In my head or not?

[KenjiS]

I just got my Sandisk Extreme III 8gb card yesterday, and just out of curiousity, I booted my 30D up with it, formatted it and then proceeded to start firing off bursts...just to see if it was any "faster" and to my surprise, it certainly feels it...When the buffer fills, it feels a bit over 1fps, whereas before it felt more like less than 1fps, even with focus tracking as its dumping...

My old card was a Transcend 133x 8gb card, I love it mind you, at the time, it had the speed/price/capacity ratio nailed [Thus why I bought it] and I doubted a quicker card would make a difference in the 30D because the processor or the bus itself was going to be the limiting factor, not the card itself...

But I'm now wondering if I am indeed wrong, it certainly felt quicker, and when i erased the images i fired off they seemed to erase a lot quicker...

So is it the "new" effect or is the 30D capable of taking advantage of a 200X card to its full potential? Or is it just that maybe my Transcend wasnt as quick as I thought it was?

[bohdank]

It's probably your imagination :-)

Like wishful thinking or self fullfilling prophecies.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8478

I will say that downloading from a card reader the newer Extreme III's will be noticeably faster than the 133x.

With that said, I have been using Transcend 266x/300x cards for the last year and they move data considerably faster on a 40D than the 133x and downloading using a card reader.

[KenjiS]

It's probably your imagination :-)

Like wishful thinking or self fullfilling prophecies.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8478

I will say that downloading from a card reader the newer Extreme III's will be noticeably faster than the 133x.

With that said, I have been using Transcend 266x/300x cards for the last year and they move data considerably faster on a 40D than the 133x and downloading using a card reader.

Hmn there is a slight speed advantage, Sadly my Transcend isnt on there....so i went with the 4gb 120x one for a comparison...but you're right, its possibly in my head...but then again, the Extreme III 8gb is the fastest 8gb card on that list, everything faster is a 2gb or smaller card it seems...so capacity effects speed apparently...meaning the 8gb 133x card could be a little slower than that 4gb 120X one...

In any case, its not a huge difference...just a slight one...So who knows..

[int2str]

When I got my Extreme IV I did a quick un-scientific comparison. Speed certainly makes a difference in buffer flushing time and how quickly the camera is "ready to go" again.

Here's my older post:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7888600&postcount=1

[KenjiS]

When I got my Extreme IV I did a quick un-scientific comparison. Speed certainly makes a difference in buffer flushing time and how quickly the camera is "ready to go" again.

Here's my older post:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7888600&postcount=1

You have a 50D with support for the UDMA on the Extreme IV though, I would expect you to see a difference, whereas my 30D lacks UDMA support...

Maybe I need to make a video somehow...hmn...

[Duncan Frenz]

There is most certainly a difference on cameras that accommodate new technologies, but using a UDMA card on a camera not enabled to utilize it may actually suffer. Here is an article that may be of interest... --->http://dpnow.com/4445.html




Excerpt from dpnow.com
Conclusion

Of the three DSLRs we tested standared high speed and UDMA cards with, the fastest shooter - the Canon EOS-40D - worked better with the slower card. This demonstrates that high speed performance is not always enhanced by the use of UDMA cards - if your camera doesn't state UDMA card support, it's almost certainly better to stick with 133x high speed cards, both to save money and to maintain optimal performance. The only exception is if you use large cards and don't want to wait for long periods when emptying them. Even so, you will need to invest in a UDMA card reader and, most likely, a Firewire expansion port. But if you shoot RAW and your camera does support UDMA, you probably will benefit from using UDMA cards.


I have many different CF cards ranging from Sandisk ExtremeIII and IV and Transcend 266X(2GB used to hold firmware) and 300X UDMA. The Transcend 300X UDMA performs as well as the Sandisk ExtremeIV and costs much less. I use the Transcend class 6 SDHC cards and also Sandisk UltraII which are decent. Most people don't need the BEST performing card available, it really depends on your usage and if you care about file transfer speeds.

