# CF CARD speed question. Am ignorant.



## sanj (Jul 4, 2014)

Hi friends. 
I am going to Tanzania for 3 weeks in August and will shoot with 1Dc and 5D3. I recently bought 128gb cards for video on 1dc. 
My confusion/question: Will the 128 gb cards be slower than the 32 gb 1000x cards? If I use the 128 GB cards with the 1dc will it slow it down? Read/write/buffer speed on the 1dc is more important to me than size of card. I am anticipating using the 12fps of the 1dc quite a bit and do not want the card to be a bottle neck.

If the 128 gb card will indeed be slower, then I will just carry the 32 gb 1000x cards.

Thanks for your time, and I will not be shooting video. 

Sanjay


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 4, 2014)

The size of a card is not directly related to its speed, its the memory and controller inside.

The Camera is usually the limiting factor as far as speed of writes.

Right now, Sandisk is limited to 100 MB/sec.

The 1000X is 150 MB/sec, and the 1066X is 160 MB/sec. Even the 256MB card is the same speed.

http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar-professional-1066x-compactflash-card

Its not a bad idea to carry cards of different makes and technologies. Sometimes there are batch related failures, and two or three cards from the same batch or cards with internal components from the same batch might fail. I carry Sandisk and Lexar.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 4, 2014)

Rob Galbraith's site is a good place to answer this question - http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pagee519.html?cid=6007

[Looking again, it seems the site wasn't updated for >2yrs, so maybe it ain't that good.]


----------



## sanj (Jul 5, 2014)

Thanks so much for the replies. 
So do I conclude that the 1dc will work equally fast with the 128gb card? Thx


----------



## dolina (Jul 5, 2014)

When in doubt buy this.


----------



## sanj (Jul 6, 2014)

Dolna. I wish! In any case i have too many CF cards currently.

I think I will make a test soon and report.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2014)

sanj said:


> Dolna. I wish! In any case i have too many CF cards currently.
> 
> I think I will make a test soon and report.


 
Testing CF cards is not a simple matter, you need to control any variables carefully. For example, each card should be erased before testing, since data already on a card can have a big effect. You should also repeat the test multiple times just to make sure the result is consistent. Its a slow and time consuming process.
The results are camera model specific as well, a card that is fastest on a 60D might be slowest on a 1D X, and will almost certainly write at a different speed.


----------



## dolina (Jul 6, 2014)

The tests done by ML users are the best ones you could hope to find.

sanj I selling all my old CF cards and are bought larger & faster new ones to replace em. Such a headache to keep track of em.

Cards by Lexar or Sandisk are preferred while the other ones are kinda oK.


----------



## wopbv4 (Jul 7, 2014)

you mention that your main concern is shooting at 12fps.
Think about the following, A RAW file is appro. 20-25 MB, so at 12 fps, you need to be able to to have a write speed of let's say 12*20=240 MB/s. The current cards do not have write speeds that can keep up with this.

So, what will happen is that the internal buffer will fill up and then things will start to slow down.
As far as I know , the 1DC and 1DX have a 1 GB buffer, so that is ~ 40- 50 RAW files, which means four seconds continuous shooting at 12 fps.


I use the 12fps a lot on my 1DX for BIF, and sofar I have never shot a sequence of more then 20- 30 photos in one go.
If I do, I notice a short delay of two , three seconds for the buffer to write to CF cards (Lexar 32Gb, 1066).

In short, the card write speed is such that it will not be able to keep up shooting 12 fps in RAW format.
What it will do, is influence the time it takes to write from the buffer to the card.


I am more worried about cards that fail. I have bought many lexar and sandisk cards all of them 16GB or 32 GB and I have had failures on both brands. Failure: unable to read/write to card, unable to format, so they end up in the bin.
This is for me the main reason to use many smaller cards instead of going for a few high capacity ones.


----------



## sanj (Jul 7, 2014)

Wopbv please do not trash your bad cards, most of them have life long warranty, just send them back for replacement!

I will later today make a test: I will shoot with the cards individually in my camera and keep the shutter pressed for 10 seconds. If at end of 10 seconds both cards have equal number of shots, my concerns are over. In any case I will pack spare cards. Am taking a laptop and will empty cards as needed.

I will set the camera to manual, ISO 800, 1/1000s. 

Will update.


----------



## dolina (Jul 7, 2014)

My engrish was so bad. must not reply when half a sleep.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 7, 2014)

Hi Dolina. 
Not good for your Engrish, but you just passed your gibberish exam! ;D
Seriously I'd like to speak a second language, and if English is your second language then you do very well, as do many others here! 

