Official specs: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

bps wrote in post #17933147
The Canon 1D X Mark II can handle the CFast 2.0 standard, which is a write speed of 440 MB/s (as of today's card writing speeds).

I think I might possibly see the source of confusion. I just looked on B&H's site and I think they might have a typo for the SanDisk 64GB Extreme Pro CFast 2.0 card...they list it as having a write speed up to 240 MB/s. However, the exact same Sandisk Extreme Pro CFast 2.0 cards in other storage capacities list the write speed as 440 MB/s. Here's what I mean...look at the difference at the following link between the 1st and 2nd card:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …es&sts=ma&Top+N​av-Search=

Looks like a typo to me.

Cheers,
Bryan

Not a typo. Same info is on Sandisk's site itself. Hence why I am asking question about the slot on the 1dx ii.

rdalrt wrote in post #17933163
Not a typo. Same info is on Sandisk's site itself. Hence why I am asking question about the slot on the 1dx ii.

Well that is interesting. I wonder why Sandisk would do that? Seems kind of misleading for them to label it as the exact same type of card, but with a slower write speed. Strange for sure.

In answer to your question though, according to Rudy Winston of Canon USA, the Canon 1D X Mark II can definitely write at 440 MB/s.

Cheers,
Bryan

bps wrote in post #17933182
Well that is interesting. I wonder why Sandisk would do that? Seems kind of misleading for them to label it as the exact same type of card, but with a slower write speed. Strange for sure.

In answer to your question though, according to Rudy Winston of Canon USA, the Canon 1D X Mark II can definitely write at 440 MB/s.

Cheers,
Bryan

Thanks. Good to know. Guess I will spring for the 128GB card. Disappointed with Sandisk on the 64GB cards. The Lexar 64GB cards write at 445 MB/s. But I have a distrust of Lexar cards.

Though I would have much preferred to be able to use dual CFast cards. Still disappointed with Canon on the choice of card slots.

Hm.. I haven't had any issues with Lexar *knock on wood*. Been using dual 64gb 1066x Lexar Professional CF cards on my 1DX without any issues.

Because I've had no problems with Lexar thus far, that's the reason I ordered a 256gb CFast for my 1DX2 order. Hope my Lexar CFast card won't be a dud.

Now wait a minute...

The free CFast card that all of are getting is the Sandisk 64 GB which apparently only writes at 220 MB/s. What kind of crud-ola is that?

Bryan

bps wrote in post #17933323
Now wait a minute...

The free CFast card that all of are getting is the Sandisk 64 GB which apparently only writes at 220 MB/s. What kind of crud-ola is that?

Bryan

Agreed.

Well it's a 'free' card .....like anything is truly free.
But wait there's more (think of a Ronco commercial)...the 'free' card reader

I would be some will receive the Xii, put it to a spead test not knowing about the freebie write speed and
get on the horn to Canon.....

Well, I'm going to hold out on buying an additional CFast card in hopes that prices will drop before I need one. That may or may not happen, but sales happen all the time.

As for the extra battery though, I'm going to place my pre-order for that right now.

Bryan

Ok, order placed with B&H for an extra Canon battery.

Remaining questions waiting for eventual answers:

How long before RRS releases an L-plate?
How long will it take for Capture One Pro to support the RAW files?

These aren't questions that can't be answered right now and they won't happen soon, but it's part of the accessorizing for a new camera body.

Bryan

Like Rdalrt and I bet many others I would have preferred one card type=CFast but is what it is.
And like I bet everyone in this thread I'm covered and covered again with compact flash.
The allure of the Xii is certainly part due to the fps but really it should be the increased DR and ISO
performance.
That said I was working another hawk today with my spotter reporting back to me in the blind from some
distance. With CFast she could have said 'he's off' and I could have started the shutter hammering
at that moment versus waiting for the critical seconds the 7Dii or 1Div can give up.

