Reading mode: Light Dark

REAL WORLD CF card speed comparison

Go to last post
If you go to Rob G's site, the variation in write time for the cards tested above should be different. True with some of the newer cards, the camera speed may become limiting. Also note that on Rob G's site, there is a difference between RAW and jpg times. Mark
Ken Phillips said:
sbohne said:
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
Click to expand...
--
'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
Click to expand...
 
I can definately tell a difference between the Sandisk and Viking compact flash cards I have. There is a reason why I only use the Sandisk when I run out of the memory on the Viking.
 
sbohne said:
OHMIGAWD, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
Click to expand...
On the few cards you checked you may be exactly correct. However, if you have bothered to take the time to read R Galbraith's review of card performance on the 10D:

http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6111

you will ind that the fastest cards are about twice as fast as the slowest cards. The numbers like "52x", "40x" are immaterial - only the measured performance. In some cases the highter speed marked cards are lower in effective throughput than lower speed marked cards.

In general, I "trust" Galbraith's findings since his testing is devoid of any emotional statements and he runs the test consistently with all cameras and all cards. I have less "trust" in your findings because of how you presented your argument - even though your comments may be partially correct.

tony
 
Scott Goosman said:
Wow your good at being repugnant!
Click to expand...
I COULD TAKE LESSONS FROM YOU.
Scott Goosman said:
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!!
Click to expand...
I stated the test method. Large uncompressed jpeg. If you ever shoot with a 1Ds, or a 10D, you know the file size. I didn't think I needed to relay it to people who use the cameras. The exact type of sandisk card is the one with the blue label, not the ULTRA or EXTREME: it just has a blue label and no other name or speed marked. I can't tell you what they don't tell me. I don't give a rats patoot about the freakin' "calculated transfer rate"--sounds like a term used by people who want to impress others with their knowledge. I stated plainly how the test was taken.

And your referral to the Galbraith site is much more BOGUS than my testing. His results do NOT match my actual findings, and this was borne out by testing by Claude Jodoin AND Gary Fong, AND about 12 other full time professional photographers. The Galbraith site is what made me try all the cards in the first place, because there ain't NO WAY a stinkin' SIMPLE TECH card is faster than a RIDATA 52X speed card. I can't find ONE other person who has found this to be true, but in at least one example, Galbraith's site says it is. Bull puckey, chuckie.
Scott Goosman said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
I wrote ms didn't I?
Scott Goosman said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don't have jack for evidence. Have you tested each card and camera in a similar manner, or did you just take Robbies work as gospel? I did a real world test taking images, not some bs.
Scott Goosman said:
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!
Click to expand...
Sorry, Charlie---unless you are doing sports or other fast action, that difference is MINIMAL. Don't agree, fine, but watch how you make your statements if you haven't done the testing. So many wannabees take the word of others without doing anything themselves to check it out.

I did a real world test. My findings matched 2 respected photographers actual findings. And my test method is bogus? Ok, fine. Are you sure you don't shoot a Nikon? Because your attitude is a LOT like I find on that forum...
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
tony field said:
On the few cards you checked you may be exactly correct. However,
if you have bothered to take the time to read R Galbraith's review
of card performance on the 10D:

http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6111

you will ind that the fastest cards are about twice as fast as the
slowest cards. The numbers like "52x", "40x" are immaterial - only
the measured performance. In some cases the highter speed marked
cards are lower in effective throughput than lower speed marked
cards.

In general, I "trust" Galbraith's findings since his testing is
devoid of any emotional statements and he runs the test
consistently with all cameras and all cards. I have less "trust"
in your findings because of how you presented your argument - even
though your comments may be partially correct.

tony
Click to expand...
Whatever. Go ahead and trust him. You don't have to trust me. My comments are fully correct. I read the Galbraith site, and SORRY, I don't find the same thing to be true. I certainly am not going to trust a site that tells me a SimpleTech card is faster than a Ridata 52X card, when I have 5 people who have compared the 2 and found the SimpleTech was noticeably slower.

Stick to computers...
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
Manuel Guzman said:
I can definately tell a difference between the Sandisk and Viking
compact flash cards I have. There is a reason why I only use the
Sandisk when I run out of the memory on the Viking.
Click to expand...
You either got real bad Sandisk cards or I got real bad Viking cards :) I only had 2 Viking cards (back when I had my Fuji S1), and they were noticeably slower than the SanDisk!

I think it is becoming apparant that there is a real variance between cards from the same manufacturer.

