ProGrade 512GB vs Sony Tough 128GB (UHS-II SD "Fight")

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I gotta have the mod strike this down. Turns out there is some kind of buffer limit on DIGIC8 that I discovered when changing my testing regimen to include tightly constrained shooting and account for buffer cache limits. Turns out, the processor itself, not just it's RAM, has some limits. Folks have been saying 160mb/sec bus limits, but that's not true either. I got 107 CRAWs on both cards, and 67 full RAWs on both cards, exactly, each time, again and again when shooting fixed focus, with the lens cap on,

take lens cap off

and fixed exposure. With each RAW weighing 4.24MB.

what? reality is 37 mpxl RAWS

There's some kind of data/pixel limit, as the "weight" of those doesn't add up to being a RAM/on chip cache constraint either. We're talking 4.24x107? See what I mean, I put out more during my previous testing. I gotta redo this all from scratch and get back to you guys.

The Prograde is a second faster clearing the buffer, btw. So it is faster, but I'm not sure that totally counts here. More to come on the matter.

just take lens cap off, shoot real shots

how many shots? around 30 in 2 seconds

how long to clear buffer? around 8 seconds

Both cards are writing back exactly 10GB in 2 minutes in camera. I did a test of continuous burst non-stop for 2 minutes and compared the number of shots but more importantly the amount of data written back as in real life shooting RAW files do vary slightly in size depending on conditions.

The camera, if you can believe it, is only capable of processing approx 83mb/sec of data by my math. Now yes, the ProGrade can write it back a touch faster in single clear only, the but this in fact doesn't matter apparently if you're going to repeat it right after, which is the point and the assumption that having a faster card will let you jump back in the action faster. The camera is the bottleneck anyways, tough.

Now it is apparent on a single clear that some cards are faster than others. But does it matter? Again, I'll have to change my testing methodology. Have to leave for my real duties in a bit, I'm thinking I shoot bursts at a time, not a single long continuous burst. But I think I'll run into the same problem. Going to mull on this further but right now my verdict is having a fast UHS-II card is beneficial, but not sure how much difference it makes. Maybe I re-run the 2 minute test with a UHS-I card? Maybe I will later.

I’m wondering if shooting CRAW or JPEG influences these numbers now… More testing needed.

Edit: it’s sounding like there are three components in play, the processor, a fixed internal buffer, and the card. But the notion of a bus limit, appears false. Now this amounts to a bus limit, but it’s a weakest link in the chain, which appears to be the processor, not a north bridge or USB/scsi protocol/sd bus issue, theoretically. This is in fact a worse problem than a bus limit of 160mb/sec, but it makes logical sense. Again, I’ll retest with different conditions and and setup to see how much that card actually matters in “best case” scenarios. I can tell you right now, not as much as I thought. It’s simply not the weak link in the chain. The processor appears to be. Canons been behind the times on processing for years, this remains unchanged which shouldn’t surprise me.