Prev: Camera phone seems to rival P&S's
Next: My new photosite
From: me on 26 May 2010 18:32
On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:31:40 -0700, jj(a)unspameljefe.net wrote:

>On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:59:08 -0400, me(a)mine.net wrote:
>
>>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8198
>
>Yeah, I know all about that page. It hasn't been updated in four
>years. That's why I'm asking about current cards and speeds.

and if you compare it to the 5D MkII page do you learn anything more?
From: jj on 27 May 2010 21:28
On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:32:19 -0400, me <me(a)mine.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:31:40 -0700, jj(a)unspameljefe.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:59:08 -0400, me(a)mine.net wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8198
>>
>>Yeah, I know all about that page. It hasn't been updated in four
>>years. That's why I'm asking about current cards and speeds.
>
>and if you compare it to the 5D MkII page do you learn anything more?

Kinda sorta. The Mark II needs bigger, faster cards for the HD video,
which isn't an issue for the "Mark l." That's why I'm wondering if the
cards that don't test as fast for the Mark II (compared to the to top
10% listed) do better on a Mark l.

Interesting that the Lexar 300x cards get slower as their total memory
size diminishes. The 4GB card is 4MB/s slower than the 16 GB. It was
just the reverse with the Lexar 133x Pro cards. Assuming Galbraith
started his tests with completely clean cards, why the big diff?

I do note that once you back the top two SanDisk Ducati Extreme cards
off the list, there isn't much difference in the next 21 cards. At
least not as far as a Mark l would be concerned. If you're shooting
video it might make a slight difference.

Also, again, Galbraith hasn't updated his Mark ll page in a year and a
half. From what I can determine, SanDisk doesn't make the Ducati
Extreme card anymore, even though they are Galbraith's top two
finishers. The Ridata Supreme 300x doesn't even show up on his list.

Sure would be nice to have some current data.

One thing seems irrefutable -- NONE of the cards are living up to
their claimed transfer rates! Lexar 300x claims 45 MB/s, but
Galbraith's testing shows 24.5 MB/s for jpeg and 30.9 MB/s for RAW.
Those are humongous shortfalls of 44% and 30%, respectively.

JJ
From: Ray Fischer on 29 May 2010 02:02
<jj(a)unspameljefe.net> wrote:
>The last round of CF cards I got for my original 5D (three years ago)
>were Lexar Pro 133x and Ridata Supremes (150x). Time to renew.
>
>BH has the 4GB Delkin UDMA Pro 305x for $30. Anyone ever try 'em? The
>few reviews are two years old. (Lexar's 4GB 300x is $50. Ridata 300x
>Supreme is $46 at Newegg, but curiously, the old 150x Supreme is $63.)
>
>BH also has a Delkin 4GB "CombatFlash" CF that claims to clock in at
>91MB/s 626x. It's $52, but even if the card is really that fast it
>sounds like way overkill for a 5D. I don't think the camera can
>process that fast.
>
>Suggestions/comments?

More money than brains.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Robert Coe on 29 May 2010 09:42
On Wed, 26 May 2010 03:13:27 -0700, jj(a)unspameljefe.net wrote:
: The last round of CF cards I got for my original 5D (three years ago)
: were Lexar Pro 133x and Ridata Supremes (150x). Time to renew.
:
: BH has the 4GB Delkin UDMA Pro 305x for $30. Anyone ever try 'em? The
: few reviews are two years old. (Lexar's 4GB 300x is $50. Ridata 300x
: Supreme is $46 at Newegg, but curiously, the old 150x Supreme is $63.)
:
: BH also has a Delkin 4GB "CombatFlash" CF that claims to clock in at
: 91MB/s 626x. It's $52, but even if the card is really that fast it
: sounds like way overkill for a 5D. I don't think the camera can
: process that fast.
:
: Suggestions/comments?

My suggestion is that for a 22MP camera it's time to go to 8GB cards. They're
cheaper per picture than 4GB cards and may spare you the embarrassment of
having to change cards at a critical moment, as happened to me at my
granddaughter's birthday party a few months ago.

Bob
From: jj on 29 May 2010 10:17
On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:42:59 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:

>My suggestion is that for a 22MP camera it's time to go to 8GB cards. They're
>cheaper per picture than 4GB cards and may spare you the embarrassment of
>having to change cards at a critical moment, as happened to me at my
>granddaughter's birthday party a few months ago.


Thanks, I completely agree. But I'm shooting with the original 5D, not
the Mark ll. RAW files are 12MB, large jpegs are ~5MB. So, the 4GB
cards work fine for me.

Heh...one thing about hi-res RAW...you've gotta have a lot more
storage for it. When digital finally gets to the equivalent of a color
negative, around 50MP, you'll need 250GB cards and 100 TB hard drives
to store the data.

In a world where all people care about is crappy cell phone camera pix
to put on their Facebook pages.

JJ

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Camera phone seems to rival P&S's
Next: My new photosite