Memory card comparison

Not really much of a point to make here, just a quick observation rather than science.

Generally I always use Sandisk memory cards and have never had any problem. Have loads of SD cards that I use in my compacts, Pocket PC etc. and mini SD and M2 cards I use in my phones and GPS. Never any problem with any. Also have loads of CF cards, Sandisk Ultra and Extreme in 1, 2, 4 and 8Gb. Recently bought an Extreme IV 8Gb and it has failed to write in my D300 so it's back with Sandisk. Did all the usual, reformat etc. but same error occuring in D300 or PC.

Anyway, so first time ever, a failed memory card after years of using them right from the days of having Smartmedia in around a sepia-toned 1998.

Anyway, prompted me to play around with my current CF card collection in my D300 which has a write buffer. I use Raw+fine jpg for each capture so on this largest file setting it can take maybe 10 or 12 pictures in rapid succession before the buffer fills and has to stop with a full buffer and writes them to the card. The Extreme IV was no doubt the fastest, and the Extreme 3 following not too far behind. The Sandisk Ultra's are quite a bit slower and about the same speed as my Kingston Elite Pro x133 cards (these are all 8Gb by the way).

Anyway, the upshot of all this is, unless you are doing sports photography or something with a requirement for rapid shots in quick succession, the write times are pretty much irrelevant and it's probably not worth paying a premium for very fast cards. Just taking single shots, the write times are almost negligble. Just shooting the largest jpgs and no RAW the cards keep up pretty well and write times are again almost negligible. So, you cuts your cloth to...

After taking your pictures, again the faster Sandisks do help considerably in moving a large amount of data off the card. After a walk I can easily come back with 4-8 gigs of pictures (because using raw and fine jpg - mainly rubbish pics and brackets) and the faster cards write out much faster to PC. Just on jpg the times are negligable.

Interestingly my Sandisk 8gb cards all format and give me 215 pictures on my D300. If I use my Kingston Elite Pros, I can see the camera pauses slightly whilst it reads the cards on insertion (the Sandisks seem to read instantly) and the picture count is 211? Must be formatted differently or something?

Anyway, not really a point to make as such, this wasn't meant to be scientific, only practical observation that may help someone choose. The Kingston cards seem to work fine and are a good price at approx. £12.75 each at 7 day shop, considerably less than any Sandisk. The Extreme IV's are very expensive in comparison, better performance (I would guess mine was duff) and worth it if you do sports stuff.

One thing I know is don't ever buy cheap cards - I bought one once and it died after a few days after falling a short distance onto a fairly thick carpet!!

I use Sandisk Extreme 111 and 1V, I find the faster write is better for high speed shooting.

...ah, my unscientific observation was correct then!

Looks like it, I enjoyed your post BC.

Unscientific or not - an interesting post with some good personal observations and anecdotes.

I use exclusively Sandisk Ultra III's. I have tried the V but cant see any discernible difference in speed/transfer etc - even when shooting at 8 fps in high quality RAW format. That said, I dont generally fire off more than 4-5 frames in quick succession.