RichFisher wrote:
I am not familar with the lexar 400x, mostly use Sandisk cards. Is the Lexar 400x similar to the Sandisk Extreme (not the Extreme Pro)?
When I shot Nikon the 1000X Lexars were almost as fast as the XQD.
In the 1DX it performs very well. Also paired with the USB3 card reader they make the download times to the computer are reduced significantly.
I was wondering, as you do now, whether or not save a few bucks and buy 800X cards. I am glad I decided to get the 1000X, because the buffer of the 1DX is not as big as the one in the D4 and I wanted to make sure I could keep on shooting as fast as possible and not having to wait for the buffer to clear in order to keep on shooting.
You have a great camera that was not cheap, get the fastest card you can afford, unless you will never shoot @12fps., but that is one reason we get the X.
I found that the 32GB 1000X cards offered a good value. They are at a good price over at B&H, they have the 2-pac for $239. The 64 and 128GB versions cost more per GB, but I like not to pout many eggs in one basket, hence I like using the 32's.
You have a fantastic camera that was not cheap, get the fastest card you can get, unless you shoot only single frames and never continuous 12fps, but that's one of the reason people get the X.
TimMunsey wrote:
Yeah lexar are very naughty to name the 800x as they did, it's a misleading partial truth.
The 800x card is a very nice card for it's price. But you could say it's a Lexar 400x in writing speed. And a Lexar 1000x in reading speed.
But still a rather fast card for it's price
RichFisher wrote:
Thanks. Writing speed in the camera is key for me. I can be patient while downloading (up to a point), but not while the buffer is full.
if you have a 1DX and fill the buffer while shooting still images you need to reevaluate your shooting method/style as you are going to bury yourself in way too many unneeded images that look a whole lot alike.
TimMunsey wrote:
Yeah lexar are very naughty to name the 800x as they did, it's a misleading partial truth.
this was an issue that I brought up a few years back. it was a method used by second tier maker so they would "look" more competitive in their products performance.
Transcend was one of the earliest adopters and Lexar followed about a year later with in less solid data. reads are so much easier to improve on since they are less power consumptive. you need to go to each companies site to read between the asterisks. for the real data
it is a shame that these so called specifications tend to be dealt with in a "fast and loose" manner and the issue fairly pervasive throughout the consumer electronics industry. they are not lies, just info that can be presented in many ways to improve the view.
the technical limits of parallel processing tech in CF has been pretty much reached and there will be change soon. Sandisk along with canon is pushing SATA. Lexar, Sony and Nikon is doing the XQD dance. from my perspective I see limits in the SATA arena where XQD uses the PCIe bus which has greater open ended potential. but in the end they all will come out with something new and different that we all must have
RichFisher wrote:
Lion taking down zebra, whales breaching, ... All can fill a buffer.
How many shots do you take of a moment like that? A good card will give you about 160 shots in a 30 sec burst. Even a Lexar 400x card will give you about 130 shots.
