Disappointing 400X write speeds in D200

[johncrosley]

<p>I've used them all, A-Data, Transcend, Lexar, Sandisk and in Siberia too.</p>

<p>The only failures I've had have been from two Ri-Data cards I purchased that were flawed; the entire batch was flawed and they got a horrible name from that. I don't even see RiData in the market now.<br>

Sandisk and Lexar both have failed me, but never with an A-Data or Transcend.</p>

<p>Right now I shoot Transcend 600X UDMA cards purchased offshore, in my D300 and they work like a charm.</p>

<p>I think they empty the buffer as fast as the design will allow; after I've finished rattling off frames at 8 frames per second to fill the buffer, then the buffer clearance slows to a little better than a frame a second, but it's slower with other cards.</p>

<p>One problem is that when I search for a focus point, I must wait quite a while, often, if the card is newly inserted, or I haven't just searched for an active focus point before, especially with a nearly empty card. The D300 can take three or four second to return a display with the focus point selection and showing the active focus point, and I believe that is a function not only of the size 16 GB that I shoot, but also how full or empty it is.</p>

<p>I have tried to download my 16 GB Transcend card through a D300 and it goes fast enough, but really at a crawl compared to any USB 2.0 compliant card reader. With those the download just races . . . . it astonishes me.</p>

<p>So many years I was card reader resistant and only downloaded from whatever camera, and could recall with Adobe Downloader which reads, then rewrites certain EXIF data that it would take forever. A download could take hours for a 4 GB card with an older camera.</p>

<p>Now with a newer camera, not downloading through the camera but through a high-speed compliant 2.0 USB card reader and a 600X Transcend card, the downloads just race along.</p>

<p>They could get faster I know, but if they stayed this fast, I could live a lifetime and have no regrets. (and Transcend doesn't know me from Adam).</p>

<p>And remember, all these brands have actually BEEN to Siberia or Siberia-like cold -32 C to -42 C, well beyond tolerances, and and I've never had a cold-related failure from any card.</p>

<p>But with failures from both Lexar and Sandisk, I won't pay a premium for those, and they almost always sell at a huge premium; discount cards (except RiData) have worked fine for me and will continue to. (I note the reviews on the 600X UDMA Transcend that I saw after I bought mine were NOT superb, but my cards have performed flawlessly and on download, with amazing speed (with a card reader).</p>

<p>Just two of those 16 GB cards will handle a lot of shooting, too, even with JPEGs (large) and raw files.</p>

<p>Just in case, I keep a pocket full of other, lesser speed 16-Gigabyte cards, too. Never know when you cannot download; laptops do fail and if carrying one laptop and it fails, there is some law that says the second then becomes about 100 x more likely to fail also (It's happened ,and on a six-week Europe trip when I was writing . . . . no computer, means nothing written or buy a new one- -(laptops are about impossible to repair overseas).</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[tombest]

<p>Lots of good feedback. The Transcend card I just bought is not radically slower than my others and since it is twice as big as my others, the slightly slower write speeds could be attributed to that. My original confusion has been cleared up since the best of the best of the best cards will still write less than 10 MB / second in my D200. Smacking the buffer doesn't happen all that often for me as I am a recreational photographer shooting mostly wildlife in S Florida. I don't sell my work and don't do jobs for hire but I do like quality gear and have what I can afford. I didn't understand the limitations of the D200 or I would have bought a little cheaper card but at $3.50 a GB for the Transcend only the Kingston Elite Pro 133X was cheaper (in a reasonably fast card). And again, B&H had great reviews on this Transcend.</p>

<p>The only time I had a real problem with slamming the buffer was at a local wetland where I spotted a Green Heron on the prowl. While I waited, it managed to grab a frog and began the process of consuming it. The Heron took its time, dunking the frog frequently to get it where it wanted it. I was shooting furiously and even though I was shooting JPEGs, I missed some of the action waiting for the buffer to empty.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago I took my D200 with my 70-200 F2.8 VR (not II) into a Best Buy and asked permission to attach my lens to their D300s and D700 on display. Both cameras handled vastly different than the D200 and the shutter rate on the D300s was crazy fast. Even though both are 12.2 MP cameras I actually liked the images better from the D700 than the D300s, feeling that there was more detail in the shadows. It was subjective but I understand the love affair with the D700. Both were amazing and made me want to lay plastic down to have one. (I have some older lenses without motors so the D7000 may not work for me.) After reading the write speed capabilities of either of them I can see the value in either and would shoot more action if I owned one. The D200 is not great at following moving birds. Oh well... In time... Thanks again for all the replies.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I have some older lenses without motors so the D7000 may not work for me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I undertand it, the D7000 does have a builtin motor, so it should work with all the lenses that the D200 does....</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Tom Best,</p>

<p>Here's some date just gathered from using a 600X UDMA Transcend card, while you were posting.</p>

