• 04-22-2004, 11:06 AM
    Liz
    Help! CF card 40x vs 16x purchase
    I have a Rebel 300D. Is it worth paying $20 more for a Lexar 40x 256 card vs the 16x?

    Please give me the details/specifics.....thanks in advance - I have to purchase one soon.

    Thanks :)

    Liz
  • 04-22-2004, 11:55 AM
    Sebastian
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Liz
    I have a Rebel 300D. Is it worth paying $20 more for a Lexar 40x 256 card vs the 16x?

    Please give me the details/specifics.....thanks in advance - I have to purchase one soon.

    Thanks :)

    Liz

    Well, I think the 40x comes with a free reader, recovery software and their PRO designation, which means a lifetime warranty. The non-pro cards don't come with any of that. 20 bucks well spent IMO, even if the speed difference is negligible.

    I would suggest waiting a bit more and getting a 512 instead. More reasonable amount of shots per card, and more value for your money.
  • 04-22-2004, 12:44 PM
    Liz
    Sticking to 256...........because.........
    I don't do my own printing - I use Walmart like a pro uses proofs....

    So, sometimes I leave specific images on the CF card for a while - at least until I decide what to do with them - size of prints, etc. So, rather than tie up a 512, it's easier for me to get 2 - 256mb so I can sort them out, keep some images on one and have the other free.

    One other thing - I don't use a CD burner, but save images on an external hd, so I don't have any way to retrieve them in order to get prints - the reason I keep them on the CF card for a while.

    Any other suggestions? Except to get a CD burner? :confused:

    Thanks Sebastian for the info - I had no idea the card included all this. I'll have to check the fine print at B&H website where I saw the 40x for $69.

    Liz

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sebastian
    Well, I think the 40x comes with a free reader, recovery software and their PRO designation, which means a lifetime warranty. The non-pro cards don't come with any of that. 20 bucks well spent IMO, even if the speed difference is negligible.

    I would suggest waiting a bit more and getting a 512 instead. More reasonable amount of shots per card, and more value for your money.

  • 04-22-2004, 01:11 PM
    Sebastian
    Let me save you some time:

    CLICK HERE
  • 04-22-2004, 09:40 PM
    yaronsh
    Sandisk for Canon, Lexar for Nikon
    The Lexar cards perform to their full potential only in a camera that supports their proprietary WA technology, which Canon cameras don't (Nikons do). Some web sleuthing (wish I remembered where I saw this) indicates that Canons are better optimized for Sandisk, Nikons for Lexar. Rob Gailbraith's site has some comparisons.

    Sandisk Ultra II seems to be the best bet for Canon.

    I opted for two 256MB cards over a 512MB card, like Liz, partly due to paranoia - if I lose a card or it crashes (they do have a finite lifetime, ya know), I lose less exposures (kinda like a 36-exposure roll of film if you shoot RAW, twice that if you shoot large JPEG).

    As for readers, I've ordered a multi-card reader, 6-in-1, $10 at J&R. Readers are a pittance these days.

    - Yaron
  • 04-22-2004, 10:34 PM
    Peter_AUS
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=290512&is=REG this is a link to the Sandisk Extreme 256meg card as well. I too have been contemplating another CF card to go with my two 256meg cards and have seen very good reports about the Sandisk Extreme cards, but the benefit of Lifetime warranty with Lexar WA CF cards is a bonus as well. I wonder if Sandisk has the lifetime warranty on the Extreme Cards.

    My second 256 meg Card is a Lexar WA card.
  • 04-23-2004, 06:58 AM
    Sebastian
    Give me a break, the read/write times between the cards are so miniscule the "optimizations" are not even worth considering. There is a difference in miliseconds between sandisk and Lexar, get the best value, which is LEXAR. BTW, I have 5 512 meg cards, two of them are Lexar, three Sandisk because I kept getting great deals on them, so I have no brand royalty. Just that saying one is better optimized for some brand than another is ridiculous. Every camera has different performance with every card, even within the same manufacturer. I studied the performance charts, it was not worth my time. Buy something that's a good price and just shoot.
  • 04-23-2004, 11:03 AM
    another view
    OK, Liz - I'm going to say it: Get a CD burner. It's the safest cheap way to store your images (this topic could fill many, many pages - but it will get you started).

    You can write your images back to a compact flash card with a card reader - and take them to Wal-Mart that way. That lets you Photoshop the image - then print, rather than printing directly from the camera.

    The Lexar Pro cards are all that I use because I had a problem that they quickly handled. Good people to deal with. All of those cards, which are now 40x - soon to be 80x - come with the stuff Sebastian mentioned. The new 80x cards will come with a new version of Image Rescue, but there are great deals on the 40x right now (which includes the current version of Image Rescue). I'm keeping an eye on the 512's, maybe I'll get another one. Just be sure to plug the card into the reader and download the program set-up file BEFORE you format the card and shoot with it because this will delete it! This program comes on each card, so if you get two you only need to do it once.

