Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-22 of 22 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 Mar 2013 01:03:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Mar 2013 17:28:28 GMT
In the past I have always used Sandisk Ultra or Extreme CF cards of 4mb and 8mb.
Does anyone use other makes and how do they compare please?
Some seem quite cheap by comparison with Sandisk but are they any good?
I have used Integral SDHC cards in a compact without drama but the Sandisc Pro Duo I tried in my Sony A700 was painfully slow, albeit cheap as chips.

Posted on 12 Mar 2013 17:11:23 GMT
T.J.Byford says:
Dr. A.

I wonder if the problem you had with the Pro Duo is that it is not a standard SD card. It is a Sony version that needs to be used with an adapter in an SD slot.

As you know, so few cameras use CF cards now, in fact I believe they are only used new in top of the range cameras from Canon, and possibly Nikon, as pros prefer them to SD. The only camera I currently own that takes CF is my 2005 Sony R1, which also takes Sony's memory stick pro due. Like you, I use Sandisk Ultra and Extreme verstions.

Posted on 12 Mar 2013 17:30:57 GMT
Hi TJ,
Pro duo will only fit a pro duo slot - like the one in my Sony camera. The contacts are totally different. I see there is a new faster version now though. I've sent for one so I can keep it in the spare slot of my camera in case I have trouble with the CF or fill it.

Posted on 12 Mar 2013 23:15:29 GMT
Steve B says:
I have several makes of Compact Flash cards that I have purchased over many years, most of which are either 16GB or 32GB. This is because I tend to take a lot of photographs on weekend shoots or for special occasions when using my Canon 5D Mk2, 5D Mk3 or 7D bodies recording JPEG and RAW. Although I have some 133x cards that I may now use for some photographs the main cards that I use are 16GB: Duracell (600x); SanDisk Extreme (60Mb/s); and Transcend (600x), 32GB: Kingston Ultimate (600x); Komputer Bay Professional (600x) and Transcend (400x). I also have a 4GB Lexar Professional (300x) card. I have not had any problems with my CF cards and think that the cheaper cards perform just as good as the equivalent SanDisk or Lexar cards and in fact the only occasion that I can recall someone saying that they had a faulty card, it was a SanDisk.

Personally I do not think that it is worth paying out a lot of money for some of the fast SanDisk and Lexar Compact Flash cards and I am told that the best SD card for the Canon 5D Mk3 is a 45MB/s because faster cards do not record any quicker.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Mar 2013 23:48:20 GMT
Thanks Steve,
That's interesting - to get some comparisons between the various cards.
I've never really understood the equivalence between MB/s and xso much.

Posted on 14 Mar 2013 09:55:27 GMT
T.J.Byford says:
Steve B,

That's a good point about the actual write speed being throttled by the camera. There is absolutely no point in paying for a card that is faster than that which the camera can cope. And the earlier the camera, the slower the write speed could, and is likely, to be.

Other than speed, it seems to me one's main consideration could be the ruggedness of the card itself. I believe it is Samsung who are promoting their very rugged cards and which are supposed to be waterproof (!) and can operate over a wider temperature range, matters clearly of interest to pro's.

From time to time magazines review and compare various makes but all this does is to confirm what the actual write/read times are compared to the published spec. And an opinion on build quality, not that there is much to look at! What would really interest me is whether there is any actual difference in image quality. After all, if one buys a cheap tape cassette one doesn't expect it to perform as well as one costing many times more, although they do the same thing

The digital geeks will say not, as after all the signal is simply a 0 or 1. But I do wonder if anyone has carried out a scientific test showing that there can be variable image quality depending upon the make?

Posted on 14 Mar 2013 10:18:52 GMT
T.J.Byford says:
Dr. A,

"X" speed simply refers to the convention that the base of 1x refers to an audio cd which records in real time. So when a recordable CD is stated to be 52x in theory it can capture data this much faster, but obviously only using a pc drive.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2013 10:41:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Mar 2013 10:41:19 GMT
Hi TJ,
Oh right. Is there any equivalence with MB/s do you know? Simple equivalence that is.

Posted on 14 Mar 2013 11:30:30 GMT
Steve B says:
Dr A

Wikipedia quotes the following explanation for transforming "x" ratings into Mega Bytes per second.

"CompactFlash IDE (ATA) emulation speed is usually specified in "x" ratings, e.g. 8x, 20x, 133x. This is the same system used for CD-ROMs and indicates the maximum transfer rate in the form of a multiplier based on the original audio CD data transfer rate, which is 150 kByte/s.

R = K * 150 kByte/s

Where R = transfer rate, K = speed rating. For example, 133x rating means transfer speed of: 133 * 150 kByte/s = 19,950 kByte/s ~ 20 MB/s.

These are manufacturer speed ratings. Actual transfer speed may be higher, or lower, than shown on the card depending on several factors. The speed rating quoted is almost always the read speed, while write speed is often slower."

I should probably add that some dual card standard cameras like the Canon 5D Mk3 seem to be capable of writing at higher speeds to one type of card (CF) than the other (SD) so using both cards for each picture could slow emptying the buffer.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2013 12:09:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Mar 2013 12:13:28 GMT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, Dr. A.

I haven't seen anywhere where a comparison has been made. Just a my Gossen industrial lux meter can, using a conversion scale, be used to provide equivalent shutter speed/aperture combinations, then there must be a relationship between writing speed expressed as Mbps or x speed.

Now that you've asked, I wonder. I will say now, I have no idea what I am really talking about, it is pure conjecture, so comments from others with a technical background will be very welcome.

The audio CD I referred to has a storage capacity of 700 meg for 80 minutes playing time, this I do know. So, this has a write speed of 0.14583 mbps. On this basis, a 133x card would be 19.39mbps, 300x = 43mbps, 400x = 58mbps, and the 600x would equal 87mbps. Interestingly, one card, the Transcend 600x UDMA 7, does actually agree, but others don't necessarily follow my logic when it comes to write speeds, which always tend to be slower, but read speeds seem there, or there about.

I found this link which could be helpful but it doesn't always state the write speed and mbps info for each card and, reading it, I couldn't find much correlation.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/fastest-memory-cards-money-can-buy

Edit: I was typing my response and then saw Steve's when I posted. At least my math was correct!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2013 12:21:49 GMT
Thanks Steve B.
That's very helpful.
Also TJ for the link.

Posted on 31 Mar 2013 08:27:59 BDT
Lucius says:
I generally use SanDisk too - 90Mbp/s versions, but recently bought a Lexar CF as it was a bit cheaper (unusually!) with no problems. I do with Lexar would use Mbps instead of the meaningless "1000X" or whatever it is as I get fed up of doing the calculations to convert it to something that means something so I can compare them! I've had the odd cheap card in the past from other manufacturers, but always regretted it - either they are sloooow or have failed. At least with SanDisk and Lexar you know they are built to last and that the speed it's rated at is actually the speed it performs at - a lot of the others often don't even perform at half their stated speed.

Posted on 6 Apr 2013 22:14:04 BDT
I have no experience with CF cards but have used a great many SD and SDHC cards in various cameras mostly Canon, lately a 60D . I have found no difference what ever between the various makes but when using the video facility of the 60D I must use a class 10 card not the cheaper class 4 although that is fine for single shot stills and at least 8GB. So I now use with every satisfaction the cheapest class 10 8 or 16 GB cards (7day shop seem cheap , quick and reliable - usual disclamer)

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Apr 2013 09:55:07 BDT
Have you tried their own brand memory cards?

Posted on 7 Apr 2013 16:42:13 BDT
Yes I am using one at present , I see no difference from any of the others , it is an 8GB class 10, and copes with HD video fine in my Canon 60D - no idea of longevity of course but (touch wood !) have had no trouble with any card - yet .

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Apr 2013 20:36:25 BDT
That's most interesting Ted. I have mainly Sandisk but do have some others which work fine in my compact. I have a Transcend 32Gb which I have yet to try in my dSLR

Posted on 8 Apr 2013 18:14:06 BDT
You know I have a strong (maybe cynical) suspicion that nearly all the various makes of card are in fact produced in a sweat shop in a suburb of Shanghai, and the various "maker"'s labels are added later. Maybe careful tests would show different but I can't tell one make from another by performance. There is a difference between the class 4 and the high speed class 10 though, and if you are using the HD video facility then class 10 seems essential, since with a class 4 card the camera will stop after 5 seconds or so, no practical difference when shooting stills though maybe download is a fraction quicker . Thinking aloud maybe the answer would differ if I used a lot of High speed continous , though on the occasions when I have used it I haven't noticed what card I was using.

Posted on 8 Apr 2013 18:35:39 BDT
You know I have a strong (maybe cynical) suspicion that nearly all the various makes of card are in fact produced in a sweat shop in a suburb of Shanghai, and the various "maker"'s labels are added later. Maybe careful tests would show different but I can't tell one make from another by performance. There is a difference between the class 4 and the high speed class 10 though, and if you are using the HD video facility then class 10 seems essential, since with a class 4 card the camera will stop after 5 seconds or so, no practical difference when shooting stills though maybe download is a fraction quicker . Thinking aloud maybe the answer would differ if I used a lot of High speed continous , though on the occasions when I have used it I haven't noticed what card I was using.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Apr 2013 19:33:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 Apr 2013 19:33:49 BDT
A year or two ago there was a scare that cheap cards, ostensibly by good makers, were counterfeit.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Apr 2013 21:15:23 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, Dr. A.

I believe that this was certainly so regarding some Sandisk cards being sold on the internet, particularly on ebay. Some counterfeits did turn up, I understand.

Posted on 10 Apr 2013 13:29:42 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, Everyone.

Having just ordered a new laptop to replace my current one, which is very under-spec'd for video use, I've been checking out USB 3 flash drives as the new laptop is coming equipped with 3x USB 3 connectors, plus 1x USB 2. My searches proved very interesting and although this forum is considering the performance of flash memory cards in cameras, this link could help explain why there will be different performances between brands and, indeed, capacities within the same brand with, say, 32gb versions of the same model performing faster than their 16gb siblings. All is definitely not equal in the world of USB 3 flash drives, it would seem.

http://www.whoratesit.com/Best-Flash-Drive/Comparison/1

Posted on 21 Apr 2013 15:06:39 BDT
Piston Broke says:
I've used Fujifilm and Kingston cards, which are both very good, (except Fuji cards tend to be a bit pricey). SanDisk cards seem to be available just about anywhere, so I guess that makes them a popular choice. I would also agree that superfast cards are not worth the (considerable) added expense.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (760 discussions)

ARRAY(0xad368438)
 

This discussion

Participants:  6
Total posts:  22
Initial post:  12 Mar 2013
Latest post:  21 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions