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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 6, 2007, 7:05 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

I just got a Transcend 4GB 120x card for my 300D. I compared it against the Transcend 1GB 45x card I have been using for years and found it is actually slower. Strange.

I tested it several ways - rapid picture taking, time to recovery after filling the buffer taking pictures rapidly, scrolling through pictures already taken, etc. In all tests the new 4GB 120x card is slightly slower than the old 1GB 45x card.

I would think the new card is defective, but it does work and I've gotten no card errors. Perhaps both cards are already faster than the camera so it's limited by the camera, but then why would the new one be slightly slower?

Is this normal? Should I exchange the new card for another? Thanks.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 6, 2007, 10:18 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

mrc01 wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps both cards are already faster than the camera so it's limited by the camera ...
Ron Galbraith's benchmarks for the 350D [http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...6007-7699]show that it maxes out too. So maybe that's it.

mrc01 wrote:
Quote:
... but then why would the new one be slightly slower?
In between production runs, manufacturers will ocassionally change the support chips they use, and maybe the support chips in one work better with your 300D than the other. You might have just gotten lucky with the first card, and gotten unlucky with the second.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 9:00 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Thanks. Do you think it could bethat 4GB requires FAT-32 which may be slightly slower than FAT-16? I've noticed that 4GB cards are rarely the fastest in any of the tests.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 9:47 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

I can confirm that. I formatted the faster 1GB card with my PC using FAT-32, and it is the same speed as the 4GB card. So the difference in speed appears to be FAT-16 versus FAT-32.The 300D is slower using FAT-32 formatted cards.

I wonder if this is a quirk of the 300D, or whether it's true in general.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 1:01 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62
Default

I also found out something else. I can format the 4GB card using FAT instead of FAT32. This makes it as fast as the 1GB card.

Use a card reader and format it from a PC as follows:

format Z: /fs:fat /x

Where Z: is your card reader drive. The /x is optional. Do NOT specify /a:64k or the format will fail. Windows will warn you about the 64k cluster size, say "Y" and let it continue. This works on both Win2k and Win XP.

The card storage is not quite as efficient. It says 523 pictures available instead of 528 in FAT-32 mode. Such a small difference is insignificant to me, while I enjoy the speed increase.

After this format the card works just fine in the camera, and is slightly faster than the 1GB card. It would be interesting to try this with other cameras and see if FAT32 is always slower than FAT, or whether it's unique to the 300D. It looks like something we all can try to see which offers the best performance.
mrc01 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 3:16 AM.