A Memory Card Torture Test 309
An anonymous reader writes "Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it? I don't think so. So why are most of us buying expensive digital cameras and using cheap memory cards? If you want to find out how much better a high speed memory card is, check out this group test of high capacity compact flash and SD cards."
Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about SD cards, but CF cards are compatible as IDE devices, which itself has various specs with varying performance. Various PIO and DMA modes, etc. This would be like comparing hard drives and then saying, "You'd think drives developed to the same spec would have equal performance".
Some cards are built using high density, low speed, low durability CF, while others go for lower density, high speed, high durability CF and multiples of them in one card. Some newer fast cards employ DMA modes over PIO. Also don't forget, the spec itself is not always the bottleneck, so individual models can vary in performance up to the limit of the particular spec used.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the specs define physical and electrical characteristics, the speed and performance is somewhat abstracted, the device will tell you when it's done, or when it want more data, and can do so in it's own sweet time.
You pay for performance. The higher performing silicon is available in smaller quantities, and commands a premium. Either because the die operates at t
Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Informative)
Interface specs usually do define signal rates and word size (for parrallel). So specs usually do define a top speed. Certainly in the case of CF.
(Of course serial interfaces also define word sizes and sometimes allow for various sizes, however that typically does not change the bits/second rate by much, if at all, depending on the spec.)
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
But the spec doe
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)
I have heard stories of some of the highest speed cards breaking in older readers, perhaps the autonegotiation was designed with the assumption that cards would always be slower than a reader's capabilities, or those readers aren't fully meeting the specification and no one noticed.
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have heard stories of some of the highest speed cards breaking in older readers, perhaps the autonegotiation was designed with the assumption that cards would always be slower than a reader's capabilities, or those readers aren't fully meeting the specification and no one noticed.
Most early USB 2.0 (not USB 1.1) readers just plain don't work. Even using the words "high speed" with those readers makes me laugh. They fail at USB/1.1 speeds.
The most common early USB 2.0 flash reader chipset (commonly
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Page 2 of the article: "many of our digital cameras have limited write speeds too, so the full potential of these so-called high-speed cards will be restricted.".
So nothing to see here, move along.
Rob Galbraith DPI has huge DB of performance (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rob Galbraith DPI has huge DB of performance (Score:5, Informative)
Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff? Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?
(These are serious questions ...)
Rich.
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Informative)
"What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff?" Premium gas has a higher octane number which prevents pre-detonation, aka "knock", which allows high performance engines to operate at higher compression ratios.
" Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?" No, most every gas station I have been to in my life sells "regular", "silver", and "
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:4, Funny)
Do you know what the octane rating is for gasoline?
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates R'chmd wgah'nagl fhtagn.
My goodness. Someday you'll see the light... or the darkness as that may be.
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably not in America. Everything at a filling pump is assumed to be of a certain quality over here in the UK.
Erm.... Just about all petrol companies offer different octanes. Standard unleaded in the UK is 95 octane, which is a lot higher than the US I think. BP offer "ultimate", which is 97, Shell offer a 98, and Tesco offer a 99. Most others offer higher than standard octane too - where do you buy petrol?
OT - As an aside to those in the US, it's horribly expensive, £1 per litre, which is
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:4, Interesting)
a) lot smaller
b) Not trading in USD
c) Full of weird as small cars [not a bad thing though].
I mean for me to drive home to my folks place is equivalent to [roughly] driving entirely from one end of England to the other. And I don't even leave the province I'm in to do my trip!!! Talk to me when you live in a country that is 3000Km wide about the price of gas.
That and yeah, if oil wasn't traded in USD you'd probably have an easier time buying gas. Of course the next logical choice is the euro, not the pound. So you're still fucked.
Tom
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:4, Informative)
No Circles North/South [google.com]
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:4, Informative)
Europe [type2.com] uses RON, the US uses CLC (RON+MON)/2.