Cheers Graham.



dolina said:


> My engrish was so bad. must not reply when half a sleep.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 7, 2014)

sanj said:


> Wopbv please do not trash your bad cards, most of them have life long warranty, just send them back for replacement!
> 
> I will later today make a test: I will shoot with the cards individually in my camera and keep the shutter pressed for 10 seconds. If at end of 10 seconds both cards have equal number of shots, my concerns are over. In any case I will pack spare cards. Am taking a laptop and will empty cards as needed.
> 
> ...



i agree with wopbv regarding bad cards...damaged cards....lost cards...etc. I've had all three happen to me and that's why i strongly prefer multiple smaller cards vs large cards.

north

also...this thread might help you...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19462.75


----------



## sanj (Jul 7, 2014)

I made the test and both cards gave me identical number of photos (75) and slowed down at same time (4.5 secs after starting).


----------



## sanj (Jul 7, 2014)

Nice link North. Thx.


----------



## dolina (Jul 8, 2014)

English is my mother tongue. Both parents saw the economic benefits of making it so. Makes it easier to seek employment, business and study.

Again, I shouldn't type when sleeping.



Valvebounce said:


> Hi Dolina.
> Not good for your Engrish, but you just passed your gibberish exam! ;D
> Seriously I'd like to speak a second language, and if English is your second language then you do very well, as do many others here!
> 
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 8, 2014)

sanj, here are my test results using the following method:

*Camera settings*
-5DIII with battery grip - 2 fully charged batteries (grip doesn't matter) or 1D X
-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

*1D X test results*

-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

*5D III test results*
-Sandisk 60MB/s write: 19 frames
-Lexar 32GB 145MB/s write: 23 frames
-Sandisk 32GB 90MB/s write: 25 frames
-Sandisk 64GB "1067x - 160MB/s write": 35 frames


----------



## sanj (Jul 14, 2014)

Mackguyver our tests yield similar results.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

sanj said:


> Mackguyver our tests yield similar results.


That's good to hear!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: CF CARD speed question.- Low Level Format before testing*



mackguyver said:


> sanj, here are my test results using the following method:
> 
> *Camera settings*
> -5DIII with battery grip - 2 fully charged batteries (grip doesn't matter) or 1D X
> *-Freshly in-camera formatted CF cards*




Thanks for taking the time to test ---




BUT there is a fundamental problem with your test. Formatting cards in camera does nothing but mark the fat table to tell the camera that the memory can be written over, and make it disappear. Thats why card recovery utilities can recover files, no actual formatting of the card was done. Its also why card testing sites do a low level card format before each test.


Depending on the memory controller, it may choose to write over cells with data in them, thus forcing a slow erase, or it may write to empty cells if there are any. Each run will be different.


The results have only a remote relationship to memory speed, but it is related to the contents of the memory card.


Do a low level format or card erase before each test. That will put a card in new condition with no data on it, so it will not have to erase data before writing. Its a slow process, but then, the card tests will be something that is accurate and level the playing field. It can be done in a card reader attached to a computer.


You may, in fact, get the same or similar results, but why not do the test correctly?


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: CF CARD speed question.- Low Level Format before testing*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sanj, here are my test results using the following method:
> ...


That's a good point and my reasoning behind the format of the cards was just to clear all of the free space - realizing that I'm not actually deleting the files, just telling the controller that the space can be overwritten. 

In my experience, low level formats have very little effect on read/write speeds, but once a storage device drops below 20% free space, there is a significant effect on speed, increasing as space runs out. CF cards might work differently, but I think Canon would offer that as an option (like they do with SD cards) if it made much of a difference.

Also, I was really just testing for myself to see if the cards were worth the money - but thank you for the feedback


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

*Re: CF CARD speed question.- Low Level Format before testing*



mackguyver said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...




True, but its a matter of not knowing the actual affect of a used card, or even how much was used.



It is a huge impact in SD cards, not so much for CF cards. That's why Canon has a low level format option for SD cards. They drop write speeds to the range of 5 -20 MBPS. Those that pay for and think they have super fast write speeds with SD cards are often fooled by the hype.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2014)

Interesting fact you point out and I am sure it has value. 

BUT you must consider real life situation in Africa. The exhausted photographer at end of day empties out several cards (while doing other things like charging so many batteries) he may not have energy to low level format cards. Just a quick format and get ready for next day.

Yes, if the difference was more that 5 photos before buffering or more than half second before buffering, I would take the time out to low level format.


----------

