REAL WORLD CF card speed comparison

[sbohne]

I've read a ton of posts on other forums that speak about card speed. "This card's slower than that card, yadda, yadda, yadda...".

So, I worried: "gee, am I waiting too long for my camera to write to the card because I'm using a slow card?"

Then I looked several digital camera sites that did speed comparisons, and their tests show SEEMINGLY huge speed differences...UNTIL YOU STOP AND REMEMBER THAT THERE AIN'T A H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND 1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!

Well, I just did a test. Using a Canon 1Ds, set at LARGE jpg (least compression), I photographed the same scene using a SanDisk 1GB (blue label), a Transcend 1GB, a Ridata 512MB 52x speed, and a generic "no name" 512MB card.

Each card was formatted, then photographed on. Guess what? The "write light" stayed lit (and the image preview came up) ALL EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL THE CARDS!!!

Moved to the Canon 10D. Same parameters for the 1Ds. While the cards previewed and wrote faster (hey, it's half the file size, right?), EVERY CARD WAS WITHIN 2/10's of a second OF EACH OTHER!

Moral of the story? Forget the claims of card write speed. Buy the card with the best price. I've been happy with SanDisk, and they can be had at the best price. Think I'll stay there.
YMMV
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[sandsport]

Between my old sandisk and new simpletech on my 10d and 1ds, the sandisk was the old 256mb style and is the slowest listed on the robG database and at the time the 1gb simpletech was towards the top of the fastest (no longer though)

I didnt write down the times, but the difference was about 40% if I remember correctly.

Of course I am not disputing you results which are very interesting, just saying that maybe this does not apply to all CF cards.

I've read a ton of posts on other forums that speak about card
speed. "This card's slower than that card, yadda, yadda, yadda...".

So, I worried: "gee, am I waiting too long for my camera to write
to the card because I'm using a slow card?"

Then I looked several digital camera sites that did speed
comparisons, and their tests show SEEMINGLY huge speed
differences...UNTIL YOU STOP AND REMEMBER THAT THERE AIN'T A
H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND
1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!

Well, I just did a test. Using a Canon 1Ds, set at LARGE jpg (least
compression), I photographed the same scene using a SanDisk 1GB
(blue label), a Transcend 1GB, a Ridata 512MB 52x speed, and a
generic "no name" 512MB card.

Each card was formatted, then photographed on. Guess what? The
"write light" stayed lit (and the image preview came up) ALL
EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL THE CARDS!!!

Moved to the Canon 10D. Same parameters for the 1Ds. While the
cards previewed and wrote faster (hey, it's half the file size,
right?), EVERY CARD WAS WITHIN 2/10's of a second OF EACH OTHER!

Moral of the story? Forget the claims of card write speed. Buy the
card with the best price. I've been happy with SanDisk, and they
can be had at the best price. Think I'll stay there.
YMMV
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[Ken Phillips]

... which writes faster than either of the cameras that you mention. In theory it doesn't matter, once you surpass the camera's write speed.
KP

I've read a ton of posts on other forums that speak about card
speed. "This card's slower than that card, yadda, yadda, yadda...".

So, I worried: "gee, am I waiting too long for my camera to write
to the card because I'm using a slow card?"

Then I looked several digital camera sites that did speed
comparisons, and their tests show SEEMINGLY huge speed
differences...UNTIL YOU STOP AND REMEMBER THAT THERE AIN'T A
H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND
1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!

Well, I just did a test. Using a Canon 1Ds, set at LARGE jpg (least
compression), I photographed the same scene using a SanDisk 1GB
(blue label), a Transcend 1GB, a Ridata 512MB 52x speed, and a
generic "no name" 512MB card.

Each card was formatted, then photographed on. Guess what? The
"write light" stayed lit (and the image preview came up) ALL
EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL THE CARDS!!!

Moved to the Canon 10D. Same parameters for the 1Ds. While the
cards previewed and wrote faster (hey, it's half the file size,
right?), EVERY CARD WAS WITHIN 2/10's of a second OF EACH OTHER!