<p>There were 13.58 Gigs in this 16 Gig capacity card, with 1152 images, including JPEGS and NEFS and some lone JPEGS from using in-camera edit. All JPEGS were full size and all NEFS were not compressed.</p>

<p>I used Abobe Downloader in Photoshop CS4 for downloading and have it set to change entirely the file name to something rather long, (fits my needs) add photographer and copyright info, and then once the file is transformed, to send the file to memory . . . in this case a Simple Drive 2 Terabyte attached by USB 2.0. Computer is a dual core, 64-bit homemade/fast but not too fast.</p>

<p>Download was done by a USB 2.0 compliant card reader. If it had been from the camera, I still would be watching the download far into the night, as even a D300 downloads far, far slower than through a card reader.</p>

<p>The JPEGS just whizzed by and no NEF took more than a second to download. Total download time for this 13.58 Gig card -- 27 minutes, start to finish.</p>

<p>In the past to download that much info, off several cards no less, from a D2X, D2Xs or a D200 has taken me all night, when tethered to the camera (card readers came late in life to me).</p>

<p>I used to dread downloading and would sometimes put it off when I could, although when cards were max 1 gig, then 2 gig, it wasn't so onerous, but if 8 or 16 gigs, and old speeds, I would have to change my shooting habits (I shoot LOTS, but then I get LOTS and lots of 'special moments' caught in this 8-frame-a-second bursts when I have spied a very pregnant situation.</p>

<p>The photos weren't particularly complex, such as one would find with autumn leaf shots with hundreds of glorious colors -- those are extremely data dense images, and each image is different in the amount of data it packs. Each image will download in a different time, since all have different amounts of data, but a 600X card is worth some extra money. It still isn't['t twice the speed of a 400X though, and I'd probably be pretty happy with a 400X card, too. 133X is just way too slow for my tastes and even 266X. </p>

<p>I think that gives you (and other readers) an idea of how quickly a super fast card with large capacity can be emptied WITH A CARD READER.</p>

<p>I've tried a similar experiment with my camera(s), say a D300, and Ive fallen asleep before the download was finished, only to find it finished and my battery drained as well.</p>

<p>Hope this helps you (and other readers as well)</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>John,<br>

I Agree totally on this last part, the faster cards may not be of much help in a D200, but when downloading to your PC using a good card reader gives you all advantages of the faster card since your PC and Reader combo can do rights to the faster card .</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I recently saw the specs on download from a site recommended by a member, for my Transcend 600 X card, there called a 'PRO' card.</p>

<p>On download it was in excess of 80 mg per second.</p>

<p>With a full card e.g. 16 gigs, it can unload thumbnails into an Adobe Downloader and fill it up sometimes in less than a minute, other times in a minute or two, provided internal computer connections are 'up to snuff' (internal connections sometimes vary . . . . I think Adobe allows its downloader to 'see' the card in a variety of ways, and some work faster than others - at least that's my experience.)</p>

<p>Full downloads that used to take half the night from a card reader instead of from a camera, now are over in less than half an hour for a 16 gig card, whereas with a 2 gig or a 4 gig card, even 166 X speed, they seemed to take 'forever' and God help you if you ran out of battery at the end of one card and had another to download and didn't have a spare battery available.</p>

<p>I vote for the higher speed, and with NO glitches so far. I couldn't be happier. Those 'frames per second' shots I rattle off into my camera' buffer seem to clear plenty quickly and I almost never run into a 'buffer full problem' no matter how hard I shoot, and even then it will clear a frame a second anyway, no matter what, shooting JPEGs (large, fine) and RAW, together. I suppose with just JPEGs, it would allow me to machine gun them almost forever, even if the buffer tried to fill up. Just wait a fraction of a second and shoot a few more seconds at 8 frames per second (depending on data density, or course).</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Beware your card reader!</p>

<p>My last card reader just died.</p>

<p>I went to Fry's Electronics and bought a blister pack one that looked substantial and sturdy, with its own cord for about $10.</p>

<p>On first use, first on one computer, then another, I couldn't figure out what was wrong with my computer, then my hard drive, or what.</p>

<p>Photos were downloading at a snail's pace.</p>

<p>The new card reader was USB 2.0 and theoretically with a 600x Transcend card should have been as fast as I've written above, but NO.</p>

<p>Apparently it pays to TEST a card reader, or at least go with one that's been reviewed.</p>

<p>Live and learn and now I'm 9,000 miles or so away from Fry's where I bought it two days ago.</p>

<p>With no plans to return for a while. Sales slip lost in a baggage 'lost' by United Airlines, and so small even if it is found, who'd recognize it?</p>

<p>Ugh!</p>

<p>I'm back to downloading from my camera, and draining my batteries, even my huge EN-EL4a batteries don't need the extra work.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>