1DX II Poll: Dual CF vs Dual CFast vs Mix

[Orangutan]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

 

[tron]

Transcend's CX600 series CFast 2.0 (from Amazon.de)

256GB: 264 Euro
32GB: 58 Euro


64GB: 74 CHF (Swiss listing, but not yet available-->coming soon)

That concludes the argument for me (and everyone else).

Lexar CFast at Amazon.com

64GB: $190
128GB: $295
256GB: $800

Not going to get replacement for my current Lexars anytime soon. So for me the mix-config is downgrade, but I understand there's small minority who it'll cater for, and I can live with that. Much larger amount of people will benefit from the CF slot being there.

+1 Also the argument of who pays for a 1DxII and does not want to pay for CFAST cards can be changed a little.
Who gets a 1DxII to put Transcend cards inside ? ? ?????????????

I guess same people who buy 1DX2 to shoot video.

I was talking about reliability but I think I get what you mean: Mostly Amateurs who want 4K no matter what!

On the opposite side If I had this camera I would have to get one of these to backup my 150mb/sec sandisks for the most important photos...

 

[tpatana]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.

 

[tron]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

Good Question! Sandisk says YES: Copying from:

https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/compact-flash/extremepro-compactflash

This industry-leading memory card is optimized for professional-grade video capture, with a minimum sustained write speed of 65MB/s for rich 4K and Full HD video.

 

[Orangutan]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.

150MB/s: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0UP-003X-00015&cm_re=compactlfash-_-0UP-003X-00015-_-Product

It's hard to know if this can be sustained, but it shows that it's feasible.

 

[tpatana]

Transcend's CX600 series CFast 2.0 (from Amazon.de)

256GB: 264 Euro
32GB: 58 Euro


64GB: 74 CHF (Swiss listing, but not yet available-->coming soon)

That concludes the argument for me (and everyone else).

Lexar CFast at Amazon.com

64GB: $190
128GB: $295
256GB: $800

Not going to get replacement for my current Lexars anytime soon. So for me the mix-config is downgrade, but I understand there's small minority who it'll cater for, and I can live with that. Much larger amount of people will benefit from the CF slot being there.

+1 Also the argument of who pays for a 1DxII and does not want to pay for CFAST cards can be changed a little.
Who gets a 1DxII to put Transcend cards inside ? ? ?????????????

I guess same people who buy 1DX2 to shoot video.

I was talking about reliability but I think I get what you mean: Mostly Amateurs who want 4K no matter what!
On the opposite side If I had this camera I would have to get one of these to backup my 150mb/sec sandisks for the most important photos...

Yea, that bugs me too. Occasionally I have shoot where I must have backup, so if I end up buying 1DX2, I'll probably buy 64GB or 128GB CFast for those occasions. But those Lexars and Sandisks are not cheap... Amazon has currently 2 Sandisks for sale, 64GB for $220 and 128GB for $370.

 

[tpatana]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.

150MB/s: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0UP-003X-00015&cm_re=compactlfash-_-0UP-003X-00015-_-Product

It's hard to know if this can be sustained, but it shows that it's feasible.

Yea, that's why it says " Up to 150 MB/s"

Real life is always less than marketing people make you believe. Have you ever bought Chinese batteries?

 

[Orangutan]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.

150MB/s: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0UP-003X-00015&cm_re=compactlfash-_-0UP-003X-00015-_-Product

It's hard to know if this can be sustained, but it shows that it's feasible.

Yea, that's why it says " Up to 150 MB/s"

Real life is always less than marketing people make you believe. Have you ever bought Chinese batteries?

I've had some cards that were within a whisker of their rated speed. You have to use fast components all the way, though. I'll give you 10%, but you'll have to show benchmarks if you want me to believe it can't sustain 135MB/s.

 

[tpatana]

And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.

The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.

150MB/s: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0UP-003X-00015&cm_re=compactlfash-_-0UP-003X-00015-_-Product

It's hard to know if this can be sustained, but it shows that it's feasible.

Yea, that's why it says " Up to 150 MB/s"

Real life is always less than marketing people make you believe. Have you ever bought Chinese batteries?

I've had some cards that were within a whisker of their rated speed. You have to use fast components all the way, though. I'll give you 10%, but you'll have to show benchmarks if you want me to believe it can't sustain 135MB/s.

Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25

I've got my Lexar 1066x 64GB. It's the fastest card I've tried, faster than SanDisk 160mb/s 128GB, I rented for my SD trip.

