CF cards speed comparisons

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by johnw_94020@yahoo.com, Oct 5, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    were dog slow compared to Viking.


    John
     
    , Oct 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Kibo informs me that ()
    stated that:

    >I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    >while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    >slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    >were dog slow compared to Viking.


    They vary all over the place, so you can't say that one brand is
    categorically faster than another brand. There's a very useful
    comparison table at the Rob Galbraith website, listing the *tested*
    speeds of most of the popular brands & models:
    <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007>

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Julian Tan Guest

    Hi John,

    It also depends very much on the camera, and whether the camera can
    utilise the high speed throughput of the card. If used with DSLRs,
    then the speed will be more noticable, but perhaps not so with cheaper
    compacts.

    Cheers,
    Julian
    -----------
    Shuttertalk Forums Member
    http://www.shuttertalk.com
     
    Julian Tan, Oct 5, 2004
    #3
  4. Rick Guest

    <> wrote in message news:...
    > I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    > while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    > slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    > were dog slow compared to Viking.


    The original Sandisk *is* slow compared to Viking. Try
    Sandisk's Ultra II. Vrrrooooommmmm.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Oct 5, 2004
    #4
  5. GT40 Guest

    Lexar makes some 80X cards.

    On 4 Oct 2004 22:24:56 -0700,
    () wrote:

    >I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    >while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    >slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    >were dog slow compared to Viking.
    >
    >
    >John
     
    GT40, Oct 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Rick Guest

    Lexar's WA (write acceleration) is gimmicky and only works
    with certain models of camera. Sandisk's Ultra II is a better bet.

    Rick

    "GT40" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Lexar makes some 80X cards.
    >
    > On 4 Oct 2004 22:24:56 -0700,
    > () wrote:
    >
    > >I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    > >while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    > >slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    > >were dog slow compared to Viking.
    > >
    > >
    > >John

    >
     
    Rick, Oct 5, 2004
    #6
  7. GT40 Guest

    Sure, thats why pro's use Lexar cards...

    On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:13:42 -0700, "Rick" <> wrote:

    >Lexar's WA (write acceleration) is gimmicky and only works
    >with certain models of camera. Sandisk's Ultra II is a better bet.
    >
    >Rick
    >
    >"GT40" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> Lexar makes some 80X cards.
    >>
    >> On 4 Oct 2004 22:24:56 -0700,
    >> () wrote:
    >>
    >> >I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    >> >while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    >> >slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    >> >were dog slow compared to Viking.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >John

    >>

    >
     
    GT40, Oct 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Frank ess Guest

    GT40 wrote:
    > Sure, thats why pro's use Lexar cards...
    >
    > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:13:42 -0700, "Rick" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Lexar's WA (write acceleration) is gimmicky and only works
    >> with certain models of camera. Sandisk's Ultra II is a better bet.
    >>
    >> Rick
    >>
    >> "GT40" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Lexar makes some 80X cards.
    >>>
    >>> On 4 Oct 2004 22:24:56 -0700,
    >>> () wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only
    >>>> 8X,
    >>>> while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking
    >>>> the
    >>>> slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    >>>> were dog slow compared to Viking.
    >>>>


    I have no experience with recent Viking cards, and I hope repeating this
    month-old data isn't an irritant to those who've already seen it:

    "I can't speak about SD memory cards, but my experience and experiments
    with a few CF cards in two cameras (set out below) give me the
    impression that there is little to choose among newly produced memory
    cards.

    It seems to me most of what differences appear depend on the camera.
    Certain dSLRs have integrated with Lexar's WA speedup technology. Most
    digital cameras have not. Apart from that, at least one of the more
    recent, higher-MP cameras seems to have architecture that accommodates
    whatever potential the card may have.

    ==============================
    _I set up my Nikon CP5700 on a tripod, filled the monitor with a view of
    a CRT
    showing the Windows Time/Date adjustment facility, so the photograph
    would include a record, and I could see what was happening in real-and
    verifiable, if needed-time.

    Camera saw everything at 1/15 second, f2.8, same view for every
    exposure.

    RAW, full-size exposures after format of a CF card in camera.

    I waited until the on-screen digital counter said xx:00 or xx:30,
    depending on how long it took me to record data and reformat the card
    between shots. As soon as the 00 or 30 digits appeared I pushed the
    shutter release button. The effect of this was that the camera monitor
    screen went blank at :01 or :31, very consistently.

    The camera monitor and the CRT were in a sight line, so I could look at
    the time and still see when the camera recovered a view (screen
    un-blanked). I recorded that interval for the first few trials, but
    ceased when it seemed clear the time was the same independent of card
    type or speed: 8 (eight seconds, approx.).

    Once the camera monitor acquired a view, I watched the little recording
    symbol until it disappeared, and recorded the time I saw on the CRT time
    display.

