The Sports Photo Guy

17 responses so far ↓

• 1 dcramirez // Feb 7, 2008 at 12:48 am

  I just got a sandisk extreme IV and tested it in the D300 and got terrible results. In fact my Lexar 80x was twice as fast. The Lexar 300X UDMA was several times faster.

  my test was as follows: raw 14 bit + fine jpeg quality preference. The sandisk took over 4 seconds per frame to shoot once the buffer was full. The lexar 300 did roughly 1 fps, the 80x doing about .4 fps Maybe there is something wrong with it. I’m sending it back

• 2 The Sports Photo Guy // Feb 7, 2008 at 3:09 am

  It’s also possible you might have gotten a counterfeit card – there are quite a few of them out there.

• 3 dcramirez // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  I’m not 100% sure it was genuine but it came with all the usual fancy packaging sandisk includes. I bought it off amazon (3rd party) The return was accepted without any issue. It was almost half the price it should have been. No more discounts for me I guess. I’ll give them a try again on account of your tests.

• 4 haansgruber // May 30, 2008 at 11:51 am

  Personally, I only use Lexar CF cards. I have tried Kingston, SanDisk, Transcend and others. The results always seem to be best using the Lexar CF cards. I have the inferior 2GB, 4GB and 8GB cards in reserve, they serve as backup for travel situations and remote locations where frequent [iPod, Laptop] download may not always be possible. People always claim the SanDisk Extreme IV’s perform best. In a test, perhaps. But, unfortunately, I live in the real world, shooting with my real camera and memory. Tests mean very little. My experience means more. Now with “phony” cards saturating the market, it’s best to “go with what you know”. So, buy a card you know works for you, [has a warranty] get it from someone known to manufacture the cards [or a reputable dealer of same], pay a little more, be confident, satisfied and go shoot some great photos. This comes from price being the “do all”, and “be all” of the sale. Simple rule of thumb is; Anytime there is a chance to beat people out of their FRN’s, Euros, Yen, Etc. Scammers will never miss that opportunity, they always find a way. Caveat Emptor or, let the buyer beware!

  peace

• 5 The Sports Photo Guy // May 31, 2008 at 6:51 am

  Couldn’t agree more with you on the real world application; but properly done tests can still be useful. I experimented with a variety of test techniques before I came up with the methodology I use, which mirrors my real world experience. The SanDisk Extreme IV/Ducati cards have never missed a frame at 8 fps; the Lexar and PNY Cards miss frames every now and then. You’ll never see me using a card READER to test WRITE speeds as some sites do, much less using some technical gizmo that requires a PhD.

• 6 Beverly // Aug 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  Have you tested these cards with RAW? This is how I shoot, which I know does slow things down a bit … I currently use SD extreme III cards, but I find that for fast burst wildlife photography they are a little slow. I am considering the Extreme IV cards … I have never used Lexar.

• 7 The Sports Photo Guy // Aug 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  Yep, RAW shooting is in another post. Cards that do well here will also do well shooting RAW; some of the cards that aren’t so hot with JPG, however, perform OK for RAW shooting. But currently there are no SD cards supporting UDMA.

• 8 rewer // Sep 11, 2009 at 1:53 am

  I got the Trancend Extreme plus 8GB 600x is two times fast as mine PQI 8GB 233x writes 18 RAW images for less than 18 seconds ,the PQI needs around 40 seconds .I buy another one it’s great for 120 USD.

• 9 ravi // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  Sandisk announced two new ranges in their CF line-up Extreme (400x) & Extreme Pro (600x). Have you got any observations on these cards on D300? thanks

• 10 The Sports Photo Guy // Oct 18, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  The Extreme is disappointing; the 8GB I’ve tested is not even as fast as the Extreme III 30 MB/sec edition. I have an Extreme Pro on its way along with a D300s, and I’m more optimistic about its prospects. Full results to come.

• 11 Teodor // Oct 24, 2009 at 8:51 am

  Is the Sandisk Extreme slower than Extreme III on D300 too? I’ve noticed that it’s slower than III on D300s, but I haven’t found any info on the Extreme speed on the D300. This really bugs me as I’m in the market for a new 16GB card and can’t decide between IV and Extreme!

• 12 The Sports Photo Guy // Nov 8, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  Go for the Extreme IV. The new “Extreme” is a dog.

• 13 rewer // Jan 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm

  Now i got the new Transcend 400x 16GB ,it’s a bit slower than Extreme 600x but for same price i got an extra 8GB.I tried Sandisk Extreme IV 8GB on my D300 and i don’t see any magor diffrences between them.Happy 2010 guys!!!

• 14 The Sports Photo Guy // Jan 4, 2010 at 3:04 pm

  Good to hear. I’m waiting for those 400x cards to get back in stock at Newegg so I can add test results to the site.

• 15 Allan // Jan 8, 2010 at 12:36 pm

  Hey thanks for the great review of the CF cards. Have you had a chance to review the Delkin 420x CF cards yet? (capacities up to as 64GB). I wonder how they compare to the Photofast cards. thanks.

• 16 The Sports Photo Guy // Jan 8, 2010 at 1:03 pm

  Just got a Calumet 420x in for testing, which I believe is just a re-badged Delkin. I will post those results this weekend most likely (as well as try and confirm who makes it).

• 17 The Sports Photo Guy // Jan 10, 2010 at 11:20 am

  If Delkin makes the Calumet cards – which I strongly suspect – then the 420x cards are even bigger dogs than their old 305x. Very little difference in speed, and Crap List performance overall. Full report coming next week as I test a bunch of new cards.

Leave a Comment