Moral of the story? Forget the claims of card write speed. Buy the
card with the best price. I've been happy with SanDisk, and they
can be had at the best price. Think I'll stay there.
YMMV
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[sbohne]

... which writes faster than either of the cameras that you
mention. In theory it doesn't matter, once you surpass the camera's
write speed.
KP

No, Ken, I don't think it matters one bit. Two different cameras, same results with every single card. I'm betting if I ran the same test in your 1D, there would be similar results.

The only card I ever found MARKEDLY different was a "MR. FLASH" brand of CF card. Those things were junk! Took 8 seconds to save a 6 Megapixel file on an S1 compared to 2.5 seconds on a Ridata...

--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[Gleb Esman]

I did similar tests with 1D with older Lexar 24x 512MB and newer Lexar 2GB 40x - and the speed (red led off after 17 frames shot in 8fps burst mode) was the same.
I think even 24x CF card was already exceeding camera's capabilities.

Gleb

 

[Steven Noyes]

It is very well documented (and apparent on my 1D) that the cards have a significant impact on the 1D write times and the 1D writes MUCH MUCH faster than either the 1Ds or the 10D.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter

 

[Ken Phillips]

... such as the D30/D60/10D and the EOS-1D. The 1D eats them for lunch ... the 1D loves fast cards!
KP

It is very well documented (and apparent on my 1D) that the cards
have a significant impact on the 1D write times and the 1D writes
MUCH MUCH faster than either the 1Ds or the 10D.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[Scott G Spellman]

Sorry man-

In some shooting situations-CF speed does make a difference. I shoot concerts and when the magic moments happen-I need to fill and clear my buffer fast. In my Digital Rebel, my Sandisk Extreme averages 18 sec to take and clear 10 shots. My regular Sandisk CF averages 28 sec for the same 10 shots. When you sometimes only have 3 songs to get your shot- It can make a big difference.

-Scott

I've read a ton of posts on other forums that speak about card
speed. "This card's slower than that card, yadda, yadda, yadda...".

So, I worried: "gee, am I waiting too long for my camera to write
to the card because I'm using a slow card?"

Then I looked several digital camera sites that did speed
comparisons, and their tests show SEEMINGLY huge speed
differences...UNTIL YOU STOP AND REMEMBER THAT THERE AIN'T A
H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND
1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!

Well, I just did a test. Using a Canon 1Ds, set at LARGE jpg (least
compression), I photographed the same scene using a SanDisk 1GB
(blue label), a Transcend 1GB, a Ridata 512MB 52x speed, and a
generic "no name" 512MB card.

Each card was formatted, then photographed on. Guess what? The
"write light" stayed lit (and the image preview came up) ALL
EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL THE CARDS!!!

Moved to the Canon 10D. Same parameters for the 1Ds. While the
cards previewed and wrote faster (hey, it's half the file size,
right?), EVERY CARD WAS WITHIN 2/10's of a second OF EACH OTHER!

Moral of the story? Forget the claims of card write speed. Buy the
card with the best price. I've been happy with SanDisk, and they
can be had at the best price. Think I'll stay there.
YMMV
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[Kevin Kuehl]

No, Ken, I don't think it matters one bit. Two different cameras,
same results with every single card. I'm betting if I ran the same
test in your 1D, there would be similar results.

I have a 1D and have used both SanDisk Ultra and Lexar 40x CF cards in it. The Lexar 40x CF cards are noticeably faster on writes in the camera. They are also noticeably faster on reads from a FireWire card reader.

 

[Tim Chong]

1D does love fast CFs!

 

[Scott Goosman]

When I forst got the camera I tested the write speed between a standard sandisk and a 30x Transcend card.

I would fill the buffer completely, then record the time till finished writing. Then download the entire flash determine how many MB were used and then determine the write speed.

I consistently found the Transcend to be much faster at least 30% we are talking the difference between wait over 2 minutes for an entire buffer to write and 90 seconds. This is a vast difference that will present itself under heavy use! And clearly means you need faster cards. Now the differnce between write speeds of 1200 Kb/s and 1250kb/s are not large and will not make a great difference in write times but differences of 100 vs 1100 will! So I respectfully must dissagree with you completely!

Scott

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose

 

[sbohne]

It is very well documented (and apparent on my 1D) that the cards
have a significant impact on the 1D write times and the 1D writes
MUCH MUCH faster than either the 1Ds or the 10D.

I think you've missed my point. I'm not disagreeing with you that the 1D wirtes much faster. Review my answer: I never stated that anywhere.

