$15 Sandisk Ultra II 2GB CF - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

11/23/2007 05:45:10 PM · #26

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Add to that $9.19 for ground shipping, though, and who is Transcend?

Transcend is a respected name brand for flash memory (all but one of my own cards are Transcend). A 133x Transcend card should be slightly faster than an equivalent size SanDisk Ultra II. NewEgg sells a 4GB for $35.99, plus $4.99 for 3-day Fedex, and a 2GB version for $15.99, but they're out of stock on both. :-(

rodneyg

Canon EOS R5

11/23/2007 05:45:52 PM · #27

You can buy them at Staples web site for the advertised price, ~$15. I bought 4 today.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

11/23/2007 06:07:43 PM · #28

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

and who is Transcend?

~Terry

Thanks to

scalvert now all I use are Transcend Cards

11/23/2007 07:55:08 PM · #29

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Niten:

Originally posted by scalvert:
That sounds suspiciously like a counterfeit.

Its not counterfeit. I know what I'm talking about. Its pretty easy to compare it against a fast card. Just use a 5D and it will be painfully clear.

In benchmark tests on a Canon 5D, the write speed of a 2GB SanDisk Ultra II is 95% as fast as a 2GB SanDisk Ultra IV (a difference of only 0.4MB/sec). If it's "painfully clear," then you DEFINITELY have a counterfeit card!

I already checked to be sure(long ago) that it was DEFINITELY NOT A COUNTERFEIT! Didn't I say that already?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

11/23/2007 08:06:39 PM · #30

Originally posted by Niten:

I already checked to be sure(long ago) that it was DEFINITELY NOT A COUNTERFEIT! Didn't I say that already?

You did, but then you also said your card was slow. The SanDisk Ultra II is NOT a slow card. In a Canon 5D, it has a write speed of 7.307 MB/sec (vs. 7.721 MB/sec for a SanDisk Extreme IV). There isn't a CompactFlash card in existence that would make a genuine Ultra II appear "painfully" slow by comparison, thus it's either counterfeit (whether you checked or not) or defective.

MattO

Nikon D4

11/23/2007 08:08:44 PM · #31

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Add to that $9.19 for ground shipping, though, and who is Transcend?

Transcend is a respected name brand for flash memory (all but one of my own cards are Transcend). A 133x Transcend card should be slightly faster than an equivalent size SanDisk Ultra II. NewEgg sells a 4GB for $35.99, plus $4.99 for 3-day Fedex, and a 2GB version for $15.99, but they're out of stock on both. :-(

On your advice I bought one last year. Unfortunatley its getting packaged back up as its failing less then a year old. I hope they "lifetime warrenty" they state is just that and its not a hassle to get it replaced.

MattO

11/23/2007 08:10:06 PM · #32

Throw all the numbers you want out there and spin on them. In real life on a real camera is below par with newer cards.

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

11/23/2007 08:19:59 PM · #33

Originally posted by Niten:

Throw all the numbers you want out there and spin on them. In real life on a real camera is below par with newer cards.

I prefer actual benchmark tests to performance claims. I'm funny that way.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

11/23/2007 08:22:19 PM · #34

Isn't life too short to argue about the speed of a compact flash card?

Continue on.. :)

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

11/23/2007 08:57:13 PM · #35

The card is plenty fast if you test it with the lens covered or solid black.

I prefer real life results over some bias test results. I'm not really funny in that way though.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

11/23/2007 09:01:36 PM · #36

Okay, so my intervention has failed..

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/23/2007 09:12:55 PM · #37

Originally posted by buzzrock:

Okay, so my intervention has failed..

Only partially. ;-)

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/23/2007 09:13:56 PM · #38

Originally posted by Niten:

The card is plenty fast if you test it with the lens covered or solid black.

I prefer real life results over some bias test results. I'm not really funny in that way though.

I don't see where that test was performed with solid black -- an identical test scene, with identical camera settings, were used for each test.

In any case, note that the results are given in megabytes transferred per second -- not images recorded per second -- so the complexity of the test scene shouldn't much matter.

~Terry

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/23/2007 09:16:56 PM · #39

Originally posted by buzzrock:

Isn't life too short to argue about the speed of a compact flash card?