I consistently get 120.8-120.9 MB/S writing and 153.8MB/S (yes, exactly this number) reading. Faster than any of 128GB cards I tried before: 2xKB, 4xTranscend. My USB3 says it can do 138MB/s write.

Another post there:

Write speed with 5D3 with Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb 160mb/s @ 92.7MB/s

Another post result in picture, <110MB/s (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.msg159239#msg159239 )


7D on SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB (1067X, 160MB/S)

So your turn to find any test showing 135MB/s sustained.

 

[Ozarker]

I voted for dual cfast, but that may be because I'm not invested in cf already

This poll is mainly to see how many of us want two of the same kind of slots, and who doesn't. The plus side is we can also see how many have a preference for CFast over CF.

He voted for two CFast slots. He wants two of the same kind of slots. Isn't that what the poll is about?

Yes. Isn't that what I wrote? My reply to IglooEater (cool name) was about the CF card investment.

No. He just commented on why he voted like he did.

 

[Orangutan]

I've had some cards that were within a whisker of their rated speed. You have to use fast components all the way, though. I'll give you 10%, but you'll have to show benchmarks if you want me to believe it can't sustain 135MB/s.

Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25

I've got my Lexar 1066x 64GB. It's the fastest card I've tried, faster than SanDisk 160mb/s 128GB, I rented for my SD trip.

I consistently get 120.8-120.9 MB/S writing and 153.8MB/S (yes, exactly this number) reading. Faster than any of 128GB cards I tried before: 2xKB, 4xTranscend. My USB3 says it can do 138MB/s write.

Another post there:

Write speed with 5D3 with Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb 160mb/s @ 92.7MB/s

Another post result in picture, <110MB/s (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.msg159239#msg159239 )


7D on SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB (1067X, 160MB/S)

So your turn to find any test showing 135MB/s sustained.

I've noticed two fatal flaws with those tests.

1. They seem to have been done with SD, not CF. It's my understanding that the CF interface has some advantages. I'd like to see good tests with CF cards.

2. They were done in-camera, so the camera's interface could be the bottleneck.

I appreciate the effort to look for tests, but I guess we're still inconclusive.

 

[tpatana]

Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.

And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.

So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.

 

[Orangutan]

Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.

And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.

So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.

I thought I did, I even skimmed the web pages. All I saw were SD. I'll look again...

 

[Orangutan]

Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.

And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.

So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.

OK, just re-read the whole thing, and still don't see what you claim. Could you please post a screen-grab?

From your previous post, I'll put comments {in-line} with specific pieces bolded for reference.

Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25

I've got my Lexar 1066x 64GB. It's the fastest card I've tried, faster than SanDisk 160mb/s 128GB, I rented for my SD trip.

I consistently get 120.8-120.9 MB/S writing and 153.8MB/S (yes, exactly this number) reading. Faster than any of 128GB cards I tried before: 2xKB, 4xTranscend. My USB3 says it can do 138MB/s write.

{This one doesn't say whether it's CF or SD, but it does say 138MB/s.}

Another post there:

Write speed with 5D3 with Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb 160mb/s @ 92.7MB/s

Another post result in picture, <110MB/s (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.msg159239#msg159239 )

{This is in a 5D3, not a USB adapter}

7D on SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB (1067X, 160MB/S) {not USB, it's in a 7D}

The only reference I see to CF in a USB adapter the tester says 138MB/s.

If you think I've overlooked something please post a screen grab with the salient information highlighted, because I don't see what you're referring to.

 

[tpatana]

Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25

I've got my Lexar 1066x 64GB. It's the fastest card I've tried, faster than SanDisk 160mb/s 128GB, I rented for my SD trip.

I consistently get 120.8-120.9 MB/S writing and 153.8MB/S (yes, exactly this number) reading. Faster than any of 128GB cards I tried before: 2xKB, 4xTranscend. My USB3 says it can do 138MB/s write.

{This one doesn't say whether it's CF or SD, but it does say 138MB/s.} 1***

Another post there:

Write speed with 5D3 with Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb 160mb/s @ 92.7MB/s

Another post result in picture, <110MB/s (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.msg159239#msg159239 )

{This is in a 5D3, not a USB adapter} 2***

7D on SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB (1067X, 160MB/S) {not USB, it's in a 7D} 3***

The only reference I see to CF in a USB adapter the tester says 138MB/s.

If you think I've overlooked something please post a screen grab with the salient information highlighted, because I don't see what you're referring to.

