# SanDisk Extreme PRO 160 mb/s vs SanDisk Extreme 120 mb/s CompactFlash?



## gshocked (Feb 8, 2014)

Hi all,

I need to buy some more compact flash cards and noticed that Sandisk have updated their range?
Is it worth me buying spending more on SanDisk Extreme PRO 160 mb/s or just stick with SanDisk Extreme 120 mb/s CompactFlash? 

Their site claims that the mb/s is only refers to read speed. In regards to my gear I'm shooting with a 5dmk3.

Whats people's opinion?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 8, 2014)

This may be useful - though it doesn't have the very latest cards:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/camera_wb_multi_page7de5.html?cid=6007-12452

For what it's worth I use a Lexar 32GB 1000x in my 1DX and am very impressed with it. I get around 50 RAW files at 10fps before it slows, the other card is a Transcend 400x and it gives about 30 files before slowing. This is not a fair comparison as the 1DX writes much faster and I think you would get good performance from a quality (Sandisk/Lexar) card with a slightly lower rating.


----------



## pwp (Feb 9, 2014)

If you shoot RAW and tend to shoot "continuous" then the fastest card you can get your hands on will deliver good value for you, especially on a 5D3 with it's slower-to-clear buffer. The difference in my 1D4 with a Lexar 32Gb 1000x vs a Sandisk Extreme 32 Gb 60 Mb/s is palpable. The value lies in how fast the buffer clears just as johnf3f has explained. The value will also be apparent shooting video. 

However if "continuous" shooting is not part of your technique, save your money, the slower cards (40-60 Mb/s) are perfectly fine.

-pw


----------



## gshocked (Feb 9, 2014)

pwp said:


> If you shoot RAW and tend to shoot "continuous" then the fastest card you can get your hands on will deliver good value for you, especially on a 5D3 with it's slower-to-clear buffer. The difference in my 1D4 with a Lexar 32Gb 1000x vs a Sandisk Extreme 32 Gb 60 Mb/s is palpable. The value lies in how fast the buffer clears just as johnf3f has explained. The value will also be apparent shooting video.
> 
> However if "continuous" shooting is not part of your technique, save your money, the slower cards (40-60 Mb/s) are perfectly fine.
> 
> -pw



I have changed my shooting style so that I'm not machine gunning when I shoot.

Has any one got these memory cards? They are fairly new...


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2014)

take a look over at magic lantern and there's some posts in the forums comparing video speeds....

In general, as the other posters have stated, your style of shooting needs to either have high framerate for stills shooting, or you're shooting video - not normal, using something like ML.

If you don't tend to do either, save your money


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm using the 32GB 160mb/s cards with my 5DIII and noticed a HUGE improvement over my UDMA 6 cards. I get over 20 shots before the buffer fills instead of about 15. I'm not a machine gunner, but when the action starts happening in front of me I press the shutter button with reckless abandon.

If you are using top end cameras with top end lenses.... don't skimp on cards. Get the fastest cards you can and you will not regret it. Why people try to save a few dollars on cards and filters is beyond me. What is a hundred dollars on a CF card when you are pairing it with a $5K+ body and lens combo?

Another plus, when you upgrade to the next generation of camera bodies, your CF cards will likely be able to keep up. Spend the $$ now and don't look back.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2014)

Perhaps because if you need a whole bunch of cards, then whether you spend 50 bucks or 150 bucks does make a difference . And there's no guarantee that you will be able to use your cards in future as different standards come out and manufacturers switch to them....

If you indeed like to rattle off the frames, then the fastest you can afford indeed makes sense....


----------



## gshocked (Feb 9, 2014)

Stu_bert said:


> Perhaps because if you need a whole bunch of cards, then whether you spend 50 bucks or 150 bucks does make a difference . And there's no guarantee that you will be able to use your cards in future as different standards come out and manufacturers switch to them....
> 
> If you indeed like to rattle off the frames, then the fastest you can afford indeed makes sense....



This is where I'm thinking lies. I can get a 32gb 160mb/s card for around $200 AUD and a 32gb 120mb/s for $120 AUD. I could get it off eBay but I'm worried about getting a fake....

I rarely shoot sport but it something I want to get into. I shoot more events and weddings.

I'd love to hear from someone who has both the 160mb/s and 120mb/s versions...


----------



## Northstar (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps because if you need a whole bunch of cards, then whether you spend 50 bucks or 150 bucks does make a difference . And there's no guarantee that you will be able to use your cards in future as different standards come out and manufacturers switch to them....
> ...



I just switched from the SD extreme pro 16gb (90 mb/s - the write speed was 45mp/s) to the new Lexar 1000x 16gb (2 pack for $99 at bhphoto) 

I noticed a difference in transfer speed as the Lexar reads at 150 mp/s versus 90mb/s...so it's noticeably quicker when moving files to the computer. 

But with my 1Dx, I often shoot 8-12 frame bursts and I notice no difference in write speed between 45mp/s to my new lexar's 90 mb/s. 

So I doubt the extra speed will be noticeable for you if I don't notice a change from 45 to 90 mp/s...(and considering the SD you're looking at is 60 mb/s) 

if i get some time i'll do a test (on my 5d3) and see what the difference is between my old sandisk and new lexar when shooting continuous raw at 12 fps.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Northstar said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



The change in write speed does not show up as a faster shooting rate on DSLRs. What it DOES show up as is a deeper frame buffer. The Canon 7D, for example, originally had a 15 shot frame buffer. When I moved up to 600x CF cards, my frame rate was still 8fps, however I started getting 23-24 frames in my buffer before it slowed down. After the firmware update, were Canon officially increased the frame buffer to 25 frames, I started getting 34 frames with my 600x cards.

The benefit of cards with faster write speed is longer continuous shooting times before you get reduced rate. You also clear out the buffer faster, so once you do fill up, if you wait for it to empty, it empties quicker.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 15, 2014)

I don't care about read speeds... sure it is helpful, but I'm reasonably patient. Write speeds I do care about. I used to spray and pray... and when I upgraded from a class 4 SD card to a class 10, the change in speed was noticeable. 