What I AM saying is that the CARD ITSELF will not make AN APPRECIABLE AMOUNT of difference on the 1D FROM CARD TO CARD.

Now, I do not own a 1D so I cannot do the test, HOWEVER...

as it turns out, Claude Jodoin HAS owned one. He has done the same test (I did not realize this until I sent him an email outlining my test). He found exactly the same results. That on 2 different 1D's, every single name brand card had the EXACT same write time, give or take a few hundred milliiseconds. And while that SOUNDS like a lot, in the real world, it simply is not even noticeable.

It is very possible to get a card that does not measure up to another from the same manufacturer. It happens.

So would I bet a 1D? Nope, as I said, I don't have one to try it on. However, I will GLADLY bet you a 1Ds that my results are as stated...I'd LOVE to have another one

But I'm sure that if you and I tested 25 cameras and used 25 cards from each manufacturer, we would find a combination that ran slower or faster than the pack...but we would be measuring in a very small amount.

The bet is off with Mr Flash brand cards...if they even make those dogs anymore. They were pitifully slow...on ANY camera: S1, S2, 10D, and practically UNUSEABLE with the 1Ds...
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[sbohne]

I have a 1D and have used both SanDisk Ultra and Lexar 40x CF cards
in it. The Lexar 40x CF cards are noticeably faster on writes in
the camera. They are also noticeably faster on reads from a
FireWire card reader.

Ok, here's one for you. I do not use Lexar cards: several friends have lost data with them. But Gary Fong tested several cards and found that PNY cards (again, which I've never owned) were FASTER with HIS CAMERAS (Fuji S2 and Canon 10D--not sure if he tried on the new Olympus) than the LEXAR cards...which you pay a premium for.

So again, remember I said I didn't have a 1D to try it out on. You guys that own a 1D, if you find one card is noticeably faster, great. Tell everyone what it is. But if by noticeably faster you mean a quarter of a second, give me a break!

However, on the 10D or the 1Ds, there is ZERO difference between a 24X generic card, a 40X Transcend, and a 52X Ridata.
smb

--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[sbohne]

Sorry man-

In some shooting situations-CF speed does make a difference. I
shoot concerts and when the magic moments happen-I need to fill and
clear my buffer fast. In my Digital Rebel, my Sandisk Extreme
averages 18 sec to take and clear 10 shots. My regular Sandisk CF
averages 28 sec for the same 10 shots. When you sometimes only
have 3 songs to get your shot- It can make a big difference.

-Scott

Nothing to be sorry about. I don't have a Digital Rebel to try it with.

And I said you will definitely notice a difference with the Extremes...but you are paying a lot for that difference...sometimes up to 2X the price.

I just know that whether I'm using a 52X Ridata or my regular Sandisk in the 10D, it only takes about 22 seconds for 10 shots. Do I want to pay another $100 or more for 4 seconds? Nope, but then again, I'm a portrait/wedding photographer, and I don't need the extra speed. IF you do, then go with the Extremes. It's only money
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[sbohne]

Scott Goosman wrote:
So

I respectfully must dissagree with you completely!

You can disagree all you want. However, my findings are borne out by more than one respondant here, and Claude Jodoin (technical editor and/or contributor for PEI, Rangefinder, PPA magazines).

I'm pretty confident in my findings.

--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[Steven Noyes]

I can assure you that you would loose

Steven

I think you've missed my point. I'm not disagreeing with you that
the 1D wirtes much faster. Review my answer: I never stated that
anywhere.

What I AM saying is that the CARD ITSELF will not make AN
APPRECIABLE AMOUNT of difference on the 1D FROM CARD TO CARD.

Now, I do not own a 1D so I cannot do the test, HOWEVER...

as it turns out, Claude Jodoin HAS owned one. He has done the same
test (I did not realize this until I sent him an email outlining my
test). He found exactly the same results. That on 2 different 1D's,
every single name brand card had the EXACT same write time, give or
take a few hundred milliiseconds. And while that SOUNDS like a lot,
in the real world, it simply is not even noticeable.

It is very possible to get a card that does not measure up to
another from the same manufacturer. It happens.

