Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Casio

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 14, 2007, 2:06 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64
Default

I just bought andtested a 2 gb Impact SD card from Walmart in my EX-Z750. I found it formatted andworked fine inmy camerawith a write speed of 1.5 mb/sec (approx 9X)and a read speed of 3 mb/sec (approx 18X). I thought I would post this as the card is cheap at $40 Can and has no speed data on the package or card, so users might be heistant to waste money on it. AlsoCasio Tech Support advises that the EX-750camera will only support up to 1 Gb. At 1.5 mb/sec ittakes approximately 2 secondsfrom the moment that you press the button until you see the auomatic preview image. This interval seems to beshorter withmy 60X 1 gb Sandisk card, but it is still necessary to wait for the camera to give the ready signal for the next shot. Steve's review says 1.6 seconds per picture is the norm.I couldn't detect any difference in this overall cycle time between shots with the two different cards. It gives almost (but not quite) double the capacity of a 1 gb card. I willpostfurther commentsif I have any further problems with this card down the road.
Attached Images
 
ArchP is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 14, 2007, 2:54 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I found the best way to compare cards was to put the camera in continuous and time 10 shots. The first two will come very quickly because of the buffer. The rest have to write to the card and you can get a good idea of the actual write times in the camera.

Because of the buffer single shots can be misleading.

I found around a second per shot difference between my Ultra II and a Sandisk standard card. If you can run the ten shots with the new card in the same time as your Ultra II it is indeed a good buy.

You might also put a Gb on both cards and time how long it takes for them to download to the computer. The Z750 is especially fast with transfers and that might be a good comparative test as well.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2007, 8:32 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64
Default

Hi Slipe, I probably didn't emphasizeenough that my figures were based on very small file sizes and counting down the secondsas they transferred.Also I made a mistake in that the card I was comparing the 2 GB IMPACT with was in fact a 66X 1 GB CENTRIOS. In the meantime, when I used a 1 gb sizefile instead of a smaller 25 mb file, the numbers were amazinglyclose to what Iestimated when I wrote1.5 mb/s forwriting to the card and 3mb/sreading (downloading) to the hard drive.It took exactly 6 minutes (360 sec) to downloadone meg (2.78 mb/sec)and 12 minutes to upload (1.39). Amazingly, those figures were almost exactly the same for both cards, so I don't know where the advantage of the 66X comes in.I couldn't figure out any way topreset coninuous shooting to produce10 images, but,when I held the shutter button down with the flash turned off and held onfor exactly 30 seconds and then turned thepower off, I got exactly 10 images on the cardwith the cheap 2 gb card and 12 when I repeated the exercise with the more expensive CENTRIOScard. This is probably normal randomvariability.The CENTRIOS card sold at approx $90 Canadian in December. The images were all high res images (approx 4 mb files). For my bucks there is no obvious advantage to the higher speed for this particular camera. I also couldn't detect any missed frames in video. Of course, 1 gb in 30 minutes works out to something near only0.5 mb per second, I think.
ArchP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2007, 10:21 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I gave my standard card away with my Palm Tungsten so I can't do your 30 second run with that. My 66X Ultra II gets 17 continuous shots in 30 seconds for 7Mp and best quality images. The files were around 4.4Mb.

I think the Sandisk standard card took 26 seconds to take 10 continuous shots and the Ultra II took 17 seconds for the same 10 shots. I just reran the 10 shots with the Ultra II and am getting 18 seconds for the 4.4Mb files. I think the files in the original tests were around 4Mb and gave me a faster time.

Even the slow standard card didn't drop movie frames. MPEG4 doesn't need a very fast write speed.

Using the camera cradle I downloaded a full 1 Gig card in 6 minutes 36 seconds to the computer. Based on some tests I did comparing the cradle to my card reader, that would come out to around 21 to 22 minutes in my supposed high speed USB2 card reader in my new computer. The cradle is a lot faster than my card reader. It appears that the download speed is dependent on the connection speed and is independent of the card unless the card is really slow. I wish I had the standard card to check the download speed with, but I suspect it would be the same. 66X is about 9.9 Mb/sec, so the download doesn't represent the card speed. I would guess both of your cards will download at about the same speed.

I checked the folder I downloaded them into and the files in the full card were 945 Mb or 1,012,111 bytes. I guess Sandisk's Gb is based on bytes and not Mb.

I think the only limiting factor of the card speed is the write speed in the camera. The Ultra II seems a bit faster than either of yours.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:06 AM.