CF cards apparently not dead yet

In article ,
RichA says...

https://www.dpreview.com/news/398797...coming-in-2018

510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything
faster? Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:


510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything
faster?

xqd

Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.

which bus?

On 11/29/2017 1:27 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
RichA says...

https://www.dpreview.com/news/398797...coming-in-2018

510 MB/s write speed. SD cards top out at 300 MB/s, or is there anything
faster? Bus speed is up to 624MB/s according to wikipedia.


It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money. If I wanted a camera with a super high speed frame
rate, I would get the camera, and then get the card that is supported at
the camera's highest frame rate. Since the technology changes at a rapid
pace, and I do not know what you are looking for, I will not make any
specific recommendation. See my update posting about a prior problem I had.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

On 11/29/2017 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

It depends.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

It depends.

only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.

for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
the computer.

On 11/29/2017 9:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

It depends.

only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.

for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
the computer.


Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

It depends.

only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.

for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
the computer.


Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.

that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
out.

On 11/29/2017 10:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It depends on your camera. If your camera cannot support higher speeds,
save your money.

higher speeds help when copying photos to the computer, whether or not
the camera can fully utilize it.

It depends.

only if you're mayayana stuck using winxp and slow usb2 will it matter.

for the rest of the world, the card speed is the limiting factor, not
the computer.


Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.

that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
out.


Uh huh!

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Additional time to download a card, is not an important area of
photography, unless you are a photo journalist.

maybe not to you, but the rest of the world disagrees.

that's why people buy usb 3 hard drives instead of cheaper and slower
usb 2 hard drives, it's why people buy newer and faster computers
rather than use the same one they've been using since windows xp came
out.


Uh huh!

I must not be part of "the rest of the world".

very true.

The time it takes for
a card to transfer the photos to the computer is of no concern to me
at all. Cutting that time in half would not be of any advantage. My
usual routine is to remove the card, insert it in the reader, and
start the upload.

While the photos are being uploaded, I remove the battery from the
camera and put it in the charger. By the time I finish doing that,
and return to the computer, all the images have been uploaded.

you must not shoot very many images at a time.

Because I upload using Import in Lightroom, the time consuming part is
waiting for LR to generate the Smart Previews. I know I can set LR to
generate Minimal previews, or one of the other faster options, but I
don't mind the wait for Smart Previews.

that has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of the card.

It's not like I have something terribly urgent or important to do in
those extra minutes. I just Alt-Tab to a different window and check
my email or a newsgroup.

i have an older 64 gig uhs card (the fastest available at the time)
which takes around 15 minutes to copy when it's full (very easy to do
with video).

a 256 gig card of similar speed would be in the 1 hour range.

newer and faster cards could reduce that to 20-30 minutes.