[KenjiS]

There is most certainly a difference on cameras that accommodate new technologies, but using a UDMA card on a camera not enabled to utilize it may actually suffer. Here is an article that may be of interest... --->http://dpnow.com/4445.html




Excerpt from dpnow.com
Conclusion

Of the three DSLRs we tested standared high speed and UDMA cards with, the fastest shooter - the Canon EOS-40D - worked better with the slower card. This demonstrates that high speed performance is not always enhanced by the use of UDMA cards - if your camera doesn't state UDMA card support, it's almost certainly better to stick with 133x high speed cards, both to save money and to maintain optimal performance. The only exception is if you use large cards and don't want to wait for long periods when emptying them. Even so, you will need to invest in a UDMA card reader and, most likely, a Firewire expansion port. But if you shoot RAW and your camera does support UDMA, you probably will benefit from using UDMA cards.


I have many different CF cards ranging from Sandisk ExtremeIII and IV and Transcend 266X(2GB used to hold firmware) and 300X UDMA. The Transcend 300X UDMA performs as well as the Sandisk ExtremeIV and costs much less. I use the Transcend class 6 SDHC cards and also Sandisk UltraII which are decent. Most people don't need the BEST performing card available, it really depends on your usage and if you care about file transfer speeds.

Good read

Well its certainly not -hurting- performance, I chose the Extreme III because I'm planning to upgrade my body at the end of the year anyways, and whatever I get will likely support UDMA....

Also, I wanted an easy way to tell which card is which, Having one Sandisk and one Transcend makes that really easy [Well 2 Transcends technically, I have the original 80x 1gb one that was a freebie when I got my 30D, but its blue versus the 133x being red...and I do keep it, because if i have to, 1GB gives me pictures, Not many pictures, But in an emergency its better than NOT having a card at all!]

Though it seems my next camera is likely getting a 16gb UDMA card anyways, Having 2 more 8gb ones certainly doesnt hurt...

[Tom W]

There is most certainly a difference on cameras that accommodate new technologies, but using a UDMA card on a camera not enabled to utilize it may actually suffer. Here is an article that may be of interest... --->http://dpnow.com/4445.html

....deleted quote,,,


On the other hand, the 5D2 is UDMA-enabled and will write to card faster on an Extreme IV than on an Extreme III. Here's my data taken from a post I made back in March on another reputable forum:

If you shoot bursts (3.9 FPS), you'll appreciate the faster cards.
From my non-scientific comparison of 3 different 4-gig CF cards:

Sandisk Extreme IV (UDMA) - Max high-speed Burst = 17 RAW, 1 second per frame after the buffer fills.
Sandisk Extreme III - Max Burst 14 RAW, 2-2.5 seconds per frame after buffer fills.
Sandisk Ultra II - Max Burst 13 RAW, 3 seconds per frame after buffer fills.

It took much longer for the Ultra II to finish writing the images compared with the Extreme IV.

If you rarely or never shoot in situations where you'd use continuous shooting, the speed might not be as important.

[Duncan Frenz]

On the other hand, the 5D2 is UDMA-enabled and will write to card faster on an Extreme IV than on an Extreme III. Here's my data taken from a post I made back in March on another reputable forum:
I believe we are saying the same thing... are we not? I was speaking of those that did NOT take advantage of UDMA, such as the 30D and 40D. My 50D most certainly benefits from my Transcend 300X UDMA and Sandisk IV CF cards; as should your 5DMKII.

I advocate buying cards that utilize the fastest type your camera is capable of if you DL images via card reader. I don't purchase with the thought of future cameras, as technologies advance and prices decline(generally). I still need good cards for my current camera because I tend to keep my equipment(something I carried over from my film days). Even if I do sell the camera, it is sometimes beneficial to sell the cards with it to help with the resale value.

When/if I do buy another body, I do not know what type it will take, or what technologies it will possess; almost certainly, prices will be lower by then, barring a catastrophe such as the one in 1999 where a silicone plant in Taiwan burnt down (incidentally, it supplied 80% of the computer industry's material for processors and memory, and the event doubled and tripled already high prices overnight). Of course, if you know what camera is in your near future, then by all means buy for the future; otherwise, buy for what you have currently and only those that provide the performance you need.