Today I received a Transcend 400X, 16 GB card for use in my D200. This is my first truly high-speed card for my camera and I was excited to check its write speed compared to the other cards I have been using. I will be taking a trip to Cumberland Island (St Mary's) in Georgia in a week and I needed more memory and decided to go big. So, I rattled off a string of shots with the the newly formatted card to see how fast it would write. It seemed about the same or slower than the 8 GB Kingston 133X and * GB Sandisk Extreme III (30 MB/sec) cards I have been using. I decided to get out a stop watch and record how long it took to fill the buffer and write to the card from the time the buffer started to fill and the shutter began to slow. Imagine my surprise when the 400X Transcend wrote slower than either of the other two... by several seconds. They all seemed to capture the same number of shutter releases in the same amount of time before the buffer slowed the party down but the difference came in how long it took to clear the buffer and write to the card. I tried the test shooting JPEGs, uncompressed RAW and RAW + JPEG - Large, Fine. The most data to record came from the RAW + JPEG and the 400X Transcend took over a minute to completely write the 19 shots where the other two recorded almost identical times to each other, 8 seconds faster. What gives? I know that the D200 can't take advantage of the UDMA capability of the Transcend but I fully expected it to be faster than the other cards that are rated at slower write speeds. Does anyone know why there was no improvement in transfer rate and actual slower performance? I didn't get hosed on the card and have no intention of sending it back for a cheaper one, but the reviews I read on B&H led me to believe this card was fast. Any thoughts?