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 / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

SanDisk Ultra II or Extreme III for The Nikon D70 ?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
dansa94@yahoo.com - 06 Nov 2006 22:13 GMT
Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
Extreme III ?

Dan Sautin        dansa94@yahoo.com
John McWilliams - 06 Nov 2006 22:21 GMT
> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
> photos with the digital SLR,

It was always thus.

I wonder if anyone knows what will the
> difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
> CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
> Extreme III ?

I just got a 4 Gig Ultra II Sandisk, and an under the impression that
the III version only costs more. This for Canon 20D and 5D. No tests,
just an impression.

And for you, do $ count? Probably, so only you can factor that.

Signature

John McWilliams

just bob - 06 Nov 2006 22:21 GMT
> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
> difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
> CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
> Extreme III ?

Makes no difference with that camera.  You will notice the difference when
you plug the card into a USB 2.0 card reader and connect it to your
computer. If you do not mind waiting about 20 minutes to download a 2GB
card, save your money and get the slow one. Unless you have a camera costing
more than $3000, or a Canon 5D, only people who work on a deadline need the
fast cards.
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes - 07 Nov 2006 11:30 GMT
>> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
>> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> costing more than $3000, or a Canon 5D, only people who work on a deadline
> need the fast cards.

Sometime I shoot 5 fps with my 30D and even with a large buffer, it is not
enough. I wish I had a card that was faster than the ones I got.

But I wonder, how fast can the camera write to the card? Assume I got my
hands on card with a write speed of 100 Gb/sec. Would the camera be able to
write that fast? I have never seen any specification on how fast a camera
can write to a card.

Signature

Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/

just bob - 07 Nov 2006 15:17 GMT
>>> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
>>> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Sometime I shoot 5 fps with my 30D and even with a large buffer, it is not
> enough. I wish I had a card that was faster than the ones I got.

Yes, the 30D can really take advantage of fast cards
Don Wiss - 07 Nov 2006 02:43 GMT
>Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
>photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
>difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
>CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
>Extreme III ?

I have an Extreme III in my D200. When shooting parades I have taken so
many pictures quickly that I've had to wait until they have written to the
card. My next card will be an Extreme IV.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
just bob - 07 Nov 2006 15:16 GMT
>>Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
>>photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> many pictures quickly that I've had to wait until they have written to the
> card. My next card will be an Extreme IV.

Yes, that camera can take advantage of fast cards
Richard H. - 07 Nov 2006 03:33 GMT
> difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
> CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
> Extreme III ?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906

It'll depend on how often you shoot more than 3 shots in a burst.  If
not, you won't notice the slower cards when shooting.

Cheers,
Richard
Toby - 07 Nov 2006 12:28 GMT
There are a bunch of cheap cards coming out of Taiwan and Korea these days
as fast or faster than the Extreme III for a fraction of the price. I just
picked up a 4Gb 140x CF card for about $75. I checked the speed against a
couple of other cards I have and it really is that fast.

The only caveat is that apparently these cards are not recognized by some
cameras. The guy at the store asked me to bring in the camera (D200)--we
tried the card and it worked fine, and has continued to perform flawlessly.

Toby

> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Dan Sautin        dansa94@yahoo.com
JC Dill - 07 Nov 2006 19:57 GMT
>There are a bunch of cheap cards coming out of Taiwan and Korea these days
>as fast or faster than the Extreme III for a fraction of the price. I just
>picked up a 4Gb 140x CF card for about $75. I checked the speed against a
>couple of other cards I have and it really is that fast.

Can you share a link to these cards, or the card name?

Thanks!

jc

Signature

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."  
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Toby - 08 Nov 2006 00:47 GMT
I bought one in Korea, the other in Japan, so no links.  The brand name of
one is "Ziben" and the other "Adata". Actually Adata seems to be a real
company based in Taiwan. The Ziben is 140x and the Adata 120x--my mistake, I
thought it was 140x. Their SD cards run at 150x.

Toby

>>There are a bunch of cheap cards coming out of Taiwan and Korea these days
>>as fast or faster than the Extreme III for a fraction of the price. I just
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> jc
Skip - 08 Nov 2006 03:40 GMT
>I bought one in Korea, the other in Japan, so no links.  The brand name of
>one is "Ziben" and the other "Adata". Actually Adata seems to be a real
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>>
>> jc

I have an Adata hard drive, but I've never seen their CF cards.

Signature

Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

tomm42 - 07 Nov 2006 13:52 GMT
On Nov 6, 5:13 pm, dans...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Dan Sautin        dans...@yahoo.com

For a D70 an Ultra II is fine. Generally it is faster, newer cameras
need faster cards. Just bought an Extreme III because I could get Phase
One Capture 1 LE as a rebate. The card is also heat and cold resistant
other than that I really don't know if I'd notice the difference. I
have had 2 Ultra IIs since I bought my D200 and they have been fine,
and that is a faster camera. If I shot sports I might feel I needed the
fastest card. Extreme IIIs and IVs are listed as the fastest cards on
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007. A great
resource BTW.

Tom
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 07 Nov 2006 13:57 GMT
> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher quality
> photos with the digital SLR, I wonder if anyone knows what will the
> difference be in performance for my Nikon D70 if I choose a 4 Gigabyte
> CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
> Extreme III ?

I doubt you will notice the difference in your D70.  The Extreme III will
probably weather extreme environmental conditions better [most cards don't
like heat].  Also, a faster card, while not making a difference in the camera,
may make a huge difference in a card reader.

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68  00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Bill - 07 Nov 2006 18:59 GMT
> Now that RAW seems a better choice than JPG for getting higher
> quality
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> CF Ultra II instead of an Extreme III, or should I better choose the
> Extreme III ?

In a Nikon D70/s it won't make much difference as the camera is not
fast enough to take advantage of the faster write speed of the card:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7906

Note that the D70/s will work a bit faster with the new Extreme IV
cards, but that difference probably isn't enough to justify the higher
cost over the Ultra II.

However, if you use a fast card reader and fast data port on your
computer, like USB v2 or firewire, then a faster card will transfer
the images to the computer at a higher rate, which may be worth the
added cost.
 
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.