Best CF card?

[gord1234]

Ok everyone,
Whats the best Compact flash card for the G3?
The Sandisk is 30.00 CAN. less than the Lexan.
Anybody want to comment?
Thanks,
Charlie

[Anarchist86ed]

personally. i've never hd a problem with my sandisk card.... but i'd go for whats cheaper.

[pradeep1]

I don't know much about best, since the G3 is not high-end enough to warrant a super fast or ultra card. I've been doing just fine with the cheaper Viking 512MB cards and also a Sandisk card.

[satnitefever]

I think sandisk cards are slow, I have two 256MB cards from them...

[MiG82]

I decided NOT to get the cheapest card. I got a 512 MB Transcend high speed card (30x or so, I can't remember). You can't take long movies if you don't have a high speed card and shooting in RAW and continuous mode will be slower too.

I realise that the camera electronics is probably the speed bottleneck atm, but I figure it's still better to get a high quality fast card for only a little bit more money.
The large size is so that my mum and brother could store 1 month's worth of photos when they went to Poland. It's also coming in handy everyday because I only shoot in RAW now.

[tommy_t]

I use the SanDisk Ultra card in mine. I heard good things about Lexar and I would be willing to buy one next time.

My friend's IBM Micro Drive works like a charm too. Super fast!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have a Transcend 30X 1 gig, (fastest) A Viking 512 and a Sanddisk 256.

Although I have not had any trouble with any of them,. i have become leary about the Sandisk cards.

They are indicated in about 80% of the failures reported on this site (rough guesstimate)

This could be because they hold a larger proportional market share,.. or it could be becasue they are more likely to fail... anyway it makes me nervous.

[civis]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Although I have not had any trouble with any of them,. i have become leary about the Sandisk cards.

They are indicated in about 80% of the failures reported on this site (rough guesstimate)

This could be because they hold a larger proportional market share,.. or it could be becasue they are more likely to fail... anyway it makes me nervous.

This hypothetical scenario reminds me of your leeriness (it's a bit wordy). Of course, it doesn't mean that you're not being merely prudent:

--------------------
We consider 3 fictional widget-manufacturing companies, and these 3 make all the widgets on the market.

The ABC company makes 75% of all widgets sold, the QRS company makes 24% of the widgets sold, and the XYZ company makes 1% of the widgets sold. In other words, for every 100 widgets that are sold to the public, 75 are ABC, 24 are QRS, and 1 is XYZ.

ABC widgets are very well-known, QRS widgets are fairly well known, and not many people have heard of XYZ widgets. because they take advantage of the phenomenon sometimes known as "ecomomy of scale", ABC costs are lower, and their widgets are the cheapest at $100; for the same reasons, QRS widgets cost a bit more at $110, while XYZ widgets cost a pricey $150.

On a widget-enthusiast internet message board, we start a thread titled "If you have had trouble with any widgets, post a reply and tell us about it." It would be reasonable to assume that any large sample of the board's users will roughly mirror the 75/24/1 breakdown of the 3 manufacturers' sales.

100 people who have had problems with their widgets respond to our thread. They posts are 50%/40%/10% ABC/QRS/XYZ. If we didn't know the sales figures and the market share of the 3 companies, we might wrongly deduce that XYZ was much more reliable than QRS, and QRS was slighly more reliable than ABC. We might look at their pricing 100/110/150, and also wrongly deduce that "if you want a good widget, you have to pay more".

If we look closer and back out (admittedly unreliable, but we'll do it anyway) defect rates for each manufacturer, we see that XYZ has the highest defect rate (as well as being the most expensive), with QRS's defect rate being much lower, with ABC's widgets being the most reliable. Quite a shock, because we thought XYZ was better, and thus worth the cash - and we were wrong.
---------------------------

[uberG]

Have any of the magazines done actually performance testing of the CF cards to determine which is "best"?

thanks.