Slashdot Mirror


Is It Worth Paying Extra For Fast SD Cards?

Barence writes "Are faster grades of SD memory card worth the extra cash? PC Pro has conducted in-depth speed tests on different grades of SD card to find out if they're worth the premium. In camera tests, two top-end SD cards outshone the rest by far, while class 4 cards dawdled for more than a second between shots. However, with the buffer on modern DSLRs able to handle 20 full-res shots or more, it's unlikely an expensive card will make any difference to anyone other than professionals shooting bursts of fast-action shots. What about for expanding tablet or laptop memory? A regular class 4 or 6 card that's capable of recording HD video will also be fast enough to play it back on a tablet. The only advantage of a faster card for media is that syncing with your PC will be quicker. However, a faster card is recommended if you're using it to supplement the memory of an Ultrabook or MacBook Air."

164 comments

  1. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will when you record highres video

    1. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article there are lots of cases where you'd prefer to have the faster card. So it's worth it if you're going to use it in any of those cases.

      Which, I have to imagine, is exactly what everyone assumes.

    2. Re:yes by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      It will when you record highres video

      From the article (first page, you should have spotted it)

      It may seem counter-intuitive that capturing still images requires a faster card than shooting video, but Full HD footage isn’t as space-hungry as you might imagine. Despite the “high-definition” terminology, each HD frame has a comparatively low resolution of just over two megapixels. Plus, since consecutive frames of a video are often extremely similar, clever compression techniques can be used to store moving images efficiently. A data rate of 4-6MB/sec is ample for continuous shooting.
      Still photographs have a far higher resolution: a typical consumer DSLR may capture around 12 megapixels of detail, and high-end models often record more than 20 megapixels. Each scene may therefore contain ten times as much information as a comparable video frame

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article (first page, you should have spotted it)

      You must be new here.

    4. Re:yes by XaXXon · · Score: 0

      Serious video work is done at 24fps, though. So cut off 20%

    5. Re:yes by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      plus... slow SD card = useless SD card in a few years. They're big enough now to be useful for /something/ . But not always fast enough to be usable for anything.

      A fast one might still be useful for something... booting a Raspberry Pi 2000, or just transferring movies between laptops.

      But the slow SD cards are going to the bottom of the bin no matter how big they are.

    6. Re:yes by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Anyone doing any serious video work isn't going to be recording with compression. 1920x1080, 24-bit colour video at 30FPS is going to need 186MB per second, 11GB per minute or 670GB per hour.

      Anyone doing serious video work isn't going to be using a dslr that only shoots 1080p.

    7. Re:yes by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Some movies or TV series have been shot with a Canon 5D dslr, like these.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone doing any serious video work isn't going to be recording with compression.

      "Serious video work" is what, 1% of the video recording hardware market? No, that's a gross exaggeration. 0.01%, maybe?

      Guess who is buying all the SD cards. The other 99.99%.

    9. Re:yes by Trogre · · Score: 2

      It should be a federal offence to claim that anything below 48fps is serious video work.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:yes by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If you are talking just videos, maybe. But one can always relegate them to be temp storage of just images or music, where speed would be much less of an issue

  2. There really isn't any price premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A 16GB class 10 SDHC card can be had regularly for $9 shipped from Chinese import sites like Meritline.

    I don't use these cards for cameras, but do use them in my phone, and as primary storage for several dev boards, and for those use cases, even if there was a price premium, it would be worth it.

    1. Re:There really isn't any price premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Meritline - oh, great, another site for me to order cheap toys I don't need but can't resist. Thanks a lot!

    2. Re:There really isn't any price premium by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Those prices are... suspiciously good. Anyone have experience with these guys?

    3. Re:There really isn't any price premium by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I have ordered from them in the past a number of times. Usually just DVD-Rs, but they have been around for awhile and I always got what I ordered.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:There really isn't any price premium by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      All the Chinese places that are "suspiciously good" are generally fine. Ali[express/baba] and such are just fine. DinoDirect is another one. They are all pretty good. They don't have the best customer service, but they are all legit and generally ship what you order without issue. Just because you are used to Wal-Mart 500% markup doesn't mean that the direct-sale sites aren't legit.

    5. Re:There really isn't any price premium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This advice is suspiciously good. Anyone have experience ... ;) Thanks!

    6. Re:There really isn't any price premium by nolife · · Score: 1

      Meritline? I've ordered from them at least ten times in the last few years. I've never had a problem although sometimes the shipping is slow. Most of the stuff is low cost Chinese made and designed stuff but for the price I paid, it always met my expectations.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    7. Re:There really isn't any price premium by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I'm not comparing to retail, more to Newegg/Amazon (who do have good customer service). But good to know.

  3. Not just for professionals... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 5, Informative

    As an avid amateur photographer I once tried lower-end, slower SD cards. The wait between shots of ~1 second (disregarding the camera buffer) means you cannot even preview your shots during that time. Instead you get to wait with a nice blinking LED on the back of the camera until the preview is ready. I found this nearly unbearable after only a dozen or so shots and when I got a chance I immediately spent the money on a faster card that allows previews basically immediately. NOTE: I am using a D800, so your mileage may vary on this... with 36mp RAW files I was waiting several seconds to just preview a shot.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Not just for professionals... by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I use a D5100, and even with its 16mp RAW files, I always use a Class 10 card to make its responsiveness decent when shooting more than one shot. Cards are cheap, time and missed shots are more important.

