arbitrage wrote:
Thanks. I'll format into ExFAT and try Crystal Disk Mark. But I don't have USB-C/TB3 ports so not sure if that will handicap my benchmarks as everything is going in and out via USB-3 from my ProGrade reader.
USB 3.0 ports have a maximum bus transfer speed of 5 Gbps (625 MB/s) which is well below the claimed maximum read and write speeds of most of the CFexpress cards (which tend to be in the 1000 MB/s+ range). So your testing probably will be limited by the speed of the port.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports (which often use a USB-C connector) have a maximum bus transfer speed of 10 Gbps (1250 MB/s), so even this is a bit below the claimed peak read/write speeds of some of the fastest cards.
To eliminate the speed of the port as a factor, you likely need a Thunderbolt 3 card reader as Thunderbolt 3 has bus transfer speeds of 40 Gbps (5000 MB/s) which is exceeds the bandwidth of the CFexpress 2.0 Type B card interface connector itself (which uses PCIe 3.0 x2 at 2000 MB/s), so it should be sufficient to handle the fastest cards.
Note also that the usage of a USB-C connector doesn't actually indicate anything in particular about the speed of the port. Thunderbolt 3 ports always use USB-C connectors, but USB-C connectors can also be used for USB 3.0 or even USB 2.0 ports.
To make matters particularly confusing, when the USB Implementers Forum introduced the USB 3.1 specifications which introduced the faster 10 Gbps (USB 3.1 Gen 2) transfer speeds, they decided that the USB 3.1 spec would replace USB 3.0 and that the older 5 Gbps USB 3.0 transfer speeds would now be called USB 3.1 Gen 1. As a result of this change, you will often see ports or devices (sometimes with USB-C connectors) that are just advertised as USB 3.1. These are most often 5 Gbps USB 3.0 (or if you like USB 3.1 Gen 1) ports, unless they specifically indicate that they support 10 Gbps or USB 3.1 Gen 2 speeds.
davedv wrote:
USB 3.0 ports have a maximum bus transfer speed of 5 Gbps (625 MB/s) which is well below the claimed maximum read and write speeds of most of the CFexpress cards (which tend to be in the 1000 MB/s+ range). So your testing probably will be limited by the speed of the port.
USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports (which often use a USB-C connector) have a maximum bus transfer speed of 10 Gbps (1250 MB/s), so even this is a bit below the claimed peak read/write speeds of some of the fastest cards.
To eliminate the speed of the port as a factor, you likely need a Thunderbolt 3 card reader as Thunderbolt 3 has bus transfer speeds of 40 Gbps (5000 MB/s) which is exceeds the bandwidth of the CFexpress 2.0 Type B card interface connector itself (which uses PCIe 3.0 x2 at 2000 MB/s), so it should be sufficient to handle the fastest cards.
Note also that the usage of a USB-C connector doesn't actually indicate anything in particular about the speed of the port. Thunderbolt 3 ports always use USB-C connectors, but USB-C connectors can also be used for USB 3.0 or even USB 2.0 ports.
To make matters particularly confusing, when the USB Implementers Forum introduced the USB 3.1 specifications which introduced the faster 10 Gbps (USB 3.1 Gen 2) transfer speeds, they decided that the USB 3.1 spec would replace USB 3.0 and that the older 5 Gbps USB 3.0 transfer speeds would now be called USB 3.1 Gen 1. As a result of this change, you will often see ports or devices (sometimes with USB-C connectors) that are just advertised as USB 3.1. These are most often 5 Gbps USB 3.0 (or if you like USB 3.1 Gen 1) ports, unless they specifically indicate that they support 10 Gbps or USB 3.1 Gen 2 speeds....Show more →
Thanks. That is what I figured. I also realized that Crystal Disk Mark is Windows only and I only have Macs. I did run the card on Black Magic Speed Test and both read/write were pegged at 420MB/s which was a pointless test. Coincidentally I do have a TB3 Mac arriving today but my Prograde Reader is not the TB3 one. It is the dual slot CFe/SD and Prograde says supports 1250MB/s. So maybe that will give a somewhat better test result. Prograde also sells a TB3 CFe/XQD reader which supports the 5GB/s but I wanted the dual slot one as I often will be shooting my Sony SD cards alongside my R5 CFe (and I'm not really concerned about transfer speed to my computer anyways).
But what I am concerned about is shots to buffer full/FPS stutter and how fast it can clear that buffer. Sounds like the Transcend is not the greatest but they do rate the 256GB card faster so I will see if that makes a difference. My R5 finally shipped to me so I should have it by Friday to start testing and shooting...can't forget the shooting part...
I'm curious, do we think these cards will ever come down in price similar to CF of the fast SDs? Those cards were quite expensive when they came out (not quite this expensive!). I'm curious to know what people think. THey're more costly than the chip style SSDs and a big factor to consider when planning to upgrade bodies.
sdxc cards have not been discussed. I have not gotten my camera yet but for still photography, is a CFe card really needed? Birds in flight, fast action ok but day in day out? They certainly are cheaper. For me, movies are a novelty not something I'll do a lot of.
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks. That is what I figured. I also realized that Crystal Disk Mark is Windows only and I only have Macs. I did run the card on Black Magic Speed Test and both read/write were pegged at 420MB/s which was a pointless test. Coincidentally I do have a TB3 Mac arriving today but my Prograde Reader is not the TB3 one. It is the dual slot CFe/SD and Prograde says supports 1250MB/s. So maybe that will give a somewhat better test result. Prograde also sells a TB3 CFe/XQD reader which supports the 5GB/s but I wanted the dual slot one as I often will be shooting my Sony SD cards alongside my R5 CFe (and I'm not really concerned about transfer speed to my computer anyways).
But what I am concerned about is shots to buffer full/FPS stutter and how fast it can clear that buffer. Sounds like the Transcend is not the greatest but they do rate the 256GB card faster so I will see if that makes a difference. My R5 finally shipped to me so I should have it by Friday to start testing and shooting...can't forget the shooting part......Show more →
I'm a few days from completing the card reader review. I can report that the ProGrade Thunderbolt 3 reader is fantastic. I especially like the magnetic bottom, allowing you to stick it all sorts of useful places. The reader comes with a metal sticker you an affix to anything, which can then be used as a place to stick the reader - even upside down under a desk.
But the general message of the moment is that if you use Lightroom, the ingestion time is no different between TB3 and USB speeds. I'm investigating this now. From a practical, real-use perspective, you get about 1.5x the speed with TB3 if doing file copies to your internal hard drive, but if you're using Lightroom, the benefit evaporates (and everything takes 4x longer). The upshot: I wouldn't go replacing your card reader until we know more, and that'll be in a few days.
Also, the computer card speed tests are very overrated as an analog to real-world performance. They can measure card speed and card reader speed, but those two factors are two of a dozen that will affect real world performance. It's like measuring engine RPMs to guess speed of a car. I didn't quite realize this until testing a dozen cards on half a dozen readers, and it's dawning that four different places where there is firmware, the operating system, the cord you use, etc., all have effects we often don't think about.
The short term bad news is that it's complicated. The long term good news is that we'll have it figured, and there will likely be combinations of card + firmware version + reader + firmware version + interface + cord + software that will be reliably superior.
Flowernut wrote:
sdxc cards have not been discussed. I have not gotten my camera yet but for still photography, is a CFe card really needed? Birds in flight, fast action ok but day in day out? They certainly are cheaper. For me, movies are a novelty not something I'll do a lot of. For movies, if not doing 8k or 4k, could an sdxc card carry the load?
Flowernut, you definitely don't need a CFexpress card. We're going to be doing an SD card performance comparison review over at camnostic.com in a couple weeks (manufacturers sending cards in now). The only real difference you'll see is the time to clear the buffer, which will be quite a bit longer with the SDs. But you're going to have dozens of shots in your buffer, so even for many wildlife applications it would work fine.
I had this experience yesterday. Because we're testing the CFexpress card readers, they were all needed for that, so I was shooting a couple times on just SD. I only noticed afterward, when I was removing the card to download the pictures. You have to be a real button masher to get to the end of the R5 buffer.
The problem is that the UHS-II cards aren't a lot less expensive that the CFexpress. If you use UHS-I cards, buffer clearing will be super slow given the file sizes. We'll have measurements on all of that in a couple weeks. I don't think I'm telling anything out of school when I say that camnostic will have that card reader review out later this week, and then the next week there will be an update to the CFexpress card review (three additional cards), and perhaps the week after that the SD card review for the R5.
The sustained write speed of these delkins will cause problems. I couldn’t use them on my 1dxmkiii for anything others than the mp4 recording. I purchased angel bird because of their warranty and service along with a very high write speed and they are affordable. Hope this helps artsupreme wrote:
Someone linked these cards the other day. You probably just need a few of these at minimum
tiggy wrote:
I'm a few days from completing the card reader review. I can report that the ProGrade Thunderbolt 3 reader is fantastic. I especially like the magnetic bottom, allowing you to stick it all sorts of useful places. The reader comes with a metal sticker you an affix to anything, which can then be used as a place to stick the reader - even upside down under a desk.
