2GB Compact Flash Card

[golden-balls]

Hi Folks

I'm looking at buying a 2gb card for my 20d.

Any opinions?

http://www.ukcamerastore.co.uk/acatalog/Pr...ofessional.html
2GB - £147

OR

http://www.mymemory.co.uk/product-info.php?id=100
2BG - £99

I think the 1st one is 80x speed. Is this something that will work on 20d? Is it something that an amateur requires or will the cheaper one do?

GB

[tommykjensen]

Go for a SanDisk Ultra II its faster than Lexar.

[gmen]

I use Lexar 1GB and 2GB 80x cards in my MkII and they do a superb job!

A useful reference point for card performance is here:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303

The 20D has just been added to the database.

[Olegis]

The cheaper one is slo-o-o-o-o-ow !
Get the SanDisk Ultra II, as Tommy said - a lot faster. You can look into ordering these from B&H - only $189.

[ScottE]

I use a Sandisk Extreme 2 gb for ski photography in the winter. I don't think it is any faster than the Ultra, but it is supposed to be more cold resistant.

[BikerFox]

According fry's and what I read, the lexar is faster than ultra ii.

[tommykjensen]

According fry's and what I read, the lexar is faster than ultra ii.


Well not in 20D, if You check the link gmen posted You will see that #1 on the list is 1 GB SanDisk Ultra followed by 1 Gb Lexar and and third is SanDisk Ultra II 2 GB.

[Jon]

According fry's and what I read, the lexar is faster than ultra ii.

That's only if the device it's being used in has licensed Lexar's "Write Acceleration" (WA) technology. Canon hasn't, so Lexar cards can be fast, but not as fast as something using fast general-purpose components to a standard interface in their gear. The differences Rob Galbraith shows between Lexar and SanDisk Ultra or Extreme cards are insignificant in the 20D.

[Persian-Rice]

The Lexar 80x is faster then the sandisk ultra II in a 20D...........nuff said.
Write speed will only effect performance if the speed rating on the card is slower then the writing speed capabilities of the camera.

Any card will do, faster is more convenient but more expensive as well.

[Jon]

The Lexar 80x is faster then the sandisk ultra II in a 20D...........nuff said.

If you look at Rob Galbraith's charts, you'll see Sandisk Extremes, Lexar 80x and Sandisk Ultras intermingled in their performance. That's why he furnishes all the other information (edge stamp, country of origin). One Lexar 80x was faster than an Ultra II, but the difference in RAW was less than 5%, which he considers insignificant in real-world use.

[pcasciola]

Jon is correct. The Lexar, even though claiming 80x, has no practical performance gain over either of the newer Sandisks (Ultra II or Extreme).
There is a 1% speed difference between the Lexar, Sandisk Ultra II and Sandisk Extreme 2Gb cards. We are talking about being able to empty the buffer on a 20D in like 8 seconds versus 8.1 seconds.

Honestly, I'd stay away from the Lexar. The 1st edition of their 80x was hideously slow in the 20D which is why I avoid them (about 50% slower than the newer version). The 2nd edition is on par with the Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme, but I don't think it's worth the risk. Sandisk never had that issue with their Ultra II and Extreme.

Here are some numbers from Rob Galbraith's site CF database:

Lexar 2GB 80X Write Acceleration *second edition*
JPEG: 4.947MB/sec RAW: 5.590MB/sec

Sandisk Extreme 2GB
JPEG: 4.947MB/sec RAW: 5.572MB/sec

Sandisk Ultra II 2GB
JPEG: 4.917MB/sec RAW: 5.473MB/sec

[IndyJeff]

I will just say this one time. If you think getting a large card is the way to go that's fine but, consider what you will do when you have a card that won't read when you get home and want to look at the days images. It happens, a lot more than you think too.

[Persian-Rice]

I will just say this one time. If you think getting a large card is the way to go that's fine but, consider what you will do when you have a card that won't read when you get home and want to look at the days images. It happens, a lot more than you think too.

I will never ever suggest any card over 512. For the same reasons.

[pcasciola]

I will just say this one time. If you think getting a large card is the way to go that's fine but, consider what you will do when you have a card that won't read when you get home and want to look at the days images. It happens, a lot more than you think too.

Yes, that's an excellent point. It's one of the reasons I went with two 1Gb cards instead of one 2Gb. Ideally, I'd also like to get the new Epson P-2000 or some other similar portable storage device, so when I'm out on the road without my laptop I can swap 1Gb cards in the camera, and then offload the full one on to the P-2000, with no down time.

[FlyingPete]

Two cards are better than one, one in the camera, on one offloading into your portable harddisk!

[ScottE]

I still go for the 2 gb cards. Unless you use a 1D2 II with both CF and SD cards recording at the same time, you only record each image once. If the card fails, you loose that image regardless of whether you use a 256 mb or 2 gb card. It is true you can lose more images if a full 2 gb card fails, but who says you have to fill the card. Carry a few 2 gb and 1 gb cards and only partially fill each if that is a concern. Back up often and back up in duplicate, ie. once on a laptop and again on a Flashtrax.

There are severa reasons I prefer the larger card. If it is raining or snowing, I don't like opening the CF door any more than I have to because it may let moisture into the camera. A CF card in the camera is not likely to get lost, but a CF card you put in a pocket when you changed in a hurry is easy to lose, run through the laundry or drop on the floor. If you are shooting action, there seems to be some unwritten rule that the CF card will hit full in the middle of an important sequence. This happens less often with larger card. I have used quite a few CF cards and microdrives and have had very few failures and when they did occur the camera usually let me know it wasn't recording properly.

[MikeL117]

Try http://www.emartbuy.com/
2GB Sandisk Ultra II £107

I have a 1GB early Lexar 80x that is noticably slower (almost 1s per RAW image slower) than the Sandisk Ultra II 66x

In my experience when a card fails most if not all the images can be recovered. I will be getting another 2GB card as soon as finances allow.

[JoeTampa]

I will just say this one time. If you think getting a large card is the way to go that's fine but, consider what you will do when you have a card that won't read when you get home and want to look at the days images. It happens, a lot more than you think too.


I currently own two 1G Microdrives - the most reviled cards ever for "losing images". I've never had a moment's worth of trouble with either one. Their true disadvantage? Speed. They are slow as molasses.

I also have two 2G Sandisk Ultra II's - nice and fast, and hold a good amount of 20D RAW images.

I have shot thousands and thousands of images with all of these cards and have yet to experience ONE lost image.


Further, my employer is a manufacturer of a computer-based product that uses CF cards as the main storage for the unit. That means that all day, every day, those cards are being read and written to. Do you know how many CF failures we've had? My manufacturing guy can't remember one AT ALL. And that's with thousands of units in the field in all kinds of environments for years.


Sorry, but I believe in CF as a storage medium. If you are having issues with them, I have to strongly suspect that either it's you or your environment. Are you shooting in extreme conditions? Do the cards ever drop?

[FlyingPete]

The good old CF card can wear out, but I doubt that will happen in a digital camera environment.

We have had a supplier who used CF cards in their terminals as Random Access Memory, and to store the OS image, These would die after a coupl of years, however they were contantly being read and written 12 hours a day 365 days a year.

If anyone here shots photos like that, then yes they might have a problem :twisted: