SanDisk 8GB CF Ultra II or Sony 4GB 133X CF

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Megaman, May 8, 2008.

  1. Megaman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    #1
    Hey everyone, Futureshop has a sale on memory and I need your advice as to which CompactFlash to buy?

    "Sony 4GB 133X CompactFlash Card For Alpha Digital SLR Cameras" for $59.99
    or
    "SanDisk 8GB CompactFlash Ultra II Memory Card "for $79.99

    I'm pretty new to dSLR cameras, I just bought a Canon 40D. Will I even notice the difference in speed?

    Should I pay the $20 more for a bigger but slower card or just buy the 4GB.
    Thanks in advance!
     
  2. theBB macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #2
    I very much doubt you'll notice it when taking pictures, but the faster card may download pictures in slightly less time. If they were the same price, I'd go with the bigger card.
     
  3. nburwell macrumors 68040

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #3
    If you are shooting sports or high action shots, then you will probably notice the difference. In that regard, the Sony would win. However, I'm a big fan of SanDisk (they're the only CF cards I own). So you can't go wrong with going with them. If you shoot a lot of static subjects, then it's really up to your own preference.
     
  4. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #4
    If you like to shoot at a high frame rate then using a faster card wil alow you to take a longer sequence of frames . The exact details depend on if you shoot raw or jpg

    Look at the speed of your current card. If you are happy with the number of frames you can shoot at high frame rate before you are forced to slow down then you do not need a faster card.
     
  5. nburwell macrumors 68040

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #5
  6. jbernie macrumors 6502a

    jbernie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
    Given a 4GB card in a 40D set to the highest resolution jpg can hold in the order of 800+ photos....

    Do you really need 8GB (ie 1600 photos)?

    Also, there is the whole discussion on whether you want to trust what could be amount to 1600 odd photos to the reliabaility of one card. Two 4GB cards means one failure is fewer photos lost.

    I currently have a 4GB Kingston card and a 2GB SanDisk Extreme III card for use with my 40D. I took approx 420 photos at a play the other week and still hadn't used half the card.
     
  7. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #7
    I'd do neither.

    http://dealnews.com/memory/prices/Compact-Flash/19/4GB.html

    I've got Lexar, Sandisk, RiData, PNY and a couple of others- I doubt that there are as many flash manufacturing plants as there are card brands.

    Personally, I wouldn't want all my eggs in one basket, and 4G cards are a fair trade-off these days (you don't have to wait until it's full to switch cards either.)

    I'd probably be tempted by the Transcend 133x price point with today's deals @ $28.95 shipped. Two of those should do you.
     
  8. John T macrumors 68020

    John T

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    UK.
    #8
    Always go for the 4GB card (regardless of make) - never put all your eggs in one basket!
     
  9. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #9
    The likelyhood of a well-cared for SanDisk or Sony card failing is pretty small; that said, if you're paranoid, you will want >3 cards to spread your photos across. Smaller sizes will remind/force you to switch cards.

    I'd go for speed and size, except with a different brand. I'm (intelligently or not) Pro Lexar-only. I'd be willing to go to Sandisk, there just hasn't been a reason yet. There are cards offered that are fast and big.

    But that's what you're deciding––go with the 8gb unless you want more high-frame shooting.
     
  10. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #10
    I agree with not putting all the eggs in one basket. I had a flash card go corrupt on me while in the camera, at a shoot.

    I say go with two or more 4GB cards and you'll be fine. That coupled with the write speed, which actually makes the camera write to the card faster, allowing you to recover after a burst of shots, and not allows the camera to take longer bursts.

    Only get the 8GB card if you are shooting sports via many strings of bursts (usually done that way), shooting RAW, and you are getting more than 1 card.
     
  11. Megaman thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    #11
    Hey thank you all for taking the time for your advise.

    Here's something I found from a photography book in regards to the memory question. BTW I went with the 8gb.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #12
    I read that article once before. I think the guy is correct, you do take risks no matter what you do, even if you are driving a car to a destination. His reasoning is as simple as can be, and it's pretty easy to crush his statement.

    I still say splitting a big shoot across two cards is safer and more convenient than leaving it on one. Just like it's more convenient to have $1000 spread across 10 $100 bills and not 1 single $1000 bill that just falls out of your pocket.
     
  13. Oilbrnr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    #13
    Are there any stats on failure rates between the various brand labels?
     
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    The author doesn't understand risk assessment. The fact that you're using two cards changes your risk profile. To understand your risk profile, you have to understand the failure modes of each single point of failure and balance the cost of addressing those risks with the likelihood of a failure at that point in the chain. I'll take the risk of not getting a shot because I didn't exercise good shot discipline over the risk of a bad card every single time.

    Here's one place where I disagree with his assessment:

    "It's just as likely that a 4GB card becomes corrupt after, say, 2GB of photos as it is for an 8GB card to flake out after 2GB of images..."

    Now, I haven't pulled apart a card to see, and it would most likely depend on the model of card- but if the memory area is roughly the same size, then the higher-density card will have more memory in the same area- that means that a physical flaw in a particular area is more likely to affect more of the card. Plus if the failure mode is in 1 out of every N cells, then with twice the number of cells, I think your chances of failure go up- but the assessment of course depends on what fails in the card- and I don't think the author is thinking beyond a memory locationv failure.

    While memory card failures are rare, they do happen- let's say it's a catastrophic failure in the controller logic on the card- now if *all* your images are on that one card, they're all gone. If half your images are on one card and half are on another, you've still got half your eggs, it's not a myth- but there's a cost- you have to carry more cards and you have to switch them- though generally the cards are cheaper. If you're worried about missing shots because of switching, then you can exercise shot discipline or you can take the risk that the card goes and you lose it all. The chance of two card failures is significantly less than the chance of one card failing (even less so if they're purchased at different times.)

    At a time when dense cards are new, they may be made on a smaller process than older less-dense cards. Again, the chance of failure tends to go up, as do the effects of failure.

    As far as two cars to one location- there's a specific reason that the President and Vice President of the United States are not legally allowed to fly together.

    Also, we're not just talking about card failure due to defects- you have one card and you lose it, no more shooting. You leave the first in your pocket and the second in the camera and the pocket goes into the wash, you've still got the second (I tend to download only my full cards, and get the images off the camera at my next download window unless the images are part of a single shoot where I have to deliver the results, in which case they all come out the pocket immediately. Your computer has an issue and the card gets corrupted logically- one card, 100% corruption...

    The author is perfectly ok to take the risk themselves, but labeling it a myth and advising others to follow their path is a least naive, if not reckless.
     
  15. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #15
    Not in my experience. I have had a number of SanDisk cards go bad on me. "SanDisk" is not a bulletproof suit for your data. And any card will fail given enough time.
     
  16. nburwell macrumors 68040

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #16
    There used to be an issue a few years ago with Canon DSLR bodies and Lexar CF cards, but I'm pretty sure that has been fixed on both parts. I swear by SanDisk only because I have never experienced any problems with them. Now others may have experienced trouble with their SanDisk media cards.
     
  17. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #17
    I haven't used Sandisk but know a few who use them and haven't had any problems.

    I use Lexar and have never, once, had an issue with a card. (Of course, only 4 years, 4 cards…)
     

Share This Page