| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2004 04:32:27 PM · #1 |
Theyre on dpreview. anyone have them?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2004 04:36:13 PM · #2 |
oh yeah, also, if you dont have usb 2.0...GET IT. It is sooooo much faster. Besides, its only like 11.65 or something like that. //www.provantage.com got it today, popped it in the computer, and voila! If you dont know how/feel comfortable opening up your computer, then its not 11 dollars. My mom always gets so worried. LOL
|
|
|
|
02/11/2004 04:42:36 PM · #3 |
I have an ultra II CF card and love it. Well worth the extra cash. They are so fast! 60X normal speed. Nice to have if your digicam can use them and the Canon Digital Rebel can so it was a great choice for me.
Message edited by author 2004-02-11 21:56:48. |
|
|
|
02/11/2004 05:22:27 PM · #4 |
| Well, don't kid yourself with these things. Your camera is the bottle mark once you get to the 12x and up cards, so any additional speed is only realized elsewhere. |
|
|
|
02/11/2004 05:35:27 PM · #5 |
I have both a Sandisk 512mb (6x) and a Sandisk Ultra 512mb (12x) card and notice a big difference in performance between the two. When I'm using burst mode and the camera's buffer fills up, I find myself waiting for quite a while for the regular one to be written to, but I've never waited for the Ultra. I agree with Woolridge...you don't need anything faster than 12x as the camera can write to the Ultra card faster than it can clear its own buffer.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Well, don't kid yourself with these things. Your camera is the bottle mark once you get to the 12x and up cards, so any additional speed is only realized elsewhere. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-11 22:40:38. |
|
|
|
02/11/2004 06:03:25 PM · #6 |
I got two 256MB Ultra IIs for Christmas, but I think it was (for now) a pointless investment. I have the D60 and I don't believe it can really take advantage of the speed. I haven't noticed much of a speed increase since I got them. :(
Better luck with my next camera, I suppose.
(btw, what do they translate to in MB/sec?) |
|
|
|
02/11/2004 07:35:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nroot:
I have the D60 and I don't believe it can really take advantage of the speed. |
Well, the 10D tends to be slower (10-20%) than the D60 in this respect, and the 300D is nominally slower than the 10D. I think the problem is that, as far as I know (confirm anyone?), Canon doesn't take advantage of the Lexar WA technology for example. The prosumer Nikons are so much better with write speed. Mind you, the 1D and 1Ds are very good too, but still not in league with Nikon.
Originally posted by nroot:
(btw, what do they translate to in MB/sec?) |
The D60 is around 1.6MB/s (or did you mean the card speed ratings?). You can see Rob Galbraith's CompactFlash Performance Database for comprehensive data. |
|
|
|
02/12/2004 02:41:49 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by fsteddy:
I have an ultra II CF card and love it. Well worth the extra cash. They are so fast! 60X normal speed. Nice to have if your digicam can use them and the Canon Digital Rebel can so it was a great choice for me. |
Do you tend to notice the difference? I've tried 8x and 40x Lexar cards, and to be honest, I really can't tell the difference. |
|
|
|
02/12/2004 05:19:20 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by fsteddy:
I have an ultra II CF card and love it. Well worth the extra cash. They are so fast! 60X normal speed. Nice to have if your digicam can use them and the Canon Digital Rebel can so it was a great choice for me. |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Well, don't kid yourself with these things. Your camera is the bottle mark once you get to the 12x and up cards, so any additional speed is only realized elsewhere. |
Originally posted by nroot:
btw, what do they translate to in MB/sec? |
60 times normal speed? Don't kid yourself. This whole speed thing came out from Lexar as a marketing ploy, and is based upon CD drive write speeds not on actual CompactFlash write speeds. The normal speed for CompactFlash has been eight times for a very long time now, and continues to be. That means that even at 60 times your cards are not even 10 times faster than normal.
I would tend to agree that normally the camera is the bottleneck, and I'm not sure about the processing speed of many of the camera's out there -- but one point to consider on that note is probably the new Canon sports camera. I could be mistaken on this but I believe that its processing rate is something like 102MB of picture information per second which beats any CompactFlash card by some margin.
Incidentally to answer the third quote in my post, I mentioned before that the write speeds are based upon compact disk drives -- these have a right speed of 150KB per 2nd for each speed rating.
Therefore an 8 Speed drive (normal speed for CompactFlash) is 1.2MB per second.
60 times speed equates to approximately 9MB per second.
I'm not sure how Sandisk created their second-generation ultra cards, but if it is based on something similar to write acceleration technology from Lexar then most people will be disappointed as the camera has to support the technology before you will see any benefits. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 09:38:56 AM EDT.