But the general message of the moment is that if you use Lightroom, the ingestion time is no different between TB3 and USB speeds. I'm investigating this now. From a practical, real-use perspective, you get about 1.5x the speed with TB3 if doing file copies to your internal hard drive, but if you're using Lightroom, the benefit evaporates (and everything takes 4x longer). The upshot: I wouldn't go replacing your card reader until we know more, and that'll be in a few days.
Also, the computer card speed tests are very overrated as an analog to real-world performance. They can measure card speed and card reader speed, but those two factors are two of a dozen that will affect real world performance. It's like measuring engine RPMs to guess speed of a car. I didn't quite realize this until testing a dozen cards on half a dozen readers, and it's dawning that four different places where there is firmware, the operating system, the cord you use, etc., all have effects we often don't think about.
The short term bad news is that it's complicated. The long term good news is that we'll have it figured, and there will likely be combinations of card + firmware version + reader + firmware version + interface + cord + software that will be reliably superior. ...Show more →
Ah, I had just ordered that Delkin CFe USB 3.1 Gen 2 card reader, as the one I got with my Lexar card (a USB 3.1 Gen 1 Lexar reader), is slow as molasses. Hopefully the Delkin reader fares well in your test.
I don't have Thunderbolt on my PC, so am "stuck" with USB 3.1 Gen 2.
Flowernut wrote:
sdxc cards have not been discussed. I have not gotten my camera yet but for still photography, is a CFe card really needed? Birds in flight, fast action ok but day in day out? They certainly are cheaper. For me, movies are a novelty not something I'll do a lot of.
I used a UHS-II card for all my time with the R5 and never ran into any buffer limits shooting birds and some BIF. The card writing light stayed on for a good while but didn't interfere with using menus, playback or more shooting. So I think using SD is not a big deal with these cameras if you already have some. I'm not sure how slower cards will do though. I was using some of the fastest out there (Delkin Power and Sony Tough).
arbitrage wrote:
Lesson to be learned from that video...NEVER WATCH T&C FOR VALID INFORMATION...maybe for a good laugh...
Did you not notice that even though he said "this Prograde Cobalt Card" he was showing a Prograde Gold card that we all know doesn't support 8K at the 256GB size Tony was using. They don't even make 256GB Cobalt cards and they certainly don't have a "Gold" label on them.
Details people, details...so much FUD spread on here...
Looked at the card in the clip and it looks like a large letter "C".
Multiple people emailed him and he confirmed Cobalt. I won't post the links who cares.
As far as FUD where are the SLOW Sony card tests? Don't see anything to show they are slow at all.
Looked at the card in the clip and it looks like a large letter "C".
Multiple people emailed him and he confirmed Cobalt. I won't post the links who cares.
As far as FUD where are the SLOW Sony card tests? Don't see anything to show they are slow at all.
Sony cards are usually the fastest out there or close to it so I have no doubt the Sony CFe cards are right up there for speed.
The only tests I've seen are the one's Tiggy has been sharing on here.
They support 8K and they get more RAWs in a buffer than anyone (other than the pray and spray amateur) could ever need or want. So yeah they are a top end card with a price to match.
My Sony Tough UHS-II SD cards are the highest quality construction I've ever seen on an SD card...but I got them for free
arbitrage wrote:
Sony cards are usually the fastest out there or close to it so I have no doubt the Sony CFe cards are right up there for speed.
The only tests I've seen are the one's Tiggy has been sharing on here.
They support 8K and they get more RAWs in a buffer than anyone (other than the pray and spray amateur) could ever need or want. So yeah they are a top end card with a price to match.
My Sony Tough UHS-II SD cards are the highest quality construction I've ever seen on an SD card...but I got them for free
How do the Tough G cards fit in the R5? Are they as tight as in the Sony a7/a9 series bodies?
EB-1 wrote:
How do the Tough G cards fit in the R5? Are they as tight as in the Sony a7/a9 series bodies?
EBH
I'll try that in a couple days when my R5 arrives. I can't recall if I even used the Sony in the R5. I was mostly using the Delkin because it was 128GB and the 64GB Sony only held a few seconds of 20FPS bursts
But I will say that I have two Sony Tough and the one I take in and out of the A9II is smooth now. The backup that I never use and just sits in the 2nd slot all the time is still tight. So something wears down on the card after a little while to make them smoother. It doesn't seem to be the slot wearing because if I move the rarely used card to Slot 1 it is still tight and the heavily used card is now smooth in both slots.
Arbitrage, after reviewing Tiggy's card test I am now leaning toward the Prograde Cobalt 325, instead of the Sony 128. While it wasn't the fastest everywhere, it was in the top 2 or 3 in all phases, where some cards were fast in one area and struggled eslewhere.
I have to decide quickly. I got lucky today. I received a call and purchased the R5 after only being on the wait list for about 1 week. I might put a $1 on the lotto today.
