I look forward to seeing the timing data. That is, in my opinion, always the bottom line vs software tools feedback given the very different hardware and software environments. I also ordered one of those FireWire readers that Paul mentioned so I'll be doing some more timings with that when it gets here.
BTW: the G5 Tower timings are different from the PowerBook G4 timings too. Sometimes, I just cannot forego the geekyness of measuring things like this ... it's the scientist/researcher/mathematician part of me. :-) G On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > From memory, I can tell you that the download speed from the 80X card > varied with which USB port I used on the computer, and whether or > not I > used a card reader. The slowest speed, which was pretty close to > your 60X > Sandisk, came from using the built-in multi card reader, and the > faster > speed came from using a Lexar multi card reader attached to a > different USB > port (the built-in reader not only has card slots but a USB and a > Firewire > port). Xfer time was measured using HD Tune and HD Tach. > > I recently found a clock with a sweep second hand in my darkroom. > Maybe > I'll measure download speed using that at some point. > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > >> LOL ... Performance the same as and half the price as the Sandisk >> Ultra II is really enough advantage for me. ;-) >> >> Just to be sure, I tested download speed again. Sandisk ImageMate 12- >> in-1 reader, Power Mac G5 tower USB 2, checking 'disk activity' with >> the Activity Monitor application.... >> >> On a full card with varied mix of JPEG and RAW files, >> - Transcend 150x - Read speed varies from 7.9 to 8.9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> - Sandisk Ultra II (60x) - Read speed varies from 7.2 to 7.6 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Average 8.4 vs 7.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] means average performance gain of >> 13.5%. >> >> In real world terms, this means 3 min, 50 seconds to transfer a full >> 2G 150x card vs 4 min, 30 seconds to transfer a full 2G Ultra II >> card, in round numbers. Timed out with a sweep second hand >> wristwatch, the reality is pretty close to the calculation. That's a >> useful if not earth shattering improvement. >> >> From an academic point of view, I'd be interested to know how fast >> your system can download from these cards and how you are getting >> that measurement. :-) >> >> Godfrey >> >> On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >>> Thanks for doing all this. Even though there seems not to be much >>> of an in >>> camera advantage to using a card faster than about 80X. I think I'm >>> going >>> to get the 150X Transcend card anyway. The price/capacity ratio is >>> too >>> good to pass up, the faster downloading may be helpful (I ~think~ >>> my system >>> was a little faster than yours even with the slower card 9mbs, >>> iirc), so >>> it'll be interesting to see what it'll do with a card that's rated >>> almost >>> twice as fast, plus the newer cameras (Pentax or other brands) may >>> be able >>> to take better advantage of the faster cards, as might subsequent >>> card >>> readers. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
