CompacFlash or Secure Digital - which performs better?

CalfeeRider

A friend just emailed me a link about the new Canon 1D Mk II N on Steve's Digicam (see http://steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dm2n.html). In reading the review, he compared the performance of the CF cards and SD cards and I was quite surprised. He states in part on page 7 in his conclusion that:

"The Mark II N's continuous capture rate essentially equaled that of the Mark II, but the depth of continuous capture of JPEG images was significantly improved. And as with the Mark II, the throughput of SD media exceeded CF media. In high speed continuous shooting mode with CF media I was able to capture 49 JPEG L images in 5.6 seconds, with buffer clearing taking 83 seconds and the full buffer capture rate slowing to 1.1 second intervals; our original test of the Mark II yielded only 33 JPEG L images at full speed. Switching to SD media, the Mark II N captured 67 JPEG L images in 7.5 seconds, with the full buffer capture rate slowing(!!) to 3/10 intervals and buffer clearing taking a remarkably quick 15 seconds!


The Mark II N's capture rate did not slow when shooting RAW images, but its capture depth was reduced. Using CF media, it captured 21 images in 2.4 seconds, with the full buffer capture rate slowing to 1.5 second intervals and buffer clearing taking 64 seconds. Again, the SD media produced better performance, 23 images in 2.6 seconds, with a full buffer capture interval of 8/10 second and buffer clearing taking 18 seconds. Things slowed a bit shooting RAW + JPEG L, the CF media recording 19 images in 2.1 seconds with a full buffer capture interval of 2.2 seconds and buffer clearing taking 76 seconds. SD media again performed better, recording 20 RAW + JPEG L images in 2.2 seconds with a full buffer capture interval of 1.1 second and buffer clearing taking 22 seconds."

I was wondering if anyone here has seen this out in the real world and if maybe SD isn't the better way to go?


Your thoughts?

Thanks,
Jack

pathfinder

I have read also that SD is faster than CF. But I can't find any 4 Gb SD cards, and I really like 4 Gb size cards. I have one 1Gb SD card, but only really use it as a back up for when/if the 4Gb CF in my camera fills up.

galla47

I think pathfinder hit on the biggest problem with SD cards right now... Lack of capactiy. You can simply get larger CF cards, and for the larger sizes they tend to be cheaper than SD equivs.

Personally, I like the SD cards better. I like the "contact" type connector rather than the pins. I'm always afraid of bending a pin. Obviously, that is not based on performance, but rather than design. Additionally, a lot of laptops come with SD slots built in, so it makes downloading pictures even easier.

-KG

CalfeeRider

I agree about the capacity. The largest SD I've found are 2GB, which isn't bad, but doesn't approach the 4 and 8GB of the CD cards. This may really be a moot point anyway unless you shoot large bursts and tend to fill the buffers - which to date I haven't - but, then again I've only had the 1D Mk2 N less than a month. The comparative numbers though are pretty compelling.

In re-reading his review, I also wonder if significant part of the difference isn't simply inherent in the two cards Steve tested ("SanDisk Ultra II 8GB CF and SanDisk Extreme II 1GB SD media were used for the performance testing") The CF he used is an Ultra II and is only rated at 9Mb/sec I believe, where the Extreme III is rated at 20Mb/sec (although he states its an "Extreme II" which I'm pretty sure is a typo).

Jack