Hi, G .... Thanks for doing all this. Even though there seems not to be much of an in camera advantage to using a card faster than about 80X. I think I'm going to get the 150X Transcend card anyway. The price/capacity ratio is too good to pass up, the faster downloading may be helpful (I ~think~ my system was a little faster than yours even with the slower card 9mbs, iirc), so it'll be interesting to see what it'll do with a card that's rated almost twice as fast, plus the newer cameras (Pentax or other brands) may be able to take better advantage of the faster cards, as might subsequent card readers.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > Igor, > > Your question led me to doubt my memory of the last test I did with > the Ultra II SD card so I ran the test a second time with the Sandisk > Ultra II card, 60x nominal speed, for both RAW and JPEG *** and > updated the page with these additional results and corresponding > QuickTime movies. > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/ > > There is no measured improvement on RAW capture performance. The > improvement on JPEG *** captures going to the Transcend 150x card is > a 3 frames in 60 seconds, about 3.4% total improvement. > > Not a lot ... I retract the "substantial" judgement. Amusingly, the > price of Transcend 150x 2G SD cards is barely more than half the > price of Sandisk Ultra II 2x SD cards. > > This justifies my prior feelings: that there is very little benefit > to in-camera performance with a card faster than the Sandisk Ultra II > for the *ist DS body. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