The SanDisk blue label cards have no marked speed. Yet they have the same transfer rate as the Ridata cards.

When I sent this original email to a friend of mine who always SWEARS by Ridata (and I like them, too), he went to the local electronics store and bought Viking and SanDisk cards...

...Says he can't believe it, but the Viking & SanDisk cards ran the disk write light at the same amount of time as his beloved Ridata cards...but you can buy a Viking or sandisk card for about $30-$50 LESS than a Ridata (depending on storage capacity).

I might have just gotten 2 real lemons when it came to the Viking cards I had. If Viking is working great for you, keep using them!

smb
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
sbohne said:
Whatever. Go ahead and trust him. You don't have to trust me. My
comments are fully correct. I read the Galbraith site, and SORRY, I
don't find the same thing to be true. I certainly am not going to
trust a site that tells me a SimpleTech card is faster than a
Ridata 52X card, when I have 5 people who have compared the 2 and
found the SimpleTech was noticeably slower.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should CAREFULLY read the test page.

You have identified your Ritek as a 52x - Galbraith does not indicate which model of Ridata he is using. It may be an older item than you currently have. His SimpleTech is identifed as the Pro X - you have not identifed which model you are using. I find it difficult to compare "your apples" to "his oranges"

You MIGHT have the courtesy inquire about the models of Ritek he is husing and to inform him that your results differ (possibly) from his.

Rob also comments that the 10D is not very fast which supports your thesis about the 10D effective write speed. Of course you did not recognize that Rob's extensive tests support your original conclusion that throwing high cost cards at a 10D might have low gains in terms of cost/performance:

"The camera writes relatively slowly, regardless of card.

Our strong recommendation is to consider only the fastest cards available for this camera, though it should be noted that the performance difference between the top 10 or so cards in the 10D is relatively narrow."

tony
 
May I direct you to the lines in my signature which are relevent much more often than one might think.

It's all perception.

If it seems faster then it is so.
If it feels slower then it is so.

I have a whole bunch of blue Sandisk cards which were all I could get at the time and I'm happy with the performance on my 1Ds which (I'm told) is much slower than a 1D.

I'm not about to pick up a 1D and find out that suddenly I'm unhappy with my 1Ds.

And maybe I shouldn't get any faster CF cards, which will just make me unhappy with all the rest.

:-)

Cheers
--
Ian S
'To see a World in a grain of sand
And Heaven in a wild flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour'
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com/Portfolio
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com
 
Ian S said:
It's all perception.

If it seems faster then it is so.
If it feels slower then it is so.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem with people being able to accept a fact...they are so entrenched in their own perception, they don't want to be confused by the facts.

You can visit other forums, and everyone cries about how slow the Sandisk cards are. Upon close questioning, they don't even own one! They've certainly never tested it. But they read it on Joe Blows Digital site or Jack Wacks Real truth site, and it's GOTTA be true: after all, they have no vested interest or "emotional involvement."

Pish posh!

Your sandisk cards are fine. Ridata cards are fine. Heck, depending on your camera, Viking cards are fast...or slow!

Of course, most people would rather say that they "feel" THEIR card [insert whoever you are bonded to here] is the best. And if you do a test and state the results, they call you simple minded or your method is bogus or [my personal favorite], "your're just wrong." Boy, that retort must have taken some of these guys all night to come up with...

In the end, it's all rather stupid.

I don't push one card over another, and I certainly don't profit if you use Sandisk PNY Ridata Lexar or anything else. I just made a simple statement, and some people blew a nut.

For a long time I avoided forums such as these, and only belonged to professional photographers forums. Hmmm, now perhaps it's coming back to me as to WHY...
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
sbohne said:
Scott Goosman said:
Wow your good at being repugnant!
Click to expand...
I COULD TAKE LESSONS FROM YOU.
Click to expand...
Ya then you might seem nicer!!
sbohne said:
I stated the test method. Large uncompressed jpeg. If you ever
shoot with a 1Ds, or a 10D, you know the file size.
Click to expand...
No you don't!! If you knew anything about the gear you are using then you'd know that the file size changes from image to image and quite drastically when using a lossy compression. Do you know what lossy means? In fact the file size can vary by 40% thats the difference from a image writing in 3 sec vs. 2.5sec!

