expensive memory worth it for 300D?

[tim]

I know, i've read similar threads a few times, but here's my one... is it worth it to buy cheaper flash memory for a 300D? For me, it costs NZ$140 for a Sandisk 18X card, $168 for a Samsung 52X card, $198 for a Sandisk Ultra II 66X card (I have one of these already and it's good), or $209 for a Lexar 80X card. I'm not overly worried about the speed on my PC, more about the speed on the camera, and maybe on future cameras (30D will be my next camera). Also, given the NZ$65 (US$45 approx) price difference, I wonder if it's worth getting the cheaper card.

Does anyone know if the faster cards make any difference on the 300D, or have an opinion about the relative quality?

[kiwimichael]

Hi Tim,
In case you haven't already checked, Rob Galbraith's CF Database http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007 is THE place to check the performance of CF cards in a particular camera.
My experince is that the (relative) price of cards keeps dropping and there are new innovations re camera/card speed (eg WA) so I would buy the card that I need now rather than try and buy the card that would be suitable for a camera that may be produced some time in the future.

Cheers
Michael

[tommykjensen]

Faster cards on 300D make no difference it can't utilize the higher speeds they offer.

[Cadwell]

The faster cards do make a difference on the 300D, albeit the gains are fairly small (a quick read of Galbraith's excellent database will quickly show you that). If you are shooting sports and you want the relatively slow buffer on the 300D to clear quickly then it's worth paying the extra for that little bit of improvement. Otherwise probably not.

[C.S.I.]

As it pertains specifically to the 300D..........


http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6425


I didnt see the thread, thought that the 300D couldnt utilize speed either, bought a Sandisk 512 :( with a BLAZING (not) 736K/sec...........good thing I only paid $20 for it on ebay NIB 2 months ago.....If I was gonna buy one now, would prob get the Lexar 80x 1g (according to the link, 2X faster write speed than the Sandisk).


Regards,
Bill

[tommykjensen]

The faster cards do make a difference on the 300D, albeit the gains are fairly small (a quick read of Galbraith's excellent database will quickly show you that). If you are shooting sports and you want the relatively slow buffer on the 300D to clear quickly then it's worth paying the extra for that little bit of improvement. Otherwise probably not.

That was not my experience. In my opinion the difference in speed is not worth the difference in cost.

[Cadwell]

As I said, very much depends on what you are using the camera for... if you take Mr. Galbraiths numbers (which I presume you are not disputing) and calculate the time to write a full buffer of around 28MB (4 x RAW files)the difference in time to flush the buffer completely between the fastest and the slowest cards is around 18 seconds. For me that can mean the difference between getting a shot or not - in fact half the grid can have gone by in that time, particularly on a short circuit where the quick cars might be doing 38 second laps.

[Agaric]

(30D will be my next camera). Also, given the NZ$65 (US$45 approx) price difference, I wonder if it's worth getting the cheaper card.?

If you HAVE to get another card NOW and you are definitely going upgrade your camera later you should buy the best card you can get.
If you DON'T need to get another card now, you could wait until you get your new camera, the 80x lexar will most likely be cheaper by then, and who knows it might be a 160x by then too :)
just my opinion
Good luck.

[samdring]

the time to write a full buffer of around 28MB (4 x RAW files)the difference in time to flush the buffer completely between the fastest and the slowest cards is around 18 seconds.
.
That bit has always intrigued me (I'm easily intrigued!) Do they shoot identical image with identical lighting to get the same file size for each of the 4 RAW files?

[tim]

Thanks for the links, I didn't know he checked for each camera. I think I might as well go for the same card again, it works fine and it's near the fastest in that test.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Cadwell,

You don't have to dispute Galbraith's numbers to disagee with his conclusions. This is the beauty of statistics. In my mind the database numbers back up the idea that it is not worth the extra cash to put a fast card in the 300D as the increase in speed is so fractional.

My point when looking at that excellent resource is to see what value you get from the faster cards in the slower camera.. vs. a faster camera.

If you look at how fast an UltraII goes in a 20D and then look at how slow that seame card is in a 300D.. one can also conclude that it is not worth the $$ to put THAT card in a 300D.

However.. I do agree that the prices of even fast cards has gone so low that it makes sense to invest even if the performance gains are tiny.. as one may someday end up with a faster camera like the 20D! :)

As to the original examples,.. ultra2 or Lexar are both very fast. Not much difference between them in either camera.

[otlip]

Tim,
I have three different makes of cards, the ultra scandisk 2 is the fastest. I can get one frame more per series when shooting lacrosse. Good luck
Rich

[tim]

Interseting, thanks Rich.

[NGrinerPhoto]

i have found that cheep (nop-pro) cards tend to fail - i only shoot with lexar pro cards now

[Persian-Rice]

Is it worth it? sure, but it won't effect your camera's performance.

Today I went and got 4 more 512 ultra II cards from futureshop boxing day sale @ $60 Canadian....... best price you will find in Canada. If you can find it cheap, go for it, but if not, just get the original Sandisk cards, they work well.

I noticed a much bigger difference in performance between a normal Sandisk and an Ultra II on the 1DMKII, but performance between the cards on my 10D is almost identical. Even then the comparison shows a massive gap, I own one 256 original Sandisk and a bunch of 512 Ultra II, I would imagine the difference would be even greater if i was using an original 512.

Cheers

[mrk]

That was not my experience. In my opinion the difference in speed is not worth the difference in cost.
Remember though, the difference is VERY noticable when you put the card in a card reader to xfer images to your PC, so even if its a tiny difference on the camera the benefits can still be had when you have a 1GB card filled with images and want to use the 80x speed on a USB2 card reader