Is this memory card fast enough for 7D?

http://www.amazon.com …d=1281188433&sr​=8-3-spell

Is this CF card fast enough for Full HD Video and 8fps RAW or do I need somthing faster and if yes, what?

Yes, I use a 4MB 30MB/s and have no problems at all.

Do i get 8 FPS for a longer time when i use a faster card?

Naturalist wrote in post #10677591
Yes, I use a 4MB 30MB/s and have no problems at all.

small Jpegs?

Might get 1-2 more frames out of a burst with a significantly faster card, due to the buffer emptying faster. But as a rule what a faster card buys you is faster recovery from a full buffer and faster downloads from a card reader.

Jon wrote in post #10677616
Might get 1-2 more frames out of a burst with a significantly faster card, due to the buffer emptying faster. But as a rule what a faster card buys you is faster recovery from a full buffer and faster downloads from a card reader.

That´s not what i need. I only need as long as possible the 8 FPS, so i won´t pay the double price ore more for a faster card and go with the 16GB Ultra.

@Naturalist: By the way, how many pictures can be stored on your 4 GB card with the 7D?

According to the owner's manual, you can fit 593 shots at large JPEG, 155 in raw, or 122 in raw + JPEG on a 4GB card.

http://lensprotogo.com​/media/Canon7DManual.p​df

Exactly how much speed do you need? If you shoot in RAW it will not be as fast, but depending on what you need it for, maybe use the video setting. The 7D offers amazing video. I've been depending on it a lot lately and I've been impressed.

Check out the 16GB 400x (60mb speed) Transcend cards that newegg sells for about $60 , same rated speed as the Sandisk extreme and UDMA compatable . These cards have good good reviews and seems to stand up with no problems for a fraction of the other brand with a limited lifetime warranty .

stephan902 wrote in post #10677722
That´s not what i need. I only need as long as possible the 8 FPS, so i won´t pay the double price ore more for a faster card and go with the 16GB Ultra.

@Naturalist: By the way, how many pictures can be stored on your 4 GB card with the 7D?

The problem is that a faster card won't get you THAT much more shooting time at 8fps.

Your 7D buffer is 15 frames. That's less than 2 seconds. How much can your card write in 2 seconds? 2 photos? 3 photos tops? So instead of 15 on a dirt cheap card, you could shoot 18 photos.

The price difference could be a $50 card vs $250 card. A Transcend 400x 16gb runs for $60. A Lexar 600x 16gb card runs for $250. A 133x could be like $30.

I'm guessing you can shoot like 15-16 photos on the 133x, 17-18 on the 400x, and maybe 19 on the 600x. Not a huge difference, but while you will be waiting like 35 seconds for the 133x card to finish writing, the 400x card might take like 12 seconds while the 600x takes 9 seconds. The question is how long do you want to wait til you get to shoot again?

To me the 400x vs 600x is not much of a difference. And while 133x will get you your 8fps, you will be more pissed than anything waiting for that damn buffer to fully clear and for the red light to turn off. So yeah, that's the main difference. How long does it take to clear the whole buffer is the huge question. There's only so much your card can do in the 2 seconds before your buffer gets close to full. 133x vs 600x doesnt make that big of a difference there.

dmo580 wrote in post #10690083
I'm guessing you can shoot like 15-16 photos on the 133x, 17-18 on the 400x, and maybe 19 on the 600x. Not a huge difference, but while you will be waiting like 35 seconds for the 133x card to finish writing, the 400x card might take like 12 seconds while the 600x takes 9 seconds. The question is how long do you want to wait til you get to shoot again?

Actually, when I tried this out I found that the card speed made zero difference to the number of shots before the buffer filled. I tried 5 different cards, ranging from 3 to 45 MB/s. All of them fired off 20 shots at 8 fps before slowing down.

But you're right about what happens after the buffer filled was dependant on card speed. The faster cards got more shots after the buffer filled and they emptied the buffer faster (11s for the fastest card vs 166 seconds for the slowest).

See herefor the data.

hollis_f wrote in post #10693013
Actually, when I tried this out I found that the card speed made zero difference to the number of shots before the buffer filled. I tried 5 different cards, ranging from 3 to 45 MB/s. All of them fired off 20 shots at 8 fps before slowing down.

But you're right about what happens after the buffer filled was dependant on card speed. The faster cards got more shots after the buffer filled and they emptied the buffer faster (11s for the fastest card vs 166 seconds for the slowest).

See herefor the data.

Wow good test. Now we need to feed you some faster cards like the Sandisk 60MB/sec and 90MB/sec cards and maybe the Lexar 600x and some of the Transcend cards to test

Awesome test, Frank. I've been trying to tell people that for years! The only thing a fast card is for is emptying the buffer.

dmo580 wrote in post #10695383
Wow good test. Now we need to feed you some faster cards like the Sandisk 60MB/sec and 90MB/sec cards and maybe the Lexar 600x and some of the Transcend cards to test

Sounds like a great idea. But 64 GB cards please

you should consider a photofast card. It's a taiwan brand and its one of the best bang for the buck. most of the other name brands are made in china anyways.

I have the 16GB "533x" card and I can do 8 fps just fine, along with 1080p video shooting.

thread on the card:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=772918