CF card question

mercphoto

Got a question about this particular 8G compact flash card in relation to the Canon 7D. In particular I think the Canon says that maximum burst at RAW requires a certain type of CF card. I think it was "UDMA compliant" but I might be wrong about that. Regardless, I'm planning for the future. Is the card below one that the 7D could take full advantage of? Because if not I'll buy a different card.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11064990&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&eCat=BC|79|2109&N=4001367&Mo=3&No=2&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=2246&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

rtronick

Hi Bill,

I don't think the Ultra II is UDMA compliant. The 7D will also accept UDMA6, which is the fastest card available, and VERY EXPENSIVE!

Here's a link to a SanDisk Extreme 8GB UDMA CF at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-Extreme-memory-card-SDCFX-008G-A61/dp/B002N694A6/ref=pd_cp_e_0

Hope this helps.

Randy T

ziggy53

Hey Bill, Randy's giving good advice. Canon cameras do seem to do well with Sandisk cards and the current Sandisk Extreme (60MB/s and UDMA, not the original), Extreme III and IV, Extreme Pro and Extreme Ducati (if you find them) should work fine.

Makeroftoys

mercphoto wrote:

**snip**
I think it was "UDMA compliant" but I might be wrong about that. Regardless, I'm planning for the future. Is the card below one that the 7D could take full advantage of? Because if not I'll buy a different card.
**snip**

my 5DII wants UDMA cards for max performance, so I would assume that the 7D would also.

the Ultra II is an old technology card. I'm happy enough with the several that I bought when they were the hot item, but the one you linked to will not give you the write speed you need to use the 7D to its utmost. (the ultra IIs only manage 9-10MB/sec write speed, while the 7D makes 16-17MB RAW files; I'm not liking the math. in any case, the 'Ultra II' cards are most definitively _NOT_ UDMA compliant.)

CF cards that _are_ UDMA compliant will say so right on the card (note the bottom right) while the rest will not:
CF mugshot.JPG

ziggy53

Makeroftoys wrote:

my 5DII wants UDMA cards for max performance, so I would assume that the 7D would also.

the Ultra II is an old technology card. I'm happy enough with the several that I bought when they were the hot item, but the one you linked to will not give you the write speed you need to use the 7D to its utmost. (the ultra IIs only manage 9-10MB/sec write speed, while the 7D makes 16-17MB RAW files; I'm not liking the math. in any case, the 'Ultra II' cards are most definitively _NOT_ UDMA compliant.)

CF cards that _are_ UDMA compliant will say so right on the card (note the bottom right) while the rest will not:
CF mugshot.JPG

According to Sandisk, the newer Extreme III cards (30MB/s) "are" UDMA:

http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/262

I believe that was independently confirmed too, but I cannot find the link. Still, you are correct that the Sandisk cards marked as "UDMA" and purchased from a reputable supplier should indeed support UDMA transfers.

mercphoto

Thanks all, now I know what to look for to make sure my new cards will work in my next camera.

mercphoto

mercphoto wrote:

Thanks all, now I know what to look for to make sure my new cards will work in my next camera.

Wow. I looked at the price of 8G UDMA cards versus normal 8G cards... I think I'll be buying the "normal slow" 30MB/s non-UDMA card at CostCo. I don't have a 7D yet. And when and if I ever get one I'll get cards then. They should be cheaper by then anyway!

Scott_Quier

According to your profile, you currently have a 20D. If that is correct, just about any card you can find will be faster than the camera.

The cards available at CostCo are more than sufficient for your camera. Anything more would be like putting high-test gasoline into the family car - it can be done and it won't hurt the car, but it's a wasteful expense as the car won't run any faster or better on the high-test than it would on regular.

Now, when and if you get the 7D .... that's the time to get the UDMA cards. Depending on how long that wait is, you will probably realize either a real cost savings or a much better bang-for-the-buck ratio.

Airedrifter

A sorta scientific test...
I was at my local photo shop, shout out to Moe at Ace Photo, and he had a fairly decent price on the Lexar Prof. 300x UDMA 16GB and I got one. I got home and ran this test on my 7D; 10 second bursts, at the wall, hand held. Using the Lexar 16gb 300x UDMA compared to the Lexar 16gb Platinum II 80x.

I ran 5 tests each and there wasn't a lot of difference in either when shooting single output raw or jpg. (average about 50 shots in the 10 seconds. Highest was 53. Lowest 48.) When taking simultaneous large jpg and large raw, the UDMA did 35 the 80x did 17.

Other odd thing was the lack of difference when comparing file size. Shooting small jpg wasn't significantly faster than large raw. Go figure...

FWIW

Ric Grupe

Airedrifter wrote:

Other odd thing was the lack of difference when comparing file size. Shooting small jpg wasn't significantly faster than large raw. Go figure...

FWIW

Since you were shooting at a wall there was very little data required. Try the same test on something with features.

GadgetRick

Ric Grupe wrote:

Since you were shooting at a wall there was very little data required. Try the same test on something with features.

Huh? Unless you're talking compressed files (i.e. JPEG) this isn't true. An uncompressed file will take up the same amount of space (assuming the same physical parameters of the shot are the same) regardless of what's in the photo.

mercphoto

GadgetRick wrote:

Huh? Unless you're talking compressed files (i.e. JPEG) this isn't true. An uncompressed file will take up the same amount of space (assuming the same physical parameters of the shot are the same) regardless of what's in the photo.

I think most RAWs actually are compressed somewhat (but in a lossless manner of course).

ziggy53

GadgetRick wrote:

Huh? Unless you're talking compressed files (i.e. JPEG) this isn't true. An uncompressed file will take up the same amount of space (assuming the same physical parameters of the shot are the same) regardless of what's in the photo.

Canon uses a "lossless" compression scheme for RAW files. If you experiment with different scenes, a plain, featureless wall versus a detail rich landscape, for instance, the plain wall RAW file will be considerably smaller.

Edit: ... and Bill can type faster than I can type.

GadgetRick

ziggy53 wrote:

Canon uses a "lossless" compression scheme for RAW files. If you experiment with different scenes, a plain, featureless wall versus a detail rich landscape, for instance, the plain wall RAW file will be considerably smaller.

Edit: ... and Bill can type faster than I can type.

Thanks merc and Ziggy, just learned something today. Had no idea there was any compression going on with RAW files.

Ric Grupe

GadgetRick wrote:

Huh? Unless you're talking compressed files (i.e. JPEG) this isn't true. An uncompressed file will take up the same amount of space (assuming the same physical parameters of the shot are the same) regardless of what's in the photo.

All I have to do is look at my shots and file sizes to know you are incorrect.

A bird against a blue sky is a smaller RAW file size that a bird in a leafy tree.