    2. Re:Not just for professionals... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      A lot of newer DSLRs have big buffers, and let you preview/etc. out of the buffer, so SD card speed becomes mostly irrelevant to user experience. It only really becomes an issue if you're doing burst shooting that fills up the buffer, at which point the camera does have to pause to wait for writes to complete, to free up buffer space. Normal single-shot, or even 3-burst bracketing types of shots, should never hit that point, though.

    3. Re:Not just for professionals... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's the same amateur cameras that use SD cards that don't necessarily include enough buffer space either.

      My Canon EOS 7D uses CF cards and includes a fairly hefty buffer as well. The people doing the article are idiots if they think that it's acceptable to have images sticking around in the buffer longer than necessary. The buffer is susceptible to going away instantly if the camera loses power for any reason, whereas the card itself is much more durable.

      I personally, wish that camera manufacturers would wise up and ditch SC for CF like in olden times. My old Canon PowerShot s10 was still using new CF cards until they grew too large for FAT16 to handle. SD cards are a different matter as they don't include the controller.

    4. Re:Not just for professionals... by rusty0101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I guess the question then is do I want to spend the premium on several memory cards, move the images off of them when I set up my 3-2-1 backups of the images and re-use them, or do I want to spend 10 or more times that to replace the camera I'm using with a camera with a bigger buffer?

      If I'm already going to get the new camera for other reasons, that's one thing. Getting a camera because I want to save on SD cards seems counter-intuitive to me.

      Likewise I'm more likely to take an older camera with me on vacation to shoot with, and carry a few extra high speed storage cards rather than run the risk of my new high end camera going swimming or taking a walk on me. Sure insurance may help me, but I'm a bit more comfortable with having something I am less concerned about being damaged if something goes wrong. But that's me. To each their own.

      --
      You never know...
    5. Re:Not just for professionals... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never mind cameras, try hauling a few gig of files on or off your ebook reader on anything less than a class 10. Yes indeed, my time is worth a lot more than the few bucks extra, if it finishes at all.

    6. Re:Not just for professionals... by EvanED · · Score: 2

      ...so SD card speed becomes mostly irrelevant to user experience

      I've got a T2i for hobby photography and have definitely hit the buffer limit on a number occasions. I virtually always shoot RAW for the increased flexibility in lossless postprocessing, so it doesn't take much; if I set it to continuous shooting and hold down the shutter release, I get six shots before it pauses to write, and that is with a class 10 "PNY professional" card. (I just tried it.)

      The most recent time I've hit it was when I was taking component shots of some HDR panoramas that I've been too lazy to stitch together. :-) I set it to do automatic exposure bracketing, so I would shoot three shots in rapid succession, turn a bit, shoot three more, etc. Those took about twice as long to fill out if I didn't have to wait for SD writing speed, and because of that it also allowed more movement of things in the scene. (It's impossible to get around all movement, but it's good to try to minimize them.)

      There was also one time I was shooting a rocket launch and turned the quality down to JPEG so I could get continuous shots and I think I may have filled the buffer even then. I shot a second launch with a film camera because that could actually take more rapid-fire photos.

      Basically I guess what I'd say is that I don't need a fast card almost all the time, but it is occasionally very helpful.

    7. Re:Not just for professionals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CF Cards?

      C10 SDXC cards perform better than CF for usually half the costs.

      Your post reads like a fanboi who thinks Canon can do no wrong

    8. Re:Not just for professionals... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Both CF and SD include the controller: CF cards actually look like PIO IDE drives, on a mechanically different connector, and SD is its own thing. Now, for whatever strange reason, the SD spec guys really skimped on maximum size(there are a few oddball 4GB, with some quirks in certain devices, with 2GB or less being the rule), while the CF spec didn't(not sure about 48-bit LBA in older devices; but that much Flash used to cost more than a new car, so who's checking?)

      If they'd just found an extra penny or two in the budget for a higher capacity ceiling in the first place, the whole 'SD'->'mechanically identical and wholly incompatible SDHC' transition could have been avoided.

    9. Re:Not just for professionals... by MrEdofCourse · · Score: 2

      Canon has moved to dual SD & CF card slots with their new higher-end DSLRs and has had SD slots in their consumer cameras for years.. Personally, I like both for different uses. SD is great for casual stuff, and of course Eye-Fi, but when it comes to pro-photography, CF is still where it's at. Not that I'm a pro photographer... I suck, but I can appreciate the robustness of CF.

    10. Re:Not just for professionals... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not just Canon, all of the manufacturers of pro-dSLRs include them as well.

    11. Re:Not just for professionals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots? Really? Aren't you coming down a bit too hard?

      It isn't like digital cameras are running off mains power during hurricane Sandy...

    12. Re:Not just for professionals... by thephydes · · Score: 1

      I have found the same with my Canon 60D, the faster cards are worth the money. In addition the "extreme" cards are worth the extra imho

    13. Re:Not just for professionals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear in mind also that Canon has gimped the SD slot in at least one of their latest DSLRs (the 5D III). Putting a high speed SD card in that particular body is pointless; it cannot write at high speed to SD. Compact flash? Absolutely. SD? No chance in hell.

      Bloody penny pinchers.

    14. Re:Not just for professionals... by jools33 · · Score: 1

      I think it really depends on the capabilities of the camera you are shooting with. I only use San disk extreme or Lexar pro cards - with My Nikon D800 (36MP). You cannot afford the dropped shots - and for video a high end card is even more critical. That said though in the D800 the SD card is my backup card the other slot is for my compact flash card - which is faster (and more expensive) again due to the built in memory controller.

