| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2004 03:32:39 PM · #1 |
//www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006B9QF/ref=ord_cart_shr/102-4592804-4580126?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
512 MB for $58.74 after rebates. my guess is its slower than their other compactflash model but is it still good quality
Message edited by author 2004-04-17 15:34:59. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 04:03:31 PM · #2 |
| Never had any problems with SanDisk, looks to be a regular speed card (ie, slow) but if speed isn't crucial then go for it. I use the Lexar 40X cards and they're pretty fast, but they also run $150 each. Quality wise I can't tell the difference between the Lexar and SanDisk. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 04:05:39 PM · #3 |
Yeh I use Scandisk and no problems with it at all, also use Viking.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 05:01:29 PM · #4 |
thanks for the link...just ordered one:)
I already have one, and it works just fine to me. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 05:05:07 PM · #5 |
| I' ve used mine for three years now. It's been in and out of the camera so many times the graphics have warn off. Use it with my Minolta DiMage and it has been a great buy at $127 with $20 mail in rebate (that was three years ago). I do agree, it tends to be slow especially when loaded with hi rez shots. But no complaints from me. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 05:17:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Count:
Never had any problems with SanDisk, looks to be a regular speed card (ie, slow) but if speed isn't crucial then go for it. I use the Lexar 40X cards and they're pretty fast, but they also run $150 each. Quality wise I can't tell the difference between the Lexar and SanDisk. |
Canon once told me that any cf card over 14x was a waste of money because the camera could not utilize the faster speed. Still, a 40x card would be faster uploading to your computer, but imo not a benefit worth the extra costs. |
|
|
|
04/17/2004 05:21:27 PM · #7 |
Yeah, I could believe that. The way I figured it though was that I'd just get the faster card so that I'd have a better upgrade path. That way when I get the MkII (yeah right, $$$) I'll have faster cards already. And I hoped the build quality, reliability would be better. Not sure if I won or not on those last two gambles, but I haven't had a card fail so no complaints...
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by Count:
Never had any problems with SanDisk, looks to be a regular speed card (ie, slow) but if speed isn't crucial then go for it. I use the Lexar 40X cards and they're pretty fast, but they also run $150 each. Quality wise I can't tell the difference between the Lexar and SanDisk. |
Canon once told me that any cf card over 14x was a waste of money because the camera could not utilize the faster speed. Still, a 40x card would be faster uploading to your computer, but imo not a benefit worth the extra costs. |
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 05:26:52 PM · #8 |
Here is an interesting comparison of memory cards.
I have found that my "ultra" cf card seems to read/write much faster than my regular compact flash card.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2004 06:08:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Here is an interesting comparison of memory cards.
I have found that my "ultra" cf card seems to read/write much faster than my regular compact flash card. |
lol, hence the word ultra. :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:14:50 PM EDT.