    Re-format the CF card, repeat the exposure, three exposures per card,
    change cards, repeat for each card. Actually I had to repeat a repeat or
    three, as I nodded off and failed to note the time on a few trials.
    (more seniorness)

    These are the cards I used, and their sources:
    Viking 512MB, two years old, no speed marked on card, Amazon.com
    SanDisk 512MB #1 plain, one month old, Costco
    SanDisk 512MB #2 plain, one month old, Costco
    San Disk 512MB Ultra II, two weeks old, Costco
    Lexar 512MB 40X #1, eight months old, disremembered online source
    Lexar 512MB 40X #2, two months old, BandH
    Lexar 1GB 80X, less than a week old, Adorama

    These are the times I recorded as elapsed between button-push and
    symbol-gone. I chose the mode if times were not identical; otherwise,
    they were consistent (identical) among trials.

    CP5700 and
    Viking 512MB 83 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #1 32 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #2 39 seconds
    SanDisk Ultra II 22 seconds
    Lexar 40X #1 25 seconds
    Lexar 40X #2 20 seconds
    Lexar 80X 22 seconds


    Then, with absolutely the same setup, I used the 8MP, ISO 50

    CP8700 and
    Viking 512MB 23 seconds*
    SanDisk Plain #1 16 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #2 17 seconds
    SanDisk Ultra II 16 seconds
    Lexar 40X #1 18 seconds
    Lexar 40X #2 16 seconds
    Lexar 80X 16 seconds

    I take this to mean that identically inscribed cards (two SanDisk
    Plains; two Lexar 40Xs) can be as different one to the other as the
    differences between comparable but differently branded cards in these
    cameras; cards perfomed fairly consistently relative to each other, in
    two different but similar cameras; the remarkable differences are
    attributable to the camera; the camera can drag a mediocre performer to
    the level of much more expensive cards (SanDisk Plains' latencies went
    from 32-39 to 16-17 seconds, an improvement of 200-240%, Viking improved
    by 360%, and the others were better by 125-140%, camera-to-camera).

    * First trial with the Viking card in the CP8700 was a mind-blower: it
    lost the view at shutter-release, reacquired it with the writing symbol
    on screen, and as near as I could tell, was still writing at five
    minutes! Then eight minutes. At ten minutes I started pushing buttons,
    but everything was frozen. I had to remove and reinsert the battery tray
    to make it come alive again. Reformatted the Viking card (again) and the
    rest of the trials went as expected, but quite a bit faster.


    This morning I sat in the waiting room while my car was serviced, and
    did this:

    CP8700, 1GB 80X Lexar CF card, ISO 50, 1/125, f7.2, camera propped up
    and as little disturbed as I could manage, framed a glass doorway with
    New Car displayed beyond,

    I took one dozen RAW photos, releasing the shutter as quickly as the
    camera would allow. I counted down between screen blank and view
    recovery (about 8 seconds) and looking at EXIF info for actual
    button-push times.

    The camera would accept a new photo (shutter release) as soon as the
    view was reacquired, for the first four photos, even though the writing
    symbol was displayed. After that, the hourglass buffer-full symbol would
    display for increasing amounts of time, but never exceeded sixteen
    seconds after view reacquisition.

    After the twelfth shutter release, I let it close itself out, and it
    wrote for about 24 seconds.

    I take this to mean the CP8700 writes to the 80X Lexar card at 16
    seconds per 12,374KB RAW image, and that a user can depend on the camera
    to allow about four exposures per minute as long as battery and memory
    hold out. Does that sound right?_"

    ===============================

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Oct 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Rick Guest

    Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html

    Rick

    "GT40" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Sure, thats why pro's use Lexar cards...
    >
    > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:13:42 -0700, "Rick" <> wrote:
    >
    > >Lexar's WA (write acceleration) is gimmicky and only works
    > >with certain models of camera. Sandisk's Ultra II is a better bet.
    > >
    > >Rick
    > >
    > >"GT40" <> wrote in message news:...
    > >> Lexar makes some 80X cards.
    > >>
    > >> On 4 Oct 2004 22:24:56 -0700,
    > >> () wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >I am using a Viking CF card 256MB. I am told that my card is only 8X,
    > >> >while other makers offer faster cards. Is this true? Is Viking the
    > >> >slowest card? I once used Sandisk, and Kingston, and thought they
    > >> >were dog slow compared to Viking.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >John
    > >>

    > >

    >
     
    Rick, Oct 5, 2004
    #9
  10. John Guest

    It seems Viking makes the slowest cards, but I use CF cards in a handheld PC
    palmtop, so I wonder if my HPC even has the ability to fully utilize a 40X CF
    card. The bus is only 51mhz. The unit is a HP Jornada 720. Its not a
    PocketPC.

    John


    << CP5700 and
    Viking 512MB 83 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #1 32 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #2 39 seconds
    SanDisk Ultra II 22 seconds
    Lexar 40X #1 25 seconds
    Lexar 40X #2 20 seconds
    Lexar 80X 22 seconds


    Then, with absolutely the same setup, I used the 8MP, ISO 50

    CP8700 and
    Viking 512MB 23 seconds*
    SanDisk Plain #1 16 seconds
    SanDisk Plain #2 17 seconds
    SanDisk Ultra II 16 seconds
    Lexar 40X #1 18 seconds
    Lexar 40X #2 16 seconds
    Lexar 80X 16 seconds >>



    -------
    America is back from the attack on our homeland, back from the attack on our
    economy, and back from the attack on our way of life. We are back because of
    the perseverance, character and leadership of George W. Bush! (Arnold
    Schwarzenegger, 2004).
     
