Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end
  

Archive 2013 · Speed test with CF cards
  
 
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · Speed test with CF cards


I have not tried it. All my cards in the test are formated in my 1DX camera. I will try it with one card tomorrow.


May 19, 2013 at 07:17 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #2 · Speed test with CF cards


jxsq wrote:
Just download transcend's autoformat tool and tried on my 400x UDMA card

http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/150277389/original.jpg

It almost get 4 more shots (RAW) before it slow down, even though after that the speed is about same. (which I cannot explain)



A few interesting observations concerning the interesting results of your test.

1. Formatting the card seems to affect how many images can be written to it during the faster buffer-not-full period near the beginning of the burst.

2. Formatting does not appear to affect the speed at which images are written to the card in either case.

3. In a 30-second test such as that used in this thread, your formatted card would appear to write "more images in 30 seconds" though its pre-buffer-full speed doesn't improve nor does its post-buffer-full speed improve. It is entirely, in this case, a matter of effective buffer depth.

Dan



May 19, 2013 at 09:18 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #3 · Speed test with CF cards


We will see tomorrow when I do a 30 sec test with cards formatted this way. I don't belive there will be any differnce. But we will see. In my older 1 series bodies they always had normal formatting and low level formatting for SD cards. But that didn't make any difference.
According to Transcend this formatting tool is just a way to format and recover cards that the camera and PC can't read.



May 19, 2013 at 09:27 PM
jxsq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · Speed test with CF cards


gdanmitchell wrote:
A few interesting observations concerning the interesting results of your test.

1. Formatting the card seems to affect how many images can be written to it during the faster buffer-not-full period near the beginning of the burst.

2. Formatting does not appear to affect the speed at which images are written to the card in either case.

3. In a 30-second test such as that used in this thread, your formatted card would appear to write "more images in 30 seconds" though its pre-buffer-full speed doesn't improve nor does its post-buffer-full speed improve. It is entirely, in this case, a matter of
...Show more

Yes, the speed after buffer full is about the same. But it take more shots to fill the buffer. This is counter-intuitive and I dont know the reason.

On the other hand, it get 15 shots vs 12 shots burst, which is already very nice.



May 19, 2013 at 10:50 PM
jxsq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · Speed test with CF cards


Lars Johnsson wrote:
We will see tomorrow when I do a 30 sec test with cards formatted this way. I don't belive there will be any differnce. But we will see. In my older 1 series bodies they always had normal formatting and low level formatting for SD cards. But that didn't make any difference.
According to Transcend this formatting tool is just a way to format and recover cards that the camera and PC can't read.


Thanks, love to see your results.



May 19, 2013 at 10:50 PM
jimmy462
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #6 · Speed test with CF cards


Hi Lars,

Interesting thread going on here, thanks for taking the time to compile those results. My curiosity has always been, "just how does a 1-series camera RAW burst behave once it slows down due to the buffer being filled?"...it is the one answer that the numbers just don't reveal. Now, Rick Fisher's calculations begin to shed some light on this camera behavior, but short of actually seeing and hearing the 1Dx in action at that point, one is left to wonder just what the camera can do for them, speed-wise, at that point.

Well, my curiosity got the best of me and I went searching online to see if anyone had posted some field results showing the 1Dx's behavior at full-buffer. I found these three videos (they're short, less than 30-seconds each!) shooting with the 1Dx with the best-performing card on your list, the Lexar 1000x...

1DX 6fps raw ISO 200 with Lexar 1000x 32GB card - YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNpQWZPSv3w

1DX 10fps raw ISO 200 with Lexar 1000x 32GB card - YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nET9U_r6Am4

...and...

1DX 12fps raw ISO 200 with Lexar 1000x 32GB card - YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6qig9mtMX8

So, my question is, "are these clips accurately portraying the 1Dx's slow-down behavior when the buffer becomes full?"...in other words, "initial long burst to buffer fill, pause, short burst, pause, short burst, pause, short burst, pause, short burst, etc"? Rick's calculations led me to believe the camera was giving an approximately steady (constant) 4fps at buffer saturation.

Just trying to clear this all up in my head!



May 20, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · Speed test with CF cards


Jimmy:
Yes that's how it sounds when the buffer is full or nearly full with a very fast card. With a slow card it's a lot worse. And the camera maybe only take one shot every second. Or one shot in two seconds.



May 20, 2013 at 05:39 AM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · Speed test with CF cards


jxsq wrote:
Thanks, love to see your results.


I downloaded and formatted more than ten cards with the Transcend Formatting Tool today. First I formatted them in my 1DX and shoot a 30 sec test so I could compare. It didn't make any difference for speed or number of shots. But while doing that test I discovered why the Transcend 32 GB UDMA 7 400x card had such a low number compared to the 64GB version of it. I have six of those cards. And one is a bit slower than the other five cards. So I tried all of those cards and then updated the number in my test to the number I got with the other five cards. It's still slower than the 64GB version but not like before.
Most of the time the larger version of a card is faster than the same small sized card when I have tested cards.



