would think the Lexar 133 or the San Disk Extreme
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Tom

yeah looking at the chart the difference between II and III is 0.031mb/sec
for jpeg and
0.329 for raw files. They also say because of various sample difference to
ignore a 5% difference. On the other hand an original normal speed sandisk
card is barely half the speed.

Reply to this Message

C J Southern - 07 Apr 2006 03:54 GMT

Keep in mind that the camera will buffer quite a few shots anyway.

Are you taking stills, or trying to shoot a movie?

I've stuck with standard speed cards, and not had any regrets.

In my opinion, for the same $$$ go for capacity over speed.

> How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.

Reply to this Message

ian lincoln - 07 Apr 2006 12:27 GMT

> Keep in mind that the camera will buffer quite a few shots anyway.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> In my opinion, for the same $$$ go for capacity over speed.

The last football match i covered i took 232 shots in 90 mins. anticipating
the action point means starting a little early and leaving the 'motor drive'
running a little later than expected. at 5fps and a buffer of 6 shots i
only get a second of action. unless of course i drop to jpeg only and a
lower resolution.

Reply to this Message