Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Ultra cf cards

Reply
Thread Tools

Ultra cf cards

 
 
clintonstreet3@verizon.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2007
I own a Canon A95 camera and use Sandisk standard speed 512mb cf
cards.

At times, it seems to take forever until the camera is ready for the
next shot. Is it likely that using a higher speed card such as the
Sandisk Ultra card will significantly accelerate the process?

Also, does the current state of battery charge have an impact? I ask
because it seems to be more of an issue when the flash goes off and
the camera is demanding more juice.

In other words, is the delay caused by slow "save" or by recharging
the flash?

Bob

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2007
On 9 Feb 2007 14:45:28 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> At times, it seems to take forever until the camera is ready for the
> next shot. Is it likely that using a higher speed card such as the
> Sandisk Ultra card will significantly accelerate the process?
>
> Also, does the current state of battery charge have an impact? I ask
> because it seems to be more of an issue when the flash goes off and
> the camera is demanding more juice.
>
> In other words, is the delay caused by slow "save" or by recharging
> the flash?


You haven't given enough information. For instance, the first two
words, "At times" doesn't indicate whether the flash was always used
when the delay was exceptionally long, or just sometimes. And how
long is "forever"? Three seconds? Ten? Minutes? Depending on the
length of "forever", you can get a number of different answers, so
it helps a *lot* to eliminate ambiguity. For what it's worth, the
flash recharge time will vary tremendously depending on whether
alkalines or NiMH batteries are used, as well as how much of life is
left in the batteries. The A95 manual discussed this a bit on page
44, even saying that it may sometimes take the flash 10 seconds to
recharge. It can be much less than that, but it can take longer.
Taking many flash shots in quick succession is also not only much
harder on batteries, the heat generated may be harmful to the camera
as well.

For information about the "write" performance of the A95 writing
to a Sandisk Ultra II card, see

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/page4.asp

The A95 isn't particularly speedy, but then it was introduced in
2004. As dpreview notes in its review of the A620, which replaced
it, the A95 is sluggish in comparison, with file writes taking about
400% longer, probably due to the A620 using the much improved, much
faster DIGIC II processor. The A640 replaced the A620 late last
year, and dpreview noted:

> At one time Canon's A series compacts were considerbly
> less responsive in virtually every area than their more
> glamorous Ixus/Elph/S/G cousins, mainly because they
> were still using the older DIGIC processor when the rest
> of the lineup had moved to DIGIC II. That all ended with
> the A610/620, which saw the introduction of the DIGIC II
> processor to the A series, and with it a huge performance
> boost. The good news is that the A640 offers pretty much
> the same performance as the A620 before it (aside from a
> slightly slower burst mode and slightly slower playback
> thanks to the larger files). Surprisingly it also offers
> performance that is broadly comparable with the
> DIGIC III-equipped G7 and in most areas it is up with the
> best cameras in its class. Our only complaints are the
> occaisional focus hunting (particularly at the long end of the
> zoom and in macro mode) and the rather sluggish flash
> performance once the batteries start to run down.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/page5.asp


Slowness due to using the flash can't be avoided, but it can be
minimized by using fresh, high capacity NiMH batteries. If the A95
seems slow even when the flash isn't used, it may be time to
consider upgrading the camera to one not quite as "ancient" as the
A95. It doesn't have to be another Canon, but the A630/A640's
operation should seem very familiar to A95 users, and they are much
better in practically all respects. The new models produce much
sharper images, have almost none of the A95's purple fringing, and
have much less noise at intermediate ISO speeds. While the A620 is
discontinued, it may still be available new at low prices. I got
one just a couple of months ago, and as dpreview mentioned, it's
slightly faster writing files than the A640. The A640 also has
outstanding battery performance, up to 1,600 shots per charge (if
you don't use the flash), but the A95 also gets good life from its
batteries.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
clintonstreet3@verizon.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2007
On Feb 10, 12:09 am, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 14:45:28 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > At times, it seems to take forever until the camera is ready for the
> > next shot. Is it likely that using a higher speed card such as the
> > Sandisk Ultra card will significantly accelerate the process?