    My cameras don't work with the "WA" write accelerated feature but they write fast enough anyway. I'm not shooting sports too often so I don't worry about write speed too much.
  • 04-23-2004, 11:45 AM
    Liz
    Another View.......please clarify......
    [QUOTE=another view]OK, Liz - I'm going to say it: Get a CD burner. It's the safest cheap way to store your images (this topic could fill many, many pages - but it will get you started).

    You can write your images back to a compact flash card with a card reader - and take them to Wal-Mart that way. That lets you Photoshop the image - then print, rather than printing directly from the camera.


    Thanks for the information which I'm printing for future use. Referring to the above, are you saying that images can be written back to a CF card with a card reader? Do you mean if I have a CD burner? Or can I get them back to the CF card from my hd now? I do have a card reader - I think you mean with a CD reader/writer tho. :confused:

    Thanks again.

    Liz
  • 04-23-2004, 11:55 AM
    another view
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Liz
    Thanks for the information which I'm printing for future use. Referring to the above, are you saying that images can be written back to a CF card with a card reader? Do you mean if I have a CD burner? Or can I get them back to the CF card from my hd now? I do have a card reader - I think you mean with a CD reader/writer tho. :confused:

    Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you! The CD burner is a separate thing, has nothing to do with the card reader. I use the reader to download my images to the computer, then burn them to a CD.

    As far as transferring images back to the compact flash card, that may be one temporary way around the CD burner, for printing files after working on them in Photoshop. The compact flash card is just a data storage device - data can come to it from a digital camera or anything else like a PC's hard drive. The PC just sees the card as another drive (like your C (hard) drive, A (3.5" floppy) drive, etc). Some cards can be used im MP3 players for music, etc (still just data storage).

    So when you're done with the picture, Save As to the compact flash card. You probably want to use one just for this or it might be hard to find the image on it (just a guess, never tried it). I'd still go with the CD burner when possible - keep an eye on them because with rebates they're quite inexpensive. The "X" speed just refers to the write speed - slower drives aren't any worse, they just take a little longer. Start the CD and leave the computer for a few minutes and it will be done when you come back.
  • 04-23-2004, 02:51 PM
    Liz
    Thank you
    I really appreciate you're taking the time to explain it to me. The reason I put the 2 together (CD burner & reader) is because I didn't think you could get an image back into a CF card once it's somewhere else (hd, etc). I do get easily confused when it comes to technical information. Thanks so much for the clarification/explanation. I think I'll do the CD burner way soon!

    I'm relieved to know I can format my card now if the images are saved on the hd - and get them back if I need to take it to Walmart or somewhere to get printed.

    Liz

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by another view
    Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you! The CD burner is a separate thing, has nothing to do with the card reader. I use the reader to download my images to the computer, then burn them to a CD.

    As far as transferring images back to the compact flash card, that may be one temporary way around the CD burner, for printing files after working on them in Photoshop. The compact flash card is just a data storage device - data can come to it from a digital camera or anything else like a PC's hard drive. The PC just sees the card as another drive (like your C (hard) drive, A (3.5" floppy) drive, etc). Some cards can be used im MP3 players for music, etc (still just data storage).

    So when you're done with the picture, Save As to the compact flash card. You probably want to use one just for this or it might be hard to find the image on it (just a guess, never tried it). I'd still go with the CD burner when possible - keep an eye on them because with rebates they're quite inexpensive. The "X" speed just refers to the write speed - slower drives aren't any worse, they just take a little longer. Start the CD and leave the computer for a few minutes and it will be done when you come back.

  • 04-25-2004, 12:08 PM
    coloradoamigo
    Good prices on Sandisk Extreme Cards.....
    right now at B&H. They come bundled with image rescuing software as well. I'm not sure about a lifetime warranty though. I picked up a 1G Extreme. I'm with Seb though, buy whatever you can get a good deal on, the speed difference is minimal on the higher end cards. I would stick with either Sandisk or Lexar though. The first card I got was the Lexar 256mb 40x, because I got a good deal on it and was all I could afford at the time.

    Sandisk Extreme 256mb:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=290512&is=REG

    Sandisk Extreme 512mb:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=290523&is=REG

    Sandisk Extreme 1G:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=290533&is=REG

    The Ultra II's are also at a great price right now, but not much cheaper than the extreme's and they don't come with the image rescue software.

    Hope this helps!!
    Brian
  • 04-26-2004, 10:32 AM
    Old Timer
    Just recieved 2 SanDisk
    I just recieved two Sandisk Extreme 512mb card from B&H this morning. They came with the rescue software and Lifetime warranty. Just need to have them registered with Sandisk to activate the warranty. I will be using them with the D70 and hope to get in a lot of sports action photography taking advantage of the D70's speed. I opted for the two 512's over one 1mg card much for the same reasons you were looking at the 256's.
  • 04-26-2004, 11:08 AM
    Liz
    Yes, "upgrading" to 512
    Hi Old Timer,
    Well, my 256's aren't big enough now - in NYC this past weekend, I was wishing I had two 512 cards with me vs two 256 cards! I had to be careful and deleted pics as I went along which I don't like being preoccupied with.

