Prev: Camera phone seems to rival P&S's
Next: My new photosite
From: Ron on 30 May 2010 14:28

<jj(a)unspameljefe.net> wrote in message
news:u1tpv5dgi0e292p1cvshlkc9emec4o3mib(a)4ax.com...
> 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?
>
> JJ

The following has test results of reading and writing various CF cards using
a Canon 5D:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8198

Ron

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 30 May 2010 15:26
jj(a)unspameljefe.net <jj(a)unspameljefe.net> wrote:

> 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.

And those shortfalls can only be the cards, not the camera?

BTW, does the machinegun method of photography give you any
better images?

-Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 30 May 2010 15:28
jj(a)unspameljefe.net <jj(a)unspameljefe.net> wrote:

> 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,

Interesting. Any experimental data that proves that a
'color negative' has 50MP worth of data? Or is that a large
format color negative?

-Wolfgang
From: Ron on 30 May 2010 17:55

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:anqad7-8j5.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> jj(a)unspameljefe.net <jj(a)unspameljefe.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And those shortfalls can only be the cards, not the camera?
>
> BTW, does the machinegun method of photography give you any
> better images?

I think it does for certain photo subjects. I take mostly wildlife photos
and when they are in motion if you wait to press the shutter until you see
exactly what you want, the action is already over. I often use my camera's
3 frames per second mode and can quickly fill the 9 shot raw buffer on my
Canon 40D. In practice however, I rarely hold the shutter button down for 3
consecutive seconds and most of the time a fast card will keep the camera's
buffer from totally filling.

Those taking photos of sporting events would have the same needs while
landscape photographers would seldom need a fast card.

Ron

From: jj on 1 Jun 2010 13:35
On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:28:58 -0500, "Ron" <RonRecer(a)aol.com> wrote:

>The following has test results of reading and writing various CF cards using
>a Canon 5D:
>
>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8198
>
>Ron


"This page was last updated on July 20, 2006"

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