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Informative)
Another US vs World rating issue is stereo amplifier power. In the US we rate in RMS (Root Mean Squared) or more simply, average power output. In much of the rest of the world they rate in peak power. In PP a stereo might be rated as 200W but in the US that same stereo could perhaps only be rated as
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could buy a high end amplifier that gives 50W RMS/stereo channel @
Of course, once you start buying low enough, it seems that Manufacturers can twist the #s to mean whatever they w
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
In the US, we've got regulations as to a minimum quality for gasoline two, and many places have mandatory forumulation changes in respect to the seasons (more oxygenates for winter, etc.)
"Regular" gas here is 87 AKI. Most places sell 87, 91, and 93 AKI here in PA. I'd assume a Ferrari wants the
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:5, Informative)
My maths may be off, but that means your car gets 25 mpg. When that answer appeared on my calculator, I literally laughed out loud. In the UK we'd refer to that as rubbish efficiency (trends for ludicrous urban SUV usage notwithstanding). 15 years ago I had an ancient piece of crap Morris Minor [wikipedia.org] that did 35+ mpg, ffs.
14 mpg?! Holy crap. What is it, a Chieftain tank?!
Never mind game console standby power usage, get your car manufacturers to sort out their fuel efficiency. If you had to pay UK prices at the pump, I'm guessing that might accelerate the process :-)
Of course, in the UK, the cost of petrol is largely taxation. It's something like 75% of the price, which usually gets people going [wikipedia.org].
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Interesting)
US & UK Gallon (Score:5, Informative)
My maths may be off, but that means your car gets 25 mpg. When that answer appeared on my calculator, I literally laughed out loud. In the UK we'd refer to that as rubbish efficiency (trends for ludicrous urban SUV usage notwithstanding). 15 years ago I had an ancient piece of crap Morris Minor [wikipedia.org] that did 35+ mpg, ffs.
A UK Gallon & a US Gallon are different.
A UK Gallon is 1.2 * US Gallon.
You are getting 35 MPG(UK) is the same as 29 MPG(US).
Still the Morris minor seems more efficient
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
rj
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:5, Informative)
1-Higher octane fuel will not increase carbon buildup.
2-As a car gets older, it does not need higher octane fuel. The idea that even a severe case of combustion-chamber carbon buildup could cause a measurable increase in compression ratio is silly. As a car ages, its compression ratio tends to decrease due to ring blow-by, and carbon buildup preventing the valves from sealing well.
3-Higher performance cars often need higher octane fuel because they run at a higher compression ratio, run hotter, and therefore have an increased likelihood of pre-ignition.
4-If you car was designed for 87 octane, and it is knocking during acceleration, that is NOT good, and is often a sign of a timing issue you should fix, not mask with higher octane fuel.
Even occasional knocking during heavy load conditions is bad, as it can cause damage to the engine. Fuel pre-ignition not only causes waste heat (leading into the cycle of more pre-ignition), but the shock of pre-ignition on a rising piston can cause a great deal of damage if allowed to continue for very long, which is (one of the reasons) why many modern cars have knock detectors, and retard the timing if it is detected.
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Higher octane gas resists burning better. In a high compression engine (or a turbo/supercharged engine), the extra pressure can make gas detonate instead of burn. That detonation is bad for the engine. Lower performance engines don't put as much stress on the gasoline, so they can burn lower-octane gasoline. Putting high-octane gas in your low
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually relating to the ferrari question, if Ferrari tells you to put regular gas and a cup of water into the gast tank, you put regular gas and a cup of water in the gas tank! THEY designed the engine. Back in the 50's engines were so inefficent that it didn't make much of a difference, but with all the sensors, and gizmos on modern engines to get a better burn you need to put the correct octane in your car.
Some engines produce less power if you put a higher octane than the car is
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Last time I checked, jet airplane gas was $.30 per gallon at the airports.
You are off by about an order of magnitude. Prices vary according to location, but even the lowest prices are comparable to regular unleaded. For a list of "great deals", see:
http://airnav.com/fuel/greatdeals/ [airnav.com]
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Run a typical combustion engine with NO lubrication and you will get increased friction and thus increased heat and thus eventually a seized engine which might even include pistons which have welded themselves into the cylinder.
