Ryszard
Forum Enthusiast
I have question: do Lexar 1GB 40X WA is better card, or SanDisk 1GB Ultra II (60X). Price on this cards a about 200$, with card have better reputation?, Lexar come with lifetime warranty. I do not know do SanDisk have to.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lexar vs SanDisk
- Thread starter Ryszard
- Start date
jscher2000
Senior Member
I happen to buy Lexar products mostly, but I've never heard any complaints about the Ultra II series. And I think SanDisk might be matching Lexar in the "free image recovery software" department, too; see if you can verify that.
Ryszard
Forum Enthusiast
Thank You jacher 2000. I think I go for Lexar.
ph0t0man
Senior Member
go lexar....there are many complaints about sandisk ultra I, ultra II, and extreme cards being extremely slow in KM cameras. Aparently the card architecture isn't supported as well as lexar cards. My two lexar cards were amongst the fastest, if not the fastest of all cards for a recent A1 comparison...I just ordered a 12x lexar, and I'm confident it will be just as fast as anything you put in an A1, and probably A2 as well.
--
Regards,
Matt
Can't we all just get along?
http://www.pbase.com/ph0t0man
--
Regards,
Matt
Can't we all just get along?
http://www.pbase.com/ph0t0man
Robert Land
Senior Member
Matt,
Where are these "many complaints" about the SanDisk Ultra II? I've never seen them. I have one and it works fine in my A1. Please post where you saw this because if that's a valid statement, I'd be interested in the info.
Regards,
Robert
All photos are taken with the A1 unless otherwise noted. Helpful critiques are always welcome.
A1/A2 facts and answers to frequently asked questions. Covers other helpful topics as well. http://www.pbase.com/mtf_foto_studies/mtf_faq
Using Pbase, Minolta FAx, MTF Faces, Challenge Rules, etc.
http://www.pbase.com/mtf_foto_studies
Where are these "many complaints" about the SanDisk Ultra II? I've never seen them. I have one and it works fine in my A1. Please post where you saw this because if that's a valid statement, I'd be interested in the info.
Regards,
Robert
--
All photos are taken with the A1 unless otherwise noted. Helpful critiques are always welcome.
A1/A2 facts and answers to frequently asked questions. Covers other helpful topics as well. http://www.pbase.com/mtf_foto_studies/mtf_faq
Using Pbase, Minolta FAx, MTF Faces, Challenge Rules, etc.
http://www.pbase.com/mtf_foto_studies
freemanphoto
Active member
I bought standard (CF I) Sandisk 256MB to my A1 and it seems to be reasonably fast, compared to the 16MB Lexar included with the camera. But, maybe the speed of CFII (Ultra) cards is different. CF I seems to be enough for A1 card controller.
P Cooper
New member
I have a SanDisk Ultra II 256MG (99Cdn$), never a problem... heck the camera has a buffer that can hold (what?) 3 pictures... I don't shoot pictures that fast to ever worry about it. Just picked up a Kingston 512MB CF for 140Cdn$ (about 105US$ @ http://www.memoryexpress.com , Calgary, AB)... hard to beat the price... and it works fine also. I guess if you want to blast off pictures as fast as possible, you may gain an advantage with a "high speed" card, but for normal shooting (what ever that is... 
, I doubt it matters much. I was at a b-day party last night, shot picture after picture, never once had to wait for the camera (A1) card (Kingston, speed unknown).
, I doubt it matters much. I was at a b-day party last night, shot picture after picture, never once had to wait for the camera (A1) card (Kingston, speed unknown). Gary Berg
Senior Member
I find the card write speed to be a problem only when I want to turn the camera off. I think I need to get into the habit of letting the camera go to sleep after 3 minutes instead of shutting it off myself.
I encountered some speed issues while on vacation with a card; mostly, it was just obvious that it was taking longer to write my images. So I just performed some tests. In each case, I snapped two RAWs on my A2, and started the timer as I depressed the shutter, then fired a second shot as soon as I could.
The Lexar 512Mb 12X I have (I bought a couple from OfficeMax about 4 months ago) took 33 seconds, or 16.5 seconds/RAW. This was the card I had mostly used, and established my baseline.
Then I tried a Viking 512Mb card I bought about a year ago from Amazon.com. This was the one that made me wonder. 2 RAWs took 88 seconds, or 44 seconds/RAW. Almost three times as slow. WOW! No wonder it seemed to take a long time to write images...
