# Lexar CFast 3600x vs 3500x in 1DX Mark II



## 1DX2Uncut (Aug 15, 2016)

Does anyone have any current experience with running Lexar 3600x CFast vs the 3500x in the 1DX Mark II?

I know what the Lexar website says and I've talked to Tech Support. But they couldn't really give me a clear answer on the 3600x in 1DX Mark II. They weren't telling me "no don't do it" - but they had no explanation why there was a differentiation in the product (other than recommended for ARRI). The only performance improvement he could point to, was a possible faster transfer rate IF you where going through a Thunderbolt interface.

Currently B&H has them both at the same price. So why not go for the 3600x?


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 15, 2016)

I have no experience using the 3600x Card, but I am using the Lexar 3500x card in my 1DXII. I am not sure whether you would see any real performance boost, at least for stills, with the 3600x since the 3500x is already really fast (and way faster than the Promo Sandisk Card). Essentially, you can hold down your finger on the trigger and your buffer won't fill up, even in Raw mode (as demonstrated also by Brian at TDP). 
So I think the 3600x makes no sense for stills, and maybe also not for 4K. It might transfer your pictures a little faster on your computer but that would be only seconds. 
So if even Lexar is not sure about the compatibility just take the 3500x. But take at least 64GB, the 32GB card is slower (about the speed of the 64GB Sandisk card).

Sebastian


----------



## 1DX2Uncut (Aug 15, 2016)

I thought I read somewhere, (but can not confirm) that the 3600x Card has more metal in it for heat sink purposes (with the ARRI). When the price is the same... I can see a down side. But I might buy both, and test them.

Interesting confirmation about the SanDisk card speed.


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 15, 2016)

1DX2Uncut said:


> I thought I read somewhere, (but can not confirm) that the 3600x Card has more metal in it for heat sink purposes (with the ARRI).



It seems you are right about the heat sink.


> Basically the 3500X makes use of the same heatsink design as the 3400X (that is to say very capable for a still photography card), but the 3600X uses more metal. This is because the 3600X is expected to be in continues use until full, whereas the 3500 and 3400 series are more intended for burst shooting and then followed by short periods of cool down. This increased cooling is one of the ways in which the 3600X can guarantee better continuous performance.


http://www.realhardwarereviews.com/lexar-pro-3600x-3500x/4/

So apparently the 3500x would be the more general purpose card, e.g. for stills, while the 3600x is optimized for continuous data transfer as in (4K) video:



> The other way in which these two series differ is in the firmware. As we will show you in the testing stage the 3600X’s firmware has been tweaked for increase sequential and large file handling performance. This makes sense as 4K ARRI cameras deal with massive files and only massive files so making this area paramount does make sense. However, the downside to this is the 3500X can actually be faster than the 3600X in certain circumstances – as it is expected to be dealing with a wide variety of file sizes in a more random pattern.



Again, at the end of their article they conclude what Brian and I also found: with these cards you can write unlimited raw files to the card and your buffer never fills up (but I think Brian at TDP used a Trancend card).


----------



## 1DX2Uncut (Aug 16, 2016)

Thanks! I did see some of that article before... but not all of it. Also when it was written, those cards were not priced the same. So with the price consideration being equal... I don't see any evindence that would indicate the 3600x performance would be any better or worse in the 1DX II.

Even shooting 4K in the Canon, would benefit from the "extra beefy heatsink" in the 3600x (IMO). I think when this card originally came out, it was marketed for the ARRI and thus the higher price. But with both the same price at B&H... I guess I'm buying the 3600x and going to find out if there is any down side.

And the article said: "Put another way you will be hard pressed to notice a difference between the 3500 and 3600 series unless you own high performance solid state drives. We do, and we did; but even then both were impressive."

They conclude by saying: "...the 3500X is the more optimal choice" (I think because they were factoring in price - which is old information). But I see no down side to the 3600x in the 1DX II. Maybe I missing something?


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 16, 2016)

dilbert said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Indeed. On the other hand, I doubt you will see much real-world difference between those different CFast cards unless you want to cover a 400m race from start to end in raw...


----------



## LordofTackle (Aug 16, 2016)

1DX2Uncut said:


> They conclude by saying: "...the 3500X is the more optimal choice" (I think because they were factoring in price - which is old information). But I see no down side to the 3600x in the 1DX II. Maybe I missing something?



Not really. They claim the 3500x cards are optimized for stills, the 3600x for video (or highly continuous shooting). However, I somehow doubt you will see the difference in performance in real life....
If they are priced the same, I can see no real downside in taking the 3600x cards. I went for the 3500x mainly because the 3600x cards are more expensive here in germany and also because, like you, I couldn't find any source to tell me whether they work in the 1DXII or not...

Also, since I don't shoot much video, I don't need a 128 or 256 GB card....yet. (3600x is only available in these two sizes)

P.S.: please give us your impressions when you got the 3600x card


----------



## 1DX2Uncut (Aug 16, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Not really. They claim the 3500x cards are optimized for stills, the 3600x for video (or highly continuous shooting). However, I somehow doubt you will see the difference in performance in real life....
> If they are priced the same, I can see no real downside in taking the 3600x cards. I went for the 3500x mainly because the 3600x cards are more expensive here in germany and also because, like you, I couldn't find any source to tell me whether they work in the 1DXII or not...
> 
> Also, since I don't shoot much video, I don't need a 128 or 256 GB card....yet. (3600x is only available in these two sizes)
> ...



I completely agree... just needed to hear someone else's take on it.

128 GB cards (because I anticipate shooting more 4K) are the size I've decided to standardize on.

I will post my impressions after the card arrives. Somewhere, someone said they were using them in the 1DX II with no issues (I think it's in a Review on B&H). And I think you're right, there will be no noticeable difference in performance in real life.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2016)

This is an old thread but I couldn't find any newer and thought I'd give it a try before starting another thread.

Here in Canada I can get a Dekin 128 Cfast (560 read, 495 write) for $331 CAD ($250 USD) and I'm wondering if there would be any downside to this. I believe one 1DX II user has mentioned this card somewhere. I did get the 64 card and reader with the camera but would like longer 4K 60 video capability.

Product Description
The Delkin devices cinema fast 2.0 memory card is a specialized storage medium designed for and tested with leading fast 2.0 cinema cameras & recorders, including Canon, black magic & atomos. Utilizing the latest Flash memory with a SATA III interface, the cinema fast 2.0 memory card delivers fast, reliable video capture at speeds up to 495MB/s. Capture flawless dci 4K video at 60 FPS or full HD at 120 FPS, as well as unlimited jpeg & 170 full-sized raw images at 16 FPS in the Canon eos-1d x mark II. The card also offers transfer speeds reaching an astounding 560MB/s, streamlining your workflow and ensuring the quickest, most efficient data transfer from card to computer. With built-in wear leveling, bad block detection and error Correction, the cinema fast 2.0 memory card is designed to ensure data integrity and trustworthy storage for your valuable files. 

Jack


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 26, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> This is an old thread but I couldn't find any newer and thought I'd give it a try before starting another thread.
> 
> Here in Canada I can get a Dekin 128 Cfast (560 read, 495 write) for $331 CAD ($250 USD) and I'm wondering if there would be any downside to this. I believe one 1DX II user has mentioned this card somewhere. I did get the 64 card and reader with the camera but would like longer 4K 60 video capability.
> 
> ...



Hi Jack,

i believe you meant this thread 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30935.msg628566#msg628566

Personally, I would not use cheap/no-name cards and I always had good experiences with the Lexar Cards (be it SD, CF or CFast). Or to put it in another way: they never failed on me^^
However, that user seems to be pretty happy with the Delkin card and it seems to work well
In the end, it comes down to personal preferences (and, of course, the wallet :-\ )

Sebastian


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 27, 2016)

Thanks Sebastian,

I would go with Lexar too but this would be aimed at video only and not particularly critical stuff so I may chance it. Then again I may not! :-\

I have time to decide so maybe there will be more feedback in the months of winter before we head out in the spring traveling. I'm pretty thrilled with the camera and 400 DO as a pair. I never dreamed a few months back that I would be so spoiled - I have my wife to thank!

Jack


----------