Presently I shoot around 5 to 6 shots at one time. I time my shots up with the action and then I throw in a little spraying and praying. 

I haven't tried to see at what point my mkiii + my lexar 800x will slow down... but I am curious. And I want to know if I shoot 30 raw shots in a row with that combo... then will I get 50 in a row with the mkiii and the 1000x? Having said that... I don't even come close to 30... so it is a non-factor.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...



Hi,

I just checked Sandisk's website and looked at the specs of the two cards I'm comparing.
The Extreme Pro 160 mb/s has a write rate of 150 mb/s and read of 160 mb/s. 
The Extreme (or Extreme plus - some stickered/marketed) 120 mb/s has a write rate of 60 mb/s and read of 120 mb/s. 
Does this ultimately mean I can shoot more and faster on the Extreme Pro compared the the Extreme (plus)?
Or am I confusing myself? 
E.g. I shot a tennis game the other day, in particular a person serving, on a 5d3 and it felt like I didn't get as many shots due to slow down...? Am I missing something or is that the speed of the card I'm using (which was the extreme pro 160 mb/s) or just the FPS one the 5d3?


----------



## RGF (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


Key question is how fast can the 5DM3 write to the card. I have not test these 2 cards, but with the older extreme and extreme pro cards (both 32GB) I did not a difference. On the 1Dx, perhaps there will be a difference

Also you are correct to avoid eBay - I got burnt with fake cards years ago and now never go near them


----------



## Northstar (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



well, if you have the new 160 mb/s card then you've got the best, so the 5d3 "is what it is". It should shoot at 6fps for a long time with that particular card before filling the buffer....so if you feel like it's not fast enough or you're having an issue, then double check your settings and owners manual because it might be some other issue.

there are plenty of youtube videos showing what it sounds like to shoot the 5d3 at 6 fps....check one out and compare it to yours.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The change in write speed does not show up as a faster shooting rate on DSLRs. What it DOES show up as is a deeper frame buffer. The Canon 7D, for example, originally had a 15 shot frame buffer. When I moved up to 600x CF cards, my frame rate was still 8fps, however I started getting 23-24 frames in my buffer before it slowed down. After the firmware update, were Canon officially increased the frame buffer to 25 frames, I started getting 34 frames with my 600x cards.
> ...



The faster write speed means you can shoot continuous for longer. I mean, think about the facts:

1. You start shooting continuously, and the images are written to the frame buffer. 
2. The camera starts dumping the frame buffer to the memory card.
3. You continue shooting continuously.
4. The camera keeps dumping the frame buffer to the memory card.
5. You eventually fill the frame buffer.
6. Camera reduces frame rate to allow buffer to empty some more before returning rate to full speed.

Let's also assume the frame buffer can hold 10 frames. 

Now, between 1 and 5, if you have 60mb/s, lets say you can dump five frames per second to the memory card. That means in one second you can shoot 15 frames at maximum speed. Now, if you double the write speed of the memory card, you can dump 10 frames per second to the memory card. In one second, you can now shoot 20 frames at maximum speed.

You can't shoot any faster, though. Frame rate is a fixed trait of any camera with a mechanical shutter and/or mirror. The shutter, mirror flap up and flap down, and readout are all part of the total "frame time". You may be able to improve readout rate by a few microseconds with firmware updates, but you can never change the mechanical behavior of mechanical components. Total time per frame is fixed, if it is 6fps it will always be 6fps, if it is 10fps it will always be 10fps. The speed of the memory card doesn't have anything to do with that.

But since the frame rate is fixed, the rate at which data is fed into the frame buffer is also fixed. That means if you increase the rate at which the frame buffer is emptied, then you can continue feeding information into it for a longer period of time. Faster memory cards than the speed rating the camera was originally designed and tested at allow you to shoot at maximum speed for longer.

The 7D was originally tested with the fastest CF cards at the time of it's introduction to support 15 continuous frames. With UDMA7 cards and faster write rates, the 7D without any firmware update is able to achieve 23-24 continuous frames. The 7D with 2.x firmware improved how the frame buffer was handled (maybe some kind of compression), which increased how much it could hold, and also increased the rate at which data blocks (compressed data blocks?) could be read out and written to memory. So, the same hardware, new firmware, with the type of CF card the 7D was originally tested with could now achieve 25 continuous frames. Further, use a UDMA 7 CF card, and you are able to achieve 34 continuous frames.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 16, 2014)

Northstar said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




Awesome advice! Cheers!


----------



## gshocked (Feb 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Thanks for the break down!

I guess shooting raw is another factor...


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 18, 2014)

gshocked said:


> I need to buy some more compact flash cards and noticed that Sandisk have updated their range?
> Is it worth me buying spending more on SanDisk Extreme PRO 160 mb/s or just stick with SanDisk Extreme 120 mb/s CompactFlash?



In addition to the burst rates folks have talked about, if anyone owns the 90Mbps, 120Mbps, and 160Mbps Extreme Pro CF cards from SanDisk and the Lexar USB3 CF/SD reader, I would be very interested in rough comparative download times to transfer data to a computer. I have the Lexar reader, which I think is almost necessary if you want to put a large SD card in a Canon camera these days; the Lexar reader seems to perform pretty well on modern CF and SD cards, though I can no longer point to exact numbers because Rob Galbraith can no longer afford to maintain his CF/SD/XQD performance database.

Unlike others here, I do not have enough patience to wait for 200+Gb to download directly from the camera card by card, especially if some of the cards are SD cards. 

I suspect that the 90Mbps Extreme Pro cards are being phased out, and the current BHPhotoVideo sale on those is a clearance deal. Just my hunch, but I think it noteworthy that Amazon has not come close to matching the price.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 18, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > I need to buy some more compact flash cards and noticed that Sandisk have updated their range?
> ...



I just started using the lexar 1000x 150 mbs and that same card reader you mentioned....it's much faster than my 90mbs Sdisk cf card when using USB 3.0. I don't have specific times to quote you but I would guess that compared to USB 2.0 and my 90mbs card, it's roughly triple the speed. Also, when using my new mbook pro with SSD, it's even faster.

Edit....
I just found this after a google search....it shows transfer speeds using USB 2, 3, FireWire, and thunderbolt. I didn't know USB 2 maxed out at 35mbs? No wonder my new MacBook Pro SSD USB 3.0 loads so much faster than my USB 2.0 iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 19, 2014)

Northstar said:


> I just started using the lexar 1000x 150 mbs and that same card reader you mentioned....it's much faster than my 90mbs Sdisk cf card when using USB 3.0. I don't have specific times to quote you but I would guess that compared to USB 2.0 and my 90mbs card, it's roughly triple the speed. Also, when using my new mbook pro with SSD, it's even faster.



I can vouch for the Lexar cards as well, since I own a couple of the 1000x. At least those are in Rob Galbraith's database. They top out close to 100MBps on the Lexar reader (Mega = 1,000,000x Bytes, not milli = x/1000 bits; I forgot CF data transfer is measured in Bytes not bits). His tests of the SanDisk Extreme Pro's of that time were about 12% slower, but that was the 90MBps generation of the CF card. The gap in burst rates on the 5Diii and 7D was a bit larger, advantage again to the Lexar. Just wish the later generations of the SanDisk cards (120MBps Extreme, 160MBps Extreme Pro) were in the database, though I wouldn't expect a significant performance improvement since there's a difference between the theoretical Bps transfer rate and that actually experienced using typical image files. Heck, I think the theoretical max for UDMA 7 cards is 167MBps--so how could anyone actually deliver 160MBps under realistic conditions?

Lexar appears ready to produce 3333x speed CFast CompactFlash cards with a theoretical 500MBps transfer rate, which might yield a more respectable improvement in practical transfer rates when all is said and done. This and XQD cards represent changes to new technologies which are not backward compatible nor compatible with each other, so we'll have to wait for another generation of cameras to take advantage of either (unless you have a Nikon D4). It will be interesting to watch which upgrade path the camera manufacturers follow.



Northstar said:


> http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html


Thanks for sharing that. It reinforces in my mind the unrealistic image sold to the public on theoretical transfer rates, when an upgrade from USB2 to USB3 yields a 5x practical speedup, instead of the theoretical 10x speedup. _That_ is 50% slower, which is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 19, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > I need to buy some more compact flash cards and noticed that Sandisk have updated their range?
> ...



Hi,

It looks like the 90Mb/s Extreme pro are getting replaced by the 160mb/s.
Also the 60mb/s extreme are getting replaced by the 120mb/s. Although some in Australia sell both these cards and the "Newer 120mb/s" extreme are being marketed as extreme plus.

In regards to the lexar USB3.0 card reader and using a Sandisk 160mb/s card. I have a 16gig 160mb/s card and using it with this ready is very very fast! I currently use Lightroom, however, I find that it transfer/copy all my images first then convert it to DNG when already in Lightroom. 

You can also copy from both cards without reasonable slow down when using bridge or windows explorer.
If you have usb 3.0 and fast memory cards its a must buy!


----------



## Northstar (Feb 19, 2014)

> Thanks for sharing that. It reinforces in my mind the unrealistic image sold to the public on theoretical transfer rates, when an upgrade from USB2 to USB3 yields a 5x practical speedup, instead of the theoretical 10x speedup. _That_ is 50% slower, which is nothing to sneeze at.




Yes...unrealistic, I agree.

Also, the same perception is being marketed by the card makers when you consider that most photographers are still probably using usb2.0, which means their 160mbs card is only transferring at 40 mbs!


----------



## gshocked (Feb 19, 2014)

Northstar said:


> > Thanks for sharing that. It reinforces in my mind the unrealistic image sold to the public on theoretical transfer rates, when an upgrade from USB2 to USB3 yields a 5x practical speedup, instead of the theoretical 10x speedup. _That_ is 50% slower, which is nothing to sneeze at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1

The other speed difference I only noticed yesterday day is when I was images to my work laptop compared to my home one. Both are USB 3.0 but one has a SSD vs 5200rpm drive. I was transferring over a full 16GB card and the difference was quite noticeable.


----------



## jrista (Feb 19, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html
> ...



It's still early for USB 3.0. It takes time for manufacturers to eek out the best performance out of a protocol. You also have to understand that the 5gbit/s throughput rate is the RAW throughput rate, agnostic of any specific use case. EVERY use case has a certain amount of overhead. That overhead, such as framing and control headers and communications-specific control packets and whatnot, require some of those bits. If a certain device uses a chatty communications mechanism, then that overhead becomes more costly, as every communications packet sent across a USB3 channel includes that overhead. There are also error correction bits to ensure that communications is stable and reliable, etc.

Unless you are simply streaming raw bits, no overhead, no error correction, nothing...then and only then could you actually achieve the maximum throughput rate. Even those older USB 2.0 devices, which would have been about as refined as USB 2.0 devices can get, only achieved ~40MB/s. That is 66% of the theoretical maximum 60MB/s that USB 2.0 offers. To complain that early USB 3.0 devices are getting "only" 50% is missing the fact that they really aren't all that far off the mark from USB 2.0 throughput...a mere 16% off, to be exact. 

When you throw in overhead and error correction with smaller block sizes (and even for a 10GB data test, the average block size on hard drives is still quite tiny, 4k at most!), you have to deal with the overhead and error correction for each and every transfer. In some respects, overhead can be reduced, especially when a new standard is involved. SSD is newer than older hard drives. Even though I have some older hard drives with high density platters that can achieve 180mb/s burst rates, there is more overhead involved when reading and writing to an older platter drive with standard algorithms. SSD has less overhead, so while a slower SSD (earlier models, where latency, while better than platter drives, was still not nearly as good as it is today) in general offers similar burst rates, they eek out a higher maximum because of less overhead.

Finally, a standard approach to transferring data across any communications channel, in order to minimize error rate, is to purposely avoid 100% saturation. Due to the possibility of error correction, which can reduce throughput as it delays certain data packets, if you try to send data (including overhead and error checking codes) at 100% of the channel's theoretical maximum, you can end up flooding the channel, which forces application code to back off, which can cause dramatic drops in throughput, which actually has the effect of reducing average throughput overall for the duration of the transfer. 

I would expect USB 3 data transfer rates to reach somewhere between 60-70% for "user or app level data", plus another 10-20% for overhead, plus maybe a 10% buffer level to avoid saturating the channel to 100% and allow for error correction.

In the long run, once manufacturers have fully optimized their USB 3.0 products, I wouldn't expect it to achieve any better than USB 2.0 does...an average 66% app-level data throughput rate.


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's still early for USB 3.0. It takes time for manufacturers to eek out the best performance out of a protocol. ...


Thanks for taking the time for this thoughtful post. I'm still new to a lot of the telecom material, so I appreciated your analysis. It's helping to have conversations now and again which get me thinking deeper about the stuff.


----------



## jrista (Feb 21, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's still early for USB 3.0. It takes time for manufacturers to eek out the best performance out of a protocol. ...
> ...



Welcome. I do have to say, when I first learned about the various forms of network overhead as a kid, I was rather bummed, and for a while I was on a crusade to create a different network protocol that didn't have as much.  Then...I found UDP.  Then...I found out why no one really uses UDP.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

Has anyone compared the new 1066x cards vs. the 1000x cards? 

It might be an incremental increase in read speed, but the write speeds are going from 90-100MB/s to 150MB/s. That's a huge leap, but I wonder if the 1DX/5DIII can take advantage of it or if the buffer depth remains the same or close to the Lexar 1000x cards. I'm shooting sports next week and plan to buy a 64-128GB card but don't know if the new cards are worth it.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Has anyone compared the new 1066x cards vs. the 1000x cards?
> 
> It might be an incremental increase in read speed, but the write speeds are going from 90-100MB/s to 150MB/s. That's a huge leap, but I wonder if the 1DX/5DIII can take advantage of it or if the buffer depth remains the same or close to the Lexar 1000x cards. I'm shooting sports next week and plan to buy a 64-128GB card but don't know if the new cards are worth it.



Can we rent cards... and would we want to?


----------



## jrista (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone compared the new 1066x cards vs. the 1000x cards?
> ...



All things being equal, storage is still the cheapest thing. Even if you spend $350 on a nice, big, super fast memory card, that is still a small fraction of the price of a 5D III or 1D X or 1D C. If your buying that kind of equipment, you might as well buy the right kind of storage to take full advantage of it.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Can we rent cards... and would we want to?


Yes you can: http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/accessories/memory/compact-flash - but it doesn't take long to add up to the price to buy one.



jrista said:


> All things being equal, storage is still the cheapest thing. Even if you spend $350 on a nice, big, super fast memory card, that is still a small fraction of the price of a 5D III or 1D X or 1D C. If your buying that kind of equipment, you might as well buy the right kind of storage to take full advantage of it.


Yes, memory is CHEAP compared to the other gear and REALLY CHEAP compared to film and processing, but it's not free. 

My quandary is whether to go with a slower 128GB card or buy a newer, faster 64GB card. If they both perform the same in my 5DIII, the 128GB card is the obvious answer.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Can we rent cards... and would we want to?
> ...



B and h is having their ask us anything on Facebook day. I asked what is the fastest card I can get before the bottleneck is the mkiii and not the card... they haven't responded.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


Thanks for asking them - but I think they're too smart to respond.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 27, 2014)

they answered with a non answer


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

> Unfortunately there is not a definitive way to state it. The problem being that manufacturers do not commonly post the buffer rate or the write-to rates of their cameras, they more or less advise which category of cards or specific cards are optimal for the cameras performance based on their testing. Using a faster card (than what you are currently) will not cause any aspect of the camera’s performance to increase; the only benefit from a faster card would be if you have a high speed reader and wanted to transfer the data quickly off card to the computer. - Yossi



Yep, that really answers it - thanks for asking them, though


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> > Unfortunately there is not a definitive way to state it. The problem being that manufacturers do not commonly post the buffer rate or the write-to rates of their cameras, they more or less advise which category of cards or specific cards are optimal for the cameras performance based on their testing. Using a faster card (than what you are currently) will not cause any aspect of the camera’s performance to increase; the only benefit from a faster card would be if you have a high speed reader and wanted to transfer the data quickly off card to the computer. - Yossi
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that really answers it - thanks for asking them, though



I didn't do it just for you; I really want to know as well. When I shot jpg on my 60D and I had a class 4 sd card... I would cap out at around 8 shots... then I got a sandisk class 10 and the thing never stopped... It was awesome. Then I started to shoot raw + jpg and back down to 6-8... 

Now that I'm living the mkiii lifestyle, I don't hold down the shutter the way I used to... but I want to know that if I want to do that... then my card will allow me to do so.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > > Unfortunately there is not a definitive way to state it. The problem being that manufacturers do not commonly post the buffer rate or the write-to rates of their cameras, they more or less advise which category of cards or specific cards are optimal for the cameras performance based on their testing. Using a faster card (than what you are currently) will not cause any aspect of the camera’s performance to increase; the only benefit from a faster card would be if you have a high speed reader and wanted to transfer the data quickly off card to the computer. - Yossi
> ...


I'll let you know next week - I'm bought the new Sandisk Extreme PRO. If it's as much improvement as the previous 1000x Lexar cards, I'll be very happy:
http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/compactflash/extremepro-160mbs/?capacity=64GB


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> My quandary is whether to go with a slower 128GB card or buy a newer, faster 64GB card. If they both perform the same in my 5DIII, the 128GB card is the obvious answer.


But is that really true? I've wondered about the catastrophic failure rate versus card size. If you lost a big card while on a trip, you could lose thousands of images. Smaller cards, no one failure loses very many images. Could be a tradeoff curve if the catastrophic failure rate is sufficiently high, but I don't know much about how often that happens.

Oh gosh, and now I've probably left you wondering what's behind door number three. Oh... Monty, Monty, Monty!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > My quandary is whether to go with a slower 128GB card or buy a newer, faster 64GB card. If they both perform the same in my 5DIII, the 128GB card is the obvious answer.
> ...


I know - but for me, I've only ever had an issue with one SD card, while I have frequently run out of space on a card in the middle of a shoot. Also, there's no reason you can't download from the card and leave the images on the card for a while if you don't need the whole space for a while...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> scottburgess said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The wife washed and dried a 32 GB SD card a few hundred times and it stopped working... so as long as she doesn't do that again it should be the only card that ever failed on me.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > scottburgess said:
> ...


I think I've done that one, too, but it was my own dumb fault. It's why I like the Sandisk Extreme series, though, as the circuit boards are coated in silicon amongst other things. I'm anxious to try out the new card to see the burst depth. I remember when I stuck the Lexar 1000x in my 7D and 5DIII, the buffer depth was huge, especially in the 7D. I'm hoping for to top the 1000x, which I think is around 16-17 deep for RAW. I'm not a spray and pray guy, but I'm shooting a completely new sport (horse jumping and such) and the Blue Angels in the next few weeks and will probably need all the help I can get to capture the peak moment


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I think I've done that one, too, but it was my own dumb fault. It's why I like the Sandisk Extreme series, though, as the circuit boards are coated in silicon amongst other things. I'm anxious to try out the new card to see the burst depth. I remember when I stuck the Lexar 1000x in my 7D and 5DIII, the buffer depth was huge, especially in the 7D. I'm hoping for to top the 1000x, which I think is around 16-17 deep for RAW. I'm not a spray and pray guy, but I'm shooting a completely new sport (horse jumping and such) and the Blue Angels in the next few weeks and will probably need all the help I can get to capture the peak moment



I feel the same way. When I shoot a sport I feel comfortable with and have a sense where the action is headed... I wait and time the shot... but if I'm not sure.... like volleyball soccer or diving... there I am snapping away like every shot is important.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2014)

It came in over the weekend and shipped out on Saturday, so I'll have it this evening. I'll post the results later - will probably do a lens capped ISO 100 1/8000s @f/1.2 comparison and then a real-world shot. I won't do some crazy test, but I'll compare the following 3 cards in my 5DII, 5DIII (shots to buffer full), and Lexar USB 3.0 card reader (download speed according to Win8.1):

1. Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro (SDCFXP-032G-X46) UDMA6? (they changed this during production to UDMA7, need to see which one I have) - 90MB/s read/write rated
2. Lexar 32GB 1000x (LCF32GCTBNA1) UDMA7 - 150MB/s read / 95MB/s write rated
3. Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro 1067x (SDCFXPS-064G-X46) UDMA7 160MB/s read / 150MB/s write rated

If the new card (#3) doesn't give me a noticeable boost (at least 3 more shots in before buffer fill) it's going back and I'll get a couple of 1000x 128GB cards that are now on sale...

P.S. it's a shame I don't have a 1DX to really do this test justice...


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2014)

Burst depth results:

5DII - all 3 cards stopped at 15 frames, began buffering (no UDMA7 optimization, so no surprise)

5DIII (fully-charged batteries in a battery grip (oops, it's not a Nikon!) and freshly formatted CF cards - ISO 100, 1/8000s @f/1.2 with the lens cap on:

1. Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro (SDCFXP-032G-X46) *UDMA6 *- 90MB/s read/write rated
*25 frames until buffer full*
2. Lexar 32GB 1000x (LCF32GCTBNA1) UDMA7 - 150MB/s read / 95MB/s write rated
*23 frames until buffer full*
3. Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro 1067x (SDCFXPS-064G-X46) UDMA7 160MB/s read / 150MB/s write rated
*35 frames until buffer full*

The old UDMA6 Sandisk really surprised me, beating out the Lexar 1000x card. I guess I had only compared them in the 7D and in it, the Lexar was much faster. I'm really impressed with the new card it really is almost 50% faster - would love to try it in a 1DX - but it will work great for my horse event later this week.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Burst depth results:
> 
> 5DII - all 3 cards stopped at 15 frames, began buffering (no UDMA7 optimization, so no surprise)
> 
> ...



I really am happy to know this information. I was concerned that if I upgrade to the 1000x card (I have a lexar 800x at the moment) that even though the write speed is twice as fast that I wouldn't see a bump up in performance because the camera was bottlenecking the performance. 

So this way... I know I can definitely upgrade to the 150 mb/s write and it will be worth it... kinda.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Burst depth results:
> ...


I just tested my older Sandisk card that's rated for 60MB/s and got 19 frames, so I'd think you would get somewhere around 20-22 frames with the 800x which seems to be rated at 75MB/s write speed (vs. the 1000x's 90MB/s write speed). The 1000x card probably wouldn't get you much, but the 1066x/1067x cards are a huge bump, at least with the 5DIII and 1DX that have full hardware UDMA 7 support.


----------



## philmoz (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 2. Lexar 32GB 1000x (LCF32GCTBNA1) UDMA7 - 150MB/s read / 95MB/s write rated
> *23 frames until buffer full*



Strange, both of the 32GB 1000x Lexar cards I have will do 32 - 33 frames before slowing down on my 5DIII.

(I'm assuming by 'buffer full' you mean when the continuous frame rate drops from 6fps.)

Phil.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 4, 2014)

philmoz said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Lexar 32GB 1000x (LCF32GCTBNA1) UDMA7 - 150MB/s read / 95MB/s write rated
> ...



Same for me.

Lexar 1000x will go to about 30 before slowing down on my 5d3.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

Northstar said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Hmmm, will have to try the test again making sure noise reduction, ALO, and such are off when I do it, but yes, I hold down the shutter on high speed until it slows and count all but the frame. I also noticed that the 1067x card keeps shooting at a higher speed (maybe 3fps vs 1fps) once the buffer is full. Will play a little more and post results.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

I just ran it again three times with all settings turned off and just the body cap on the camera shooting RAW - 23 frames on the 1000x Lexar, 35 frames on the 1067x Sandisk. This is the number of frames on the 5DIII before it begins slowing from the max frame rate. Yes, you can keep shooting at a reduced frame rate and eventually it will slow even further, but I'm measuring (and interested in) the number of shots at full frame rate. 

Also, given these results, I can confirm that aberration correction, vignetting removal, and standard levels of high ISO noise reduction don't impact frame rate.


----------



## philmoz (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I just ran it again three times with all settings turned off and just the body cap on the camera shooting RAW - 23 frames on the 1000x Lexar, 35 frames on the 1067x Sandisk. This is the number of frames on the 5DIII before it begins slowing from the max frame rate. Yes, you can keep shooting at a reduced frame rate and eventually it will slow even further, but I'm measuring (and interested in) the number of shots at full frame rate.



I did a more controlled test this morning.
Settings were, camera in M mode, 1/8000 sec, ISO 100, f/2.8, AF turned off on lens, RAW capture only.
I held the shutter down to capture 78 frame in high speed continuous AF drive mode.

I then extracted the capture time, including the sub second time value, from the EXIF into a spreadsheet.
(Note the camera only captures sub second time accurate to 10ms intervals.)

For frames 2 - 78 I subtracted the capture time of previous frame to measure the shooting speed.

Results:
- frames 2-30 = average capture time 165ms, min time 140ms, max time 170ms - FPS 6.05
- frames 31-78 = average capture time 287ms, min time 200ms, max time 410ms - FPS 4.02

I'm not sure why your Lexar card is slowing down after 23 frames - perhaps a low level format might help.

Phil.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I just ran it again three times with all settings turned off and just the body cap on the camera shooting RAW - 23 frames on the 1000x Lexar, 35 frames on the 1067x Sandisk. This is the number of frames on the 5DIII before it begins slowing from the max frame rate. Yes, you can keep shooting at a reduced frame rate and eventually it will slow even further, but I'm measuring (and interested in) the number of shots at full frame rate.
> 
> Also, given these results, I can confirm that aberration correction, vignetting removal, and standard levels of high ISO noise reduction don't impact frame rate.



mack..I didn't leave the body cap on, I shot at a a fixed subject - large RAW - I'll also try it again and check back. do you have image quality set at "10"


interesting...

edit...I wonder if this is the reason for the diff....from Adorama website:

Lexar Pro 1000x 16GB UDMA 7 CF Specifications
Capacity	16GB
Read Speed	1000x (150MB/s)
Write Speed	Max 966x (145MB/s)
Compatibility	UDMA CF and CF devices

this would mean that there are two different lexar 1000x cards, both at 150 read, but with 95 and 145 write.

http://www.adorama.com/ILXPCF1K16.html


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

Northstar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just ran it again three times with all settings turned off and just the body cap on the camera shooting RAW - 23 frames on the 1000x Lexar, 35 frames on the 1067x Sandisk. This is the number of frames on the 5DIII before it begins slowing from the max frame rate. Yes, you can keep shooting at a reduced frame rate and eventually it will slow even further, but I'm measuring (and interested in) the number of shots at full frame rate.
> ...


Yes, that would certainly explain it! I bought my 1000x card in November 2012, and it's the old 95MB/s one.


----------



## philmoz (Mar 4, 2014)

Northstar said:


> this would mean that there are two different lexar 1000x cards, both at 150 read, but with 95 and 145 write.



AFAIK the 16GB card was rated at 95MB/s max write speed; but the 32GB and above were rated at 145MB/s max write speed.

Perhaps there were some slower 32GB cards released.

Phil.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 4, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > this would mean that there are two different lexar 1000x cards, both at 150 read, but with 95 and 145 write.
> ...



yes...but the link i posted is for a 16gb lexar 1000x with 150/145? 

to add to the confusion, I'm pretty sure my lexar 1000x 16gb is 150/95 (from BH photo)

with that said, i'm still pretty sure it shoots at 30ish fps before slowing. 

(after rereading what i wrote earlier i realize that the question about RAW image quality setting was N/A)


----------



## Northstar (Mar 4, 2014)

mack...by the way, i've heard "he who dares wins" about a million times in the past few years...do you know what I mean by that or did you just like that quote?


----------



## philmoz (Mar 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Another factor that may affect the result is average RAW file size.
For the test I ran this morning the RAW files were all roughly 21.8MB (the lens cap was only so they are all just dark images).

If you're files are significantly larger then you would probably fill the buffer sooner.
I've seen RAW files up to 36MB, so the number of frames before the buffer fills could vary quite a lot.

Phil.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 5, 2014)

mack...i think something is wrong with your card or 5d3 settings if you're only getting 23 shots before slowing. i did this simple test a couple weeks ago and posted results comparing the lexar 1000x and sandisk 90mbs with 45 write speed....both went to about 30 shots before slowing on my 5d3.

i wanted to point out to people with a 5d3 that my upgrade didn't make any speed difference in write times....or read if using USB 2.

check it out.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19648.msg372042#new


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 5, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > this would mean that there are two different lexar 1000x cards, both at 150 read, but with 95 and 145 write.
> ...


I checked my order and here's the Lexar 32GB 1000x card I purchased from B&H and it says 95MB/s write speed - so I guess they made 2 different ones: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/841566-REG/Lexar_LCF32GCTBNA1000_32GB_CompactFlash_Memory_Card.html



Northstar said:


> mack...by the way, i've heard "he who dares wins" about a million times in the past few years...do you know what I mean by that or did you just like that quote?