I tried a Transcend 30X 512Mb I bought from MDD two years ago. 2 RAW, 90 seconds! I bought this card long before I even considered a different camera than the Pro 90 I had back then, so I can't regret it too much.
Last, I pulled out a Viking 512Mb I bought from Amazon back in March of this year. 2 RAW, 35 seconds! Huh?! I verified this; the card feels about as fast as the Lexar cards do too.
So anyway, I have 3 "fast" cards and a couple of slow ones. Needless to say, I think I'm going to stick with Lexar for any more cards I plan to use with my A2, since Minolta actually tests with them...
jscher2000
Senior Member
Phil's A1 review shows good results for the SanDisk Ultra II, 1GB, Type I, card.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1/page11.asp
But he didn't compare with Lexar's Pro 40X WA line.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagea1/page11.asp
But he didn't compare with Lexar's Pro 40X WA line.
P Cooper
New member
Hey Gary,
Ok, ok, you got me... I ran down to my car and pulled out my A1 and shot two raw pictures, started counting "one-thousand and one, one-thousand and two...)... with the Gigabyte card (their low-end 512mg card), it took about 18 seconds from the time I first pressed the shutter till it finished writing the two images and the light went out... that's about 9s/raw... which seems very fast from what you're getting, maybe I messed up the test some how?
"The Test"
1. Set camera to RAW
2. Pressed shutter and started counting, then pressed shutter again as soon as I could to take the 2nd raw,
3. Kept counting until the light went out
Now, mind you, this is a 5mg pix camera, so not a fair comparison... A1 to A2. Maybe we should be stating mg/sec instead... isn't a A1 raw around 7mg? So that's about 770k/sec... which is about 5x? All back of the napkin type calculations...
Paul.
Ok, ok, you got me... I ran down to my car and pulled out my A1 and shot two raw pictures, started counting "one-thousand and one, one-thousand and two...)... with the Gigabyte card (their low-end 512mg card), it took about 18 seconds from the time I first pressed the shutter till it finished writing the two images and the light went out... that's about 9s/raw... which seems very fast from what you're getting, maybe I messed up the test some how?
"The Test"
1. Set camera to RAW
2. Pressed shutter and started counting, then pressed shutter again as soon as I could to take the 2nd raw,
3. Kept counting until the light went out
Now, mind you, this is a 5mg pix camera, so not a fair comparison... A1 to A2. Maybe we should be stating mg/sec instead... isn't a A1 raw around 7mg? So that's about 770k/sec... which is about 5x? All back of the napkin type calculations...
Paul.
P Cooper
New member
pw-pix
Senior Member
Probably got confused with the Sandisk "Extreme" which I believe was problematic in the Ax cameras.
--
Peter
http://img33.photobucket.com/albums/v101/pw-pics/
Gary Berg
Senior Member
Well, I used a timer program on my PDA, so I could be sure that I counted correctly. So these were all measured to the same standard. I find that when I count "thousands" there's a lot of variance in how fast/slow I count. I was hitting the shutter in a dimly-lit room, so the shutter probably took most of a second to release in my case.
A2 RAW files are about 12Mb if I remember correctly; how big are A1 files? The A2 files should be about 60% larger than the A1, so that might mean your 9s/raw should be about 15 on an A2. I'm also not convinced from what I've read here that the A1/A2 behave identically with different cards.
I'll have to try one of my older 256Mb Kingston cards to see how they do. Hmm, interesting - 23 seconds for two A2 RAW files. I didn't confirm that the RAW files ran about 12Mb each, but my impression is that A2 RAW files are all basically the same size. Hey - the A2 likes Kingston cards! They don't hold as many "fine" shots as my 512Mb cards, but that sure is a shock - I figured these would be sluggish. Of course, I have to share the 256Mb cards with my wife, so I may not get to use them much...
A2 RAW files are about 12Mb if I remember correctly; how big are A1 files? The A2 files should be about 60% larger than the A1, so that might mean your 9s/raw should be about 15 on an A2. I'm also not convinced from what I've read here that the A1/A2 behave identically with different cards.
I'll have to try one of my older 256Mb Kingston cards to see how they do. Hmm, interesting - 23 seconds for two A2 RAW files. I didn't confirm that the RAW files ran about 12Mb each, but my impression is that A2 RAW files are all basically the same size. Hey - the A2 likes Kingston cards! They don't hold as many "fine" shots as my 512Mb cards, but that sure is a shock - I figured these would be sluggish. Of course, I have to share the 256Mb cards with my wife, so I may not get to use them much...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum