Speed of Compact Flash cards?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is there really a difference in performance?
Does anyone recommend a specific brand?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I use both SanDisk Ultra II and Extreme III with D70
and I can tell you, performance-wise I notice ZERO
difference between the two, well actually there is one
big difference => price!

Later on someone working at the photography shop explained
to me that the difference is only noticeable from 8MP up.

HTH,
Best Regards,
Giovanni

"Peconic" <foundpoem@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123769038.143620.77280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there really a difference in performance?
> Does anyone recommend a specific brand?
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi David,

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote
> Where there can be a difference between cards is when you have a fast card
> reader (USB 2.0 hi-speed). The faster cards will download in a shorter
> time. I would rate both of your cards as "faster" cards (compared to the
> cards which carry no marked speed).
>
I can certainly benchmark this and will post it here ... but now thinking
back
I have never noticed any difference downloading the pictures to my PC, I
have USB 2.0, for couple of minutes difference I am not willing to pay any
addittional USD.

I have also use many times the D70 sequential shooting mode and did
not notice any difference either. Again I am talking about SanDisk CF II
and III.

Best Regards,
Giovanni

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peconic" <foundpoem@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123769038.143620.77280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there really a difference in performance?
> Does anyone recommend a specific brand?

It depends on your camera if you need one. IMO, and this is probably over
simplifying but if your camera was made in the last 18 months and is a DSLR
equal or better than a Canon 20D I'd say yes you should by a speed-rated
card, probably 40x or better.

On the other hand the non-rated cards take longer for me to download to my
PC using a card reader. I have both the 300D and 1D and the only time I
notice the speed of the cards is not when shooting but downloading from the
reader.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you all for the replies. I bought the SanDisk 256MB ULTRA II
Card, which I felt was not overly pricey compared to other cards, and
was a good starting place for use with a new camera (ordered at the
same time, the Canon PowerShot S1 IS). If I find a huge difference I'll
decide for the next, or larger, card which to buy since it seemed the
more-memory cards is where they got very expensive.

The site posted (Rob Galbraith) was excellent -- thank you for that.

To Dave, I'm surprised to see what you wrote; I would have thought it
was the computer processor speed that would make the difference you
mentioned -- on my slower computer, the dirve appears far slower than
on my fast computer -- so that will be interesting to see.

Again, thanks everyone. And for the input about cameras the past few
weeks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>To Dave, I'm surprised to see what you wrote; I would have thought it
>was the computer processor speed that would make the difference you
>mentioned -- on my slower computer, the dirve appears far slower than
>on my fast computer

Probably you have USB 1.1 on the older computer and USB 2.0 on the new
one? I have a very fast computer and with a USB 1.1 card reader it
takes 15-18 minutes to download a 1 GB card but with a USB 2 reader
it's a bit over 3 minutes to download the same size card. On a slower
laptop the times are similar, so the processor speed isn't as big a
factor as which version of USB you can use.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use a a reader that plugs into the PCMCIA slot in the side of my
computer, not a USB reader, so I don't think that would make a
difference. I do have USB 2.0, but don't use it for reading [what I
have now], my SmartMedia card. Also, I transfer the same reader and
cards from computer to computer, so that part is identical; the only
difference are the computers -- one being far faster than the other. Or
am I missing something?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peconic" <foundpoem@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123777793.763346.90930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thank you all for the replies. I bought the SanDisk 256MB ULTRA II
> Card, which I felt was not overly pricey compared to other cards, and
> was a good starting place for use with a new camera (ordered at the
> same time, the Canon PowerShot S1 IS). If I find a huge difference I'll
> decide for the next, or larger, card which to buy since it seemed the
> more-memory cards is where they got very expensive.
>
> The site posted (Rob Galbraith) was excellent -- thank you for that.
>
> To Dave, I'm surprised to see what you wrote; I would have thought it
> was the computer processor speed that would make the difference you
> mentioned -- on my slower computer, the dirve appears far slower than
> on my fast computer -- so that will be interesting to see.
>
> Again, thanks everyone. And for the input about cameras the past few
> weeks.

Just to clarify, if I use a USB 2 reader, the Lexar 40x drive will download
the same amount of data from the card to my computer much faster than my
512MB non-rated Lexar using the same reader on the same computer.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123782138.291150.133860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >To Dave, I'm surprised to see what you wrote; I would have thought it
: >was the computer processor speed that would make the difference you
: >mentioned -- on my slower computer, the dirve appears far slower than
: >on my fast computer
:
: Probably you have USB 1.1 on the older computer and USB 2.0 on the new
: one? I have a very fast computer and with a USB 1.1 card reader it
: takes 15-18 minutes to download a 1 GB card but with a USB 2 reader
: it's a bit over 3 minutes to download the same size card. On a slower
: laptop the times are similar, so the processor speed isn't as big a
: factor as which version of USB you can use.
:

Dang!
I'm going to get a USB II port and put it in. I didn't realize that they are
so much faster.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 11 Aug 2005 14:58:04 -0700, "wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Sure there's a difference, teperature, moisture, and I think altitude
>resitance is what you pay for on the Exterme, not speed.

If you look at Ron Galbraith's data, you will see you also get speed
with the Extreme cards also.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/m [...] p?cid=6007
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"zog" <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42fc2bf4$0$22219$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Dave R knows who wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, if I use a USB 2 reader, the Lexar 40x drive will
>> download the same amount of data from the card to my computer much faster
>> than my 512MB non-rated Lexar using the same reader on the same computer.
>
> yeah I noticed that difference too, d/l images from my Sandisk Ultra2 card
> seem to take forever with the older sandisk usb1.1 card reader to a usb2
> notebook, bought a no-name usb2 card reader from ebay, much faster.
>
> the usb1 reader was that slow it was ridiculous, it's ok with smaller
> cards like up to 64meg, but with a 1 gig card it took something like
> 20mins to d/l the images against 5mins or less for the usb2 reader

I seem to have a knack for confusing people.

I WAS USING THE SAME READER!