This is the motto of the British Special Air Services (SAS), their special forces / Navy Seals, and when I was a kid, I spent a few years in England and learned about the phrase. I always thought it was really cool, so I've made it my personal motto as well.



Northstar said:


> mack...i think something is wrong with your card or 5d3 settings if you're only getting 23 shots before slowing. i did this simple test a couple weeks ago and posted results comparing the lexar 1000x and sandisk 90mbs with 45 write speed....both went to about 30 shots before slowing on my 5d3.
> 
> i wanted to point out to people with a 5d3 that my upgrade didn't make any speed difference in write times....or read if using USB 2.
> 
> ...


I read your thread and the interesting thing is that my Sandisk 32gb card (which looks just like your 16GB card is rated for 90MB/s read AND write speed, not 60MB/s.

Also, so we're all on the same page, my test was done like this:

*Camera settings*
-5DIII with battery grip - 2 fully charged batteries (grip doesn't matter)
-Freshly in-camera formatted CF cards
-ISO 100, 1/8000s, body cap (so f/0, manual focus)
-ALO, High ISO NR, vignette removal, CA correction OFF
-RAW
-High Speed Drive

*Test*
-Depress shutter fully until the camera slows
-Wait for buffer write to finish
-Press image review - look at # of images, subtracting the extra frame that indicated the buffer was full

*Results*
-Sandisk 60MB/s write: 19 frames
-Lexar 95BM/s write: 23 frames
-Sandisk 90MB/s write: 25 frames
-Sandisk 150MB/s write: 35 frames

I realize that the body cap photos are all black and real photos will be larger and slow the camera more, but I think that this is the only way to have a 100% reproducible test.

Unfortunately, I think all we've really accomplished is confuse everyone


----------



## Rob Carter (Mar 5, 2014)

Are people testing write speeds with single or dual cards in place. 

It’s always been my understanding that when writing to dual cards using a 5D111 the speed was governed by the SD card. Putting in faster SD cards made no improvement. But this limitation does not apply to the 1Dx. 

Can anybody confirm this?

Rob


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 5, 2014)

Rob Carter said:


> Are people testing write speeds with single or dual cards in place.
> 
> It’s always been my understanding that when writing to dual cards using a 5D111 the speed was governed by the SD card. Putting in faster SD cards made no improvement. But this limitation does not apply to the 1Dx.
> 
> ...



The way I read it... they are only putting one card into the body... a cf card.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 5, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Rob Carter said:
> 
> 
> > Are people testing write speeds with single or dual cards in place.
> ...


Actually my tests were done with an SD card in the second slot. As long as you're only recording to the CF card, the SD card has no effect. If you record to both cards, you're limited to the speed of the SD card.

From my tests, it looks like the SD card slot is true SDHC/SDXC Class 10 30MB/s (even though later cards like the UHS-I can be used, the extra speed isn't supported by the hardware). I ran my Sandisk Extreme Pro 30MB/s and 80MB/s (write speed) cards and got 14 frames from both.

The 30MB/s card stays in my 5DIII as a back up in case I run over on my CF card. The 80MB/s goes back into my EOS-M where the hardware supports UHS-I cards 

I also use the SD card slot on trips to back up the CF card - the in-camera copy function is slow but works well.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


Just to rub salt in my own wounds...I just came across the box my Lexar 1000x card came in and it says "Rev C." and 145MB/s write speed. Now I'm just utterly confused - how could the Sandisk 150MB/s card be that much faster???


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> -Sandisk 60MB/s write: 19 frames
> -Lexar 95BM/s write: 23 frames
> -Sandisk 90MB/s write: 25 frames
> -Sandisk 150MB/s write: 35 frames


Just to rub salt in my own wounds...I just came across the box my Lexar 1000x card came in and it says "Rev C." and 145MB/s write speed. Now I'm just utterly confused - how could the Sandisk 150MB/s card be that much faster???
[/quote]

Moral of the story... sandisk under promises and over delivers... Lexar over promises and under delivers.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > -Sandisk 60MB/s write: 19 frames
> ...





> Moral of the story... sandisk under promises and over delivers... Lexar over promises and under delivers.


[/quote]

+1. This is exactly what I experienced with the basic tests I performed.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 18, 2014)

Northstar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I just ran it again three times with all settings turned off and just the body cap on the camera shooting RAW - 23 frames on the 1000x Lexar, 35 frames on the 1067x Sandisk. This is the number of frames on the 5DIII before it begins slowing from the max frame rate. Yes, you can keep shooting at a reduced frame rate and eventually it will slow even further, but I'm measuring (and interested in) the number of shots at full frame rate.
> ...



I started a thread about the Lexars as when I bought the ones I currently use they were advertised as write 145 MB/s write but if you look at them online now they say the 1000X is now only 95MB/s write, and if you want the 145 or 150MB/s write you need to buy the newer 1066X.

This only happened quite recently, so I wonder whether people that bought the 1000Xs some time ago have got 145MB/s write cards but those that bought them much more recently only have 95MB/s.

I just ordered a new 64GB card and nearly bought the 1000X, it was only when I noticed the 1066X that I noticed the difference, so I went for the latter.

It is very misleading by Lexar, because I - and many others here and elsewhere - have recommended the 1000X, but that was when they were 145MB/s write.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 18, 2014)

I find the whole process of buying a card these days to be annoying. The model numbers keep changing but the names stay the same, and high read speeds are great for photojournalists, but pretty inconsequential for most other people where the difference between 3 minutes and 5 minutes won't kill you. Write speeds are important and Lexar's new policy of just adding an asterisk and saying "write speeds lower" is terrible. And then we have their 800x cards that sound great (just look at those prices!) until you realize the write speed is terrible and nowhere near the read speed. Sandisk seems to do a better job of being less deceptive in their marketing, but they're starting to follow Lexar's model on some of their models, too. I've got a 1DX on the way and will post results from that test once I receive it, but I expect it will be pretty similar.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I find the whole process of buying a card these days to be annoying. The model numbers keep changing but the names stay the same, and high read speeds are great for photojournalists, but pretty inconsequential for most other people where the difference between 3 minutes and 5 minutes won't kill you. Write speeds are important and Lexar's new policy of just adding an asterisk and saying "write speeds lower" is terrible. And then we have their 800x cards that sound great (just look at those prices!) until you realize the write speed is terrible and nowhere near the read speed. Sandisk seems to do a better job of being less deceptive in their marketing, but they're starting to follow Lexar's model on some of their models, too. I've got a 1DX on the way and will post results from that test once I receive it, but I expect it will be pretty similar.



