A most interesting result. dpreview's tests on the 20D showed the 1GB
Ultra II at 5434 KB/sec. If anything, I would expect your 2GB card to
at least equal the speed of the 1GB card used by dpreview.
So, how come the E-1 only gets 3570 KB/sec from the Ultra II (also close
to dpreview's E-1 test) while it's able to run at 4998 KB/sec with the
Extreme III? If these CF cards were physical drives I'd be looking at
things like head motion and rotational delays to explain the
differences. There must be things about CF card performance that I
simply do not understand. Anybody know?
Chuck Norcutt
Mark Dapoz wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Bao C. Ha wrote:
>
>>The E-1 does not take advantages of the fast Sandisk Ultra III
>>Extreme. But the E-300 screams at 9MB/s with the Sandisk Ultra
>>III Extreme.
>
>
> Ah, but the E-1 does take some advantage of the Extreme III's. A quick
> test of dumping the 12 shot raw buffer reveals the following:
>
> Ultra II: 35 seconds to complete, 3570Kb/s
> Extreme III: 25 seconds to complete, 4998Kb/s
>
> Not quite the 9Mb/s achieved by the E-300, but still much better than the
> 3.5Mb/s performance of the Ultra II. A 40% increase in speed is still quite
> significant.
>
> The tests were performed on an E-1 with the latest firmware using 2GB cards.
> -mark
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|