Memory Cards--What is the absolute best?

[Kit.]

The cards are rated to 1000x, 600x, 400x aso. Hence their sustained data transfer rate must be somewhere around these values.

That's their linear read rate.

Unfortunately, their write speed is not determined only by their "data transfer rate". The reason for that is that the flash can only write into pre-erased blocks, and the size of erase block is big, in the order of several megabytes (whereas FAT32 cluster size is in the order of several kilobytes), the erase operation is slow, and the writes almost never happen to be by full erase blocks.

The controller writing logic is quite complicated and consists of a lot of tradeoffs (such as for which file sizes to optimize the erase blocks de-fragmentation logic). As a result, for example, one card can be faster than another in writing JPEGs (smaller files), but slower in writing RAWs (larger files).

[Drizzt321]

The cards are rated to 1000x, 600x, 400x aso. Hence their sustained data transfer rate must be somewhere around these values.

That's their linear read rate.

Unfortunately, their write speed is not determined only by their "data transfer rate". The reason for that is that the flash can only write into pre-erased blocks, and the size of erase block is big, in the order of several megabytes (whereas FAT32 cluster size is in the order of several kilobytes), the erase operation is slow, and the writes almost never happen to be by full erase blocks.

The controller writing logic is quite complicated and consists of a lot of tradeoffs (such as for which file sizes to optimize the erase blocks de-fragmentation logic). As a result, for example, one card can be faster than another in writing JPEGs (smaller files), but slower in writing RAWs (larger files).

There's also trade-offs in the type of NAND flash that is used. SLC generally being fastest, while MLC tends to be a bit slower. I wouldn't be surprised if modern CF cards look a lot like modern SSDs on the inside including controllers & firmware. However they're still stuck in the parallel days, so I hope that QXD or CFast get put into all future cameras, or at least the ones that have CF cards now. I'd actually prefer QXD, since it's based off of PCI-Express. I can start to imagine all of the possibilities with some kind of open SDK to let 3rd party accessories hang off of that. Imagine hanging a modern SSD off of that with it's hundreds of MByte/sec write speeds! You'd never run out of buffer with write speeds like that.

[eml58]

I've used Sandisk Extreme Pro Cards for the past 10 years or so, had no issues at all with these cards, currently use 128GB/64GB 100mb/s UDMA7/VPG-20 Cards. I recently tried Lexar Pro 128GB 100mb/s UDMA7 VPG-20 Crds as well, purchased 3 through Amazon & had to send one back as it was a Dud from the Box, but the other 2 have also worked flawlessly.

[hemidesign]

I use Kingston, Transcend and Lexar... Love my Kingston so much..

look this review here..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/compactflash-card-memory,2166-12.html

But, if you're talking about fast cards.. nothing compares with the new Sony XQD S series, I did some tests and speed shots with Nikon D4.. WOW!!..  this is the fastest thing in the world!! blew me away... 

more info from XQD S cards:

http://www.sony.net/Products/memorycard/en_us/xqd/index.html

[Daniel Flather]

Hoodman claims they are the best.

lol @ ur post.


A manufacture claiming they're the best, amazing.

[Stu_bert]

I have used SanDisc cards since I switched from film to digital cameras.  I shoot a 1Dx and a MKIV.....what is the absolute best card that I can put in my cameras?

Be careful on the 1D MK IV, SD speeds are indeed hampered by the controller (in the camera). So doesn't matter what card you put in beyond a 20MB/s card, you'll find no difference. Which means if you are writing to both then the SD is a "bottleneck"

Both the MK IV and the 1DX can do UDMA 7 in CF so the latest cards will give you the best performance. Of course this is more in terms of how quick the camera flushes to the memory card. I recently tried a 60MB/s CF vs 30MB/s on the MK IV and was pleasantly surprised by the difference 

Finally, you perhaps might want to consider trading off size of memory card vs speed. By this I mean I'm not happy with more than 8GB card for normal (16GB for sports nature) on the basis of how much data I am prepared to lose should a card fail. I've only had 1 CF fail - a transcend, which failed before I used it in anger (failed during soak testing)

Best therefore does depend, as mentioned, on your needs...