Are Kingston cards good? I need some CF cards asap

Maybe the card reader corrupted the files?

I've been using Kingston Elite 133x in my cameras for years now....never had a problem.

Kingston card is way way too slow for shooting raw. Kingston is not suitable for high speed action shots.

You can buy Adaata, patriot, transcend.

I've got one kingston 133x and one Sandisk Extreme 3. Can't tell the difference.

picard wrote in post #10478016
Kingston card is way way too slow for shooting raw. Kingston is not suitable for high speed action shots.

You can buy Adaata, patriot, transcend.

The OP shoots a 5dC, so I don't think high speed action is a concern.
I have shot Kingston 133x cards for a year without any issues.

I just bought a 16Gb Transcend 600x, which I'm waiting for. I couldn't afford the extra $100 to get a 32Gb. I saw a a youtube video on (I think) Lexar 600 CF card on a 7D and the thing was FAST, which is why I'm not looking to get 600x CF cards. I had an issue taking photos of my friends at a golf course with the card I had, which lagged in between processing (400x).

The speed of the card has nothing to so with how fast the buffer will right to it. The speeds are advertised download speeds...

I use 4gb 133x Kingston elites in my 1D2 at 8fps all the time with no issues.

picard wrote in post #10478016
Kingston card is way way too slow for shooting raw. Kingston is not suitable for high speed action shots.

You can buy Adaata, patriot, transcend.

And you have experience with all those brands?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=894934

Actually the card speed does have to do with write speed. However you are correct that the labeled speed is for downloading. Its a bigger number and we all know bigger is better!

There have been way to many tests showing that faster cards do indeed empty the buffer faster. That said, write speed is only important when you fill the buffer. If you never fill the buffer ANY card will do fine.

I really doubt that the hardware inside most camera's will work at faster speeds just because the CF card is faster. Like my 50D will take continuous shots in Jpeg mode with a Kingston 133x without a problem. But it can only take 16 shots of RAW at the 6.3f/s then 1 shot every 1.2 seconds there after. This is the same with a 300x UDMA and a 600x UDMA card. There is no difference. Now when it comes to getting the photo's off the card, then the 600x is clearly faster by a noticeable margin.

Perhaps the 7d or the 1dm4 are different as they are newer and may be built around a faster UDMA chip spec... Its like plugging in a sata3 drive into a sata1 port.. it will work, but not faster than the ports speed.

Matt.

mjmackinnon wrote in post #10493548
Perhaps the 7d or the 1dm4 are different as they are newer and may be built around a faster UDMA chip spec

The time for the buffer to empty on the 7D is highly dependant on the CF card speed. I tested half a dozen cards. All allowed 20 raws at 8 fps. The time for the 'busy' light to go off varied from 11 seconds to 166 seconds.

It is true the camera will not work faster with a faster card. It will only work at its maximum speed even if the card can work faster. However it will not work at maximum speed with a card that is slower than that speed.

With a 1D4 you can shoot in med jpeg till the battery dies with the new extremes. The card is fast enough to take the images as fast as the camera can feed it.

I have been using Kingston SD cards for quite a while now and have not had any problems with them at all, although I mostly only use them in my GoPro.
I mainly use San Disk SD cards in my cameras

I have Kingstons, Scanisk, both are excellent cards.

tkbslc wrote in post #10478101
I've got one kingston 133x and one Sandisk Extreme 3. Can't tell the difference.

Rob Galbraith database shows Sandisk Extreme III at 21-23MB/sec while the Kingston 133x is 16MB/sec for RAW file performance on 5DII.

Yet same two are 7MB/sec vs. 6MB/sec on 5D.

YMMV. What Mark1 says is valid.

Wilt wrote in post #10506550
Rob Galbraith database shows Sandisk Extreme III at 21-23MB/sec while the Kingston 133x is 16MB/sec for RAW file performance on 5DII.

Yet same two are 7MB/sec vs. 6MB/sec on 5D.

YMMV. What Mark1 says is valid.

But will getting 21MB/s vs 16MB/s actually let you take more shots in a row? If not, what's the difference other than benchmark bragging rights.