Usb 3.0

insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
edited May 2, 2011 in Accessories
I approve! :thumb
Some of you can wait for thunderbolt :rolleyes, but USB 3.0 is here, and now.
Just got a Delkin Universal USB 3.0 card reader. It is blazing fast!
«1

Comments

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited April 26, 2011
    The fastest UDMA cards that I know of are currently rated at 45MB/sec transfer speed. This is well below the transfer rate of both USB 3 and Thunderbolt, but is above the actual performance of USB 2. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your camera is not designed with UDMA in mind, you may actually see slower recording rates than with a 133x card.

    But, yes, I'm looking forward to USB 3 on my next computer. Or Thunderbolt, for that matter. thumb.gif
    My Pics
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    The fastest UDMA cards that I know of are currently rated at 45MB/sec transfer speed. This is well below the transfer rate of both USB 3 and Thunderbolt, but is above the actual performance of USB 2. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your camera is not designed with UDMA in mind, you may actually see slower recording rates than with a 133x card.

    But, yes, I'm looking forward to USB 3 on my next computer. Or Thunderbolt, for that matter. thumb.gif


    Wah...

    The one I am holding in my hands is 60MB/s (at least that's what sandisk says.) I think they're over 100MB/s now.
    I dunno what's the camera write speeds have to do with USB 3. But, FWIW, I use a D700 and I am pretty sure it utilizes UDMA.
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    I approve! thumb.gif
    Some of you can wait for thunderbolt rolleyes1.gif, but USB 3.0 is here, and now.
    Just got a Delkin Universal USB 3.0 card reader. It is blazing fast!

    Thunderbolt is here, you just need to buy a whole new computer! :D
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited April 26, 2011
    My point was only that both USB 3 and Thunderbolt are so much faster than today's cards, that regarding upload speeds there's no difference between the two--the limit is set by the card, not the interface. Camera write speeds depend on the camera's electronics and if the camera is not UDMA compliant, then you will get slower burst speeds if you use a UDMA card.
    My Pics
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    My point was only that both USB 3 and Thunderbolt are so much faster than today's cards, that regarding upload speeds there's no difference between the two--the limit is set by the card, not the interface.

    I concur, but I am sure my tech friends are going to brag that they have Thunderbolt.


    Richard wrote: »
    Camera write speeds depend on the camera's electronics and if the camera is not UDMA compliant, then you will get slower burst speeds if you use a UDMA card.

    I don't think you lose burst rate, but that camera may not clear the camera's buffer as fast.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited April 26, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    I don't think you lose burst rate, but that camera may not clear the camera's buffer as fast.
    Yes, that's correct; I stated it badly. When the buffer is full, you may have to wait longer to take another shot.
    My Pics
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2011
    DavidTO wrote: »
    Thunderbolt is here, you just need to buy a whole new computer! :D


    Where are the card readers then? mwink.gif
  • TheCheeseheadTheCheesehead Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    My point was only that both USB 3 and Thunderbolt are so much faster than today's cards, that regarding upload speeds there's no difference between the two--the limit is set by the card, not the interface. Camera write speeds depend on the camera's electronics and if the camera is not UDMA compliant, then you will get slower burst speeds if you use a UDMA card.

    Where can I find this info? I was wondering if my 5D is UDMA compliant, it does seem to take awhile to clear the buffer. Thanks.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited April 26, 2011
    TheCheesehead wrote: »
    Where can I find this info? I was wondering if my 5D is UDMA compliant, it does seem to take awhile to clear the buffer. Thanks.

    No, I do not believe that the original Canon 5D has the ability to use UDMA. The 5D MKII shows write speeds of around 3 times that of the original 5D.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited April 27, 2011
    TheCheesehead wrote: »
    Where can I find this info? I was wondering if my 5D is UDMA compliant, it does seem to take awhile to clear the buffer. Thanks.
    If it isn't stated explicitly in the manufacturer specs, then I think it's safe to assume that the answer is no.
    My Pics
  • TheCheeseheadTheCheesehead Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2011
    Thanks guys, so then I'm better off buying a non-UDMA card, because it will write from the buffer to the card faster? Not overly concerned about speed from card reader into Lightroom.
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited April 27, 2011
    You may be better off only if your camera is not UDMA compliant. But remember that your next body probably will be and cards live forever.
    My Pics
  • TheCheeseheadTheCheesehead Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2011
    Richard wrote: »
    You may be better off only if your camera is not UDMA compliant. But remember that your next body probably will be and cards live forever.