So would I bet a 1D? Nope, as I said, I don't have one to try it
on. However, I will GLADLY bet you a 1Ds that my results are as
stated...I'd LOVE to have another one

But I'm sure that if you and I tested 25 cameras and used 25 cards
from each manufacturer, we would find a combination that ran slower
or faster than the pack...but we would be measuring in a very small
amount.

The bet is off with Mr Flash brand cards...if they even make those
dogs anymore. They were pitifully slow...on ANY camera: S1, S2,
10D, and practically UNUSEABLE with the 1Ds...
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter

 

[@Dan.com]

And just how did you measure the write time?

I've read a ton of posts on other forums that speak about card
speed. "This card's slower than that card, yadda, yadda, yadda...".

So, I worried: "gee, am I waiting too long for my camera to write
to the card because I'm using a slow card?"

Then I looked several digital camera sites that did speed
comparisons, and their tests show SEEMINGLY huge speed
differences...UNTIL YOU STOP AND REMEMBER THAT THERE AIN'T A
H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND
1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!

Well, I just did a test. Using a Canon 1Ds, set at LARGE jpg (least
compression), I photographed the same scene using a SanDisk 1GB
(blue label), a Transcend 1GB, a Ridata 512MB 52x speed, and a
generic "no name" 512MB card.

Each card was formatted, then photographed on. Guess what? The
"write light" stayed lit (and the image preview came up) ALL
EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL THE CARDS!!!

Moved to the Canon 10D. Same parameters for the 1Ds. While the
cards previewed and wrote faster (hey, it's half the file size,
right?), EVERY CARD WAS WITHIN 2/10's of a second OF EACH OTHER!

Moral of the story? Forget the claims of card write speed. Buy the
card with the best price. I've been happy with SanDisk, and they
can be had at the best price. Think I'll stay there.
YMMV
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

--

My family is really boring. They have a coffee table book called 'Pictures We Took Just to Use Up the Rest of the Film.'
--Penelope Lombard

 

[Scott Goosman]

Your findings on the 10D are bunk. I would not have any confidence in them. Either the cards you were using were all similar write speeds or you testing method is completely flawed, which it most likely is. Read Robgalbraiths cf comparison. There is a very detailed review of camera and flash cards! And my findings have agreed with his findings withing 5%!!!! http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

You are wrong, sorry to say this but you are!

Scott

I respectfully must dissagree with you completely!

You can disagree all you want. However, my findings are borne out
by more than one respondant here, and Claude Jodoin (technical
editor and/or contributor for PEI, Rangefinder, PPA magazines).

I'm pretty confident in my findings.

--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose

 

[sbohne]

Your findings on the 10D are bunk. I would not have any confidence
in them. Either the cards you were using were all similar write
speeds or you testing method is completely flawed, which it most
likely is. Read Robgalbraiths cf comparison. There is a very
detailed review of camera and flash cards! And my findings have
agreed with his findings withing 5%!!!!
http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

You are wrong, sorry to say this but you are!

Gee, you're right Scott, I made all this up...

Evidently, so did Claude Jodoin and Gary Fong, too.

OHMIGAWD, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ

 

[Scott Goosman]

Gee, you're right Scott, I made all this up...

Evidently, so did Claude Jodoin and Gary Fong, too.

OHMIGAWD, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ

Wow your good at being repugnant!

Did I say you made it up. No I said you had a bogus method of testing your equipment! You make no metion of a test picture, picture size, number of photo's being writen, the exact type sandisk card, the calculated transfer rates, the error in you testing!!

As for your earlier statement: "THERE AIN'T A H*LLUVA LOTTA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARD THAT WRITES AT 490ms AND 1190ms IN THE REAL WORLD!" What exactly do you meand ms(milliseconds). Hey you know what every card in the world can write information in this amount of time. If you meant M/s well thats a big difference and YOU CAN SEE THAT DIFFERENCE!!! Next you expect me to "take you word" when I have evidence that contridicts you. And if you like, with a small amount of brain power you can calculate the difference in time between these cards using Rob Galbraiths site, BTW its not hard to do. If your attempted exertion that a card that writes nearly 2.5 times fast "ain't a H*lluva lotta difference", then you are plain wrong! You will see a difference and I have. Because you cannot create a lucid protocol to verify this and realize its ramifications do not blast verbal fecal matter my way!

Scott

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose