aaww c'mon guys!

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by ian lincoln, Apr 6, 2006.

  1. ian lincoln

    ian lincoln Guest

    How fast a card can i use in a 20D before it becomes a waste of money.
     
    ian lincoln, Apr 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ian lincoln

    Bill Guest

    It seems that something like a Sandisk Ultra II is faster than the
    camera. So getting the more expensive Extreme cards are just fluff.

    Having said that, if you use a card reader, the read speed of the
    Extreme cards are higher and you can download your photos a fair bit
    faster.

    Have a look at this for more info:

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
     
    Bill, Apr 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ian lincoln

    Frank ess Guest

    I heard/read that the Extreme versions are more durable in extreme
    conditions?
     
    Frank ess, Apr 6, 2006
    #3
  4. ian lincoln

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    If you're only shooting one frame every few seconds, anything will do. If
    you're constantly shooting stuff RAW at full speed, check the charts on
    www.robgalbraith.com and see which one is fastest. The plain vanilla SanDisk
    units are a lot faster than you would think, so unless you really need top
    speed, they may be enough.
     
    Kinon O'cann, Apr 7, 2006
    #4
  5. ian lincoln

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    Maybe. SanDisk only says that these cards have been 'tested' at high and low
    temps. There isn't a lot that different in the top end cards from the lower
    priced cards.
     
    Kinon O'cann, Apr 7, 2006
    #5
  6. ian lincoln

    tomm42 Guest

    The San Disk Ultra II would probably be fine, a friend used Lexar 80xWA
    cards with his D20. I would think the Lexar 133 or the San Disk Extreme
    III might be over kill, but if you are shooting sports they maybe what
    you need. I'd just check Rob Galbraith's site
    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007


    Tom
     
    tomm42, Apr 7, 2006
    #6
  7. ian lincoln

    C J Southern Guest

    Keep in mind that the camera will buffer quite a few shots anyway.

    Are you taking stills, or trying to shoot a movie?

    I've stuck with standard speed cards, and not had any regrets.

    In my opinion, for the same $$$ go for capacity over speed.
     
    C J Southern, Apr 7, 2006
    #7
  8. ian lincoln

    ian lincoln Guest

    The last football match i covered i took 232 shots in 90 mins. anticipating
    the action point means starting a little early and leaving the 'motor drive'
    running a little later than expected. at 5fps and a buffer of 6 shots i
    only get a second of action. unless of course i drop to jpeg only and a
    lower resolution.
     
    ian lincoln, Apr 7, 2006
    #8
  9. ian lincoln

    ian lincoln Guest

    yeah looking at the chart the difference between II and III is 0.031mb/sec
    for jpeg and
    0.329 for raw files. They also say because of various sample difference to
    ignore a 5% difference. On the other hand an original normal speed sandisk
    card is barely half the speed.
     
    ian lincoln, Apr 7, 2006
    #9
  10. ian lincoln

    Jon B Guest

    In half the tests I've seen the standard blue Sandisks are the slowest
    cards on test, particularly the 512mb card (I paid particular interest
    in that one as I have one...) [1], I've just picked up the Ultra II as
    it was often twice the speed of a regular blue sandisk, and only a
    smidgen slower than the extreme III, it was also not much more for the
    ultra II over the standard blue.

    [1] Check the results for the 10D and 1D where it was tested.
     
    Jon B, Apr 7, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.