Metal does not wear out or break, at least not in our lifetimes.
What the hell are you talking about? I've work
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
High Octane Gasoline high quality gasoline. [state.mn.us]
It has been adjusted, usually through adding chemicals, to burn a little slower. Too low of an octane for the engine's compression leads to knocking. Messing with the timing can fix some of this, but not all. Basically, if your car doesn't specify high octane, and it isn't pinging/knocking, you're better off with the cheap stuff. It's what your engine was designed for.
Now, a higher compression engine is more efficient and has more power for the displ
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
They'd be slightly domed, rather than flat. It doesn't take much. Taller pistons might require a different head (depends on the spacing). Another option is to shave the head, but that's more difficult to reverse if you have to. 30x->x becomes 30x-y -> x-y, increasing the difference between piston in the low postion vs the high position. (x=volume of chamber under full compression, y=volum
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:3, Insightful)
High octane gas = better product if you have a high-compression engine.
Low octane gas = better product if you have a low-compression engine.
There is actually more energy per gallon in low octane gas, but in a higher compression engine, it can ignite from the compression, rather than from the spark. This is a problem.
If you put the expensive stuff in a low-compression engine, you will get lower fuel mileage and cause excessive carbon buildup - which will cost you a lot more
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
you joke, but with the F1 car, yes. (Score:5, Informative)
You can't put regular gas in a Ferrari? What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff? Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?
Someone (with a lot of money) bought one of Schumacher's old F1 cars and yes, it was contractually required that the car only be run on a specific brand of fuel.
The article summary is pretty oblivious though- you run the octane your car requires, 95% of the time. Gasolene companies love to make you think that filling up your low-compression engine (that requires 89) with 94 octane will make it faster, or "clean" it more. All grades of gas from the same brand have the same level of detergents, generally...furthermore, each kind of detergent is good at removing certain deposits but leaves others, so you're actually best off rotating which brand you fill up with. If you're obsessed about it, just pop in a bottle of Techron cleaner one tank before your next oil-change; it's the stuff BMW, Audi, and others recommend, though they'll charge you a lot more for Techron in a BMW or Audi bottle.) Also, most gas is delivered from port by a distributor that slosh-mixes in a bottle of stuff that "makes" the gas Exxon, Shell, Hess, BP, whatever. When a supertanker crosses the ocean, it doesn't have a "Shell" crude compartment and a "Exxon" crude compartment, etc. It's all the same stuff, a commodity...even though Shell likes to run commercials saying their gas meets manufacturer standards blah blah blah. EVERYONE's gas does, because EVERYONE's gas comes from the same damn crude, gets refined at the same places, and distributed by the same companies.
This is similar kind of "inadequacy" based BS. High end digital cameras have large buffers in part because flash memory is so effing slow; a Nikon D70 has enough buffer for something like 40 full resolution JPEG shots! Running a slow memory card in them won't harm them, damage them, etc etc. There are other factors to consider as well- my canon 10D has a 9 shot buffer for RAW shots, and some sort of in-between buffer for writing them to the card. I used to hit the end of the buffer all the time, because I never noticed that it wouldn't process the buffer while the shutter was held half-down in the focus position. Talk about a design flaw- but knowing that, I kept my finger off the shutter button whenever possible if the buffer had anything in it (displayed in the viewfinder) and the problem disappeared.
As someone who has shot with a semi-pro dSLR for more than two years, I can summarize that article in one sentence: "if you need to shoot images as fast as possible and have a camera with a limited buffer, buy the fastest card within reason, only if Rob Galbraith's tests show it'll make a substantial difference. Otherwise, buy a reasonably heard-of brand with a decent warranty in case it stops working." Why? Because just like with the gas, under the label you'll often find exactly the same thing- and only a very small number of people actually NEED the extra speed of a card that costs 50%+ more.