    15. Re:Not just for professionals... by qarnage · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised it's missing another point of fast cards: power saving. Even though different cards use different amounts of power for read/write operations they're all in the same ballpark because they need to respect the SD specification. As with all flash memory it usually consumes far more power when reading and writing than idling (particularly erasing/writing). So if the camera spends more time flushing the buffer because the card is slower, guess what? The camera is spending more juice in an unusable state. I consider the memory card price to be part of the overall camera package, like the carrying case. For me going with the cheap option is a bad idea, specially when you start looking at the pictures and have a couple of corrupted shots. Like a cheap carrying case that starts breaking down after some time of use.

    16. Re:Not just for professionals... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm an embedded developer and I agree with the original decision to make SD cards only support up to 4GB. They used a really nice flat address space that makes accessing the cards from an embedded system with very low RAM much easier.

      The new SDHC cards add additional overhead. It isn't merely that the addressing scheme is more complex, it is the fact that you must now query the card and be able to handle a variety of block sizes and sector counts. For that reason the embedded data loggers I work on only support up to 2GB cards maximum and that won't be changing any time soon.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Not just for professionals... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative
      Class 10 is a measure of sequential write speed. Nothing more. Cards which are tuned for high sequential write speed (i.e. class 10 cards) suffer from low random 512k and 4k read/write speeds. And cards which are tuned for better random 512k and 4k read/write speeds suffer from lower sequential write speeds. It's a trade-off made when designing the card.

      Here are the CrystalDiskMark scores I got for a 32 GB class 4 card I have:

      seq: 22.9 MB/s read, 4.3 MB/s write
      512k: 22.0 MB/s read, 1.3 MB/s write
      4k: 3.3 MB/s read, 1.3 MB/s write

      And here are the benchmarks for a 16 GB class 10 card I have:

      seq: 21.8 MB/s read, 12.0 MB/s write
      512k: 21.5 MB/s read, 0.9 MB/s write
      4k: 5.7 MB/s read, 0.008 MB/s write (not a typo)

      So if you're recording video or a burst of photos from a camera, yes you want class 10 (or one of the "pro" cards which write even faster). But if you're going to be using the card to read/write lots of small files, like on a phone or tablet, you don't want class 10. For those devices, the sweet spot is around class 6, or maybe a good class 4.

      try hauling a few gig of files on or off your ebook reader on anything less than a class 10

      I've actually done something similar on both the above cards. I have an ~4 GB sheet music library (put it together when it wasn't clear if IMSLP would survive the copyright challenges). Most of the files are 100k to 1 MB PDFs, with a smaller number of 1-10 MB PDFs (small in number, but not in total MB). Average size is just under 1 MB. Copying the whole thing to the class 4 card took about 30 minutes. Copying it to the class 10 card took about 4 hours.

    18. Re:Not just for professionals... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a shame everyone concentrates on raw read/write speed because I have noticed that different cards in the same class have big variations in response time. If I stick a Sandisk class 4 in my phone I can browse the contents and open apps moved to it much faster than I can with a cheap class 6 card.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Not just for professionals... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      High speed is definitely worth it for cameras. I went for the "small" 8GB version in favor of speed. Space is so abundant these days that it isn't a priority for most people.

      Think about it: When you use the SD card in the camera you're either taking snaps, or copying existing images or videos from or to the card. You want all this to happen as fast as possible. Once you've copied the files over you can delete everything. The rest of the time it does nothing.

      On a tablet you're using it as computer storage, so you want bulk. OTOH the applications rarely require the same bandwidth as photography and class 4 is usually enough.

    20. Re:Not just for professionals... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Quick test:

      Using your own camera, since this is where it will matter, and empty, freshly-formatted cards...
      Turn off autofocus (you don't care if the pictures are blurry; you just want them to happen as fast as possible)
      Turn on continuous shooting
      Hold down the button until the time between shots increases (sign of a full buffer in the camera)
      Check how many pictures you shot off. Keep in mind that you'll need to have the same number of slow shots as well, lest you skew the results slightly; I find that 3-5 shots is enough to include reaction time, a calculation of how many slow shots went off, and time to stop shooting

      I used this in a camera store when evaluating different cards, and found that there was actually a significant difference. Of course, this was with a very new Nikon shooting in RAW, so that was a hell of a lot of data per frame shooting like a machine gun. Your mileage may vary...which is the whole point of this test in the first place.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    21. Re:Not just for professionals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a prob for most photographers- how many will take pictures that are smaller than 512kB?

    22. Re:Not just for professionals... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I've tested a few cards of different brands and classes for use in an embedded device, and seen similar results - except that those appalling small block write speeds are related as much with brand as with class. Some brands are just as bad for small writes at class 4 as class 10.

  4. depends by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    I bought an 8 GB Sony U-1 card for $12 USD retail. Rated at 94 MB/s. Writes at about 16 MB/s loading Raspberry Pi images vs 3-6 MB/s for Class 4, real world. It was worth the 4 dollar premium over other name brand flash considering i will be using it for a boot drive for R Pi.

    --
    Good-bye
  5. I've found reading is faster than writing anyways. by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    I used to have an old 7" netbook for my daughter to use (I've updated her since). I used the biggest, slowest SD Card I could find. Took forever to fill up the card on a single copy operation, but it played back just fine, and overall it was a great buy. On the other hand it would have sucked for a camera.

    This isn't even a real discussion question. Consider what you need the card for and pay for the one you need. If the better than what you need card happens to fall in your range get it instead.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  6. transfering files to the PC! by davydagger · · Score: 1

    they forgot about transfering the files to the PC, if you have a lot of really large files, a card that is a power of ten faster, will be far far far better for syncing with a computer via USB, especially if its a USB3 card reader.

    imagine filling a 32GB card, and trying to transfer all those files with a class 2 card?

    then wiping it securely, and then reformatting it for use somewhere else.