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

So to help you read those above:

1***: He says the Lexar CF is faster than Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card. The lexar gets 120MB/s on camera, 138MB/s on USB, although it doesn't say if that's peak or sustained. No comment on actual speed on Sandisk, just saying it's slower than Lexar.

2***: He says the Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card gets 92MB/s on camera.

3***: He gets <110MB/s on camera with Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card

So again, I haven't seen proof that any CF can go higher than those on actual sustained. Marketing people should ask engineers to put super tiny bit of super-fast buffer memory on the input line for memory cards so then they could claim 1000MB/s on the packaging, even when actual sustained would be fraction of that.

And regardless, I still consider both of those cards (Lexar, Sandisk) to be more then fast enough for any sports pro shooting pictures at any frame rate given from current bodies, so the extra speed helps only flush out the buffer faster.

On 1DX and the Lexars (I don't have Sandisk so can't test those), it takes ~3 seconds to empty the buffer even when it's full.

 

[Orangutan]

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

Neither, I'm deeply anti-troll, it's a waste of everyone's time, including the troll.

I've gone back through the ML posts, and I'm still not clear which are in-camera and which USB. However, it doesn't really matter because I found this, the clearest benchmark I've seen. It appears to show sustained throughput of 147MB/s.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/cf-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-32gb-cf-card/

Regards,

O

 

[tpatana]

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

Neither, I'm deeply anti-troll, it's a waste of everyone's time, including the troll.

I've gone back through the ML posts, and I'm still not clear which are in-camera and which USB. However, it doesn't really matter because I found this, the clearest benchmark I've seen. It appears to show sustained throughput of 147MB/s.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/cf-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-32gb-cf-card/

Regards,

O

And again the people actually using cameras to take pictures, not to benchmark their stuff on PC, care more about the other table which you conveniently skipped:

SanDisk Extreme Pro 160MB/s 32GB
Tested in Camera Write Speed (MB/s)
Canon 7D Mark II 101.2
Canon 5Ds 99.8
Nikon D810 96.0
Canon 1D X 94.8
Nikon D800 70.5

 

[Orangutan]

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

Neither, I'm deeply anti-troll, it's a waste of everyone's time, including the troll.

I've gone back through the ML posts, and I'm still not clear which are in-camera and which USB. However, it doesn't really matter because I found this, the clearest benchmark I've seen. It appears to show sustained throughput of 147MB/s.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/cf-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-32gb-cf-card/

Regards,

O

And again the people actually using cameras to take pictures, not to benchmark their stuff on PC, care more about the other table which you conveniently skipped:

SanDisk Extreme Pro 160MB/s 32GB
Tested in Camera Write Speed (MB/s)
Canon 7D Mark II 101.2
Canon 5Ds 99.8
Nikon D810 96.0
Canon 1D X 94.8
Nikon D800 70.5

OK, I see where the confusion is. I'm looking at the 1DXII, not previous models. My assertion is that, for the 1DXII, CF would be fine for 4K video. I'm not asking about previous models, so those were irrelevant to me. We now know that CF, of itself, is capable of supporting 4K, so long as the 1DXII's interface is properly engineered.

Regards,

O

 

[tpatana]

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

Neither, I'm deeply anti-troll, it's a waste of everyone's time, including the troll.

I've gone back through the ML posts, and I'm still not clear which are in-camera and which USB. However, it doesn't really matter because I found this, the clearest benchmark I've seen. It appears to show sustained throughput of 147MB/s.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/cf-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-32gb-cf-card/

Regards,

O

And again the people actually using cameras to take pictures, not to benchmark their stuff on PC, care more about the other table which you conveniently skipped:

SanDisk Extreme Pro 160MB/s 32GB
Tested in Camera Write Speed (MB/s)
Canon 7D Mark II 101.2
Canon 5Ds 99.8
Nikon D810 96.0
Canon 1D X 94.8
Nikon D800 70.5

OK, I see where the confusion is. I'm looking at the 1DXII, not previous models. My assertion is that, for the 1DXII, CF would be fine for 4K video. I'm not asking about previous models, so those were irrelevant to me. We now know that CF, of itself, is capable of supporting 4K, so long as the 1DXII's interface is properly engineered.

Regards,

O

I agree on almost all those. The only item where CF might be bottleneck is if there's some low compression codec which requires >100MB/s speeds. RAW would be for sure, but they are not supporting RAW for sure either.

Given what we so far know about 1DX2, I would have voted for dual-CF.

 

[expatinasia]

I am amazed that so many, though not even a third, said they wanted both.

I think the results would have been different had I asked for serial numbers of their 1DX.