Hi Godfrey, This is an interesting test. I've done like this once before with a couple of SanDisk 1GB cards (Ultra II and a yellow gaming card), and reported them here. (I did only tests for RAW.) In a similar setting, the time required for the first 5 shots to be fully recorded was 19 seconds. In your case this is 16 seconds. So, you see about 19% increase in the recording rate. (The corresponding rates are ~2.6 MB/s and 3.1 MB/s. Ghm.. I thought, previously I was getting a somewhat larger number. I hope I am not making some mistake now.)
I don't know what are the numbers for JPEGS with Ultra II, but I am not sure why you are saying that the difference for JPEG format is much larger than that for RAW format? I suspect that the recording rate should be the same regardless of the format, and it is only the file size that is different (if we discount the time required for conversion/compression as being negligibly small). Maybe I didn't understand what you meant. Do you mind explaining the last sentence below? Thank you, Igor PS. It is rather interesting that there is a change in the exposure from shot to shot. Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:15:47 -0700 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I bought a couple of Transcend 150x 2G SD cards (at $40 apiece, I > couldn't resist). > So I figured I'd revisit the timings we played with in May ... > > There is an improvement over 80x cards, not so much for RAW but > substantial if capturing in JPEG *** format. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
