Would this card (60MB/s) be much more than enough for 7D's Video capabilities?

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_CompactFlash_M​emory.html

I want the HIGHEST amount of quality from the 7D for VIDEO and PICTURES and will this card be more than enough?

At most the camera will write out HD video files at the rate of approx 330MB per minute, which is only 5.5MB/s. A card capable of sustained write speeds of 8MB/s should be more than enough for video. A 60MB/s card would be massive overkill and a needless waste of money. It will do nothing to improve quality. It might speed up downloads from the card. That's all.

From page 255 of the manual....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

tdodd wrote in post #10587960
At most the camera will write out HD video files at the rate of approx 330MB per minute, which is only 5.5MB/s. A card capable of sustained write speeds of 8MB/s should be more than enough for video. A 60MB/s card would be massive overkill and a needless waste of money. It will do nothing to improve quality. It might speed up downloads from the card. That's all.

From page 255 of the manual....

^^^ agree, way more than sufficient.

Thanks, I 've kept reading about problems with buffer overload at even 30MB/s.
And Canon specifically says to have atleast a UDMA card which is what I linked to in the OP.
So I HIGHLY doubt 8MB/s is enough...?

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #10588312
Thanks, I 've kept reading about problems with buffer overload at even 30MB/s.

Really? Where? I've never, ever read anything like that.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #10588312
And Canon specifically says to have atleast a UDMA card which is what I linked to in the OP

The manual says that they recommend a UDMA card 'For shooting still photos during movie shooting'.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #10588312
So I HIGHLY doubt 8MB/s is enough...?

I SERIOUSLY think you're wrong.

oh okay then (:

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #10588312
Thanks, I 've kept reading about problems with buffer overload at even 30MB/s.
And Canon specifically says to have atleast a UDMA card which is what I linked to in the OP.
So I HIGHLY doubt 8MB/s is enough...?

the problem is the buffer writing itself, not the card.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #10588312
So I HIGHLY doubt 8MB/s is enough...?

Have you even looked at the manual? Perhaps you should tell Canon they don't know what they're talking about. Sheesh!

FWIW I just tried shooting 4.5 minutes worth (1.5GB) of Full HD to a fake eBay card and never once saw the buffer filling indicator. I purposely made the image data very uncrompressible by panning the camera across a busy scene so that every pixel was being changed from frame to frame. The card gives a write speed of a miserable 7.4MB/s when copying the video file back to the card, yet seems perfectly up to the job of shooting HD video. With my Transcend 133X cards I get a write speed of 10.7MB/s when copying the same file to the card and a read speed of 27MB/s when copying from the card. Again (obviously) no problem shooting video.

Shooting with a 60MB/s card will not allow you to shoot 60 minutes of video in 10 minutes, so what's the advantage? It just costs a lot more.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yes, I understand, but for RELIABILITY it's best to get a udma. For us filmmakers, data loss isn't really an option ya know?

It's sucky for photographers, too. And data entry people. In fact, most people are not a fan of it.

hollis_f wrote in post #10588450
Really? Where? I've never, ever read anything like that.

I SERIOUSLY think you're wrong.

I personally have had 300x Kingston cards buffer up and stop recording. NEVER had a problem with sandisk extreme IIIs (30MB/S) and above in that regard so I would venture to say it was the "brand". And it wasn't just one particular kingston card, different jobs, different cards, different owners, so I would say it was that model of card/brand. 300x should be somewhere around 20MB/S so it goes to show that not all rated cards perform the same. Again, sandisk cards have never done me wrong.

60MB/S is not a waste of money if you value your time as you can download cards much faster. If you don't shoot more than 1 or 2 cards of video at a time and you don't mind leaving it unattended to download, then a slower card may do you just fine. But for the difference in price and speed, I would opt for the fastest you can afford. For me, the newer extreme 60MB/S are a great value compared to what I was paying for extreme IIIs less than a year ago. I do same day edits with my cards and (as I mentioned in a previous FW800 vs express card thread) every second counts. Is that the norm for the average joe shooting video and posting on this forum? Nope. But to make a generalization and say that the 60MB/S cards are a waste really is unfounded in terms of mass application.

tdodd wrote in post #10588555
Have you even looked at the manual? Perhaps you should tell Canon they don't know what they're talking about. Sheesh!

FWIW I just tried shooting 4.5 minutes worth (1.5GB) of Full HD to a fake eBay card and never once saw the buffer filling indicator. I purposely made the image data very uncrompressible by panning the camera across a busy scene so that every pixel was being changed from frame to frame. The card gives a write speed of a miserable 7.4MB/s when copying the video file back to the card, yet seems perfectly up to the job of shooting HD video. With my Transcend 133X cards I get a write speed of 10.7MB/s when copying the same file to the card and a read speed of 27MB/s when copying from the card. Again (obviously) no problem shooting video.

Shooting with a 60MB/s card will not allow you to shoot 60 minutes of video in 10 minutes, so what's the advantage? It just costs a lot more.

Thanks for the test rather than just pointing at the manual and parroting it. At the same time, just because you don't experience those issues on one attempt doesn't mean it can (or can't) happen. My sister studio has shot with kingstons for a few shoots, then on one shoot it buffered up during an important shot. You could argue with them till you were blue in the face about what the manual says, bottom line it buffered up and messed up a shot. Those cards were then regulated to emergency backup use only. I suggested they move over to the sandisk extreme IIIs at the time, and not a single buffer problem since.

I already touched on the advantage (for myself and a few others who do what I do in our industry) for a faster card. For those of you who don't need the speed, enjoy your slower cards. Those of us who want to offload cards and do something more important with our time, like spend time with our families, will gladly pay for that convenience.