    John, Oct 5, 2004
    #10
  11. Jer Guest

    Rick wrote:

    > Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    > their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    > you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html
    >
    > Rick



    I don't understand why you call the WA aspect 'gimmicky'. It's a
    feature that Lexar thinks is a good thing (they offer it), some cameras
    think it's a good thing (they support it). Why are cooperative choices
    considered 'gimmicky'?


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
     
    Jer, Oct 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Rick Guest

    "Jer" <> wrote in message news:cjvudj$...
    > Rick wrote:
    >
    > > Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    > > their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    > > you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html

    >
    > I don't understand why you call the WA aspect 'gimmicky'. It's a
    > feature that Lexar thinks is a good thing (they offer it), some cameras
    > think it's a good thing (they support it). Why are cooperative choices
    > considered 'gimmicky'?


    WA is gimmicky because proprietary customizations to
    camera firmware are necessary to take advantage of it.
    Not a good idea from a competition viewpoint. I'm glad
    Canon and several other manufacturers have ignored it.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Oct 6, 2004
    #12
  13. Jer Guest

    Rick wrote:

    > "Jer" <> wrote in message news:cjvudj$...
    >
    >>Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    >>>their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    >>>you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html

    >>
    >>I don't understand why you call the WA aspect 'gimmicky'. It's a
    >>feature that Lexar thinks is a good thing (they offer it), some cameras
    >>think it's a good thing (they support it). Why are cooperative choices
    >>considered 'gimmicky'?

    >
    >
    > WA is gimmicky because proprietary customizations to
    > camera firmware are necessary to take advantage of it.
    > Not a good idea from a competition viewpoint. I'm glad
    > Canon and several other manufacturers have ignored it.
    >
    > Rick
    >


    Well, using your analogy, I'm glad Canon chose to ignore the proprietary
    customizations of Minolta lenses. I mean, who'd want that Canon crap
    hanging off the front of a perfectly good Minolta?


    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
     
    Jer, Oct 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Rick Guest

    "Jer" <> wrote in message news:ck21ho$...
    > Rick wrote:
    >
    > > "Jer" <> wrote in message news:cjvudj$...
    > >
    > >>Rick wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    > >>>their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    > >>>you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html
    > >>
    > >>I don't understand why you call the WA aspect 'gimmicky'. It's a
    > >>feature that Lexar thinks is a good thing (they offer it), some cameras
    > >>think it's a good thing (they support it). Why are cooperative choices
    > >>considered 'gimmicky'?

    > >
    > >
    > > WA is gimmicky because proprietary customizations to
    > > camera firmware are necessary to take advantage of it.
    > > Not a good idea from a competition viewpoint. I'm glad
    > > Canon and several other manufacturers have ignored it.
    > >

    >
    > Well, using your analogy, I'm glad Canon chose to ignore the proprietary
    > customizations of Minolta lenses. I mean, who'd want that Canon crap
    > hanging off the front of a perfectly good Minolta?


    Apples and oranges. Lens mount and memory formats.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Oct 7, 2004
    #14
  15. Jer Guest

    Rick wrote:

    > "Jer" <> wrote in message news:ck21ho$...
    >
    >>Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Jer" <> wrote in message news:cjvudj$...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Rick wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Lexar's WA is of no benefit in cameras that cannot take advantage of
    >>>>>their gimmicky WA (e.g. all Canon models). If you read their website
    >>>>>you'd know as much: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/wa_cf.html
    >>>>
    >>>>I don't understand why you call the WA aspect 'gimmicky'. It's a
    >>>>feature that Lexar thinks is a good thing (they offer it), some cameras
    >>>>think it's a good thing (they support it). Why are cooperative choices
    >>>>considered 'gimmicky'?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>WA is gimmicky because proprietary customizations to
    >>>camera firmware are necessary to take advantage of it.
    >>>Not a good idea from a competition viewpoint. I'm glad
    >>>Canon and several other manufacturers have ignored it.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Well, using your analogy, I'm glad Canon chose to ignore the proprietary
    >>customizations of Minolta lenses. I mean, who'd want that Canon crap
    >>hanging off the front of a perfectly good Minolta?

    >
    >
    > Apples and oranges. Lens mount and memory formats.
    >
    > Rick
    >


    Both components are relevant proprietary customizations, among many
    others. I'm amazed you can't, or wont, see that.



    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
     
    Jer, Oct 7, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZXk=?=

    IT salary comparisons

    =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZXk=?=, May 12, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,343
    Laura A. Robinson
    May 28, 2004
  2. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,022
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  3. Sparky
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    463
    Sparky
    Oct 23, 2004
  4. Steven
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    773
    Steven
    Oct 1, 2004
  5. Crash

    Interesting speed comparisons.....

    Crash, Jun 14, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    406
    Crash
    Jun 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page