| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2004 07:12:11 PM · #1 |
which is better -- 1GIG card for the 300d or the 512 MB that is ultra II or whatever?
thanks.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:21:14 PM · #2 |
Ask a silly question ...
It depends. Do you need speed or capacity?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:22:17 PM · #3 |
hrmm...not sure how fast the it'd be with either one. Is there really a noticeable difference?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:24:49 PM · #4 |
from another thread:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Take a peek at this site. More info than you could want. My personal recommendation would be something liek the Sandisk Ultra II series, very good speed/price combination. the only thing you gain by going faster is xfer speed to the 'pooter, and then only if you use a fast USB2.0 card reader. At today's prices, a couple 1GB cards woudl keep you shooting, even if you shoot RAW. |
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:28:13 PM · #5 |
I have the SanDisk 512MB Ultra II and I can fit about 145 shots on this card. The speed is noticeable from the standard, which is why I upgraded. The CF cards are so cheap these days, I would definitely recommend the Ultra CF card.
Here's a link to a site that sells pretty cheap. Also free shipping and no tax!!!
Compact Flash - ZipZoomFly |
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:31:46 PM · #6 |
| I had this similar delimma not too long ago... I decided to go with 2 512 ultras. I was able to get two 512 sandisk ultra II's on ebay for $90 a piece. When it came down to it... someone on here made a good point that it would be better to have two 512's incase something would happen to one of them you'd have the other. If you only have the one 1gb you have no where to turn if it fails. |
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:36:23 PM · #7 |
to be honest... I have an Ultra II and "regular" cards and the only difference I notice is in the transfer to my computer. Even at 3 fps I don't see a difference. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 08:23:35 PM · #8 |
I don't think the 300D takes advantage of the higher speed of these fast cards like the Ultra II; only the 20D and the 1D-series bodies do. Therefore I'd go for the 1GB card instead.
:)atwl
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 08:25:42 PM · #9 |
well it was only a quick thought -- it ended up not working anyway...back to the old drawing board...save some $
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:18:43 AM · #10 |
Speaking of needing a quick answer, which looks better for a cf card reader?
option 1
or
option 2 |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:23:56 AM · #11 |
| *bump* I need to decide very soon and need your help! |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:29:23 AM · #12 |
I would rather carry two smaller cards than one big one. If one card craps out you only lose images on that card. If your one big card craps out you lose everything and have nothing left to shoot with. You might be able to get 2 x 512 for the price of a 1 GIG.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:31:17 AM · #13 |
| Ummm...that wasn't my question...but I do agree with you! |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:34:21 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kidchico:
Ummm...that wasn't my question...but I do agree with you! |
I know that wasn't your direct question but it is related to the question. ;)
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:39:39 AM · #15 |
| I guess you could say that, so what do you think about my options then, considering the relation to your findings and its relativity to the subject? :') |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:42:16 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by kidchico:
Speaking of needing a quick answer, which looks better for a cf card reader?
option 1
or
option 2 |
It is kind of hard to tell from the ads whether either of the card readers runs at full USB 2 speeds. You really do want to have full USB 2. |
|
|
|
01/12/2005 01:44:36 AM · #17 |
Well, I really don't prefer if either has usb 2.0, because I am never in a rush. I have a reader now that isn't usb 2.0 and I have the patience to wait.
edit: so it basically comes down to convenience...
Message edited by author 2005-01-12 01:45:58. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 11:45:00 AM EDT.