LOL! Like it's going to make a difference in the quality of a photo!

Message edited by author 2007-11-23 21:17:09.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

11/24/2007 09:34:35 AM · #40

Originally posted by Niten:

I have an ultra 2 2 gig CF card. It is slow slow slow.

I have 3 of these cards and slow write speed has never been an issue with them in my 5D. If it's that's slow in a 20D, then something is wrong with the card.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/24/2007 11:02:27 AM · #41

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Niten:
I have an ultra 2 2 gig CF card. It is slow slow slow.

I have 3 of these cards and slow write speed has never been an issue with them in my 5D. If it's that's slow in a 20D, then something is wrong with the card.

I have never had an issue with it in my 5d either. Well until a friend of mine was shooting next to me with another 5d, he was looking at his histogram while I was standing there waiting to see mine. I bet a lot of people will never even notice a problem.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/24/2007 11:26:41 AM · #42

Originally posted by Niten:

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Niten:
I have an ultra 2 2 gig CF card. It is slow slow slow.

I have 3 of these cards and slow write speed has never been an issue with them in my 5D. If it's that's slow in a 20D, then something is wrong with the card.

I have never had an issue with it in my 5d either. Well until a friend of mine was shooting next to me with another 5d, he was looking at his histogram while I was standing there waiting to see mine. I bet a lot of people will never even notice a problem.

Were you both shooting with identical camera settings? There are plenty of good reasons why this may have happened, just one of which is that you may have been shooting in raw with your friend shooting in jpeg.

~Terry

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/24/2007 11:36:57 AM · #43

Are the Scandisk Ultra II CF cards good quality? I always purchase Lexar. But yesterday during the "Black Friday" sales I go two - 2GB Scandisk Ultra II CF cards free.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/24/2007 11:40:46 AM · #44

Also, the way a card is used can dramatically affect performance. This is one I didn't really believe until I tried it. If the card is not reformatted but only has the files deleted after each use, its performance will eventually degrade significantly. The reason is, files get fragmented. This really should not happen if the entire card is deleted, but it does. It may well have something to do with the way the controller handles files, and attempts to "level" the number of writes to each location. In any case, reformatting after each use is the way to retain full speed.

FWIW, I have used both Ultra II and Extreme III cards in my 5D, and there is virtually no difference in-use. But there is a tremendous difference in speed of upload to the 'pooter, and for large cards, that's a big plus.

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 11:42:13.

11/24/2007 11:41:21 AM · #45

Originally posted by swhiddon:

Are the Scandisk Ultra II CF cards good quality?

Scandisk or SanDisk? The SanDisk Ultra II was the gold standard of CF cards for years (which is why it's so popular with counterfeiters). The only card I've EVER had a problem with was Lexar. :-/

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/24/2007 11:53:13 AM · #46

Wow This is some kind of argumenative crowd! You dont have to agree with me. Why not just let me give my oppinion and move on?

SW- There is nothing wrong with these cards. If you use a 5d you need a fast card. Well, I need a fast card anyway. Maybe others don't. I still use mine if I fill up my faster card.

Sorry, I'm not doing scientific tests. I don't need science to tell me 2+2=4.

Kirbic you are correct, and that is good advice for anyone that doesn't already know to reformat every time.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

11/24/2007 12:02:40 PM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by swhiddon:
Are the Scandisk Ultra II CF cards good quality?

Scandisk or SanDisk? The SanDisk Ultra II was the gold standard of CF cards for years (which is why it's so popular with counterfeiters). The only card I've EVER had a problem with was Lexar. :-/

They are SanDisk Ultra II - 2GB each.(Sorry for the typo).

Interesting enough I have had a few problems with my Lexar as well. The problems I have had were corrupt data effecting only one file and one time the one file and would not let me retrieve any files after the corrupt file.

11/24/2007 12:07:42 PM · #48

Originally posted by swhiddon:

Interesting enough I have had a few problems with my Lexar as well.

Lexar had to replace mine twice to get one that worked properly.

11/24/2007 12:12:44 PM · #49

The only time I have seen that happin is when there isn't enough room to record the last photo. Or when the battery died on a very long exposure.

kyebosh