Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Memory Cards, Microdrives, Card Readers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 9, 2003, 2:35 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4
Default Sandisc Ultr

People say you will only notice the benefit of higher grade cards with top end equipment, which I take to mean SLR type gear. I have a canon s50 and want a 256 cf card, but can't decide whether to go for the ultra or standard. Would I notice any benefit from the ultra?
picturethis is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 9, 2003, 4:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,196
Default

You can buy CFs with 24x 32x 40x speed. Usefull perhaps for PDAs.

A Canon 10D DigiSLR writes with 8x speed, a DSLR with 11 or 14 megapixels writes with 16x speed.

Consumer cameras are slower.

If you have (to much) money, buy the fastest.
If you are intelligent, buy a good, cheap card.
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2003, 4:25 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The 10D is the exception to the rule, for modern DSLRs. Most write much faster than it does (but many don't have as big a cache.) Both the Canon D60 and Nikon D100 write faster than the 10D.

But in general, I agree. The vast majority of cameras out there will not benefit from anything faster than around 8-12x. You might get an improvement when reading the card in your computer but that seems to be reader dependent... and even then it depends on the exact reader/card combination.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2003, 4:48 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

I disagree but, only to a point.

When I used the stock Nikon 32MB 4x card in my 5700 on Fine JPEG at 2560x1920 took about 8 seconds to write the photo. The SanDisk Ultra (18x I believe) for the same photo took 3 seconds.

So there is definalty a benefit to high speed card, even if the camera is not a "true" DSLR.
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2003, 6:15 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I'm not surprised if that you got a benefit when going from 4x to 18x (I thought 16x, but I don't know why.) What we are saying is if you got the 12x (or 8x, if DonalDuc is right) then you have seen the same speed improvement as when you used the SanDisk Ultra that you got.

It's not that faster isn't better, it's that the card which comes with most cameras is really bad. So almost anything will be faster. But there is a point where faster doesn't matter because its a function of both the camera and the card... which ever is slower will win. Put the fastest card in the world right now into the cheapest camera made 3 years ago... and it won't be blazingly fast.

Of course, there are other reasons to get the Ultra. Lifetime warranty, for one.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2003, 8:18 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
A Canon 10D DigiSLR writes with 8x speed, a DSLR with 11 or 14 megapixels writes with 16x speed.
As a reference, a raw picture takes 5.06s with the microdrive in my 10D.

A 9 pictures raw sequence takes 41.04s, ie 4.55s/8Mb -> 1.75Mb/s (~11.72x), at least that what I've got with my 1G microdrive! The 1st LED's flash was a read, so I timed the 10D from the moment the red LED stayed on until it stop... It flashed another quick read when completed.

BTW there's no sense in buying a faster card if all you shoot is jpegs (dSLR or P&S)! The camera will buffer up all the shots and write them back leasurely to the card so one almost never have to wait for the camera (ie you can still shoot while the camera is writing). Beside timing the jpeg files is an inaccurate science since the file size varies with the picture content, so always measure the timing in raw since this file type is constant in size... 8)

DonalDuc is right!
Quote:
If you have (too much) money, buy the fastest.
If you are intelligent, buy a good, cheap card.
... Although the difference in price now is not as big as it used to be (at least @ the 1G)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2003, 11:55 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

RAW images (2560x1920 - 7.68MB file) in my 5700 take about 16 secs using my SanDisk Ultra 256MB. I have yet to test RAW on the stock Nikon (made by Lexar) 4x CF that came with the camera.

If JPGs are any indication of speed (3 compared to 9 secs using the cards above) then the current $50.00 Canadian extra for the Ultra is completely worth it. Of course I can't comment of other non-DSLR cameras and the benefit they may or may not receive when using a high speed CF.

SanDisk 4X 512MB $239.00 (Canadian)
SanDisk Ultra 512MB $289.00 (Canadian)
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2003, 2:17 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

koruvs

The point is your camera can shoot faster than 3 or 9s in jpeg (ie 3 frames/second) what the use of timing the write LED in this mode? Most of the time people spend time to reframe between shots... so unless you're using raw/tiff to overload the camera's internal buffer then you're spending extra for nothing!

One can always pay extra for the 'comfort' factor though, since the price differential for faster card is not that big anymore... 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2003, 3:07 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I don't know how slow the SanDisk 4x is for reading, but I bet the Ultra reads faster as well. That would probably be worth the $50 if you regularly fill the camera (along with the lifetime warrenty.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2003, 4:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

NHL,

Do you not think that when using the 5700 at 2560x1920 in JPG mode a 6 second faster write time is more beneficial when comparing a 4x to a 16x CF ? I certainly do, and that extra 3x faster speed for $50 more is a non-issue.

I use RAW for objects I can take time on and JPG for everything else.
koruvs 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 5:55 PM.