Oh, last piece of advice: don't buy huge memory cards. Three reasons: 1)you pay more per MB, usually. 2)You put all your eggs in one basket- if you drop a card and step on it, accidentally hit "erase all", or loose it... you get the idea. 3)"Photo tanks" with laptop hard drives offer MUCH cheaper $/GB storage. You could shoot 2,3,4,5GB/day in RAWs on a big vacation and still not fill the smallest of these widgets after a week. Buying one without a drive and putting in the old laptop drive you've got hanging around from an upgrade (provided it's not too power-hungry) is the way to go, as even 30-40GB is a BOATLOAD of space for digital photos.
Oh, and should you be on a trip- bring a few DVD-Rs, and burn the files to one or two if you really want to have the photos. Laptops get stolen/dropped/lost/seized/whatevered, and you can be absent minded / mistake-prone about transferring photos after a week of fun in the sun (aka rm -rf * type mistakes). Put one set in your suitcase, another set in your SO's/friend's/etc.
Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (Score:2)
Putting regular into a high compression engine can damage it.
20 pages of spam (Score:2, Insightful)
this is nothing more than spam, 20 pages of fluff (with 5+ adverts per page) in order to sell a few memory cards on a website called "trusted reviews", yeah right
no wonder digg is getting popular
Re:what ads? (Score:4, Funny)
That doesn't mean putting a single page story on 20 pages is any more enjoyable to read.
You fucking karmatrolls are fucking annoying. You're like the little 6 yr old trying to get the attention of his parents or something. Shut the fuck up already until you have something insightful to say.
Tom
Re:what ads? (Score:3)
I agree with the GP. People doing that are more annoying than the spam articles. It's spamming Firefox. Nobody ever posts "What ads? I'm using Opera's built in ad-blocker!" or "What ads? But I'm using privoxy!"
The only reason those posts aren't modded to -1 offtopic instantly is because it's Firefox. Pretty lame, since its ad-block plugin isn't even that good.
19 Pages? (Score:5, Funny)
Hint: skip to page 18 for the conclusions.
You don't get any more professional than padding your 3 page article to 19 pages with lines like this (from the conclusion):
Yeah, you could say that. One of those things was my patience.
Re:19 Pages? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:19 Pages? (Score:2)
Strangely enough, I read 1/19 of TFA.
Why people shop for price (Score:5, Insightful)
Bookmark this page (Score:2)
'cause it's slashdotted for the moment. The most complete CF / Camera database around (and not limited to 18 words on a page).
Maybe check back tommorrow....
Do they give better colors? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Do they give better colors? (Score:3, Funny)
Ugh.
Re:Do they give better colors? (Score:5, Funny)
That's actually determined more by the USB cable you use. Thinner cables are gonna give you better color rendering. Of course if you work in black and white, it doesn't matter. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff. But with color, you don't want multipath blurring your color signals together. And this gets even more important as you shoot multiple frames per second.
And the same thing goes with your storage media. If you work in high resolution color, you need a RAID. That way, you can spread the put the color streams on different physical media to prevent color-bleed. This is even more critical with digital photography, just a one-bit bleed from one pixel to another can ruin a great photo.
So, by all means, get a cheap card if you are going analog black-and-white. But you get what you pay for if you are shooting high-res digital color.
Re:Do they give better colors? (Score:3, Funny)
As often as it happens... (Score:2, Funny)
So there you have it!
Not a proper torture test I think... (Score:4, Informative)
There was one proper torture test done by the UK Digital Camera Shopper magazine where they dipped in cola, run through a washing machine, dunked in coffee, trampled and then for sport hit with a sledgehammer and then nailed to a tree. They didn't survive the last two tests though...
Wonderfully resilient stuff I'd say.
Couldn't find the article freely availabe on the mag, just a ref at BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm [bbc.co.uk]
check your speed (Score:3, Interesting)
The computer shows the camera is hanging off the USB FS (full speed, 12mbps) bus. Why? Is there a problem with the computer? Get out the manual for the camera. Oh.. my.. god... the camera is USB full speed, not high speed. (this is a difference between 12 mbps and 480 mbps for USB cable download speed!) I had to look in several places to confirm the horror. What were they thinking? This camera takes 200mb movies. That takes HOURS at that speed to download.
