Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme III


Status
Not open for further replies.

brandonb

New Member
Nov 28, 2004
315
0
0
#1
Need some advise for those who have been compared these CF card on D200.

- If use for normal shooting condition such as event, wedding, any visible different in term of performance between these two?

- Even if using Ultra II for continous shoot on D200, the speed will still be acceptable right ? (D200 internal buffer also not that small, right)

As we all know Extreme III have faster writing speed for technical point of view. But if Ultra II can serve a purpose for general use and not for really high speed shooting, I think Ultra II should be enough right ?
 

kosasih

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2006
582
0
16
#2
D200 has internal buffer. So as long as you do not max the 20 odd buffer shots, it really makes no diff on the speed of the CF card.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#3
Unless you're a machinegunner... or simply have loads to spare, UltraII is good enough for most situations that you've stated.

And anyway... one should be perfecting one's technique with regards to timing and relying less on machinegunning the subject with 5fps. :bsmilie: This would apply to sports too.
 

westwest1

Deregistered
Feb 25, 2006
2,616
0
0
@ AMK
#4
i use Ultra 2...nothing wrong with it also...I shoot one frame at a time...no machine gun for me...

but bought an extreme 3 cause i cannot find my CF card...lying somewhere in the house...
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#5
Need some advise for those who have been compared these CF card on D200.

- If use for normal shooting condition such as event, wedding, any visible different in term of performance between these two?

- Even if using Ultra II for continous shoot on D200, the speed will still be acceptable right ? (D200 internal buffer also not that small, right)

As we all know Extreme III have faster writing speed for technical point of view. But if Ultra II can serve a purpose for general use and not for really high speed shooting, I think Ultra II should be enough right ?
ultra II is good enough. no need to go for extreme series
 

u2nofear

New Member
Feb 25, 2006
1,528
0
0
#7
curious , all guys are refer to jpeg or RAW....:think:
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#8
curious , all guys are refer to jpeg or RAW....:think:
I shoot Jpeg fine and the buffer is 25 shots or so...

I shoot RAW and the buffer is about 21 shots or so... Never had any problems on writing issues.

This is for the D200. D100 has a very small buffer and takes some time to write RAW to the cards, esp with a slower card (normal speed ones)
 

slooow

New Member
Feb 12, 2006
1,000
0
0
#9
hahahaha shoot so fast? might as well go and do video shooting liao:)
 

rodel

New Member
Sep 22, 2006
497
0
0
#10
D200 has internal buffer. So as long as you do not max the 20 odd buffer shots, it really makes no diff on the speed of the CF card.
How about D80? Any idea?
 

kosasih

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2006
582
0
16
#12
Anyway, the price of the 2 is not much diff abt $15 for the 2G, hence maybe better to get the extreme...;)
 

brandonb

New Member
Nov 28, 2004
315
0
0
#15
Anyway, the price of the 2 is not much diff abt $15 for the 2G, hence maybe better to get the extreme...;)
I am consider 8GB model. Price different is a lot between Ultra II and Extreme III.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#16
In this case the digital MF he is referring to is Medium Format. (i.e. the >22megapixel variety)

At any rate, I would advise against a single 8GB card. But rather 4x 2GB Cards... or at the very largest a 4GB card.

If your one card fails when you are out shooting or even on holiday... :bheart:

At current file sizes, I don't see much reason to have a single 8GB card :dunno:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom