With my equipment, this 'Extreme' card is faster than an 'Ultra' only in a few situations. Usually, the two cards perform identically, and you can buy three Ultra's for the price of two 'Extremes'.
The 'Extreme' captured 29 RAW images in 30 seconds, while an Ultra captured only 23 (the camera supposedly can capture 3 frames/second). Using the computer's USB 2.0 card reader, the Extreme uploaded just a tad slower than the Ultra (1.2 seconds/frame, vs. 1.15 seconds/frame). When capturing JPG's, the two cards were about equal (85 vs. 86 frames in 30 seconds) with the Ultra a tad faster... a negligible difference.
If the camera could capture 5 frames/second instead of 3, or the card reader were faster, the 'Extreme' card might have been faster than the 'Ultra'; but this is the equipment I have.
So, if you know your equipment can take advantage of the extra speed and you'd rather have the slight speed advantage than have three cards ($29/each) for the price of two ($43/each), consider the 'Extreme'. Otherwise, I'd recommend using the 'Ultra'.
The 'Extreme' captured 29 RAW images in 30 seconds, while an Ultra captured only 23 (the camera supposedly can capture 3 frames/second). Using the computer's USB 2.0 card reader, the Extreme uploaded just a tad slower than the Ultra (1.2 seconds/frame, vs. 1.15 seconds/frame). When capturing JPG's, the two cards were about equal (85 vs. 86 frames in 30 seconds) with the Ultra a tad faster... a negligible difference.
If the camera could capture 5 frames/second instead of 3, or the card reader were faster, the 'Extreme' card might have been faster than the 'Ultra'; but this is the equipment I have.
So, if you know your equipment can take advantage of the extra speed and you'd rather have the slight speed advantage than have three cards ($29/each) for the price of two ($43/each), consider the 'Extreme'. Otherwise, I'd recommend using the 'Ultra'.
0 comments:
Post a Comment