But one should at least be able to infer that, for a given card, its
read performance should be better than its write performance. Something
is seriously wrong with the implementation if that's not true.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> The dpreview test of the 410 shows that the camera is capable of writing
>> about 7 MB/sec if it has a card that's fast enough.
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page10.asp>
>> Looking back at tests for the Canyon 5D (since older cards were being
>> used for testing then)
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page11.asp>
>> we find that the SanDisk 4GB Ultra II (which I consider the sweet spot
>> for a 5D) is only hitting 5.1 MB raw write speed while the Lexar Pro 2GB
>> 80x is hitting 7.1 MB and the SanDisk 2GB Extreme III is up to 8.3 MB.
>> I find this a somewhat curious result since my 2GB SanDisk Ultra II is
>> decidedly faster on download than my 8GB Lexar 133X. I've never tested
>> either one on write times in camera since I'm not a speed shooter.
> It was true for a long time, and may still be true, that Lexar read
> times were significantly slower than Sandisk even though write times
> were about the same. Thre is no necessary relationship between read and
> write performance in practice.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|