May 20, 2013 at 07:14 AM
jimmy462
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · Speed test with CF cards


Thanks, Lars, nice to know I was comparing oranges to oranges!


May 20, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · Speed test with CF cards


Have you tested the Lexar 800x card yet


May 21, 2013 at 06:33 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #11 · Speed test with CF cards


Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Have you tested the Lexar 800x card yet


No I don't own that one. But the Lexar 400x and 1000x is there



May 22, 2013 at 08:14 AM
jxsq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · Speed test with CF cards


Lars Johnsson wrote:
I downloaded and formatted more than ten cards with the Transcend Formatting Tool today. First I formatted them in my 1DX and shoot a 30 sec test so I could compare. It didn't make any difference for speed or number of shots. But while doing that test I discovered why the Transcend 32 GB UDMA 7 400x card had such a low number compared to the 64GB version of it. I have six of those cards. And one is a bit slower than the other five cards. So I tried all of those cards and then updated the number
...Show more

Thank you so much for your test. I guess there is no magic bullet there.





May 22, 2013 at 05:07 PM
dennisgibson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #13 · Speed test with CF cards


Lars, do you have an updated picture of your box of CF cards? I remember you posting one a few years ago and it making me smile!


Jun 09, 2013 at 03:36 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · Speed test with CF cards


dennisgibson wrote:
Lars, do you have an updated picture of your box of CF cards? I remember you posting one a few years ago and it making me smile!










Jun 09, 2013 at 04:29 PM
bobbyboy uk
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · Speed test with CF cards


Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Have you tested the Lexar 800x card yet


Ive got the Lexar 128gb 800x ,did a speed test on it, not bad at all





Jun 09, 2013 at 05:33 PM
dennisgibson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #16 · Speed test with CF cards


Lars Johnsson wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/larsjohnsson/image/150682320/original.jpg


love it! Definitely jealous!



Jun 10, 2013 at 12:54 AM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #17 · Speed test with CF cards


bobbyboy uk wrote:
Ive got the Lexar 128gb 800x ,did a speed test on it, not bad at all

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6338/lexar128gb800x.jpg


For that test I got:
Lexar 1000x 32GB ex FAT - 116.96MB/s READ, 91.77 MB/s WRITE
Hoodman Steel 1000x 64GB exFAT - 109.67MB/s READ, 88.24MB/s WRITE
For a different Lexar 1000x 32GB (newest) FAT32 - 116.64MB/s, 87.76MB/s
And that same card as exFAT - 115.18MB/s,89.18MB/s
And same but test repeated - 115.20MB/s, 92.41MB/s
And repeated again - 115.22MB/s,89.78MB/s
So write speed tends to vary a bit test to test with CF.
Another new Lexar 1000x 32GB exFAT: 116-120.36MB/s READ (only first test was slow on read), 88-93.60MB/s WRITE
Yeah it seems like the very first test is always a touch slower, other tests vary, mostly for writes, but tend to all be at least a touch faster than first test.

(For curiosity:
For my Buffalo Drive over USB 3.0 I got: 190.82MB/s, 128.70MB/s
For my main C: drive I got: 70.54MB/s, 69.32MB/s
For my alternate C: drive I got: 93.65MB/s, 80.79MB/s
which is curious since Vista is on the alternate drive and it always behaves like the HD is slower than a sloth and W7 on the other drives acts like the HD is much faster
For a regular external drive over USB 3.0 I got: 97.30MB/s,90.45MB/s
an internal photo HD: 60.27MB/s,57.30MB/s)



Jun 10, 2013 at 11:54 PM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #18 · Speed test with CF cards


Lexar ultra ii 200x 16GB - 45.62MB/s, 17.32MB/s
sandisk Extreme III (*special* 30MB/s!! !edition!): 28, 19
lexar 1000x 32GB - 116, 91
DaneElec 4GB - 8 ,4.5
sandisk ultra ii 2GB - 11, 8.5



Jun 11, 2013 at 01:19 AM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #19 · Speed test with CF cards


ML reports 116MB/s for Lexar 1000x 32GB and Hoodman Steel 1000x 64GB write speed. I don't think that speed can be maintained for realistic situations though.



Jun 11, 2013 at 03:27 AM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · Speed test with CF cards


For me: benchmark tests are not interesting. It doesn't say much about the performace when you put the card in your camera. And it doesn't say much about the speed when downloading the pics from a card reader either.
Even if the card have 100+mb/s in the test, it could have 20mb/s in your camera and card-reader



Jun 11, 2013 at 05:06 AM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password