Ultra cf cards

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by clintonstreet3@verizon.net, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. Guest

    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
     
    , Feb 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR Guest

    On 9 Feb 2007 14:45:28 -0800, 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.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Feb 10, 12:09 am, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > On 9 Feb 2007 14:45:28 -0800, 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
     
    , Feb 10, 2007
    #3
  4. ASAAR Guest

    On 9 Feb 2007 21:59:26 -0800, wrote:

    > You answered my question. Thanks for the help!


    You're welcome.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 10, 2007
    #4
    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. Silverstrand

    Ultra Products Ultra Fire

    Silverstrand, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,093
    unholy
    Jun 29, 2005
  2. Prinxce of Darkxness

    Ultra ATA/100 HDD on a Ultra ATA/33 motherboard

    Prinxce of Darkxness, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,137
  3. Eberhard Funke

    Sandisk Ultra II, "new" Ultra, "original " Ultra

    Eberhard Funke, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Eberhard Funke
    Jan 13, 2004
  4. Steven
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    805
    Steven
    Oct 1, 2004
  5. cowboyz
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    877
    cowboyz
    Nov 25, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page