I've read through a few older threads with regards to the Ds3 and cf cards (i.e. Transcend) and was wondering is there was any noticable differences between in-camera (not download speeds) buffer speeds/ shooting between UDMA 0-4 (133x) and UDMA 0-5 (300x). I believe UDMA5 covers up to 100MB and the Ds is up to 45MB internal-- correct?

Here's the two cards I was curious about:

300x:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208419

133x
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208337

See if this helps:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9256

Hmmm...not sure but looks like the answer is 'not much' difference...is that right?

For internal use I can't tell a lick of difference between the Ultra III, Extreme III and Extreme IV. Some people have said the buffer clears faster w/ the Extreme IV. I haven't filled the buffer - and probably never will. I like the 16 GB Extreme III's because they have a nice bang-to-buck ratio, but they can feel slow when downloading files off the card (if full - we're talking 16 GB!) and when browsing (on the computer) because so, so many previews have to load. 8 GB works better in that regard.

Yeah, I have some 16 IIIs and some 8 IVs and if there is a difference in this regard, it ain't obvious.

So what results in the fastest buffer-clear when shooting at high-speed? (Since card type doesn't seem to make a difference, is there any particular configuration that does?) If shooting RAW + jpg, is it best to write RAW to one card and jpg to another (for example)? Are there any noticable differences in internal write/buffer-clearing speeds between sd cards? I just tried the 5ps and could only get 9 shots (RAW + L jpg, with RAW written to cf and jpg written to sd) before the buffer filled and shooting stopped.

Good question...would test it but don't have the camera now. The S buffer def fills faster thank the Mk3 tho, the files are so much bigger. When using for sports, I'm more careful so that I don't miss any shots...but an optimal arrangement makes sense.

Has anybody ever used a CF card that actually slowed down your camera speed? I'm wondering if one of those cheap Transcends that Newegg sells can be used with DSLRs without problems. I've used Transcend SDHC cards and those were excellent.

fraga wrote:
See if this helps:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9256

Excellent-- thanks for the link.

The new extreme III 16's are looking a winner-- esp. with the current rebates.

Check the buy&sell forum... I saw a few 16GB extreme IIIs there just a few days ago.

MSC wrote:
Yeah, I have some 16 IIIs and some 8 IVs and if there is a difference in this regard, it ain't obvious.

I guess you aren't riding the buffer often enough
I have the "new" 16G III (30MB/s) and the 8G IVs, and the difference is definitely noticeable, at least to me. The old III take 27s vs 17s with the IV to clear in my 1Ds3. I forgot the exact number with the new III, but it was still in the 20s. So that may not be much for you, or it may.

I use the two 8G IVs as long as I have them, then fall back to the 16G "new" III, then to the old IIIs that I still have. The other ones, like the Transcend, which I also tested, felt even slower. I timed the specific Transcend 16G in the 30s range.

stanj wrote:
MSC wrote:
Yeah, I have some 16 IIIs and some 8 IVs and if there is a difference in this regard, it ain't obvious.

I guess you aren't riding the buffer often enough
I have the "new" 16G III (30MB/s) and the 8G IVs, and the difference is definitely noticeable, at least to me. The old III take 27s vs 17s with the IV to clear in my 1Ds3. I forgot the exact number with the new III, but it was still in the 20s. So that may not be much for you, or it may.

I use the two 8G IVs as long as I have them, then fall back to the 16G "new" III, then to the old IIIs that I still have. The other ones, like the Transcend, which I also tested, felt even slower. I timed the specific Transcend 16G in the 30s range.

OK, now I'm curious...will check it out then.

Stunnaz wrote:
Has anybody ever used a CF card that actually slowed down your camera speed? I'm wondering if one of those cheap Transcends that Newegg sells can be used with DSLRs without problems. I've used Transcend SDHC cards and those were excellent.

As long as you never really fill the buffer all the way up, the camera shouldn't slow you down.

I have (I think) an old Mr. Flash USA Compact Flash card (256MB) that will slow you down a lot. Basically because you will fill the buffer And then the buffer will empty very very slowly.

I've got one 4Gb Extreme IV card and a bunch of other 133x 2Gb cards and notice a big difference in the 1DmkIII. I generally shoot and shoot with the IV and when it's been filled find I have to keep waiting for the buffer to clear in the 133x cards though I don't use the Extreme III's.

What Stan said. The RG database is quite accurate in general.

I find the difference betwen the 8GB 30 MB/sec. EX3 and the EX4 to be just noticeable, with the old EX3 being significantly slower. The Transcend UDMA cards are dog-slow for writes, though they do transfer to a computer quickly with a UDMA reader. The new EX3 is probably the best bang for the buck. I'm waiting for the development of a 16GB EX4 - where are they?

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
'm waiting for the development of a 16GB EX4 - where are they?

At this point they're a year overdue. Now they better come with the 32G Ex4