Not too long ago I was looking at cards and the places I was looking didn't bother to differentiate between write and read speeds. Fast forward two or three years and I do see write v read speeds. I don't mind looking at the description as long as the information is accurate. 

And for the record... I'm willing to take any of these lexar cards of your hands because I'm still rocking an 8gb 800x with that 120mb readrate and that 45mb/s write rate.

Ahms for the poor... is it ahms... I can't make out what they say in the movies.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ...
> Ahms for the poor... is it ahms... I can't make out what they say in the movies.



It's alms, basically things given in charity (money, food, etc.).


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> And for the record... I'm willing to take any of these lexar cards of your hands because I'm still rocking an 8gb 800x with that 120mb readrate and that 45mb/s write rate.


I just have one Lexar and it's going into the 5DIII once the 1DX arrives, but I have an old Sandisk 128*MB* card that I paid *way *too much for in 2000 if you'd be interested in that one - not to mention a drawer full of SD and MMC cards along with a Sony MemoryStick. I might still have the 4MB CF card that came with my first digital camera as well


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I've got a 1DX on the way and will post results from that test once I receive it, but I expect it will be pretty similar.



The Lexar was a clear winner when it had the 1000X (145MB/s) but now it is the 1066 which is what came after SanDisk upgraded their stuff. So really it depends on the card you have.

I have three 32GB 1000X Lexars (from when it was 145MB/s) and my new 64GB 1066X card has arrived but I won't be testing it until next week and when I do I will have forgotten all about testing it as I will be so busy trying to not miss a shot.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 18, 2014)

If I remember correct, I tested my Lexar 1000x on my 1dx using RAW..etc. and it went somewhere in 40's before slowing. (the 5d3 averaged about 29 with the same card)


----------



## philmoz (Mar 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > philmoz said:
> ...



I wonder if there's any correlation with this report that some Lexar cards don't work with the Nikon D4s.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/18/nikon-d4s-and-lexar-400x-or-1000x-memory-card-problems

Might be worth checking your serial number.

Phil.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 18, 2014)

Interesting Phil, thanks.

Not that I have a Nikon but decided to check my serial numbers as described in that DP article only to discover that my cards (Rev B) do not have a serial number on the sides!

I wonder what causes the issue, you do not expect CF cards to differ so greatly within the same brand and model range.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record... I'm willing to take any of these lexar cards of your hands because I'm still rocking an 8gb 800x with that 120mb readrate and that 45mb/s write rate.
> ...



It is so funny about cards, they become worthless so quickly. I have a few 16gb uhs 1/class 10 New sd cards and I can't sell them. I wind up having to give them away when I sell a body.

I'm not sure where my really old cards are... but I'm glad mmc and the Fuji xd cards are done. I hated the lack of there being a standard format.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Interesting Phil, thanks.
> 
> Not that I have a Nikon but decided to check my serial numbers as described in that DP article only to discover that my cards (Rev B) do not have a serial number on the sides!
> 
> I wonder what causes the issue, you do not expect CF cards to differ so greatly within the same brand and model range.


Thanks for the tip as well, Phil, and it looks like my card was manufactured later and is not one of the affected cards.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

*Update - 1D X results*:

-Lexar 95 145MB/s (according to the package) write: 51 frames
-Sandisk 90MB/s write: 52 frames
-Sandisk 150MB/s write: 57 frames

This is interesting and shows that the buffer size or the interface in the 1DX is different than the 5DIII, but all of the results are excellent given that the Sandisk 1067x card is delivering a burst depth of 35 RAW frames in the 5DIII (vs. the rated 18) and 57 RAW frames in the 1D X (vs. the rated 38). RAW+JPEG to the two Sandisk cards topped out at 15 frames, FYI.

Bottom line - the fastest Sandisk cards rock the 5DIII, while the older Sandisk cards are a great deal for the 1D X. Lexar doesn't quite ive up to their specs, at least in these two Canons.

Also, on a personal note, the 1D X may only be 2x faster on paper, but the thing _sounds _about 20x faster than the 5DIII. I can't wait to shoot with it...


----------



## RGF (Mar 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> *Update - 1D X results*:
> 
> -Lexar 95 145MB/s (according to the package) write: 51 frames
> -Sandisk 90MB/s write: 52 frames
> ...



Interesting but how did you measure 51 or 57 frames?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 26, 2014)

RGF said:


> Interesting but how did you measure 51 or 57 frames?



Several pages back, I outlined how I did the testing (see below) - the 1D X test was done the same way (RAW files @12FPS, not JPEG @14FPS) - and while they are all black frames, it's a good way to be consistent. In real world shooting, I found that the buffer fills up faster as the frames are larger, as you'd expect from real photos...



mackguyver said:


> *Camera settings*
> -5DIII with battery grip - 2 fully charged batteries (grip doesn't matter)
> -Freshly in-camera formatted CF cards
> -ISO 100, 1/8000s, body cap (so f/0, manual focus)
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 16, 2014)

*Update on 1D X test* - I received my Lexar 64GB 1066x card today:

-Lexar 32GB 145MB/s (according to the package) write: 51 frames
-Sandisk 32GB 90MB/s write: 52 frames
*-Lexar 64GB "1066x - 160MB/s write": 53 frames*
-Sandisk 64GB "1067x - 160MB/s write": 57 frames


----------