I didn't think
sbohne said:
I needed to relay it to people who use the cameras. The exact type
of sandisk card is the one with the blue label, not the ULTRA or
EXTREME: it just has a blue label and no other name or speed
marked.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the first time you have been clear about what you've used. Congratulations you are now on the door step of explaining yourself!!
sbohne said:
I can't tell you what they don't tell me. I don't give a
rats patoot about the freakin' "calculated transfer rate"--sounds
like a term used by people who want to impress others with their
knowledge. I stated plainly how the test was taken.
Click to expand...
You should care about the transfer speed. Once you know that you know how the card will affect your shooting and style!
sbohne said:
And your referral to the Galbraith site is much more BOGUS than my
testing. His results do NOT match my actual findings, and this was
borne out by testing by Claude Jodoin AND Gary Fong, AND about 12
other full time professional photographers. The Galbraith site is
what made me try all the cards in the first place, because there
ain't NO WAY a stinkin' SIMPLE TECH card is faster than a RIDATA
52X speed card. I can't find ONE other person who has found this to
be true, but in at least one example, Galbraith's site says it is.
Bull puckey, chuckie.
sbohne said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
I wrote ms didn't I?
Click to expand...
Well then this shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. ms=milliseconds is a unit of time! This is meaningless to this discusion course I do notice a difference between .5 second and 1.19 seconds. But then again I like sports and a lot happens in a second, in fact the 1D will take 6 pictures in the difference you proposed!!
sbohne said:
sbohne said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don't have jack for evidence. Have you tested each card and
camera in a similar manner, or did you just take Robbies work as
gospel? I did a real world test taking images, not some bs.
Click to expand...
I've tested 2 cards on that list and they match within in the margin of error!!! I certainly trust Galbraith a whole heck of a lot more than I trust you!!
sbohne said:
sbohne said:
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!
Click to expand...
Sorry, Charlie---unless you are doing sports or other fast action,
that difference is MINIMAL. Don't agree, fine, but watch how you
make your statements if you haven't done the testing. So many
wannabees take the word of others without doing anything themselves
to check it out.
Click to expand...
If you fill the buffer you will see an enourmous difference! IF you take one shot it will not matter because the buffer will mask this entire issue! If you care to make an argument based on the buffer that is fine. BUt you have not done that you have made an argument based on card right speed. Your argument is a completely baseless phallacy. Feel free to reword your arguement and we can have discourse on a logical argument. But as stands you have no evidence to support your position.

I'll ignore you Nikon Bash, this has nothing to do with this argument and is typical of one who has no argument to lash out! You need to develop a real test to verify your statements. Taking one image in jepg and "recording" the time is idiotics at best. Your margin of error is too great to make accurate tests. If you want to make a test with any accuracy to base an argument fill the entire buffer. Then measure the sum of all the image sizes, then divide by the time. YOU WILL KNOW KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO TRANSFER INFORMATION! This will be of use. YOu will also learn that You will find vast differences in the cards that can certainly affect many photographers, maybe not you, but that is not justification to create a phallic argument!

Scott

PS: 1. I do shoot canon 2: If you had half your wits with you you'd be already able to prove that to yourself!

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose
 
Scott Goosman said:
sbohne said:
Scott Goosman said:
Wow your good at being repugnant!
Click to expand...
I COULD TAKE LESSONS FROM YOU.
Click to expand...
Ya then you might seem nicer!!
Scott Goosman said:
I stated the test method. Large uncompressed jpeg. If you ever
shoot with a 1Ds, or a 10D, you know the file size.
Click to expand...
No you don't!! If you knew anything about the gear you are using
then you'd know that the file size changes from image to image and
quite drastically when using a lossy compression. Do you know what
lossy means? In fact the file size can vary by 40% thats the
difference from a image writing in 3 sec vs. 2.5sec!
Click to expand...
my apologies that should read 3 sec vs. 1.8 sec
 
Its important to keep in mind what is actually being tested...

It seems like sbohne is testing the impact on his shooting style of CF cards. This appears to be pretty much just single shot, lots of time in between each shot. In a situation like this, I'm sure the speed of a CF card probably won't make a big difference.

This BTW is not what Rob tests. Rob's site tells you the the fastest that a particular camera with a particular model CF card can write an image to the CF card. Will this impact your shooting style? Yes if you frequently bump up against the limit of the buffer or you are reviewing images immediately after you've taken them. Will it impact sbohne's shooting style, doesn't seem too.

So... If you shoot like sbohne, buy the cheapest card you can and don't worry about it.

If you shoot like (I suspect) the majority of us, then at some point the write speed of the CF card will impact you and you'll want to get a card that is reasonably fast.