So we shuttle back down to the camera store and bought him a nice firewire card reader. Back home, we dump then entire card in 10 minutes, movies and pictures included.
This is inconvenient but gets the job done. There is simply no excuse to pay thousands for a camera that takes movies, and have the manufacturers shave a little off the price of manufacturing by substituting a slow USB chip in the camera. And that's all it is, one teeny little chip they just picked the slow one over the fast one. (they are functionally interchangeable, there is no need to redesign the camera) At the bulk they buy chips that can't have saved them more than a dollar per unit.
I have owned two Canon cameras myself and then there is this one. They have performed very well in all cases as excellent digital cameras. But incidents like this make me seriously consider changing brands. If that would have been my camera purchase, it would have gone right back to the store where it came from. Go to store, go directly to store, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Re:check your speed (Score:2)
Re:check your speed (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless of which one your friend has it seems to be that the Mac is not correctly identifying it as both the S2 and S3 are USB 2.0 capable. (As are the actual SLR cameras that Canon has).
$.02
Re:check your speed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:check your speed (Score:2)
The relatively new Canon SLR XT [dpreview.com] has a USB 2.0 High Speed interface.
Re:check your speed (Score:4, Informative)
the newest 8 megapixel SLR they had... It takes full motion movies.
Stop right there... none of Canon's SLRs can take movies. The burst shooting mode has been used to make sort of stop-motion movies, but that's not full motion by any stretch of the imagination. Also, all of Canon's current SLR line has hi-speed USB.
So what camera are you talking about, anyway, since it's obviously not a Canon dSLR?
Re:check your speed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: hate to break it to you... (Score:2)
He said he got a firewire reader. BTW, I've never seen 480M/s USB2 outperform 400M/s firewire. All my firewire gear is WAY faster than my USB2 gear, including the devices which include both.
Re: hate to break it to you... (Score:2)
Re:check your speed (Score:3, Interesting)
1024/1.5 is ~680s, or a touch under 12 minutes.
If it took 10 minutes to transfer about 100MB, something else is indeed wrong.
The math works out (Score:3, Interesting)
100MB in 10 minutes actually works out fairly closely to reality.
USB 1.0 has two modes:
Full Speed - 12Mbits/s
Low Speed - 1.5Mbits/s
1.5Mb ~ 187 KB
100MB/600sec ~ 167 KB/s
If he was using Windows XP, the various service packs &/or patches fscked up his USB settings. I'm pretty sure it's a known problem with WinXP's SP/patches, but I can't be bothered to look it up.
Alternatively, the camera only supports Low Speed Mode.
Simple answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if your camera can write 1MB/s, it doesn't matter if your memory card has theoretical write speed of 1MB/s, 2MB/s, 4MB/s or 10MB/s. You will get 1MB/s of write performance in any case.
It's interesting that they tested memory cards with Canon EOS 1D Mark II camera that costs $3500. I wonder how the results would look if they would've used $350 camera instead.
Meh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, i am aware that half the pages on the internet are like this, and i am also aware that the website owners need to make money. I dont care.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Might not be testing something useful (Score:2)
(I mean, unless you get secret sauce on the s
Depends o what you're taking pictures of (Score:2)
If you're memory card can't keep up with the camera writing the data, you won't be able to take very many rapid-fire pictures before the buffer fills up. You could miss the best shot because of that.
Not a good analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
So what's wrong with my camera's recording? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what's wrong with my camera's recording? (Score:3, Interesting)
Crappy review (Score:2)
And doesn't even review the fastest cards on the market. I think they're Sandisk Extreme III, but who knows I haven't seen a review.
I didn't think memory card speed mattered much, but then after playing with a high speed card on my camera it's quite nice to take pictures as fast as I can press the shutter for as long as I want.
Once you get used to taking photos of kids at a few fps, going back to a slower camera and card is quite painful.
My eyes, MY EYES! (Score:2)
Re:My eyes, MY EYES! (Score:2)
I didn't read the setup slide [honestly because I skipped to the conclusion] but he probably was testing in windows, with a stop watch and without a ram drive [on a USB 1.0 port...]
