CF card

stor · 5th May 2005

I wonder if anyone could confirm if there is any significant difference in performace between San Disk Extreme 2 and 3. We take assumption that we are using high end DSLR like D2X that is capable of high buffer to achieve continous shots. Is it worth to pay the higher price for Extreme 3 version?

Cheers

Steven Tor

jumbocrab · 5th May 2005

Theoretically, yes, the difference is significant. See this website:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7697

But whether it makes a difference in practise depends on your shooting style. The buffer of the D2X is quite big. So if you are unlikely to take a long burst of shots, or if you are unlikely to need to shoot continuously at high FPS, then it wouldn't make a difference to have a slower card.

Deadpoet · 5th May 2005

I don't find the higher write speed provides me any benefits when taking pictures. 99% of the time, I feel no difference. The only time I felt I wished I had a faster card was photographing a dancer dancing inside a fountain. After 9 shots, the buffer was full (Canon 20D, raw) and I had to wait 2.5/3 sec before I can take another picture.
After reading Rob Galbraith's test, even if I get the fastest card, at a much greater cost, after the buffer is fullI can at best take 1 frame per second. the question is for that 1% of the time, is the cost justified. My answer is no.

stor · 7th May 2005

Thanks to both Jumbocrab and Deadpoet for your advise.

Cheers

Steven Tor

5th May 2005	#1
stor Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 230	CF card I wonder if anyone could confirm if there is any significant difference in performace between San Disk Extreme 2 and 3. We take assumption that we are using high end DSLR like D2X that is capable of high buffer to achieve continous shots. Is it worth to pay the higher price for Extreme 3 version? Cheers Steven Tor

5th May 2005	#3
Deadpoet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,408	I don't find the higher write speed provides me any benefits when taking pictures. 99% of the time, I feel no difference. The only time I felt I wished I had a faster card was photographing a dancer dancing inside a fountain. After 9 shots, the buffer was full (Canon 20D, raw) and I had to wait 2.5/3 sec before I can take another picture. After reading Rob Galbraith's test, even if I get the fastest card, at a much greater cost, after the buffer is fullI can at best take 1 frame per second. the question is for that 1% of the time, is the cost justified. My answer is no. __________________ deadpoet my portfolio

7th May 2005	#4
stor Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 230	CF Card Thanks to both Jumbocrab and Deadpoet for your advise. Cheers Steven Tor

5th May 2005	#2
jumbocrab Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 410	Theoretically, yes, the difference is significant. See this website: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7697 But whether it makes a difference in practise depends on your shooting style. The buffer of the D2X is quite big. So if you are unlikely to take a long burst of shots, or if you are unlikely to need to shoot continuously at high FPS, then it wouldn't make a difference to have a slower card.