>
> > Also, does the current state of battery charge have an impact? I ask
> > because it seems to be more of an issue when the flash goes off and
> > the camera is demanding more juice.

>
> > In other words, is the delay caused by slow "save" or by recharging
> > the flash?

>
> You haven't given enough information. For instance, the first two
> words, "At times" doesn't indicate whether the flash was always used
> when the delay was exceptionally long, or just sometimes. And how
> long is "forever"? Three seconds? Ten? Minutes? Depending on the
> length of "forever", you can get a number of different answers, so
> it helps a *lot* to eliminate ambiguity. For what it's worth, the
> flash recharge time will vary tremendously depending on whether
> alkalines or NiMH batteries are used, as well as how much of life is
> left in the batteries. The A95 manual discussed this a bit on page
> 44, even saying that it may sometimes take the flash 10 seconds to
> recharge. It can be much less than that, but it can take longer.
> Taking many flash shots in quick succession is also not only much
> harder on batteries, the heat generated may be harmful to the camera
> as well.
>
> For information about the "write" performance of the A95 writing
> to a Sandisk Ultra II card, see
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/page4.asp
>
> The A95 isn't particularly speedy, but then it was introduced in
> 2004. As dpreview notes in its review of the A620, which replaced
> it, the A95 is sluggish in comparison, with file writes taking about
> 400% longer, probably due to the A620 using the much improved, much
> faster DIGIC II processor. The A640 replaced the A620 late last
> year, and dpreview noted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At one time Canon's A series compacts were considerbly
> > less responsive in virtually every area than their more
> > glamorous Ixus/Elph/S/G cousins, mainly because they
> > were still using the older DIGIC processor when the rest
> > of the lineup had moved to DIGIC II. That all ended with
> > the A610/620, which saw the introduction of the DIGIC II
> > processor to the A series, and with it a huge performance
> > boost. The good news is that the A640 offers pretty much
> > the same performance as the A620 before it (aside from a
> > slightly slower burst mode and slightly slower playback
> > thanks to the larger files). Surprisingly it also offers
> > performance that is broadly comparable with the
> > DIGIC III-equipped G7 and in most areas it is up with the
> > best cameras in its class. Our only complaints are the
> > occaisional focus hunting (particularly at the long end of the
> > zoom and in macro mode) and the rather sluggish flash
> > performance once the batteries start to run down.

>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona640/page5.asp
>
> Slowness due to using the flash can't be avoided, but it can be
> minimized by using fresh, high capacity NiMH batteries. If the A95
> seems slow even when the flash isn't used, it may be time to
> consider upgrading the camera to one not quite as "ancient" as the
> A95. It doesn't have to be another Canon, but the A630/A640's
> operation should seem very familiar to A95 users, and they are much
> better in practically all respects. The new models produce much
> sharper images, have almost none of the A95's purple fringing, and
> have much less noise at intermediate ISO speeds. While the A620 is
> discontinued, it may still be available new at low prices. I got
> one just a couple of months ago, and as dpreview mentioned, it's
> slightly faster writing files than the A640. The A640 also has
> outstanding battery performance, up to 1,600 shots per charge (if
> you don't use the flash), but the A95 also gets good life from its
> batteries.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You answered my question. Thanks for the help!

Bob


 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2007
On 9 Feb 2007 21:59:26 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> You answered my question. Thanks for the help!


You're welcome.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultra Products Ultra Fire Silverstrand Front Page News 1 06-29-2005 12:29 PM
ihug ultra speed test - ne1 with ultra wanna try this test for me? cowboyz NZ Computing 14 11-25-2004 10:29 PM
'Ultra' / 'High-Speed' SD cards VS. regular SD cards Steven Digital Photography 6 10-01-2004 02:04 PM
Sandisk Ultra II, "new" Ultra, "original " Ultra Eberhard Funke Digital Photography 0 01-13-2004 04:35 PM
Ultra ATA/100 HDD on a Ultra ATA/33 motherboard Prinxce of Darkxness Computer Support 3 01-06-2004 05:36 PM



Advertisments