Sandisk Extreme III CF cards?

John A. Stovall wrote:
Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
-1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.


I think it's a tossup in the camera. If you download from a reader, you
might see a difference. If I read it right, Sandisk is consistently
quicker.

--
Frank ess

"Bill" wrote in message
| John A. Stovall wrote:
|
|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
|| noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
|| -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
|
| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing.
|
| Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
| difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
| between the two in practical use.
|
| Buy whatever you prefer.

I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred the speed is greatly
appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as a removeable
drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM and is
random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as a CDROM plus and
80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III is more than
twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of waiting 5 mins for a
data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to older 12x cards.
Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50% faster.


--
Dave

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
news:LflWd.24939$QQ3.12830@trnddc02...
"Bill" wrote in message
| John A. Stovall wrote:
|
|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
|| noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
|| -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
|
| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing.
|
| Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
| difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
| between the two in practical use.
|
| Buy whatever you prefer.

I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred
the speed is greatly
appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as
a removeable
drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM
and is
random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as
a CDROM plus and
80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III
is more than
twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x)

Nowhere close to that according to realworld testing.

Greg

"Bill" wrote in message ...
David H. Lipman wrote:

|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x.
|
| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing.

I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred
the speed is greatly
appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in
as a removeable
drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM
and is
random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as
a CDROM plus and
80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme
III is more than
twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of
waiting 5 mins for a
data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to
older 12x cards.
Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50%
faster.

That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

Greg

| That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
| what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

That's only half the picture.


--
Dave

Bill's right,

Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards & suit
the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

Regards

DM

"Bill" wrote in message ...
John A. Stovall wrote:

Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
-1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.

It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing.

Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
between the two in practical use.

Buy whatever you prefer.

| "Bill" wrote in message ...

That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

| It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
| really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

| Greg


Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk CF card and the
Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP and the System
Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using the two different
rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91 CF Card Reader
done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon branded CF card but is
actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

BTW: WinME had better performance than Win2K which was slightly better than WinXP SP1.

--
Dave

In article ,
DM wrote:
Bill's right,

Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards & suit
the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

Wasn't the Sandisk the one which had some destructive
interactions with certain older card readers reported here in the last
month? That *might* be sufficient reason to skip that one unless you
are *sure* that it will *never* be read in an older reader.

I'm currently running a pair of 1GB Lexar 80x cards, and am
quite happy with them. (I may move to some 4GB ones later, to handle a
higher percentage of RAW images.)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
news:7IoWd.40826$uc.35335@trnddc01...

| "Bill" wrote in message
...

That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which
is
what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

| It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
| really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

| Greg


Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk
CF card and the
Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP
and the System
Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using
the two different
rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91
CF Card Reader
done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon
branded CF card but is
actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-6133

Greg

DoN,

Saw the thread but stayed out of the 'debate' as quite frankly I've never
had any problem with the cards despite using them in numerous readers
(though I had to admit my heart was in my mouth at the recent 'Focus On
Imaging' exhibition when the Epson Rep simply unplugged his card reader from
the MAC with the my card still inside!)

Regards

DM

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DM wrote:
Bill's right,

Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards &
suit
the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

Wasn't the Sandisk the one which had some destructive
interactions with certain older card readers reported here in the last
month? That *might* be sufficient reason to skip that one unless you
are *sure* that it will *never* be read in an older reader.

I'm currently running a pair of 1GB Lexar 80x cards, and am
quite happy with them. (I may move to some 4GB ones later, to handle a
higher percentage of RAW images.)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---