    I don't have the time for that. I need fast memory.

    today I want 30 mb/s

    eventually I want 300 mb/s

    the future(15 years) we should be planning for 3 GB/s

    1. Re:transfering files to the PC! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Did you just get bored half way through TFS and decide to post?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:transfering files to the PC! by Tx · · Score: 1

      They didn't forget about it. FTA; "A regular class 4 or 6 card that’s capable of recording HD video will also be fast enough to play it back. The only advantage of a faster card for media is that syncing with your PC will be quicker." I don't really blame you for not making it all the way though the article though, it was at least three times as long as it needed to be to make it's point.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
  7. Depends on your device by alen · · Score: 2

    If the interface to the sd card only supports slower speeds then a fast card is useless

    And for things like watching movies or listening to music the slow cards should be enough

    1. Re:Depends on your device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you do anything with it attached to a PC, or if you ever think you might upgrade your camera.

  8. Uhm, yes and WTF? by Maxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "However, with the buffer on modern DSLRs able to handle 20 full-res shots or more, it's unlikely an expensive card will make any difference to anyone other than professionals shooting bursts of fast-action shots"

    UHm, no. Top of the line SLR can't handle 20 shots in buffer, and any consumer grade is 1-2 max. You won't get you 3-5 FPS (mid tier) or 5-9FPS (high end) without a fast card. And don't even think about recording 1080p or 720p@60 without a class10 UHS1 type card. The whole PC PRo exercise is a useless article apparently trying to convince consumers to buy slower things because 640k is enough for anyo....oh wait we've heard this before, haven't we :). I'd love to see them record HD video on Class4 card. Not happening.

    Buying a class 4 or 6 card is just stupid these days. That is the PC equivalent of actively seeking out a USB1.1 portable HDD instead of USB3. Because USb 1.1 is all the speed you'll ever need really.

    You will never regret buying class 10, but you will almost certainly regret a class 6 so why bother? Heck, in a year or two there won't be any class 6 available anyway - it is too slow...

    Cameras: Canon EOS550d, S90.

    1. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is the PC equivalent of actively seeking out a USB1.1 portable HDD instead of USB3. Canon EOS550d, S90.

      The different is that you don't pay a premium for USB3 (if you still do currently, it won't last long). Class 10 cards can be noticeably more expensive.

    2. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if you dont us SD cards for anything but have a slot in your laptop, shove in a class 10 and dedicate it to readyboost.

    3. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "And don't even think about recording 1080p or 720p@60 without a class10 UHS1 type card."

      Do it all the time with a class 6 in a T4i DSLR and many of my GoPro 3 black edition cameras. In fact Gopro recommends only Class 6. You are simply parroting the camera sites that are wildly incorrect.

      I can even record 4K on the gopros to a Class 6.

    4. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      You will never regret buying class 10, but you will almost certainly regret a class 6 so why bother? Heck, in a year or two there won't be any class 6 available anyway - it is too slow...

      Unless you're using the card in an audio recorder, in which case a class 10 card is just a waste of money; they are generally quite happy with class 4 cards.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      UHm, no. Top of the line SLR can't handle 20 shots in buffer, and any consumer grade is 1-2 max. You won't get you 3-5 FPS (mid tier) or 5-9FPS (high end) without a fast card.

      Definitely not a top-of-the-line camera, but still fairly decent - Canon EOS 7D. With the latest firmware, mine claims to have a 22 shot buffer in RAW, 80 shot buffer in large JPEG. 8fps. Plus it'll potentially shoot for even longer depending on how fast the memory card is - but it does take CompactFlash rather than SD.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    6. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by EvanED · · Score: 2

      His numbers are a bit low; my T2i will shoot 5 or 6 RAW photos at full speed before getting delayed by the buffer (at which point it slows to about 2 seconds per shot even with a class 10 card), and I definitely consider that a consumer grade DSLR. But I feel like the sentiment of his post is pretty correct.

    7. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      But I feel like the sentiment of his post is pretty correct.

      Indeed - I find I very rarely use continuous shooting on my own cameras, and I don't think I've ever hit the buffer limits in a real-world situation, but faster memory cards are still bloody useful simply for copying stuff over to a computer afterwards.

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    8. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I find I very rarely use continuous shooting on my own cameras, and I don't think I've ever hit the buffer limits in a real-world situation...

      With a 7D? I can believe that. I definitely have with my T2i though.

    9. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by xystren · · Score: 1

      Class 10 cards can be noticeably more expensive.

      I''m afraid I would have to disagree. The difference between a class 6 and class 10 32gb is barely noticeable. Check out Tigerdirect... Sometimes even the class 6 or class 4 cards are even more expensive. If this was a few years ago, I would have agreed with you completely. But this is now, not then.

    10. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by xystren · · Score: 1

      Granted, the above post is referring to SDHC, not SDXC which does tend to be more expensive, but that is typically due to the memory size. SDHC is limited to 32gb, while SDXC is good up to 2TB. A 64gb SDXC Class 10 run between $55 to $200 - ultimately I'm not sure why I would purchase the $200. There doesn't appear to be any sort of benefits to the specs.

      Ultimately what your using it for is going to determine your needs. For the SDHC cards, the price is negligible for a class 10 card. For the higher capacities of the SDXC cards, the differences between Class 4 and class 10 are again negligible. The price tends to split when you are talking a UHS Class 1... That's where you get into the price divide, but again, it wouldn't be something that is going to break the bank.

