Scott209
Newbie
Hello,
Does anyone have experience with different speed SD cards in the R-D1?
I'm currently using a Lexar Professional 1GB 133x cards with excellent results.
However, I am considering buying another 1GB or 2GB card.
Does this camera take advantage of advanced card features to maximize data transfer? For example, is my Lexar Professional 1GB 133x card any faster in this camera than the less expensive 40x Platinum SD or 60x Platinum II SD card? The same question could be asked of Sandisk Ultra II versus Sandisk Extreme III SD cards.
As has been previously discussed, this camera has a small buffer and there would be some advantage to using a faster SD card. However, why use an extremly fast and more expensive card if the camera's data transfer rate is the limiting factor?
I wonder about this since SD card technology has progressed significantly since the introduction of the R-D1. If there is no advantage to the newer faster cards in the R-D1, we could all save a bit of money by using the older cheaper cards!
Thanks for your help!
Scott
P.S. for those of you who also use compact flash in other digital cameras, there is a wonderfully informative review by card and camera at Rob Galbraith's website:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
Does anyone have experience with different speed SD cards in the R-D1?
I'm currently using a Lexar Professional 1GB 133x cards with excellent results.
However, I am considering buying another 1GB or 2GB card.
Does this camera take advantage of advanced card features to maximize data transfer? For example, is my Lexar Professional 1GB 133x card any faster in this camera than the less expensive 40x Platinum SD or 60x Platinum II SD card? The same question could be asked of Sandisk Ultra II versus Sandisk Extreme III SD cards.
As has been previously discussed, this camera has a small buffer and there would be some advantage to using a faster SD card. However, why use an extremly fast and more expensive card if the camera's data transfer rate is the limiting factor?
I wonder about this since SD card technology has progressed significantly since the introduction of the R-D1. If there is no advantage to the newer faster cards in the R-D1, we could all save a bit of money by using the older cheaper cards!
Thanks for your help!
Scott
P.S. for those of you who also use compact flash in other digital cameras, there is a wonderfully informative review by card and camera at Rob Galbraith's website:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I had heard that tranfer rates concerned transfer-to-computer, not written-from-the-camera . . .anyone else know for sure?
saxshooter
Well-known
I think if you put a standard blue Sandisk 1Gb card into the camera you may notice a speed difference in camera to card writing. But yes, there comes a point where the camera will not dump data to the card any faster (not sure what that point is) but if you are talking 1gb cards, you will notice a difference in speed of transferring 1gb of data between the "non speed rated" card and the faster ones.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
So far the SanDisk Extreme III is the only card I will consider buying, but I hear Lexar is catching up.
R
RML
Guest
I, too, use the Sandisk Extreme III cards, with excellent results. But I would assume to have similar results from similar "pro" cards from Lexar or Kingston.
Mark Norton
Well-known
Can we have some benchmarks please. I'm using a generic card, shooting raw, 1/2000 second, lens cap on, LED is on for 5.5 seconds. How is it for you?
LCT
ex-newbie
Mark Norton said:... I'm using a generic card, shooting raw, 1/2000 second, lens cap on, LED is on for 5.5 seconds...
Good idea, Mark.
Same result with Sandisk Ultra II (1GB), Sandisk Extreme III (1GB) & Transcend 150x (2GB): 5 seconds.
12 seconds with an old 256MB Leica.
Best,
LCT
Mark Norton
Well-known
My card is a cheap 1Gb generic card, "Viking Interworks" so if a Sandisk Extreme doesn't beat it, it looks likely the camera is the bottleneck, not the card.
LCT
ex-newbie
Mark Norton said:...the camera is the bottleneck...
Quite obvious.
Suffice it to compare with modern DSLRs.
Best,
LCT
Mark Norton
Well-known
Not very impressive compared to a burst of 10 raw shots on a D2X written to SanDisk Extreme III CF in 16 seconds from start to finish.
LCT
ex-newbie
Even a mere D70 is much faster than the R-D1.
Main weakness (with QC...) of that otherwise great camera IMHO.
Best,
LCT
Main weakness (with QC...) of that otherwise great camera IMHO.
Best,
LCT
Donald Mann
Member
Quality!
Quality!
Quality not quantity!
Quality!
Mark Norton said:Not very impressive compared to a burst of 10 raw shots on a D2X written to SanDisk Extreme III CF in 16 seconds from start to finish.
Quality not quantity!
S
Sumo_du_Jour
Guest
This topic pops up on DSLR forums. The camera hardware has a maximum bus throughput speed, adequate for card technology at the time of initial release. That spec is leapfrogged by the current evolution of cards and writing becomes a bottleneck under load.
Haven't seen this spec mentioned for the RD1. It could be similar to the throughput speed of a Nikon model of the same release era (is it already a couple of years ago?).
Haven't seen this spec mentioned for the RD1. It could be similar to the throughput speed of a Nikon model of the same release era (is it already a couple of years ago?).
williamhu99
Newbie
Yes, the speed of card is usually measured with PC and under Win2000 platform. So the data 133x or 150x speed is measured under PC+Win2000. And it is for READ speed, not WRITE speed.Benjamin Marks said:I had heard that tranfer rates concerned transfer-to-computer, not written-from-the-camera . . .anyone else know for sure?
The performance of storing picture from camera to the card is limited by 2 factors:
1. Camera processing power.
2. Memory card WRITE speed.
For a very fast camera, the performance will be limited by the card.
For a normal case camera, I believe mostly will be limited by the camera.
Scott209
Newbie
Bump...
I started this thread some time ago and would like to thank everyone for their input. Also, I would like to share some recently discovered information to help provide a more definitive answer to my original question. Here is a link to a website where the actual speeds of various SD cards were tested on the R-D1.
Hope this is of some use to others.
http://www.neilduffin.co.uk/articles/digital_photography/rd1_card_speeds.html
Scott
I started this thread some time ago and would like to thank everyone for their input. Also, I would like to share some recently discovered information to help provide a more definitive answer to my original question. Here is a link to a website where the actual speeds of various SD cards were tested on the R-D1.
Hope this is of some use to others.
http://www.neilduffin.co.uk/articles/digital_photography/rd1_card_speeds.html
Scott
pfogle
Well-known
In real world use, I notice I don't have to wait for the buffer since the upgrade. Does anyone know, is this because the buffer is bigger, or is the throughput faster?Scott209 said:Bump...
I started this thread some time ago and would like to thank everyone for their input. Also, I would like to share some recently discovered information to help provide a more definitive answer to my original question. Here is a link to a website where the actual speeds of various SD cards were tested on the R-D1.
Hope this is of some use to others.
http://www.neilduffin.co.uk/articles/digital_photography/rd1_card_speeds.html
Scott
williamhu99
Newbie
The firmware upgrade can not change the buffer size. Buffer size is hardware. I think it is due to the throughput faster to reduce the saving time.pfogle said:In real world use, I notice I don't have to wait for the buffer since the upgrade. Does anyone know, is this because the buffer is bigger, or is the throughput faster?
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.