Memory Cards

[kent_hilburn]

I was wondering if certain brands of memory cards were better than others. I have

a Canon 40D and shoot mostly landscape. I don't think it really matters, but I

thought I would ask just in case. Right now I'm using a Lexar 2GB Premium 80x

card.

[colinsouthern]

Over the years there seems to be a better "synergy" of Canon & Sandisk -v- Nikon & Lexar, although in theory any CF card should work in any camera.

 

<p>

 

A <u>really</u> big issue these days though is fake cards - this is especially a problem for Sandisk, Kingston, and Sony. Never, ever buy CF cards off Ebay - approx 100% are fakes. Buy through the usual trusted outlets (B&H, Adorama, Amazon).

 

<p>

Cheers - <a href=http://www.photo.net/photos/colinsouthern>Colin</a>

[Spearhead]

I have used at least six brands of cards and never seen anything that would make a difference. There is an issue with "fake" cards, so buy at a reputable store. I have purchased at all three mail order places mentioned above, along with Buy.com, Best Buy and Office Depot, depending on who had the best specials, and never had a problem card.

[alexdi]

The speed ratings differ somewhat between brands. Among the cheaper cards, "133X" doesn't really mean 133X. Newegg can give you some idea of their relative reliability, but save for a few poorly-reviewed rarities, they're all about the same. I'd personally stick with Transcend on the low end and Lexar or Sandisk on the high end.

[savagesax]

Lexar had some issues a while back but I think all of the cards work. Well the major brands.

[nic_brown]

As a warning, I have started getting fake cards through some of the more generic

Amazon affiliates (ie 'Tech Bargains' or 'Memory Mart' rather than 'Camera Barn'*).

 

Buying from Amazon direct or reputable photographic retailers has been fine.

 

Off brand cards are likely to contain the same chips that you get in Sandisk or

Trancend. But off brand cards tend to come from discount retailers, so I have no

faith that a budget card will actually meet performance claims on the sticker.

 

*All names fictitious, and any similarities with actual affiliate names are entirely

coincidental.

[mike_sinquefield]

It really shouldn't matter what brand, but I have a fairly strong preference for Sandisk Extreme III for my 40D. Obviously, the other recommendation is the Lexar. I think it's kind of like Nokon vs Canon...all about personal preference and perception.

[peterlyons]

For landscapes, I don't think it matters much. But I'd personally still stick with

reputable brands from reputable dealers.

 

And just in case someone finds this thread later, and speed is an issue for them, Rob

Galbraith's CF database is very useful:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007

[digitmstr]

Cards are made pretty much in a few manufacturing plants, including the 'fake' ones. I have been using Lexar for years without any issues, ever. I am now also using Sandisk and Kingston SD cards for my XSi again, no issues.

[kent_hilburn]

Thanks everyone.

[m_baez]

Had a guy @ Samys camera talk us into getting a 3-pack of Hoodman CF cards about a year ago.

Thing is, most of the card readers we use DON'T recognize the cards when we try to transfer files to the computers. A bit of a pain.

 

They work fine - when the reader will recognize them - but in the future, we're sticking to the SanDisk III or Lexar brand.

[brian_hutchison2]

m baez, good to know about those Hoodman cards. They are quite expensive, with a

claim of no in the field failures.

 

I've been using a cheap Transcend with no ill effects so far, but might go for Sandisk

as I add more cards.

[Spearhead]

<i>Rob Galbraith's CF database is very useful:</i><P>Galbraith's database is about speed and doesn't give information that is useable. It gives write speeds, but doesn't take into account things like buffering. The fact is that other than professional PJs and sports shooters, people don't exceed their buffer size. It's important to figure out throughput, not write speed, and Galbraith's report doesn't do that.

[markonestudios]

I've had 2 Lexar cards fail on my 400D on separate occasions, but have never had a Sandisk fail on me. Both the Ultra II and Extreme III. But that's not to say Lexars are unreliable.

<p>I agree fully with what Colin said...

[alan_myers]

Galbraith's CD database was way, way out of date the last time I looked.

 

Plus it can really only serve as a very broad and general guide, since spot checking a single card out of a batch will give little really useful info on all the cards in the entire production run. There tends to be some variation, card to card, at least enough to effect the data he's generating The next production run of the same card is likely to be different, as well.

 

I'm currently using 10 CF cards that are various versions of Sandisk and Lexar, without any issues. Some are four or five years old. 80X is fine for 8MP cameras. But I'm still using my trusty 30Ds and a 10D as backup.

 

If you want to take full advantage of the camera's top shooting speeds, I think you'd want a 120X or 133X card for use in a 40D.

 

Even faster UDMA is wasted on a 40D, but some might find it useful just for faster downloads (provided they have an UDMA-capable card reader and pretty fast computer).

 

There are probably only a few actual manufacturers of CF memory, with a lot relabeled with other brand names. Kodak, for example, doesn't make anything themselves. Last I heard they were actually Lexar, but that might have changed.

 

The competition in the memory card market sure has driven the prices down!