    11. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting a well lit subject, my Nikon D-3 will shoot 130 frames (JPG) continuously into the buffer at 11 frames per second so yes, a "top of the line" DSLR from a few years ago certainly can do better than 20 shots in the buffer. I only use class 10 cards for this reason. For sports photography it is a marvel.

    12. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by nadaou · · Score: 2

      You will never regret buying class 10, but you will almost certainly regret a class 6 so why bother? Heck, in a year or two there won't be any class 6 available anyway - it is too slow...

      see thread here (or maybe on the Raspberry Pi forums?) about how different SD card levels are tuned. For photography and other sequential write applications indeed class 10 is great.

      But for random access like the Pi might use, that sequential write speed is done at the expense of the random access, so in whosever's tests the class 4 and class 6 drives actuall far out performed the class 10 ones for small regular user files.

      ymmv, and in a year the situation will be different again.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    13. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, 'class' ratings on SD cards are like wattage ratings on PSUs... Most people don't actually need as big a number as they think they do; but damn is there ever a lot of crap with 'optimistic' labels slapped on it in the marketplace.

    14. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You are simply parroting the camera sites that are wildly incorrect.

      Nope, I'm with the grandparent (even the same camera), buying a class 6 nowadays is just dumb. I replaced my day-to-day class 6 cards with class 10's last year and I've never regretted in performance improvement. You can use a class 6 for HD video - but that's right at the bottom end of the recommended range. Cards are cheap (watch for the price wars that pop up now and again), so there's no reason not to upgrade.

    15. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I record HD (1280x720) on class 4 without problems. My camera is old so doesn't have higher res, maybe the speed issue is for full hd? Still, 1280x720 is enough for youtube, like many iphone/android video cameras.

    16. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class 6 will record 720@60fps no problem! I know this because I do it all day on my motorcycle!

    17. Re:Uhm, yes and WTF? by emt377 · · Score: 1

      Definitely not a top-of-the-line camera, but still fairly decent - Canon EOS 7D. With the latest firmware, mine claims to have a 22 shot buffer in RAW, 80 shot buffer in large JPEG. 8fps. Plus it'll potentially shoot for even longer depending on how fast the memory card is - but it does take CompactFlash rather than SD.

      22 shots is merely the size of the buffer though. If you shoot 4 fps continuous and it takes 1 second to flush each raw image, then it will take 5 seconds for you to get to shot #22. In those 5 seconds the camera will have flushed the first 5 shots though and you have only 17 in the buffer. So you can shoot 5 more. Now at shot #27 the camera with have flushed one more and you can squeeze in shot #28 before it slows down to match the flush rate. The # of shots you get before it slows down is reciprocal of the buffer fill rate (in - out). When out >= in, it's 1/0, or infinite, which in practice means the buffer never fills and you can shoot until the card fills up. This also tells us that as out rate approaches in rate there is a disproportionately rapid gain in # of continuous shots until slowdown. Of course, out rate is capped by the card controller speed in the camera, so at some point a faster card doesn't help, but it depends on the camera. The current gen Nikons (at least D800 and D4) seem to make good use of whatever card speed you wish to splurge on.

  9. HD Video by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    In my Canon I have to put a pretty fast card in to take more than about 10-20 seconds of video. I don't need the fastest but a 10 is pretty well the minimum. I would say that this test would be best if they had some older model cameras. Older being pretty common because if you bought a good camera even 5 years ago there is a pretty good chance that it still meets your needs and is still going strong.

    My personal suggestion is for everyone with a halfway serious camera to not only get fast enough SD cards but to go on ebay and buy a spare battery and charger. When you suddenly need them it is too late to get them cheap on ebay and paying full retail price can really sting.

    1. Re:HD Video by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But the toy palmcorders will not use anything more than a Class 6.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. Is It Worth Manufacturing Slow SD Cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. Those are just cheap the leftovers in the storehouse they need to sell somehow.

  11. I have a D800e and shoot raw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow cards mean waiting as those 45+ meg files are being written. Yes, fast Compact Flash and SD cards are expensive but if you want the write speeds for big files, then that is the cost of doing business. This is like people complaining that Raptor drives and SSDs aren't worth it. Maybe, to them. I personally have better things to do with my finite time on Earth than waiting for the darn buffer to clear.

    1. Re:I have a D800e and shoot raw by hedwards · · Score: 1

      They're not that expensive. My latest set of 16gb CF cards were $16 a piece and even without the $5 off they were still quite cheap. It reads at 45mbps and writes at 40mbps. And I see ones for about triple the price that double the speed. Overkill for the vast majority of people, but cards last a long time and at $70 a pop, they're not that expensive for those that really need that kind of speed.

      I know there are faster cards out there, but that's about half a second to write per RAW file. For most people, that's going to be more than enough speed. Now, for those that are regularly filling the buffer, that would be a different matter.

      But, considering that the 266x cards are reading faster than what the HDD usually read at, I think that's probably good enough.

  12. Know your camera's write speed! by david.emery · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's no point buying a Class 10 card if your camera's write speed is no faster than Class 6. Unfortunately, though, some camera makers don't provide this information, or they make make it hard to find the write speed. Thus you may have to do some web research for your specific camera.

    That being said, you'll never complain (after you have bought the card) if your card is faster than your camera.

    As a side comment, I think it's better to have 2 16gb cards than a single 32gb card, purely from the perspective of "no single point of failure." My goal on vacation/shoots is to have at least one card unused at the end of the trip. (I learned the hard way what can go wrong when I ran out of cards, erased a card I thought was copied to my computer, and then discovered the backup program saw the erased card and said, "Oh, you didn't want that data after all!" No one to blame but myself for that operator headspace error.)

