I was looking at the brochure for the 1Dsm3 and the comments on support for UDMA CF cards.
Does the higher transfer speed mean the buffer will clear faster in the cameras(faster write ability), or is the main benefit realized when you are downloading your images?
I seem to recall a thread here or somewhere else, where the 1Dsm3 user commented that the buffer clears much faster with the extreme IV cards( I am assuming these are Sandisks UDMA cards)
Do the compliant cameras all support the full transfer rate of the cards, or are there other limitations?
I have a 1DsIII and a Sandisk 8GB Ducati card which is similar but a little faster than the Extreme IV cards. The buffer does clear faster with a UDMA card so there is benefit in writing as well as reading with the cards (assuming you have hardware on both ends that can take advantage of UDMA). I dont know about other cameras. I think the 1DsIII is the only Canon body currently available that uses UDMA.
Mar 26, 2008 at 05:32 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yes the camera 1Ds3 will write a lot faster to the card. About twice as fast as the 1D3 will do with the same UDMA card. The 1Ds3 is the only Canon camera that support UDMA cards.
And there are a lot of other cards than the Sandisk that has UDMA support
I was looking on My digital discount and there are brands like "Ridata", Delkin, transcend , etc. Are these other brands reliable ? I have never used cards other than those by Sandisk or Lexar, and the huge price difference is appealing.
I think the other brands are ok. Although I heard some Transcend UDMA cards were much slower than advertised (just a rumor and I dont have anymore info than that). Iam not sure I would go to the expense of the 1DsIII and then put an inexpensive card in it.
mbailey wrote:
I think the other brands are ok. Although I heard some Transcend UDMA cards were much slower than advertised (just a rumor and I dont have anymore info than that). Iam not sure I would go to the expense of the 1DsIII and then put an inexpensive card in it.
I agree, you get what you pay for, but sometimes you pay a lot more for a name. I usually get cards from "mydigital discount", and was curious as to why under their UDMA CF cards, there were no Sandisk cards? So I started to wonder about how acceptable these other brands would be.
I've been using the 1Ds3 with Extreme IV cards, and am extremely impressed by the speed both on-camera and card-to-computer. (The card reader matters in the latter case.)
Rob Galbraith's CF/SD performance database hasn't yet been updated to include the 1Ds3, but looking at the 1Ds2 ( http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7344 ), I'd at least suggest that there can be pretty significant differences in performance between cards. I've been told that's more true with the 1Ds3, but I haven't done any formal testing.
I had the Transcend because the advertising on MDD is highly dubious. The write speed was actually slower that an Extreme III card, which in itself is only about half the speed of the IV (25s vs 17s to clear the buffer). After a lot of back-and-forth I returned it. Lexar UDMA cards work as well, and supposedly so does the Delkin. The others, not so much (in real life anyway).
I am still desperately waiting for the 16GB IV card...
AFAIK most flash memory come from similar (if not the same) sources. I don't buy the marketing of Sandisk and have had multiple Lexar failures. Sure I'll buy Sandisk if the differential is not large, but if I had to pick between a normal sandisk (ie non extreme/ultra etc) and a 266x Transcend or RiData it's a pretty obvious choice for me.
jianghai_ho wrote:
AFAIK most flash memory come from similar (if not the same) sources. I don't buy the marketing of Sandisk and have had multiple Lexar failures. Sure I'll buy Sandisk if the differential is not large, but if I had to pick between a normal sandisk (ie non extreme/ultra etc) and a 266x Transcend or RiData it's a pretty obvious choice for me.
Yes but you will see performance differences. I tried, stopwatch in hand. I trust that a little bit more than what labeling on the card says.
stanj wrote:
I had the Transcend because the advertising on MDD is highly dubious. The write speed was actually slower that an Extreme III card, which in itself is only about half the speed of the IV (25s vs 17s to clear the buffer). After a lot of back-and-forth I returned it. Lexar UDMA cards work as well, and supposedly so does the Delkin. The others, not so much (in real life anyway).
I am still desperately waiting for the 16GB IV card...
Sorry Stanj, are you saying the Lexar and Delkin work well? I ordered the 16gb Delkin UDMA over Sandisk extreme IV because the extreme IV isn't available in 16gb.
16gb Delkin UDMA is no where compared with extreme IV (but a little better performer than 16 gb extreme III). I wasted $300.00 on that card. My suggestion: buy 2/3 extreme IV to qualify for good return in Mail in rebate program.
Ruhikant
scott f wrote:
Sorry Stanj, are you saying the Lexar and Delkin work well? I ordered the 16gb Delkin UDMA over Sandisk extreme IV because the extreme IV isn't available in 16gb.
I said "supposedly" I don't trust it, and as I said, I am waiting for the IV 16GB.
stanj wrote:
Yes but you will see performance differences. I tried, stopwatch in hand. I trust that a little bit more than what labeling on the card says.
I had 8 GB RiData cards about a year or so ago (Platinum). They worked fine but took 2X as long to appear on the desktop as an equivalent SanDisk card.
Mar 28, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I use both the Ridata and Transcend 16GB UDMA cards in my 1Ds3. Both cards are very good and also rather fast. Every new UDMA card will work good and have a descent speed in your camera. I really like the Transcend cards and have eight 16GB UDMA cards and a lot of smaller cards also
I don't trust it, and as I said, I am waiting for the IV 16GB.