I don't think sbohne is wrong, I just think people don't understand what he's really saying (including himself). And definitely I do not think Rob Galbraith is wrong, just from the fact that he fully discloses (to the best of his ability) the testing methodology, the camera models, and the cf card models.

Joo
sbohne said:
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
Click to expand...
--
  • Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment. :)


http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.pbase.com/jchung/
 
tony field said:
tony field said:
Maybe you should CAREFULLY read the test page.
Click to expand...
You have identified your Ritek as a 52x - Galbraith does not
indicate which model of Ridata he is using. It may be an older
item than you currently have. His SimpleTech is identifed as the
Pro X - you have not identifed which model you are using. I find
it difficult to compare "your apples" to "his oranges"
Click to expand...
I did read it carefully. But maybe you need to reread my post. I had friends who tested the SimpleTech card vs their Ridatas. MY Ridata is a 52X (I also have several of the older, 40X cards). Theirs were the slower models, still no difference...the Ridata was faster in each instance. Cameras used were S1, S2, D60, 1D, Nikon D100, and one of the Kodak DCS models (sorry, can't recall if the model # was given; not a 760 but 1 model earlier I believe).
tony field said:
You MIGHT have the courtesy inquire about the models of Ritek he is
husing and to inform him that your results differ (possibly) from
his.
Click to expand...
I think his test could be run again. Again, I don't think he's misleading anyone, but people have taken issue with how I tested. If I was going to post something as gospel on Galbraith's site, I would have tested with multiple cameras and multiple cards. Because while several people have posted similar results as mine, there are still a couple, WHO HAVE ACTUALLY TESTED, and found their results differed.

Now, I didn't call them names, or simple minded, or tell them they "were just wrong", or anything else. I DID say that I believe it is a very real possibility that cards vary from card to card from the same manufacturer, OR they are buying cards from several sources and slapping their label on them, ergo the variance.
tony field said:
Rob also comments that the 10D is not very fast which supports your
thesis about the 10D effective write speed. Of course you did not
recognize that Rob's extensive tests support your original
conclusion that throwing high cost cards at a 10D might have low
gains in terms of cost/performance:

"The camera writes relatively slowly, regardless of card.

Our strong recommendation is to consider only the fastest cards
available for this camera, though it should be noted that the
performance difference between the top 10 or so cards in the 10D is
relatively narrow."
Click to expand...
I did realize this. However Tony, this is EXACTLY my point: THERE IS NOT ONE IOTA OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 24X CARD AND THE 52X CARD ON THE 10d. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Goose egg. Fagettaboutit.

So why pay a premium to buy a Ridata (other than the fact that they are a darn good card) over a SanDisk? There isn't any. Rob's statment in the final paragraph is flawed. Faulty. Just bs. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOP 20 CARDS IN THE LIST. Since there is no difference in speed from the cheap 24X card and the more expensive 52X card, why spend the cash?

Now, a couple of people have asked about the speed of transfer from the card to the PC via the reader. I did not test this. It's not a concern for me. I use a firewire reader, I pop in the card, I download to a file, I go get coffee. But I guess I can check it.

smb

--

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

I will apologize if my post regarding the simpletech and ridata was not clear. I have both ridatas, I have never owned a simpletech, but have 6 friends who have and tested both cards.

MY card in the test is a 52X, but I PERSONALLY did not test that card against a simpletech. I can see after rereading how I was not as clear as I hoped.

Again, my apology.
 
Scott Goosman wrote:

When I was a boy, my grandfather said: "As you go through life, you will find there are far more horses asses then there are horses."

You, sir, are exactly what he was talking about...

your feeble attmepts at discrediting me are lame. You are full of yourself, and other things.

My test was completely valid. It was not idiotic. If there's any idiot here, it's you. My entire point was, as stated in the beginning: If you are a studio portrait photographer, you are NOT filling the buffer, but taking one image at a time, then making a change of pose and/or background or set.

Why horses asses like yourself have to try to impress others with your self proclaimed expertise I'll never know. But if I am incorrect, there are more than a few who back me up right here on this forum, and a few others.

More importantly, the same test methods have been used by others (Fong, Jodoin, Box, et al). Gee, I didn't see anyone disputing their findings or calling them idiotic. What's idiotic is worrying about 400ms difference in write time. It's like complaining your dog can hear highs on your Wynton Marsallis album that you can't!

Let's see: you're a professional photographer, right? No? Oh. Just a wannabee...