    1. Re:Know your camera's write speed! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's why you should use a utility like teracopy to do the copy. I use it to verify that the files have been copied and then immediately delete the files on the card. That way, I know that they made it to the disk. I wish that it supported MD5 rather than CRC, but it's better than nothing and much faster than individually verifying each file is the same one.

    2. Re:Know your camera's write speed! by fufufang · · Score: 1

      There's no point buying a Class 10 card if your camera's write speed is no faster than Class 6.

      Well, with a faster card, you can copy the data out of the card quicker.

    3. Re:Know your camera's write speed! by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Well, with a faster card, you can copy the data out of the card quicker.

      iff the device you're using to copy supports reading the card at a faster speed! I've observed anecdotally, and read many reviews about the (usually poor) quality/speed of most 3rd party flash card readers. (Not an issue on my 2011 MacBook Pro, but it was a consideration using an external reader on my earlier MB Pro.)

    4. Re:Know your camera's write speed! by emt377 · · Score: 1

      That's why you should use a utility like teracopy to do the copy. I use it to verify that the files have been copied and then immediately delete the files on the card. That way, I know that they made it to the disk.

      I'd recommend leaving them on the card until you've backed up the disk so you have two copies at all times. When out traveling I import everything new on a card to Lightroom on my laptop, but leave it on the card. When the card is close to full I move on to the next. When I get home and have safely copied everything from my laptop to my main NAS I reformat the cards. I also leave the images on the laptop; when the 480GB SSD on it fills up I delete old images. The NAS gets backed up to disks that are stored off-site, but I'm in no rush to delete anything off the laptop until I need space. It's actually nice to always have my latest work on hand on the laptop as well.

      But, basically, my rule is two or more copies.

  13. Wonder why they left out Lexar by RedBear · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's very odd to me that they seem to have left out Lexar completely from this little test. Back when I was really into digital photography I spent a lot of time on DPReview and Amazon and B&H Photo looking for the best deals on the fastest CompactFlash and SD cards. The top competitors seemed to always be the SanDisk Ultra/Extreme lines and Lexar's Professional cards. Kingston has usually done well also, but the most prominent/popular over the years have always have seemed to be SanDisk and Lexar.

    Even 2-3 years ago I remember Lexar having "300x" cards competing with the SanDisk Extreme lineup. Just now doing a quick search on Amazon shows Lexar "600x" SD cards available, so it's not like they've dropped out of the market.

    Maybe somebody at Lexar pissed off the editor of PC Pro? I can't imagine why else you'd leave one of the fastest cards on the market out of a speed test. Hmm...

    Oh, yeah. PC Pro. Why the f**k am I even reading Slashdot anymore?

    1. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by macraig · · Score: 1

      You mean Lexar, the same company that had deliberately misleading advertising for some of its USB Flash products in the last year or two during the transition to USB 3.0? Lexar had advertising and product descriptions for some of its USB 2.0 thumb drives that conveniently didn't even mention that they were USB 2.0, not 3.0. You had to read the fine print in a PDF document to find out the truth, and only then because of the appearance of the USB "High Speed" logo in the margin of the document. Apparently Lexar was trying to unload its stock of USB 2.0 products before it was too late by outright misleading people.

      Forget what Lexar might have been doing honestly a decade ago; is that same company really one you want to depend upon now after it pulls a stunt like that?

    2. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by RDW · · Score: 1

      There's some rather more useful and still reasonably up to date testing on Rob Galbraith's site for a few high-end SLRs (unfortunately no longer updated):

      http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

      Lexar cards are included, up to 600x SDHC, and 1000x CF. XQD cards are the real speed demons now, of course.

    3. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by davmoo · · Score: 1

      Yes it is the one I want to depend on, and in fact do depend on. Because Lexar 1000x CF cards are the fastest cards out there in both read and write speeds. And that's by my actual experience and testing*, and not their advertising. I don't give a rat's ass what their PR department does.

      *I shoot high school gymnastics with a Canon 7D. It is not unusual for me to shoot 4000 or more shots during a 2 hour event.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    4. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by macraig · · Score: 2

      CF cards by design are faster than the SD cards being discussed here. SD was such a gawdawful spec right from the beginning. If you're using CF cards you're better off even using a lousy one.

      But kudos to you for not giving a damn about ethical practices just because you think you benefit.

    5. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I shoot high school gymnastics with a Canon 7D. It is not unusual for me to shoot 4000 or more shots during a 2 hour event.

      Perv.

    6. Re:Wonder why they left out Lexar by emt377 · · Score: 1

      It's very odd to me that they seem to have left out Lexar completely from this little test.

      The Lexar 1000X CF cards are still the gold standard for photography.

      Back when it was still updated, Rob Galbraith's card performance database was the place to look.

  14. High-definition video by tepples · · Score: 1

    And for things like watching movies or listening to music the slow cards should be enough

    Music? Yes. Even lossless stereo audio rarely exceeds 1 Mbps. Standard-definition movies? Yes; DVD Video's maximum bit rate is 10 Mbps. High-definition movies? Not so much. BD Video's maximum bit rate is 54 Mbps. To rip in real time, you'd need at least 7 MB/s of write throughput, or something faster than a class 6.

    1. Re:High-definition video by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Those class definitions refer to write speed. Even class 4 cards are typcially >>10MB/s when reading.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:High-definition video by tepples · · Score: 1

      To rip in real time, you'd need at least 7 MB/s of write throughput

      Those class definitions refer to write speed.

