Difference in CF cards

[theague]

These may not be the best prices out there but I don't know or understand the difference between these two SanDisk CF cards. Which of these is better and why, when it comes to photography. is the cheaper one still good enough or is there a good reason to pay the extra $20 for the same amount of 2GB storage?

1. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820171074

2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820171051

Why the $20 difference in price?

[Skip Souza]

The Ultra II card, which is my card of choice, is faster than the standard card. The camera will write to it quicker and it will down load to your computer using a card reader faster.

For more info and comparisons see this Rob Galbraith (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007)site.

[Jakpro]

There is a noticeable improvement between the regular and the Ultra II.

However, there is not as much of a visible improvement going from the Ultra II to the Extreme.

Yes, it is worth the extra $20--especially when uploading the card to your computer and taking successive shots.

[theague]

Great resource, thanks Souza

[deniska]

Based on the info on the Rob Galbraith site I purchased two 2GB Ritek 150x Pro cards on NewEgg. So far I am happy with them. Definitely faster than the 1GB 80x Transcend card I got a while ago "because I couldn't wait ;) ". According to Rob's site, it's one of the fastest cards when tested with a 30D camera, faster than SanDisk Extreme III. And quiet a bit cheaper, I might add. I can't make out the edge stamps, so I can't verify if it's really the same card... But who cares. It works, and it's plenty fast.

[deniska]

BTW, I also got a Crucial All-in-one card reader at the same time. Very happy. Much faster than direct-to-camera connection or my old non-USB 2.0 card reader.

[12345Michael54321]

I continue using my 2GB Sandisk Ultra II cards because I find that they hold shadow detail slightly better than do Lexar cards, and allow for a smoother, more "buttery" bokah than do the Sandisk Extreme IIIs. (The old 4x Kingston was perhaps the most beautifully bokah-enhancing CF card of all time. But this card was discontinued a while back, and upon learning that Kingston had already done its last production run of the 4x card, professional portrait photographers pretty much bought up whatever remaining stock was out there.)

Although the Ritek 150x Pro is similar to the Ultra II, it tends to give a greenish-yellow cast to skin tones, not unlike late 1970s vintage Fujichrome. However, if I'm not photographing people, it's a wonderful card; it gives me about an extra 2/3 stop before losing highlight detail, and is the only CF card capable of rivaling the Transcend 80x 1GB for virtually eliminating purple fringing, when photographing tree branches against a bright sky.

[deniska]

12345... Thanks... and... What the heck are you talking about?! Memory cards are about storing data, 1s and 0s. It has no preference for or knowledge of what's an highlight and what's color tone. The construction of modern cards is fundamentally very simple -- it's millions and millions of tiny binary switches (AND, OR, NOR -- there are several types). Data recorded is always accomanied by a CRC or a similar check to make sure that the data comes out the way it came in. So any card, from the cheapest to the most expensive, either holds the data, or it doesn't. Better cards can read and write faster, have less failures, etc. But... and I mean no disrespect... what you said above is nonsense.

[CoolToolGuy]

Well, this will be an interesting lurking experience - I want to hear more about the "Fuji" cast and the shadow detail with a digital storage media. . . Have Fun,

[deniska]

Well, this will be an interesting lurking experience - I want to hear more about the "Fuji" cast and the shadow detail with a digital storage media. . . Have Fun,

I saw that and couldn't help myself :rolleyes:

[deniska]

Oh, and by the way, the images always look sharper and somehow better exposed on my Dell system than on my IBM laptop... I wonder why that is :lol:

[Jaime]

I just went from a 1gb SanDisk to a 4gb Ultra SanDisk this afternoong and I still have my jaw open three hours later. All I can say to you is $20 difference is absolutely worth it.

[CoolToolGuy]

Oh, and by the way, the images always look sharper and somehow better exposed on my Dell system than on my IBM laptop... I wonder why that is :lol:
Well, that one could be the monitor, but as mentioned above, its either a one or a zero, and the combination is the same on any card. . .Have Fun,

[deniska]

There you go overanalyzing it again ;). You must've had a long day.

[DavidW]

The post from 12345Michael54321 is amusing - but not entirely helpful here.

Cards just store digital data. The most important thing is that they're reliable, then it's a matter of speed and price. Currently I use Sandisk Ultra II, which is a good balance between price and performance. If I buy another card, I may go to Extreme III, not least to get the bundled recovery software (which I haven't yet needed, but you never know).



David

[Ballen Photo]

I've been using Sandisk Ultra II's for quite a while now, and have been happy with their performance.
The post from 12345Michael54321 is amusing - but not entirely helpful here.
Cards just store digital data. Absolutely right David. I saw that post from 12345Michael54321, and said to myself; What the...........???
I suspect Michael is trying to pull our collective legs. :rolleyes:
-Bruce