So with the 'free' CFast I won't be giving up 14 fps but the total that can go to card without filling correct?

rdalrt wrote in post #17933193
Thanks. Good to know. Guess I will spring for the 128GB card. Disappointed with Sandisk on the 64GB cards. The Lexar 64GB cards write at 445 MB/s. But I have a distrust of Lexar cards.

bps wrote in post #17933182
Well that is interesting. I wonder why Sandisk would do that? Seems kind of misleading for them to label it as the exact same type of card, but with a slower write speed. Strange for sure.

It's been a while since I last looked at SSD specs in great detail, but it was actually quite common in the early days for the lower capacity drives to have lower performance. Generally it's because a larger drive consists of multiple flash chips (inside the enclosure) that the drive's controller can access in parallel. A smaller capacity drive would have fewer chips working in parallel; hence less performance.

At some capacity level, the performance of the combined chips would be greater than the capability of the interface, and thus you'd see the performance increase (in the bigger drives) level off; for SSDs: to the max performance of the SATA interface.

I suspect it'll be the same story for SD/CF/CFast cards - they'll just contain flash chips, but even the max bandwidth of the SD and CF interfaces are too slow to be the limiting factor for modern flash devices (unlike CFast).

As for the Lexar 64GB CFast card - they may be using twice as many (half sized) flash chips vs the equivalent SanDisk, they may have some new generation of flash, or it may even be an improvement with the way their flash controller works - you'd need to see a teardown of one to tell.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17933452
So with the 'free' CFast I won't be giving up 14 fps but the total that can go to card without filling correct?

Yep. At some point you'll get a traffic jam of cars unable to join the freeway; because the freeway's only running at 240mph today, so it can't take as many cars as quickly (if that analogy makes sense)

The raw buffer size is claimed to be about 73 shots with a CF card (at UDMA7, which is around 166MB/s). It's 170 with a CFast card (I assume one at the max available card speed of around 440MB/s write). You probably could do some math to work out the data rate of 14fps raw files vs the various card speeds, but with a 240MB/s card it should be somewhere north of 73.

Basically, if you're trying to store data at a higher rate than your media can record (e.g. shooting raw not JPEG) then the 14fps limit will be the number of shots the camera can store in its internal buffer + the extra space that's freed by writing the first images to the card in the time it takes you to fill the buffer.

An analogy might be a bucket (which you're filling with water from above - these are your shots), and the bucket is draining from the bottom through a tap (this is the shots being written to the card). The more flow you can get from the tap, the longer you can spend pouring water into the bucket before it fills. Also, the larger the bucket (the camera's internal buffer) the more shots you get before you become reliant on the card.

EDIT: In summary, you'll still be able to spray at 14fps for at least 5s (73/14~=5), and at 240MB/s you should be able to record constantly at maybe 8fps (240/30MB raw=8)

Ok gang, the Canon 1D X Mark II User's Manual and the Wired LAN Instruction Manual are now available for download compliments of Canon Europe. Sure, manuals are boring, but this is a great way to get a head-start on learning about some of the features and it may offer us some insight as to what "other" features might exist.

http://www.canon-europe.com …?type=manuals&l​anguage=EN

Cheers,
Bryan

bps wrote in post #17933395
How long before RRS releases an L-plate?

I contacted RRS the day after I got my pre-order in. Jim said that he expects there to be a new plate with pre-orders available "soon" and that, in a pinch, a flat generic plate like MPR-73 will at least get it mounted.

I haven't seen pre-orders yet. The RRS website is currently misbehaving for me...

sploo wrote in post #17933611
It's been a while since I last looked at SSD specs in great detail, but it was actually quite common in the early days for the lower capacity drives to have lower performance. ...

Although not as analogous as Flashcards to SSD, the same is also true of physical spinning platter drives.

If all else is equal, and the BUS and electronics of the hard drive are capable of the higher throughput, two otherwise identically spec'ed platter drives with equal number of platters, BUT one with double the capacity, (ie double the areal density) will also be approx double the speed in sequential read and write.