November 25, 2014, 07:53:24 PM

Author Topic: Comparing write performance on Transcend 400x / Lexar 800x CF cards  (Read 883 times)

Dr. Bob

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Hi everyone,
First post for me - finally out from the shadows! This forum has been priceless to me for the past 3 years.  :)

I am posting this to ask whether I am missing something obvious, and if not I hope it will help others.

I recently bought a couple more CF cards for a wedding - yet another Transcend 32GB 400x and for my first time a Lexar Professional 32GB 800x. I have always (since 2004) bought Transcend but thought I would treat myself to a Lexar at double the price as I assumed it would have superior write speeds, not that I typically shoot long bursts of RAW, just short bursts. So I got it thinking it would just be my better, default card for future shoots.

On my 5D3 I was surprised that the Transcend was actually faster, yet cost less than half the Lexar. in 5 seconds I could write about 17 shots with the 400x Transcend but only about 14 with the Lexar 800x. The test was writing Large RAW to the CF, and no SD card present.

Since I have personally had no issue with reliability nor support for the Transcend nor the download speed to my computer, I wish I had known, because then I would not have bought Lexar at double the cost. Maybe there is clear information somewhere from Canon, but I must have missed it.
Thanks.

canon rumors FORUM


mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Here's a link to a similar thread and a bunch of tests I ran between Lexar and Sandisk - it doesn't include Transcend and is probably way more than you'd be interested in, but maybe you'll find it useful.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19462.0

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 9166
    • View Profile
Testing CF cards can be deceptive, and some CF cards work better with certain card readers, or with certain cameras, for that matter.  Doing a erase of both cards before testing is a must, and that's very time consuming.
 
 

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3017
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Testing CF cards can be deceptive, and some CF cards work better with certain card readers, or with certain cameras, for that matter.  Doing a erase of both cards before testing is a must, and that's very time consuming.
That's definitely true and if you read through that long thread I posted, you'll see that the differences in cards are huge on the 5DIII, but fairly trivial with the 1D X.

Dr. Bob

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Thanks for the additional information. I can now see that there are many variables, which is maybe why it has been hard to get a simple answer to 'which card is best for me?'. I did format each card prior to each test, and kept all the other settings constant.

I guess everyone has to run their own tests with their own cards and equipment to see which ones they prefer, which is also based on what is important to them - write speed, read speed, perceived reliability, brand image etc. It would appear to be more complicated to choose than say an HDMI cable (remember those $80 versions?). At least I have found something that meets my needs! But if anyone finds a reputable brand 32GB CF card that is cheaper and faster at writing I would be delighted to hear from them. Maybe forum members could submit their own test results for writing  performance - we could come up with a set of settings based around a 5D3.

canon rumors FORUM