Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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.
>
Sure, if you say so. I certainly don't know enough about the technology
to venture any opinion. Rob Gailbraith has a section about card to
computer transfer speeds, and it is indeed true that read speeds are
faster than write speeds. What I wrote, however, was not intended to
make any comparison of read to write speeds, only of read vs. read and
write vs. write of two different brands. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
I don't care a great deal about read performance, but care quite a bit
about write performance. When I was first buying gb cards, I thought the
difference would matter to me. As it turns out, it matters very little.
I stick the card in the slot, start the download, and go do something
else for a while. I think the most shots I've ever come back from a day
of shooting filled maybe 2.5 gb. That just doesn't take all that long to
transfer with an Ultra II and cheap USB 2.0 HS card reader. If you
really need speed, RB says the right combo of Extreme IV and reader that
supports UDMA Mode 4, and get 38mb/sec. speed.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8462
On the other hand, I was using the 300D the other day for something
where the built-in flash was useful for fill, and was surprised at how
slowly it writes. How easily one gets spoiled. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|