4GB CF 133x: Kingston vs. Transcend

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cube, Oct 24, 2008.

  1. cube macrumors P6

    May 10, 2004
    What is better:

    - Kingston CompactFlash Elite Pro 133X
    - Transcend 133x CompactFlash Card (it says it supports Ultra DMA mode 4)

  2. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    What's my opinion? Neither Kingston nor Transcend actually make flash RAM. They have to buy it from a company who does like Samsung. Both companies are packagers, distributors and marketers. I think all flash ram cards are fairly reliable.
  3. cube thread starter macrumors P6

    May 10, 2004
    I am not talking about reliability. I am talking about actual speed.
  4. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Jul 16, 2007
    Ha well that's an important qualifier.

    I know you don't care, but I'd dodge anyone but Lexar and Sandisk…*just personal preference.
  5. illegallydead macrumors 6502a


    Oct 22, 2007
    I would personally steer cleat Kingston, I have one of their cards and lets just say it ain't the greatest. They seem to buy cheap products and package them kind of thing, I'd say go with a Sandisk or something. They can be found for about as cheap as Kingston and such, but they tend to have more documentation about how fast they actually are (not to mention the fact that you can trust them a bit more to actually be that fast)
  6. cube thread starter macrumors P6

    May 10, 2004
    Paying 50% more for Sandisk gives you a 25% slower card (so the 133x cards are 33% faster than the Ultra II).

    Paying 100% more for Sandisk gives you a 50% faster card (so the 133x cards are 33% slower than the Extreme III). I'm not that interested in speed.
  7. Grimace macrumors 68040


    Feb 17, 2003
    with Hamburglar.
    I have used 6 Transcend cards over the past few years and have never once had an issue.

    www.Datamem.com is the best place to go for Transcend memory.
  8. UltraNEO* macrumors 601


    Jun 16, 2007
    In terms of speed..
    Fujifilm has a CF that's rate 310x - fastest writer on the market, to date!

    But speed is only an issue when your camera is able to take advantage of it, having a faster card on a say a Rebel won't increase the performance by many means, even when shooting in RAW!!
  9. jbernie macrumors 6502a


    Nov 25, 2005
    Denver, CO
    Why not a SanDisk Extreme III 8GB card for $54?

    Nice to see CF memory almost being given away :).

    I picked up the Kingston 4GB 133x card for cost of shipping a few months back, there was a deal a few of us got to take advantage of through Adorama where you bought the card for $45 + shipping and got a $40 rebate. i.e. paid about $5-10 for the card. Used it quite a bit with no issues.

    Also have Sandisk Extreme III's in 2GB & 8GB versions for my Canon 40D and an Ultra II in 2GB which is only for my old Fuji FinePix camera as 2GB is the max size card and it can do video which is the only reason I have kept it
  10. jalagl macrumors 6502a


    Jun 5, 2003
    Costa Rica
    I recently had to buy a CF for my Rebel XT, and, after considering the transcend, decided to go with the 4GB Ultra II for about $10 more. It may be a little slower, but it still pretty fast for the camera, and those cards are incredibly reliable - I have a 1GB card a 2x2GB cards that have seen quite heavy use in very cold (Toronto), humid (Costa Rica) and hot (Jordan desert) weather, and I've never had a problem. I think reliability is #1 for me, as I would hate myself if I ever lost a great picture for saving $10.

    That been said, I would guess Trascend cards are also pretty reliable. They have excellent reviews, but I haven't had any experience with them. I have more faith in them than in Kingston. A Kingston 2GB SD card I got for almost nothing from Amazon (promo when buying a camera) a couple of years ago became unreliable after a year or so - sometimes my card reader would have trouble recognizing it, and would appear as unformatted.

Share This Page