    I think I'll go the same route. :rolleyes:

    Liz

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Old Timer
    I just recieved two Sandisk Extreme 512mb card from B&H this morning. They came with the rescue software and Lifetime warranty. Just need to have them registered with Sandisk to activate the warranty. I will be using them with the D70 and hope to get in a lot of sports action photography taking advantage of the D70's speed. I opted for the two 512's over one 1mg card much for the same reasons you were looking at the 256's.

  • 05-21-2004, 07:06 AM
    yaronsh
    real-life experiments...
    I did a little real-life experimetation with my Digital Rebel and a Sandisk plain-vanilla 256MB card (you know, the red/blue one) vs. an Ultra II 256MB card.

    The nominal speeds of the cards: Plain-vanilla: ~1MB/sec. Ultra II: ~10MB/sec.

    Guess what: They perform EXACTLY the same. On the Digital Rebel, apparently, you're band-limited by the camera, not the card. (At least that's true for cards of 1MB/sec or faster.) (At least Sandisk ones.)

    The experiments I did: (1) Shoot four RAW shots in quick succession, push the "play" button, and see how long it takes an image to appear on the LCD. (2) Shoot four RAW shots in succession, see how long it flashes "busy," then another couple (that's all you can get in) and see how long it flashes "busy," then another one (again, that's all you can get in) and see how long it flashes "busy."

    The Digital Rebel is certainly not for sports photography...

    By the way, like Liz, I am now converted to 512MB cards. I didn't think I'd shoot that much more with Digital than film, b/c I would go crazy with film anyway (and then pay the price). But I do find myself shooting more angles of everything, doing more exposure bracketing, etc. (The illusion of costlessness is just so strong with digital...)
    So, it's more shots, but less subjects per # of shots - so the bigger card provides added convenience without increased relative risk of content loss.

    - Yaron
  • 05-29-2004, 05:30 AM
    kkraczek
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sebastian
    Give me a break, the read/write times between the cards are so miniscule the "optimizations" are not even worth considering. There is a difference in miliseconds between sandisk and Lexar, get the best value, which is LEXAR. BTW, I have 5 512 meg cards, two of them are Lexar, three Sandisk because I kept getting great deals on them, so I have no brand royalty. Just that saying one is better optimized for some brand than another is ridiculous. Every camera has different performance with every card, even within the same manufacturer. I studied the performance charts, it was not worth my time. Buy something that's a good price and just shoot.

    So does it matter whether I buy a 16x or a 40x? I don't even have the D Rebel in my hands yet... (next week! :D ) so I don't know this stuff! ;)
  • 05-29-2004, 07:49 AM
    Irakly Shanidze
    Liz, with your camera it is more a question of time that you will spend downloading files from the card to your computer. Believe me, this is a lot of time we are talking about if you have 1G of images to work with :)
  • 05-29-2004, 07:52 AM
    Sean Dempsey
    With a Digital Rebel, my sandisk card wrote about TWICE as long as the Lexar 40x did with a RAW file.

    The Lexar 40x card was just about twice as fast. Where am I wrong?
  • 06-07-2004, 09:37 AM
    lukechip
    From reading through this thread, it seems the general opinion, plus the semi-scientific tests (thanks Yaronsh !) have concluded that card speed doesn't matter with the 300D. If this is the case, then I'm unlikely to pay extra for speed.

    Has anybody had any different experience with the 300D, where they have found that faster cards had an advantage during shooting ?

    On a different tack, is it likely that a firmware update (or hack) could un-choke the 300D's write speed, and therefore make a faster card a wiser choice, or is the write speed limited by something more fundamental than Canon crippling the code ?
  • 06-07-2004, 01:24 PM
    gmen
    This may help a little: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...e.asp?cid=6007 - I had a quick scan through all the posts and I hope I'm not repeating this link from a previous one. This gives card speeds in different camera models - read and write - with a lot of other info too.

    I find that the sandisk Ultra II cards and Extreme cards give increased performance when used with a USB2 card reader... downloading a full 512Mb ultra II card is about 30% faster than using my old standard sandisk cards with the same reader.
  • 06-07-2004, 01:58 PM
    Sebastian
    One thing that should be said since both Sean and Gmen mention it, is that low-end Sandisk cards can be VERY slow. It depends on size and a few other factors, but they really can be pokey. Same with the older Lexars, but I think those are much harder to find than the Sandisk versions since most of their line seems to be pretty speedy. I really preffer Lexar, but buy sandisk because great deals can be had.
  • 06-08-2004, 04:09 PM
    azonicbruce
    Just another article that some may find interesting regarding this subject.

    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/

    Don't think they have stats for 300D but they do for 1D and D30.