Lars Johnsson wrote:
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
Well the read tests were using the card reader. But as I said the ML write test is dubious, since you'd only get it under ideal buffer writes. The writes done with card reader seem more reasonable since they seem closer to how it works for RAW video (i.e. 800x tested by the other guy is too slow to handle it and the 1000x I tested above are fast enough by just a bit).
skibum5 wrote:
Well the read tests were using the card reader. But as I said the ML write test is dubious, since you'd only get it under ideal buffer writes. The writes done with card reader seem more reasonable since they seem closer to how it works for RAW video (i.e. 800x tested by the other guy is too slow to handle it and the 1000x I tested above are fast enough by just a bit).
Yes you used the card-reader. But you will get different result depending on what reader you use, So without any info it doesn't say much. I have five readers and the results are very different depending on what reader I use. And depending on what interface the reader use. Like Firewire, USB 2 or USB 3. Just like the results are very different if using the cards in five different cameras.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes you used the card-reader. But you will get different result depending on what reader you use, So without any info it doesn't say much. I have five readers and the results are very different depending on what reader I use. And depending on what interface the reader use. Like Firewire, USB 2 or USB 3. Just like the results are very different if using the cards in five different cameras.
Yeah, I'm sure the reader does matter a bit. I used USB 3.0, so I don't think it would be limited by my connection type at least and 3.0 reader (that said all 3.0 readers may not be alike). At the least, it puts the cards in relative order of potential for write speed in this case I think since USB 3.0 is fast enough to not bottleneck anything and the card reader doesn't seem to bottleneck writes up to the speed of these (for reads it might be a bottleneck though as the other guy got some pretty speedy reads compared to mine).
For stills shooting due to various buffer issues, it is true that an in cam test is what tells the real tale, although knowing if it has full UDMA 7 or not still lets you get something out of card reader tests to a point. For ML RAW video though, which is what many have been talking about lately, these types of benchmarks are more useful I think as they can have some bearing so long as the connection and card reader are fast.
OK, did a test with the Lexar 1000+ and Transcend 1000+ cards on the EOS-1D X.
They perform almost identically. You can shoot around 48-49 raw photos @ 12 fps before the buffer is filled, and they both clear the buffer again in about 8 seconds.
I also tried a SanDisk Extreme (not Pro) 60 mb/s card. Here I got 41 raw photos before the buffer hit the limit and it was cleared in 14 seconds. A notable notice in speed, but not surprising of course.
Transfer from card to computer with a Lexar 3.0 usb card reader was about the same with Transcend being ever so slightly faster.
So with the Transcend being quite a bit cheaper, I now understand Lars' endorsement of the card.
Thanks Nils, you got the same result that I also got with those cards. The Extreme Pro that I tested was slower than the Lexar 1000 & Transcend 1000 cards
Stoffer wrote:
OK, did a test with the Lexar 1000+ and Transcend 1000+ cards on the EOS-1D X.
They perform almost identically. You can shoot around 48-49 raw photos @ 12 fps before the buffer is filled, and they both clear the buffer again in about 8 seconds.
I also tried a SanDisk Extreme (not Pro) 60 mb/s card. Here I got 41 raw photos before the buffer hit the limit and it was cleared in 14 seconds. A notable notice in speed, but not surprising of course.
Transfer from card to computer with a Lexar 3.0 usb card reader was about the same with Transcend being ever so slightly faster.
So with the Transcend being quite a bit cheaper, I now understand Lars' endorsement of the card. ...Show more →
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Thanks Nils, you got the same result that I also got with those cards. The Extreme Pro that I tested was slower than the Lexar 1000 & Transcend 1000 cards
Even the Extreme Pro 90MB/s I tried was slower than the 1000x Lexar (of course the Sandisk was UDMA 6 and the Lexar UDMA 7). That test was seeing how many RAW frames before slow down on 5D3 and 7D.
skibum5 wrote:
Even the Extreme Pro 90MB/s I tried was slower than the 1000x Lexar (of course the Sandisk was UDMA 6 and the Lexar UDMA 7). That test was seeing how many RAW frames before slow down on 5D3 and 7D.
Sandisk was very late to start with UDMA 7 cards compared to all other brands. Lexar was probably one year ahead