Conclusion, don't expect mad speed from SD or CF specially on cards which are max size [where RAID'ing isn't possible].
Tom
Review sites ... anonymous posters ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll pay for a slashdot account once you
1. Stop allowing "anonymous" people to post to ad ridden review sites
2. Stop posting stories about ad ridden review sites that split the story to 30 pages
3. Stop even thinking about talking about ad ridden review sites
4. Mirror the occasional real story so we can actually read it the same day the story is posted.
It's called "not selling out". If I give you money I want something of value in return. If I wanted a barrage of retarded stories I'd head to Fark. At least they don't pretend to be a "news" website.
Tom
Re:Review sites ... anonymous posters ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Testing has some major compromises? (Score:2)
The other limitation I noticed is that they timed based on when the windows "copy" dialog appears and dissappears. But whats to say it won't continue writing for a while after that (from cache?)
It doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, the higher end cameras have larger buffers which helps mitigate the problem, but faste
No SanDisk CF review? (Score:4, Informative)
Really, how can you have a roundup of CF cards without any from SanDisk? They're only what, the biggest company in that market? And they just released a new line of CF cards that they're touting as "the world's fastest cards" so this would have been a good time to see how good the performance of their products really is. Maybe instead of picking four random CF cards, Trusted Reviews should have just stuck to the SD card side of things this review, and then they could have done a more comprehensive CF card review in a future article. That way, they could have hit people with twice as many ads.
car analogies (Score:2, Funny)
Even faster cards coming (Score:2, Informative)
Flawed (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011701lexar13
Everyone already uses the Rob Galbraith tables! (Score:5, Informative)
I currently have two CFcards for my camera, a cheapie that came free with the camera & a SanDisk Ultra II. The SanDisk Ultra II was about twice the price of the cheapie memory, but it'll also write about twice as fast. The Extreme III, however, is what SanDisk are currently pushing as their fastest highest-tech card for your camera, and loads of people buy it. Check the table, however, and you'll see it's only a couple of percent faster in my camera... and at twice the price, of course.
So this is why the Rob Galbraith tables [robgalbraith.com] are more useful than some 19-page review full of ads - you can just glance down the page & easily compare the brands that your supplier offers for a real-world comparison and see if they're worth the price.
Stroller.
another comparison site (Score:4, Informative)
Define "Expensive" (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I suppose that all depends on how you define an expensive camera.
$300, while expensive, is not expensive for a camera. Kind of like how $3000 is not expensive for a car.
Expensive cameras generally start at around $900. That's around where professional SLR digital cameras *start*, and go up from there. And believe me, anyone who spends $2000+ on a camera, doesn't fuck around with buying cheap cards. That's in no small part because they need very *large* memory cards to store pictures in RAW format.
"Most of us" don't spend that much money on a camera. Most of us spend around $300-$500. And thus, since we generally don't have a lot of money left over to spend, it's spent on cheap memory cards. Not that it's a big deal these days, since today's cheap memory cards are last week's hella fast and large memory cards. I just picked up a 1 gig SD card that's rated at 133x for $30. And I'm told I could have gotten it at 1/3 that cost elsewhere. Our Canon A80 has a 1x write 256M CF card from 2 years ago, and it was considerably more expensive than that.
More on testing SD flash memory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Always performance, never durability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Always performance, never durability (Score:2)
From what I have read, the fast cards are also the most durable. They tend to be made of the single layer CF. It's the really large but slower multi-layer CF which don't last long.
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me as if nerds, with a natural ability with details are vulnerable to decommoditization of hardware, something which they're paranoid about in so
Re:But... (Score:2)
The expensive high performance cards are also the ones with the 1 million erase cycles, versus the 10,000 erase cycles of the cheap CF.
So who is smarter? The person who saved 25%-75% or the person who bought the card which will last 100 times longer?
Re:Not a good test (Score:2)
I think you might be neaning AVGAS - higfh octane gasoline that is used in piston engine planes.
well, SOMEONE has to be held accountable (Score:2)