    Good point, as this is my third body in a year. Is it normal to not be satisfied with what you have? Went from a Rebel XSi, to 1D2N, to the 5D.
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 27, 2011
    TheCheesehead wrote: »
    Good point, as this is my third body in a year. Is it normal to not be satisfied with what you have? Went from a Rebel XSi, to 1D2N, to the 5D.

    Yes, if you use Canon. rolleyes1.gif
  • TheCheeseheadTheCheesehead Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    Yes, if you use Canon. rolleyes1.gif

    Ha ha, touché
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2011
    http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar%C2%AE-professional-600x-compactflash%C2%AE-cf-card?category=77



    90MB/sec has been around awhile now. I've owned the 16GB version for almost a year now and I get 45MB/sec write in a 5D Mark II. Plugged into the computer, I've used an Expresscard 32 CF card reader paired with it and I get 70-90MB/sec read and write depending on the types of files that are being transferred (I.E. big ones or lots of small ones)


    No, I didn't pay that absurd $220 price tag rolleyes1.gif


    By the way - mechanical hard drives can't write much faster than 60MB/sec now for an average disk anyway. I use a 2.5" SATA laptop drive inside of a pocket sized $10 e-sata HDD enclosure (eSATA has been around since 2004) and I get 60MB read/write on the thing, and 120-140MB read/write with an external RAID enclosure I use for backups. Mechanical drives aren't even close to saturating the bandwidth of their interfaces that are years old. Solid state can, but, that's not ideal for storage. In reality and in terms of mechanical disk usage, USB3 is nothing special - other than the line carries power and data in the same port.

    I'm a geek and I've actually never even heard of Thunderbolt, lol. What is it?
    www.overfocused.com
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2011
    Overfocused wrote: »
    http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar%C2%AE-professional-600x-compactflash%C2%AE-cf-card?category=77



    90MB/sec has been around awhile now. I've owned the 16GB version for almost a year now and I get 45MB/sec write in a 5D Mark II. Plugged into the computer, I've used an Expresscard 32 CF card reader paired with it and I get 70-90MB/sec read and write depending on the types of files that are being transferred (I.E. big ones or lots of small ones)


    No, I didn't pay that absurd $220 price tag rolleyes1.gif


    By the way - mechanical hard drives can't write much faster than 60MB/sec now for an average disk anyway. I use a 2.5" SATA laptop drive inside of a pocket sized $10 e-sata HDD enclosure (eSATA has been around since 2004) and I get 60MB read/write on the thing, and 120-140MB read/write with an external RAID enclosure I use for backups. Mechanical drives aren't even close to saturating the bandwidth of their interfaces that are years old. Solid state can, but, that's not ideal for storage. In reality and in terms of mechanical disk usage, USB3 is nothing special - other than the line carries power and data in the same port.

    I'm a geek and I've actually never even heard of Thunderbolt, lol. What is it?


    Expect anyone with a decent knowledge would buy a mechanical hard drive that can sustain 60MB/s +/- 15 MB/s. However, you consider seek times, it may be faster to just start editing your images on the card itself, then importing them. If you have a a much faster card then your drive.

    I might even try that, myself!
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited April 28, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    Expect anyone with a decent knowledge would buy a mechanical hard drive that can sustain 60MB/s +/- 15 MB/s. However, you consider seek times, it may be faster to just start editing your images on the card itself, then importing them. If you have a a much faster card then your drive.

    I might even try that, myself!

    I cannot recommend editing files on the original card under any normal circumstance. The risk of loss is just too great for anything important or significant.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    I cannot recommend editing files on the original card under any normal circumstance. The risk of loss is just too great for anything important or significant.
    +1 15524779-Ti.gifdeal.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited April 28, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    I cannot recommend editing files on the original card under any normal circumstance. The risk of loss is just too great for anything important or significant.


    HAha, Ziggy, you sound like I am about to do that on someones wedding photos. I am not THAT careless! Silly Ziggy!
  • NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited April 29, 2011
    Thanks for the headsup re UDMA compatibility. I use a Sandisk 8GB UDMA card, along with non-UDMA Sandisk cards, and I did remark how it seemed to often show the "busy" message, which the others did not, which was counter expectation. Having just checked I now know that UDMA cards are not compatible wth the 40D.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 29, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    Expect anyone with a decent knowledge would buy a mechanical hard drive that can sustain 60MB/s +/- 15 MB/s. However, you consider seek times, it may be faster to just start editing your images on the card itself, then importing them. If you have a a much faster card then your drive.

