Sandisk Extreme III CF cards?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by John A. Stovall, Mar 5, 2005.

  1. Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
    cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
    noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
    -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.


    *****************************************************

    "Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."

    Tim Page in
    "Dispatches"
    by Michael Herr
     
    John A. Stovall, Mar 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John A. Stovall

    Frank ess Guest

    I think it's a tossup in the camera. If you download from a reader, you
    might see a difference. If I read it right, Sandisk is consistently
    quicker.
     
    Frank ess, Mar 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John A. Stovall

    Bill Guest

    It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :)

    Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
    difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
    between the two in practical use.

    Buy whatever you prefer.
     
    Bill, Mar 5, 2005
    #3
  4. | John A. Stovall wrote:
    |
    || Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
    || cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
    || noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
    || -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
    |
    | It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :)
    |
    | Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
    | difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
    | between the two in practical use.
    |
    | Buy whatever you prefer.

    I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred the speed is greatly
    appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as a removeable
    drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM and is
    random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as a CDROM plus and
    80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III is more than
    twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of waiting 5 mins for a
    data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to older 12x cards.
    Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50% faster.
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 5, 2005
    #4
  5. John A. Stovall

    G.T. Guest

    Nowhere close to that according to realworld testing.

    Greg
     
    G.T., Mar 5, 2005
    #5
  6. John A. Stovall

    Bill Guest

    That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
    what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.
     
    Bill, Mar 5, 2005
    #6
  7. John A. Stovall

    G.T. Guest

    It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
    really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

    Greg
     
    G.T., Mar 5, 2005
    #7
  8. | That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
    | what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

    That's only half the picture.
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 5, 2005
    #8
  9. John A. Stovall

    DM Guest

    Bill's right,

    Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards & suit
    the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
    the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

    Regards

    DM
     
    DM, Mar 5, 2005
    #9
  10. | It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
    | really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

    | Greg


    Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk CF card and the
    Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP and the System
    Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using the two different
    rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91 CF Card Reader
    done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon branded CF card but is
    actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

    BTW: WinME had better performance than Win2K which was slightly better than WinXP SP1.
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 5, 2005
    #10
  11. John A. Stovall

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Wasn't the Sandisk the one which had some destructive
    interactions with certain older card readers reported here in the last
    month? That *might* be sufficient reason to skip that one unless you
    are *sure* that it will *never* be read in an older reader.

    I'm currently running a pair of 1GB Lexar 80x cards, and am
    quite happy with them. (I may move to some 4GB ones later, to handle a
    higher percentage of RAW images.)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Mar 5, 2005
    #11
  12. John A. Stovall

    G.T. Guest

    That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
    an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133

    Greg
     
    G.T., Mar 6, 2005
    #12
  13. John A. Stovall

    DM Guest

    DoN,

    Saw the thread but stayed out of the 'debate' as quite frankly I've never
    had any problem with the cards despite using them in numerous readers
    (though I had to admit my heart was in my mouth at the recent 'Focus On
    Imaging' exhibition when the Epson Rep simply unplugged his card reader from
    the MAC with the my card still inside!)

    Regards

    DM
     
    DM, Mar 6, 2005
    #13
  14. |
    | That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
    | an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:

    | http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133

    | Greg


    Greg:

    I wish I had one to test ! But I will accept anothers table of results until I do.
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 6, 2005
    #14
  15. John A. Stovall

    Bill Guest

    If you intend to do these tests on a computer instead of inside a
    digital camera, it won't mean much to those here.

    I for one am only interested in tests that show read/write speeds in
    digital cameras where I intend to use the memory card.
     
    Bill, Mar 6, 2005
    #15
  16. You said in your earlier post that the Extreme III is more than twice as
    fast as the Ultra II, but your test above was not with those cards. I agree
    with the results you provided, but I did not see an appreciable difference
    in speed between the U II and E III. And test results I've seen elsewhere
    only show a 10-15% difference, no where near double.
     
    Steve Gavette, Mar 6, 2005
    #16
  17. | David H. Lipman wrote:
    |
    |
    | If you intend to do these tests on a computer instead of inside a
    | digital camera, it won't mean much to those here.
    |
    | I for one am only interested in tests that show read/write speeds in
    | digital cameras where I intend to use the memory card.

    It is half the picture Bill and provides actual numbers, not perception. Last time I looked
    there were no utilities in digital cameras to benchmark transfer rates.

    And when you get down to it, the table at
    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133 was performed with the
    following... *"The reader was a Lexar FireWire CompactFlash, model RW019; the computer a
    Power Mac G5/Dual 2.0GHz with 1.5GB RAM running OS X 10.3.7."* So any tests I may do "for
    myself" are in line with other's tests.

    Lastly who knows how the 350D will operate since it came out relatively just after the
    Extreme III cards wer put out on the market and Canon uses SanDisk OEM CF cards.

    So please... Keep your mind open. ;-)
     
    David H. Lipman, Mar 6, 2005
    #17
  18. John A. Stovall

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    [ ... ]
    Put it in the camera, select multi-frame mode, hold down shutter
    release until you hear the rate slow down because the buffer is full.
    Then, start your stop watch, count ten images, and stop the stop watch.
    This will give a transfer rate from the buffer to the CF card.

    I really don't care *how* fast (or slow) it is from the card to
    the computer. I'm not depending on it being ready for another shot at
    that time. That is like the difference between the time to expose film
    in our earlier cameras and the time to develop them. Two different
    matters.

    What matters to me is how fast they get written from the buffer
    to the CF card, so there is room for the next shot. (And this, only in
    special circumstances.)

    If you want to use it to make a bootable filesystem for your
    computer, that is a different matter (and really off topic for this
    newsgroup). And there, there is a different limitation to worry about.
    The number of write cycles for the typical CF card is finite, and a
    computer using it to boot from is constantly updating things on it,
    chewing up those precious write cycles. There are special CF cards
    which are somewhat slower but with essentially unlimited write cycles
    for that purpose.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Mar 6, 2005
    #18
  19. John A. Stovall

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    That is good news.
    Without unmounting the filesystem first? IIRC, on a Mac, you
    unmount a filesystem (and eject on ejectable media) by dragging the icon
    to the trash folder -- another thing designed to give one qualms the
    first time it is done. :)

    On Windows 2000, I put the mouse over the icon for the flash
    card, right-click, and select "eject" to unmount the filesystem.

    On my Suns, I simply cd out of the mounted flash card (if I was
    in there to start with), and then type "umount /fc0" or "umount /fc1"
    depending on which slot it is in. (This all depends on the proper lines
    already being /etc/fvstab, of course, otherwise the mount command can be
    rather complex.)

    Of course, it is going to get re-formatted in the camera
    immediately afterwards, since I will have copied the images to two
    separate directories on two different disks -- just to be sure, since
    disks do fail from time to time.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
     
    DoN. Nichols, Mar 6, 2005
    #19
  20. This technique works on Mac OS X as well. (If you're not using a
    multi-button mouse, hold down the "control" key when you click.)
    Try this on your Mac, then:

    % diskutil eject /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL
    Disk /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL ejected
     
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 6, 2005
    #20
    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.