I did do the buffer test you so self rightously worship as the only true religion, and have posted the results. You'll probably have some bs about those results as well.

I'll ignore you if so.

smb
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
sbohne said:
My test was completely valid. It was not idiotic. If there's any
idiot here, it's you. My entire point was, as stated in the
beginning: If you are a studio portrait photographer, you are NOT
filling the buffer, but taking one image at a time, then making a
change of pose and/or background or set.
Click to expand...
You know, both of you behaved like a couple of little children. Neither one has much room to throw stones at the other.

But you could have made this discussion a little more productive if you had been clear about your testing method up front. The complete picture has only come out in little bits at a time. If you would have spent more time explaining how you did things and less time name dropping, this probably would have been much a shorter and less hostile discussion.

If you are only taking one image and timing how long that image takes to write to a CF card, I find it hard to believe that you will find any noticable difference on any camera. My guess is that even those of us with a 1D would not recognize a difference on a single image.

Scott described how he did the test before your methodology became clear. It would have helped if instead of getting into a pi$$ing match with him, you would have read his post and seen that your testing methods were different. Since he was filling up the buffer and then timing how long it took to completely empty the buffer, but you were only taking one image at a time, your results cannot be compared to each other. You are testing apples and he is testing oranges.

That is also why you cannot compare your results to Rob's. Your testing methods are different.
 
Thank you sir for proving my POINT!!

I have not been rude to you nor have I called you name. You clearly cannot hold yourself to any level of standards!!

You are not clear and even had you been you still are not making a valid point. I have attacked your arguments because its erronious. If you cannot support you arguments with facts thats fine but do not resort to name calling. That is simply sorry!

Scott
sbohne said:
Scott Goosman wrote:

When I was a boy, my grandfather said: "As you go through life, you
will find there are far more horses asses then there are horses."

You, sir, are exactly what he was talking about...

your feeble attmepts at discrediting me are lame. You are full of
yourself, and other things.

My test was completely valid. It was not idiotic. If there's any
idiot here, it's you. My entire point was, as stated in the
beginning: If you are a studio portrait photographer, you are NOT
filling the buffer, but taking one image at a time, then making a
change of pose and/or background or set.

Why horses asses like yourself have to try to impress others with
your self proclaimed expertise I'll never know. But if I am
incorrect, there are more than a few who back me up right here on
this forum, and a few others.

More importantly, the same test methods have been used by others
(Fong, Jodoin, Box, et al). Gee, I didn't see anyone disputing
their findings or calling them idiotic. What's idiotic is worrying
about 400ms difference in write time. It's like complaining your
dog can hear highs on your Wynton Marsallis album that you can't!

Let's see: you're a professional photographer, right? No? Oh. Just
a wannabee...

I did do the buffer test you so self rightously worship as the only
true religion, and have posted the results. You'll probably have
some bs about those results as well.

I'll ignore you if so.

smb
--
'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today
enough?' -Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/sjhugoose
 
Kevin Kuehl said:
You know, both of you behaved like a couple of little children.
Neither one has much room to throw stones at the other.

But you could have made this discussion a little more productive if
you had been clear about your testing method up front. The
complete picture has only come out in little bits at a time. If
you would have spent more time explaining how you did things and
less time name dropping, this probably would have been much a
shorter and less hostile discussion.

If you are only taking one image and timing how long that image
takes to write to a CF card, I find it hard to believe that you
will find any noticable difference on any camera. My guess is that
even those of us with a 1D would not recognize a difference on a
single image.

Scott described how he did the test before your methodology became
clear. It would have helped if instead of getting into a pi$$ing
match with him, you would have read his post and seen that your
testing methods were different. Since he was filling up the buffer
and then timing how long it took to completely empty the buffer,
but you were only taking one image at a time, your results cannot
be compared to each other. You are testing apples and he is
testing oranges.

That is also why you cannot compare your results to Rob's. Your
testing methods are different.
Click to expand...
I'll plead guilty as charged. I cut and pasted the original from a pro photographers forum, and I now realize that I ended up missing the single shot method as a portrait photographer uses.

Even though I feel I was attacked via Scott's use of words like:

"Wow your good at being repugnant!"

"If you knew anything about the gear you are using..."

"Do you know what lossy means?"

"Well then this shows your lack of knowledge on this subject."

"If you had half your wits ..."

I will also apologize to Scott.
--

'Do not worry about tomorrow...are not the worries of today enough?' -Jesus Christ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top