Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2007, 8:21 AM   #11
JimC's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

muffinman wrote:
Took 360mb of jpeg data from my computer and dumped it into the card, which took 126seconds that would mean 360/126=2.8. therefore 2.8mb/sec (hope this is correct). then took the same amount of data and dumped it on to desktop, which took 25secs= 14.4mb/sec. i know Sandra's readings are hard to work out, but hopethe calculationsi have just done are correct. even then, its still off the claimed 20mb/sec.
The bottleneck may not be the card. It could be your card reader, it's drivers, virus protection or firewall software influencing transfer speeds, how fast your PC is and what amount of CPU it was allocating to other tasks, read speed from your hard drive, another USB device influencing your transfer speed or any number of other problems.

Note that when reading data that has already been read, much of it could be coming from Cache (versus the actual device you're reading from). So, be careful when assuming read speed is very good.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:37 AM   #12
Senior Member
tommccarty's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 155

What I meant was, in the Mac, you can normally just drag another file over to the OS in VPC. Sometimes that wont work and if you first happen to download the format file or any .exe file in a Mac, it makes sense to transfer that to a Thumb Disk and transfer to the PC window. I'll probably try first to download the file again from Windows 2000 or XP.
My Mac runs fast and I have done this before for PC required ugrades on Garmin, I just don't like running Win PC unless I have to.
My computer has a pretty fast bus, 1.5 meg's of ram and I have Firewire 800& 400, USB 2 It is a G5 DP

What I wonder.. has anyone else bought the SDHC and format via camera alone? Panasonic says PC format req'd. What the heck... why not just format the card before delivery? If it is a Pany branded card it makes sense to deliver it with FAT 32 OE.
Maybe the Sandisk will be different. I'll try in camera first.
I know the new reader is FAT 32 compliant and I won't be able to use the current one I have.
Thanks for your feed back, I appreciate it
tommccarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2007, 4:22 PM   #13
Little Davel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 52

Bought a couple of Extreme SDs recently. Compared to the Viking (Standard Toshiba) it was quicker in my compact Sanyo Xacti E60 - but appeared about the same in an older Minolta Z10 ! However in the Z10 I noticed that after 5 continuous shots the camera halted and struggled with the Viking - but kept working ok for a good many shots with the sandisk Extreme !! Both cards formatted in the cameras .... just an observation.
Little Davel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 4:02 AM   #14
Junior Member
RichUK's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 23

As already stated comparissons are only to be done when one element is changed, at any point in the chain could be the item capping the through put, I testedvarious CF and SD cards, with various readers and the readers played more of a deciding factor in this case than the cards did, I used Sandisk II, Kingston, Kingston Pro (all 2GB), all cards were reformated using my 350D as this is what I will be using them on and images taken from the camera were transferdto and from the PC all cards performed pretty much the same in the camera as far as you could see with multiple shots and each memory card performed close when transfering them but the big difference was the reader... I used 3 external readers (all USB2 on 2 PCs and Dell Laptop)and 1 built in to my new Dell the resulting speeds ranged from 700k/s to 7mb/s when transfering to the PC the difference this made getting the images off was huge in comparission unless you dont mind waiting some 47minutes to dump 2GB (although again all eggs 1 basket, its not a good idea) where as it takes 4.7minutes to dump on the faster readers, and these were all relative priced to one another (~5GBP), I would like to try a card slot CF reader but Its £30 so I will wait as my Laptop wont do PCMCIA

I now stick with my cheap USB reader I got from ebay and I brought more Kingston pro memory (which I looked for standard Kingston but out of stock this performed the same for me)
RichUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2007, 4:16 AM   #15
Little Davel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 52

Talking of cheap card readers - bought several USB 2 readers from Poundland - WOW! They whizz along ! What a deal !
Little Davel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2007, 9:15 AM   #16
mrc01's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62

TCav said: << Always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS the best place to format you cards is in the camera. >>

My experience is *usually* but not *always*. For example my 300D performs about 10% slower when the card is formatted FAT32. If I format a card > 2 GB in the camera it uses FAT-32 which makes everything work about 10% slower. That's slower buffer recovery, slower picture review, etc. If I format the card with my computer, forcing it to be FAT (FAT-16), then it works perfectly in the camera and it performs faster.

BTW, my experience is that if someone is seeing 2 MB/sec or slower transfer rates using a card with a computer then there may be a USB 1.1 device in there which is throttling everyhing. Could be the USB port, the USB driver, the card reader, etc.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:46 AM.