Methodical wrote:
Arbitrage, after reviewing Tiggy's card test I am now leaning toward the Prograde Cobalt 325, instead of the Sony 128. While it wasn't the fastest everywhere, it was in the top 2 or 3 in all phases, where some cards were fast in one area and struggled eslewhere.
I have to decide quickly. I got lucky today. I received a call and purchased the R5 after only being on the wait list for about 1 week. I might put a $1 on the lotto today.
That 325 is a very pricey card...you can buy some 512GB cards for less than it. Also I see that B&H has a coming soon listing for a 2-pack of the Cobalt 325 and it is a much better deal at $769 for two vs $549 for one. In fact that deal seems almost too good to be true so maybe that is a pricing mistake and will be updated once they actually get the 2 packs in stock??
For myself I went the super cheapo route and took advantage of an Amazon.ca pricing error on the new Transcend cards...the cards aren't good for 8K/4K120 but for stills I think they will be just fine. $392 CAD for 512GB is like $290 USD
arbitrage wrote:
That 325 is a very pricey card...you can buy some 512GB cards for less than it. Also I see that B&H has a coming soon listing for a 2-pack of the Cobalt 325 and it is a much better deal at $769 for two vs $549 for one. In fact that deal seems almost too good to be true so maybe that is a pricing mistake and will be updated once they actually get the 2 packs in stock??
For myself I went the super cheapo route and took advantage of an Amazon.ca pricing error on the new Transcend cards...the cards aren't good for 8K/4K120 but for stills I think they will be just fine. $392 CAD for 512GB is like $290 USD ...Show more →
I found the 325 Cobalt for $430, quite a bit cheaper than MSRP pricing of $550 (new version), which cost the same as Sony's 256 and not too much more than the Prograde's 256 Gold (it sits right in between the 256 and 512 cards), but it outperformed both cards and some of the 512s. Based on Tiggys testing, it's a better all around performer, and is in the top 2 position with all but maybe one test, but even then it's not far off. His testing is the most I have to rely on at this time. Also, It's the minimum write speed that's attractive to me. Although I am not a videographer and don't typically do video, and I know 400 MB/s is sufficient for video, I'm liking the headroom with this card, just in case. I will see if I can find some additional testing of the card, but I just don't see me spending over $500-$800 on a card, no matter the size or cost per GB. Hell, I was not interested in the 325 when it was priced at $550, until I found it at $430. My initial plan was to go with the Sony 128 card, but seeing how the 325 outperformed it and others. I am willing to step it up a little bit. So, while it may be a little more pricey, the price to performance to size sits right in the center for me.
Note: I know Tiggy talked about the Lexar performance, but I did not see the results up on the charts, but the 512 costs $600 and the 256 is $400, so no go for me.
I updated a different thread, and figured you all should know that the testing updates have been a little delayed. We'll have a review of card readers out and an updated card comparison by end of week. It's going well, but a slog.
The incremental preview that might be useful to you guys:
- The Lexar card was super fast and reasonably priced, and then it crapped out. THEN I was told by Lexar support that they can't send a replacement because of restrictions the US has placed on Longsys, their parent company in China. Wouldn't recommend them currently.
- The Transcend 512 card that just came out that Arbitrage put us on to is pretty great, especially for the price. Testing is showing that it is a sprinter. It can take as many shots before buffer as any of the other cards. It is slower in clearing the cache afterward, but that's after 10.5 seconds of straight shooting without stop at 12 fps, so most of us won't suffer that problem. It costs much less. The Transcend 512 is $0.64/GB versus the Prograde 650 at $1.04/GB versus the Sony 512 at $1.17/GB. To get that Transcend pricing in the US, you need to buy from MemoryC. I think Arbitrage was writing about an even better deal via a Canadian web seller.
- The Delkin card, which was pretty great, was firmware upgraded, and interestingly, it's a little slower now. Not hugely, but I think they refined the data flow for what would otherwise be potential video glitches, and this gives us a slightly slower Delkin 512. It's still among the best deals, especially when factoring in price, but the new price crown goes to new entry, the Transcend 512.
Eventually, we're going to have to do our own video testing to see if that Delkin change actually put it into the class of cards capable of doing some of the higher bit rate R5 tricks. I'm really trying to avoid doing that testing, as I use an external recorder to do video on the R5, so I have no heat issues at all, but using an internal card is just asking for overheating hassles. Would be a nightmare test that would take weeks to do across cards.
Has anyone tested the Delkin 256GB and/or the Prograde Gold 256GB (Gen 2) cards for support of 8K/4K120 video?
I'm looking at one of these cards instead of my Transcend just to future proof video if I want to do some in the future or play around with the 8K30 stills extraction.
