Sandisk Extreme III vs Ultra II

fedaykin wrote in post #10086800
Thanks, I agree that these things tend to lean towards the "It's more expensive=better/neces​sary" rather than actual performance. How fast has the viewing pictures on the LCD been for you though? This I actually care about somewhat.

Extremely fast. Never had an issue at all. I have found NO reason to get a high dollar "extreme" card. Others that try to convice you otherwise, are just as much trying to convince themselves and justify their money being spent.

fedaykin wrote in post #10086701
Hmm, I think I'll stick to the Ultra II. .

Smart man. Spend the money you saved on a Hoya HD or Pro 1D circular polarizer at www.2filter.com or www.maxsaver.net

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10086923
Extremely fast. Never had an issue at all.

Cool.

Most of the newer cards can read/write information faster than the camera is capable of handling.

In a very bright setting so as not to slow it down, put an empty card in your camera and put your camera in the continuous mode with no review, then shoot directly at a subject for 5 seconds. After that, count how many shots you got.

Do the same with the other card.

As fast as the cards are today, you're likely to get the exactly same count on both cards.

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10086531
Not for me. Sounds like folks that spend $80 on a memory card want to justify it. Read the reviews on B&H for the Ultra II and the Extreme. Pretty clear picture. Folks pay more because they think it is better because it cost more. I just bought three 8 GB Ultra cards for my new 5D Mark II. Researched it a bit and it became obvious to me that there is no logical reason to pay megabucks for the Extreme cards.

You might want to review your references a bit more carefully. The SanDisk Ultra (not II, they've renamed their line) CF cards are rated at the same throughput as the last version of the Extreme III, 30 MB/sec. Ultra II cards were never that fast. If you look at the 5D2 test at Rob Galbraith, you'll find that the 5D2 wrote to the Extreme IV (rated 45 MB/sec) at 3x the speed which the Ultra II (15 MB/sec) does; 30 MB/sec actual throughput to 10 MB/sec. That's the about difference between just over 1 fps and 2-1/2 sec/frame when you're shooting RAW. With a 13 frame buffer, that can easily make the difference between filling the buffer or not.

That aside, OP's asking about SDHC cards, not CF cards. In the XSi (the most recent Rebel tested at Rob Galbraith), the Extreme III is about 75% faster than the Ultra II. That works out to writing just under 1 RAW frame/sec on Extreme IIIs vs. just under 2 sec/frame with Ultra IIs. Again, that's going to make a marked difference in the usable size of your buffer, even if you don't shoot in Continuous mode. If those speeds hold on the XS, that'd be 1.5 frames/sec vs. just under 1 frame/sec. shooting RAW. And with a buffer of 5 frames RAW, that's going to make a difference pretty quickly.

Jon wrote in post #10088989
That aside, OP's asking about SDHC cards, not CF cards. In the XSi (the most recent Rebel tested at Rob Galbraith), the Extreme III is about 75% faster than the Ultra II. That works out to writing just under 1 RAW frame/sec on Extreme IIIs vs. just under 2 sec/frame with Ultra IIs. Again, that's going to make a marked difference in the usable size of your buffer, even if you don't shoot in Continuous mode. If those speeds hold on the XS, that'd be 1.5 frames/sec vs. just under 1 frame/sec. shooting RAW. And with a buffer of 5 frames RAW, that's going to make a difference pretty quickly.

Hmm, thanks for translating those numbers to actual usage speeds(you know what I mean). But, my question is if he used Extreme III Class 6 or Class 10? Cuz there's a difference in price there. The cheapest Class 10 card is the Extreme III 8GB.

The XSi test was run in April 2008, so I suspect they were "Class 6". He gives specifics on the cards tested on the test page (click on the "+" next to the card name).

Jon wrote in post #10095444
The XSi test was run in April 2008, so I suspect they were "Class 6". He gives specifics on the cards tested on the test page (click on the "+" next to the card name).

I clicked that but it didn't specify the Class. But yes given the date they probably are Class 6. Thanks for the info. I think I may get one Ultra II and one Extreme III to see the difference myself. Thanks for the input everyone.

I'm pretty sure that they're Class 6, although SanDisk didn't apply that to their SD cards, only to their SDHC ones. Since the fastest cards they've got listed are the 1 & 2 GB cards, it's a safe bet that the SDHC are the same speed rating as the SD. My SDHC cards are no older than my SD cards, but newer than his tests and the Extreme III SDHC cards are all Class 6.

jeromego wrote in post #10086440
it won't matter...you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference. I use both the extreme III and Ultra II on my 7D and 5D2 and I can't really tell the difference in terms of speed.

Jeromego is right. Both Extreme III and Ultra II don't have differences. They are both the same. I have a Ultra II (4GB).

I have had limited experience with the SDHC cards and wasn't impressed at all. I have a Kingston 4gb SDHC Class 6 card in the second slot of the MK3. When I shoot to it, it bogs the camera down quickly because the camera can't write to it fast enough. I only used the SD card as an emergency backup.

I have one of the new San Disk 8 GB Ultra 30mb/sec CF cards and it works just as well as the Sandisk Extrme III 8 GB cards. I have both. But the difference comes when I bought a pair of 16 GB Transcend 400x cards. Performance has increased all the way around. I shot two softball games this weekend (2275 shots) with the Transcend card in a 7D and not once did it bog down when shooting bursts at 8fps...and several were extended bursts covering double plays, sliding into home, sacrifice bunt situations, etc. Now with all of that said, I did buy a Lexar Firewire 800 CF card reader for my home PC. When on the road, I still use generic external card reader to download the files.

I do think Extreme III writes noticeably faster than Ultra's, although I don't know if I've tried Ultra II.

Just a reminder to everyone - the OP is using a camera that accepts only SD/SDHC cards. CF performance is meaningless in this case. My older Extreme III SDHC cards are rated at 20MB/sec burst rate. SanDisk's current Ultra SDHC cards are rated at 15MB/s, and Extreme (no extension) are rated at 30 MB/s. SD speeds are about 2/3 the speed of the equivalent CF cards, and SDHC cards top out at 32 GB.

Just picked up a Sandisk Ultra II 8gb at Frys and it was their last one in the case and they took of $10 off for me so it was like $19.90 for the CF card! works great!

You can get 2 Ultra II for same price as 1 Ultra III