WARNING**Duracell 32GB 600x = not that fast

I've asked about CF cards on here before, I always get the Lexar/Sandisk recommendations. I know everyone asks pretty much gets that answer.

I recently decided I wanted a couple 32GB cards...OBVIOUSLY my 16GB were obsolete!!!

Well I decided to cheap out and save some money.

These 600X Duracell are no where near the Sandisk in speed.

I was warned...

Now I'm buying twice.

are you comparing them with a 600x Sandisk?

compared to my 60 mb/s sandisk

Do you honestly need 32gb? That seems like a bit much unless you are doing video work.

I do a decent amount of video work.

I also shoot sports for a couple schools....and some weekends I feel like I'm constantly switching my 16GB cards.

But the 16GB work for the sports. I got the 32 for video on my 5D

Duracell quote the read speed, Sandisk quote the write speed. Write speed is what determines how much time you spend watching the blinking red light. Read speed is irrelevant for anybody using USB2 (the vast majority).

Ya, well very misleading. Lay time I buy anything but Sandusky or lexar.

EDIT: ( last time i type something in on my Iphone as well!)

i always wanted to try the duracell cards... wouldn't be bad as a backup since they're so cheap.

i have a

16gb sandisk extreme 60mb/s
32gb transcend 400x
16bg lexar 200x
8gb sandisk 30mb/s
32gb kingston 133x

the extreme 60mb/s is one of the fastest cards I've used in my camera. the kingston was the SLOWEST card EVER!!!!

I have mostly Sandisk CF cards, 8 and 16GB variety, 30 or 60mb/s. I figured the Duracell would be OK. and price wise it was too cheap. but as it usually goes....if it's too good to be true....

Transcend has treated me very well with their class 10 SD cards, my newer SD cards are all Transcend, older ones all Sandisk, with a few Kingston in some LCD picture frames. I already stay away from Kingston, nothing wrong with them reliability wise....but they always seem slower.

I have a Duracell 8 gb card that works just as good as a Sandisk card.

booja wrote in post #13203659
i always wanted to try the duracell cards... wouldn't be bad as a backup since they're so cheap.

i have a

16gb sandisk extreme 60mb/s
32gb transcend 400x
16bg lexar 200x
8gb sandisk 30mb/s
32gb kingston 133x

the extreme 60mb/s is one of the fastest cards I've used in my camera. the kingston was the SLOWEST card EVER!!!!

So a 60mb/s is fast and 133x is slow? Gee who would have thought that?

Numenorean wrote in post #13204309
So a 60mb/s is fast and 133x is slow? Gee who would have thought that?

I should elaborate more on that.

The sandisk 60mb/s is the fastests. Transcend 400x cards are rated at 60mb/s also but are slower from what I see when I shoot.

I have had transcend 133x cards before and compared to the Kingston 133x it's like night and day difference. The Kingston card was retarded slow.

According to your statement the duracell 600x is faster than my transcend 400x and sandisk extreme right? 600x is faster than 400x? "who would have thought that?" Wrong.

Thanks for the smart@$$ response though

My Duracell 16GB 600x card reads at 600x (90MB/s) but it only writes at 300x (45MB/s)

With the exception of Sandisk and Lexar, this is fairly common to quote only the read speed on the card. As long as you know it's limitations, the Duracell card is still a pretty fast card for what you pay. (47MB/s is hardly limiting in any camera)

EXAMPLES:

A Sandisk "ULTRA" 16GB 30MB/s card costs more, and is slower, than the Duracell 16GB 600x card.

A Transcend 16GB 400X card costs more, and is slower, than the Duracell 16GB 600x card.

A Kingston 16GB 600x card costs more and is probably the same speed as the Duracell 16GB 600x card.

Here is a handy tool for comparing the US and Canadian prices on Sandisk, Lexar, and Transcend memory cards: (prices updated daily)

(scroll down)
http://www.photoprice.​ca/memory-price-guide/#charts