Ooops! I just re-read your table below and see that the Lexar 8GB is
not faster than the SanDisk 2GB as I thought with my previous post.
Your table has a typo on the bottom line. You have it labeled SanDisk
2GB and I think it must be 8GB since you have 2GB listed twice. Oh,
well, I'm still not likely to notice the difference between write speeds
of 6.1 and 7.3 MB/sec unless the read speed of a Lexar 133 in a SanDisk
reader is exceptionally slow. I don't want it to take a month to
download 8GB. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> ScottGee1 wrote:
>> On 4/13/07, Jeff Keller <jeffreyrkeller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Adorama has a $120 price, and then a $70 rebate gets the price down to
>>> $50 for a Lexar 133x CF
>>>
>>> http://www.adorama.com/ILXCF1338G.html?emailprice=T
>>>
>> I'm thinking Moore's Law is at work here.
>>
>> It the 8GB is anything like the 2GB version, it's sca-reeming fast.
>>
> It isn't. Rob Galbraith's tests show the 8gb to be considerably slower.
> Most brands get at least a bit slower as they go from 2 to 4 gb, and
> again going to 8gb.
>
> For example, the with the 5D:
>
> JPEG RAW
> Lexar 133X 2gb = 6.7 mb/s 7.6 mb/s
> Lexar 133X 4gb = 6.2 mb/s 7.3 mb/s
> Lexar 133X 8gb = 4.5 mb/s 6.1 mb/s
>
> Sandisk Ultra II 2gb = 6.3 mb/s 7.3 mb/s
> Sandisk Ultra II 4gb = 5.6 mb/s 6.6 mb/s
> Sandisk Ultra II 2gb = 3.7 mb/s 5.4 mb/s
>
> May not be a deal breaker at that price, but not as fast as the 2gb.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|