PDA

View Full Version : SanDisk SDCFB-1000-768 1 GB Compact Flash Card CF $162.99


Moses
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 07:55
Free shipping and no tax (at least from where I live).

This is after a $30.00 rebate. This card is pretty slow, but if I understand all the comments I've read in this forum, it really makes no difference when the camera (say a 10D) is writing to the card - only when transferring to the PC.

Even though I really dislike rebates, I'm thinking they're not going to get too much less than this anytime soon. Or is this only the beginning of the price drops considering the 3 and 4 GIG cards are coming soon (or at least be more widely available)?

Oh, almost forgot. This is at Buy.com:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10318746&adid=17051&dcaid=17051

kanwingshing
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 08:25
Moses, there is difference in time for 10D to write on a slow card comparing to a fast card. So think twice before you make the purchase.

Check this site out:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp

CyberDyneSystems
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 11:46
From Rob Galbraith's 10D Database:

Sandisk "original" = 1253K/sec

Sandisk "Extreme" = 1402K/sec

Hardly a noticeable difference .. the Extreme is the fastest card tested in the 10D.... the Sandisk is averadge.

I point this out again....
(It is great to link to the chart,. but read it too) ...the 10D does NOT take advantage of the fast cards!

The same Sandisk Extreme = 5238K/sec in the D2H!!!!

In the 10D going to the fastest card results in a 149k/sec speed boost.

In the D2H switching to the Extreme offers a 3,938k/sec boost....

__________________________________________________ _____

Moses,. thanks for the link,. this is a very good price on a 1 gig!
:shock:

kanwingshing
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 12:16
1253K/sec is the "original ULTRA" NOT "original standard"
The one Moses is looking at is the "standard" .. NOT ULTRA!!
Standard SanDisk is only 753K/sec approx on 512MB... I would think 1GB standard is marginally faster only.
Yes, 10D is not the fastest CF writer in the market. But Moses would definitely be almost twice slower if he goes of the "STANDARD" SanDisk card.

CyberDyneSystems
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 13:52
DOH!!!! :oops: :oops: :oops:

My mistake :(

Don't know how I missed that... o-kay,. so doubling your speed is a different story... For some reaon I also remebered that Sandisk scored about 1000k/sec (or averadge) on a 10D.. but at 750.. that is decidedly BELOW averadge. I must have been looking at the "original" thinking ot was the "standard" all the time... Whoops! :roll: :oops:

Moses
10th of March 2004 (Wed), 22:02
I guess it might be a good idea to wait for the prices to come down on the Ultra then. :?

slejhamer
11th of March 2004 (Thu), 05:02
Rather than get bogged down in stats, I can tell you from experience that my "original" Sandisk is much slower (very technical terminology) than my Lexar 32x, which itself is slow by the current standard. However, if you are walking around shooting landscapes and don't need rapid-fire action, the "original" would be quite sufficient. As with most things, whether or not it's right for you just depends on you! :)

CyberDyneSystems
11th of March 2004 (Thu), 13:37
I too have a "normal" sandisk, it is a 256MB card.. but otherwise about the same.. it actually does not seem a lot slower than my 30X card in the 10D... I posted a test here somewhere.. comparing the three cards I own (sandisk Normal, Viking, and Transcend 30X)

In my real world tests the difference was negligible.

slejhamer
11th of March 2004 (Thu), 14:08
In my real world tests the difference was negligible.


I should expand upon what I meant by "much slower" so as not to give a misleading impression, though I probably already did. When using the older card, enough time would pass for me to say "darn, this CF card seems slow!" and by then it would be done doing whatever it does. In other words, I think the difference is noticeable, but hardly problematic. In fact, if I were in the market for another one, I'd probably get the older version and save a little money.

ecobo
11th of March 2004 (Thu), 14:11
I have both S45 and 300D, and have also a Sandisk 128M CF card. The little S45 is more than 2 times faster when downloading to the computer!
Note, that I compare the total time for downloading the full CF, not a single photo. I expected the new 300D to be faster...