Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 21:03 On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:46:50 -0400, in <4c312dfa$1$5542$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >news:2010070416544711272-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-07-04 15:47:07 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: >>> BTW have you noticed any time difference in writing the buffer to the >>> card, between CF & SD? >> >> Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk >> Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when I >> have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time difference. >> The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC because the CF >> was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent change at all, even >> with the spec difference between the two cards. >> That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for??? > >That occurred to me. I have not noticed any real difference between UDMA and >an ordinary CF card. Depends on what you mean by "ordinary" and on what camera you have -- some ordinary cards are slower with some cameras. There's also the issue of speed if you move them to a fast reader/writer on a computer. SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any camera I know of. -- Best regards, John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 4 Jul 2010 21:13 John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:46:50 -0400, in > <4c312dfa$1$5542$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > > >>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>news:2010070416544711272-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> >>>On 2010-07-04 15:47:07 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > > >>>>BTW have you noticed any time difference in writing the buffer to the >>>>card, between CF & SD? >>> >>>Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk >>>Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when I >>>have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time difference. >>>The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC because the CF >>>was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent change at all, even >>>with the spec difference between the two cards. >>>That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for??? >> >>That occurred to me. I have not noticed any real difference between UDMA and >>an ordinary CF card. > > > Depends on what you mean by "ordinary" and on what camera you have -- > some ordinary cards are slower with some cameras. There's also the > issue of speed if you move them to a fast reader/writer on a computer. > > SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any > camera I know of. > I agree. I have Extreme II and Extreme III UDMA, and I too see no change in speed. Haven't used the Extreme Pro yet( a bit too expensive ). But then again the buffer of my camera is too slow to make use of the new standard. So essentially, I see no difference between the two cards. However, I plan to purchase anew camera soon with a faster buffer and UDMA standard, and then I'll expect to see some difference. As far as the difference between SD and CF, never having used SD, I can't speak intelligently about that, except that I purchased a compact SLR for my wife, who is photographically challenged, and uses a micro SD card. Since I do all the changing, size is a factor, and I'm not thrilled with the micro card. In particular storing a filled card in the field. They're so small, they're easy to lose, even with the card reader that I use as a storage unit since it is less likely to get lost. I suppose the SD would be only slightly better.
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 21:46 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any >camera I know of. Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera". It does work both ways, doesn't it? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 21:50 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:46:50 -0400, in <f8e236ltmp1dj2pcb9t24bd4kf2uq37bp5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any >>camera I know of. > >Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified >to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you >own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera". > >It does work both ways, doesn't it? It does, as should be clear if you actually read what I write, instead of dashing off a silly off-point response. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Bruce on 5 Jul 2010 03:39
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:54:47 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk >Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when >I have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time >difference. The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC >because the CF was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent >change at all, even with the spec difference between the two cards. >That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for??? To enrich the manufacturer? |