I repeated Rickards test using a IGB Extreme III and a 1GB Ultra2 and my
E-500. This was a very crude test using my analog watch with a second hand,
and the test was RAW only.
The result for the Extreme III was 6 secs approx.
The result for the Ultra II was 10 secs approx.
This agrees with my experience that the Extreme III is notably faster in use
in the E-500; I have relegated the Ultra II to my 7070, where the Extreme
III shows no speed advantage.
Roger Key, Copenhagen
>From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: Sandisk Extreme III/IV Comparison
>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:25:40 -0500
>
>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
==============================================
|