    I might even try that, myself!


    My point was that bandwidth of the interfaces we use are much faster than any drive can sustain, including CF cards. Also, what I meant was that 60MB/sec is pretty much a standard at a consumer level, so anyone that buys even the cheapest new SATA drive could expect those speeds even if they knew nothing about it. Not sure how seek times would be an issue at all with files that are 10,20,30 MB each on a drive dedicated to media storage/usage, and only opened once into memory, unless the drive was seriously whack with fragments. I currently have my whole photo archive stored on my OS drive, and edit from it too, and it is very fast. It's also a RAID that becomes fragmented more quickly than a single drive, but it doesn't really have any issues. I'd edit from an external if the external were faster, but it's not!
    www.overfocused.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited April 30, 2011
    I've just got a USB 3.0 WD Passport, and a PC laptop that comes with USB 3.0...

    So far, I'm probably being limited by the hard drive that is INSIDE the WD passport, (it didn't say but it was $59 for 750 GB, so I'm assuming it's 5400 RPM :-(

    Even so, I'm getting a max of 60 MB/sec transfer rate, and a long-term sustained rate of 30-40 MB / sec. MUCH better than USB 2.0's real-world statistics, that's for sure. (Forget the theoretical transfer rates of ANY connection, they're never even CLOSE to true in real-world applications relating to photography...)

    Next, I'm definitely hoping to buy a USB 3.0 reader. As a wedding photographer, I do indeed have to prioritize transfer speed. ;-)

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 30, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    I've just got a USB 3.0 WD Passport, and a PC laptop that comes with USB 3.0...

    So far, I'm probably being limited by the hard drive that is INSIDE the WD passport, (it didn't say but it was $59 for 750 GB, so I'm assuming it's 5400 RPM :-(

    Even so, I'm getting a max of 60 MB/sec transfer rate, and a long-term sustained rate of 30-40 MB / sec. MUCH better than USB 2.0's real-world statistics, that's for sure. (Forget the theoretical transfer rates of ANY connection, they're never even CLOSE to true in real-world applications relating to photography...)

    Next, I'm definitely hoping to buy a USB 3.0 reader. As a wedding photographer, I do indeed have to prioritize transfer speed. ;-)

    =Matt=

    Since you're a speed junkie you should try an external RAID box. They're oh so lovely mwink.gif Yes, I'm enabling you, fellow speed junkie.
    www.overfocused.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2011
    Overfocused wrote: »
    Since you're a speed junkie you should try an external RAID box. They're oh so lovely mwink.gif Yes, I'm enabling you, fellow speed junkie.
    I assume you mean RAID 0? Do they make any with USB 3.0 yet? And yes, I am a speed junkie. I LOVE me some RAID. (And, of course, I HATE the Drobo... ;-)

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    I assume you mean RAID 0? Do they make any with USB 3.0 yet? And yes, I am a speed junkie. I LOVE me some RAID. (And, of course, I HATE the Drobo... ;-)

    =Matt=

    Yes, RAID 0. Not sure about the USB 3 raid boxes yet, but e-SATA is more than enough for any mechanical drives. I get 90-120 constant and 120-150 burst speeds on a 2-drive e-SATA raid. It's fantastic for system backups and photo archives. Drobo is garbage. lol. Lacie makes some nice simple systems that work extremely well and have great cooling.


    *edit* Did a 10 second google search. First thing that pops up:

    http://www.amazon.com/INeo-2TB-I-NA309D-Pro-ST31000528AS/dp/B003V0ZKWY


    Either interface will max out the HDD's so it's all a happy-go-lucky experience :D
    www.overfocused.com
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2011
    well, I just timed how long it took for the card reader to transfer 5.4GBs.

    Can anyone, guess how long it took?
























    1.49 minutes.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2011
    1.49 minutes or 1:49? lol :D
    www.overfocused.com
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2011
    Overfocused wrote: »
    1.49 minutes or 1:49? lol :D

    Sorry, I have been out all day, not use to the sun here. I meant 1:49.
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited May 2, 2011
    49.5 MB/second

    Much nicer than USB 2 at ~28 :D
    www.overfocused.com
Sign In or Register to comment.