Ultra II vs Extreme III

[jimitoucan]

Just did my own test on my D200. 1GB Ultra II vs 2GB Extreme III. Both had 19 Raw + Basic

jpg. I shot high speed until I could shoot no more. Buffer took 48s. on Ultra II and 42s. on

Extreme III. Then I downloaded to Wolverine portable storage. Ultra II took 1:16s while the

Extreme took 1:18s. 2 seconds longer. with more expensive, and supposedly faster

Extreme. I am not doing a scientific test, just using a timer. Even still it seems that Ultra

performs almost as well as Extreme III with a D200.

I did go to http://www.robgalbraith.com to see his chart and it seems that Extreme III was

50% faster on a D2X. No report on the D200 so I used D2X.

[lex_jenkins]

Jim, were the files identical on each media card? NEFs and JPEGs on my D2H can vary in size considerably from shot to shot. This can affect transfer times.

[sean de merchant httpw]

I would also note that it is not uncommon for larger capacity memory chips to be slower than lower capacity memory chips. I would suspect it has something to do with the complexity of data lookups and the need for additional layers of indirection with denser (higher capacity) products.

 

Since CF cards are simply static memory chips, this could be an issue.

 

And as already noted the set of 19 images could have had different sizes too.

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean

[dennisprice]

Jim, unless I misunderstood your post, it sounds like your Wolverine is dog slow, and does not accurately represent the difference in card transfer speeds.

 

For example: using a Sandisk Imagemate CF reader, I can transfer a FULL 1GB Extreme III CF card to my computer in about 1 min 10 sec, same timing for PC and Mac. A full 1GB Ultra II takes just a little over 2 min.

 

Take a look at this article on Rob's site:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7883-7912

[jimitoucan]

Yes, the Wolverine seems to be 'dog' slow and then some. Not sure if there are any portable

storage devices that are much faster? Anyone know?

 

Yes 2, all the images on both CF were shot identically, no changes made. However, I did

notice after my post that there might have been 19 images on one and 20 images on the

other. Not quite sure because I trashed them after my test.

 

Now another test on printing raw and Jpegs. See new post.

[dennisprice]

Jim, while I don't have one, and can't speak from personal experience, the Compact Drive PD70X looks to be pretty fast - rated at 1GB in under 2 minutes:

 

http://www.compactdrive.com/product.php?p=pd70x