      Exactly. Who would want to sit around all day copying the rip to the card?

    3. Re:High-definition video by emt377 · · Score: 1

      To rip in real time, you'd need at least 7 MB/s of write throughput, or something faster than a class 6.

      7MB/s is pretty slow by today's standards though. Most of my CF cards for my pair of D800E's are 30, 45, 90MB/s write. Faster cards provide for generally more responsive interface speeds for review, delete, reformat, focus checking, etc. Less time spent writing saves battery since the time between sleep modes is reduced. I rarely fill the buffer though, even on a camera not made for continuous action shooting. However, when the buffer does fill card speed is very noticeable. To a photographer nothing is worse and more distracting than a camera that doesn't go click when you push the shutter release!

    4. Re:High-definition video by emt377 · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that a faster cards will give a few more shots before the buffer fills, simply because fill_rate = in_rate - out_rate. If in_rate is camera specific dependent on settings and continuous shooting speed, then increasing out_rate reduces fill_rate, making the buffer last longer.

  15. Yes by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Don't even bother with cards less then class 10, there not really worth the investment. "slower" or lower class SD cards are perfectly find but for the slight price difference you may as well spend the extra $5 and by the better card, it is faster, has better overall predominance and just lasts longer.

  16. It depends... by Lumpy · · Score: 0

    If you have crap quality gear, no. you cant record to a Class 10 card with a garbage camera fast enough to use the class 10 speed. Stick with Class 4 for your low end consumer gear.

    My Sony VG30 camcorder? yes it will record to the class 10 card and take advantage of it. Same as my D800. your toy level under $500 point and shoot? nope, dont worry about it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  17. Simply Untrue by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "... with the buffer on modern DSLRs able to handle 20 full-res shots or more, it's unlikely an expensive card will make any difference to anyone other than professionals shooting bursts of fast-action shots."

    I have seen a number of reviews for inexpensive video cameras that said a 4x card was not fast enough and caused choppy video, but a faster card fixed it.

  18. It depends: how many shoot 50+frames/minute? by non-e-moose · · Score: 1

    How many people _actually_ shoot more than 10 frames/minute on a regular/continuous basis? Really. Think about your personal usage. The likelyhood is that the answer is Z-Eee-Arrr-Oooh. ZERO. or close to it. Those who do are serious about their video, and are much more picky about things than simple capture rates.

    1. Re:It depends: how many shoot 50+frames/minute? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      How many people _actually_ shoot more than 10 frames/minute on a regular/continuous basis?
      Really. Think about your personal usage.
      The likelyhood is that the answer is Z-Eee-Arrr-Oooh. ZERO. or close to it. Those who do are serious about their video, and are much more picky about things than simple capture rates.

      Probably not many. I'd still recommend the fastest that you camera can support, because the improved read speed will be noticeable when flipping through the pictures on the camera or offloading onto the PC.

  19. what about normal consumer point-and-shoot? by AxemRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While modern DSLR cameras might have large buffers, normal consumer-grade or even enthusiast-grade point-and-shoot cameras don't necessarily have them. IMO it makes sense for an average person to buy a higher speed card. They're probably only buying one card anyway, and the price difference between a slow card and a fast card is small enough to make it worth it.

  20. An Ultrabook is a MacBook Air! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All others are posers.

  21. Not according to the guy at frys by joeflies · · Score: 4, Funny

    I once went to frys to pick up some extra cards, and the sales rep told me that if I buy the more expensive cards, it will improve the quality of my pictures because they will be sharper and more colorful. I am still trying to figure out how he justifies that statement.

    1. Re:Not according to the guy at frys by wakeboarder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's what happens when you talk to sales, if you do a little research online you will know more than they do.

    2. Re:Not according to the guy at frys by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's bullshit! You won't even notice the difference unless you use a Monster Cable.

    3. Re:Not according to the guy at frys by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      He justifies that because when you pay more for something, you use it more carefully and make better photos...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Not according to the guy at frys by toddestan · · Score: 1

      He's clueless. It's the quality of the cable that you use to transfer the pictures off of the camera to the computer that matters for that.

  22. SD Card Write Speeds by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The class ratings from reputable vendors tend to be reliable, but you don't always get this from lesser known manufacturers. Most Class 10 cards get at least Class 6 performance.

    A Class 10 32 GB SDHC card costs $33 or less. The same card at Class 6 costs $25 or less, a whopping $8 in savings. Most people buy one card and leave it in their camera except to transfer photos to the PC to upload to Facbook, etc. Is it really advisable to recommend that people save $8 for a one-time purchase of a memory card? I think not!!

    1. Re:SD Card Write Speeds by adolf · · Score: 1

      Is it $8 more, or is it 32% more?

      To restate your rhetorical question:

      Is it really advisable to tell folks to spend 32% more for features that they may or may not find useful?

      (I'll let you answer the question yourself, since you seem to be very good at synopsizing the needs of the general public.)

    2. Re:SD Card Write Speeds by deimtee · · Score: 1

      I know a few people who never erase their cards. When full they keep the old SD card as a backup and put a new one in the camera. For them it might make sense to buy the cheapest one that works.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  23. Find the card that suits your needs. by rusty0101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For Photography, work out your budget, figure out what you need for your style of taking pictures, and buy the best memory you can afford for your needs. If you can get by with class 4 or class 6 memory, great. If you find that you need class 10, try out some of the budget options noted above and see if they serve your needs.

