Oh, I did not reflect over card-sizes and file-systems... Interesting
info. And the Ultra II hint is certainly valuable.
I did a quick test now with my slow TwinMOS 2 GB card now, and when
formatting it to FAT/FAT32 in Windows, it does a RAW-burst in 12/14
seconds. Formatting in-camera yields 12 seconds, so the camrea is
obviously using FAT when handling 2 GB cards.
In my test I used a 1 GB Extreme III card and a 2 GB Extreme IV card, and
formatted them in-camera, so they should have got FAT they too.
/ Rickard
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:25:40 +0100, Chuck Norcutt
<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even better, try using a Sandisk Ultra II as long as it's 2GB or less.
> I believe you'll find no more difference between Ultra II and Extreme
> III at 2GB than you have found between Extreme III and Extreme IV.
>
> Dpreview's file write test results for the E-500 show the Ultra II as
> only about half the speed of an Extreme III. But be sure to note that
> the card they use is 4GB which requires FAT32 support. I very strongly
> suspect that Oly's FAT32 support on the E-500 is very inefficient and
> the performance at 4GB is due to the camera and not the Ultra II card.
> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/page10.asp>
>
> For example, check Rob Galbraith's compact flash performance data base
> for the Canon 5D and you'll see that there's hardly a dime's worth of
> difference between all 3 cards including the 4GB version of the Extreme
> IV. But, as I would expect, the 2GB version of the Extreme 4 is faster
> than the 4GB version. It's FAT32 software overhead. The Ultra II is
> already at the kind of price you're hoping the Extreme III is going to.
> <http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8198>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Rickard Nilsson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is my first post to this great list that I've been reading for a
>> while.
>>
>> Thought I should post some numbers from a comparison I did between the
>> Sandisk Extreme III and IV CF cards on my E-500 this weekend.
>>
>> This is how I did it:
>> I set the camera to sequential shooting and held down the release button
>> until the buffer was full (four captures). I measured the time from
>> pushing the button until the camera finished writing from the buffer to
>> the card (that is, until the little red light to the bottom right of the
>> LCD went black). The camera was set on M mode, 1/200, f3.5, ISO 200. I
>> used the standard 14-45 lens on 14mm.
>>
>> First, I shot RAW+SHQ:
>>
>> III IV
>> 10.07 9.72
>> 9.83 9.57
>> 9.97 9.63
>> 9.87 9.68
>> 9.79
>>
>> ~9.94 ~9.67
>>
>>
>> Then just RAW:
>>
>> III IV
>> 5.67 5.58
>> 5.42 5.28
>> 5.67 5.33
>> 5.57 5.38
>> 5.37 5.38
>> 5.57 5.42
>>
>> ~5.52 ~5.35
>>
>>
>> So it seems that the Extreme III card is more or less as fast as the
>> E-500, which is good news for me, since I then don't have to worry about
>> getting the IV card, but instead target in on III which will probably
>> get
>> cheaper and cheaper.
>>
>>
>> / Rickard
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|