    For other uses, you may very well find that a slower card actually works better for you than a 'faster' card. Class 10 is great for streaming large volumes of data onto the card, but experience has shown in the microsd cards that if you need to do a lot of small file manipulations, read and write, etc. a class 4 may outperform a class 10 card. This is of interest to people doing cyanogen mod implementations running off of the sdcard, but is a completely different use case from a photographer shooting high res photos, or a videographer shooting HD video.

    --
    You never know...
  24. Video and SD speed ratings by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've learned through trial and error what cards actually work on my camcorder. For still photography, I've always been a SanDisk fan. But every class 10 SanDisk SD card I have used is unable to support the highest quality recording on my Canon camcorder. Oddly, class 10 Transend cards work fine. It appears the class 10 rating is a read-speed rating - not write-speed. I've tried 6 different SanDisk cards over the years and they continue to disappoint.

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Video and SD speed ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Class numbers define write speeds as well as read speeds (in MB/s). Of course it's up to the manufacturer to actually deliver the advertised speed. Moreover, 10 is the highest class, and therefore there are significant speed differences among class 10 cards.

  25. Yes by SampleFish · · Score: 1

    When it comes to memory you always want the good stuff.

    There are many reasons why.
    #1 Buying high end cards pushes the market in that direction. I don't think they should make slow chips anymore.
    #2 It makes the experience better. In almost every application. Loading, unloading, device performance. Each device will have limitations but you should seek to maximize the potential.
    #3 Memory is cheap. The fast cards are available on-line for the same price as the slow cards in the store.
    #4 I forgot what #4 is but I'm sure there are more reasons.

  26. Re:I've found reading is faster than writing anywa by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Funny

    I used to have an old 7" netbook for my daughter to use (I've updated her since).

    Ah pubescence 2.0, them were the days.

  27. The old saying goes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The old saying goes..
    Fast, reliable, cheap

    Pick any two.

  28. Um, what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    So, from the summary, it sounds like the article states that slower-rated SD cards are just as good as faster-rated ones, except when they're not.

    OK.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Um, what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      On my 7MP superzoom I can shoot continuous on a class 4 card, if it's a good one. But I'm told that anything higher-resolution (or RAW) and it's a no-go. And if you want to shoot HD video you want a class 10, or continuous RAW, or anything else high-bandwidth really. So in short, if you have a cheap consumer camera and you're taking cheap consumer pictures (resolution-wise anyway) then it doesn't matter, and for playing music it doesn't matter, but for high res, RAW, or HD video you should pony up for a real card.

      With that said, it's twice the money for a real card! Class 4 is seven bucks on eBay, class 10 can be had for 12 but is more often 14, if you expect a lifetime warranty.

      And with that said, Sandisk is now giving the third degree for memory card warranty, so I'm giving Kingston a try again...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Um, what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      With that said, it's twice the money for a real card! Class 4 is seven bucks on eBay, class 10 can be had for 12 but is more often 14, if you expect a lifetime warranty.

      It just occurred to me, that's a great deal.

      $14 for what, like 16gb of solid state memory?

      You're probably old enough to have shot on 400 speed Kodak (or Fuji) film back in the day. What would it have cost to have bought the film and processing (or chemicals for processing in your own darkroom) to shoot and process the number of pictures you can get on one of those 16gb SD cards? Not to mention the fact that you can dump everything onto an external hard drive and use it all over again.

      This has nothing to do with your comment about 4class v 10class, but sometimes I take technology for granted. Usually, in fact.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Um, what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're probably old enough to have shot on 400 speed Kodak (or Fuji) film back in the day. What would it have cost to have bought the film and processing (or chemicals for processing in your own darkroom) to shoot and process the number of pictures you can get on one of those 16gb SD cards?

      Yeah, I shot lots of 100 and 400 Kodak. And much later, after I'd already got digital PandS cameras (I had a Casio QV-10, even! those were the days) I took a B&W photo class so that I would understand more of what I was doing. Can't say it helped my composition much, but now I do understand the camera much better. Frankly, even on my super zoom, which is so old that it won't even take SDHC, I really never worry about running out of space while taking snapshots. Video is the only case where that might be a problem, and then I have to use my supercompact with its garbage lens, but it will go up to 32GB. 8GB has always proven to be more than enough for my purposes.

      This has nothing to do with your comment about 4class v 10class, but sometimes I take technology for granted. Usually, in fact.

      Most of my get off my lawn comments are about how I used to get shit done on a 3/260, and before that on a 286 running Xenix, and how vastly much you could do with an Amiga with a sub-8MHz processor and a handful of special chips. To be fair, the computers of today do many more things and STILL manage to be faster sometimes (booting my Linux machine is comparable to booting my A2500 from the hard disk, and it would be faster if not for the agonizing duration of the POST.) It just occurred to me to see if I can shave that down by disabling the storage controllers in BIOS and booting from flash, I wonder if that works or if they won't show up. Time to make a /boot again. And more taking-for-granted hilarity ensues; the smallest device I have that's big enough is probably 4GB, what a waste :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. How about when erasing sectors? by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how the write times change when they become over-write times, and sectors have to be erased before they can be written.

    1. Re:How about when erasing sectors? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the write times change when they become over-write times, and sectors have to be erased before they can be written.

      I'm surprised no one else responded to this; TFA didn't mention it either; I recall having experienced a significant performance difference between a new and a used USB stick in the past.

      I happened to have an unused USB stick (SanDisk, 4 GB) lying around, so here are the test results I get right now. Out of the box, it takes about 4 seconds to write 40 MiB, using the command

      time sh -c 'cp /tmp/random_data_40MiB /media/FBDD-DDE3/rnd40M-3; sync'

      Strangely, sustained writes (looping the above command) are about a factor 2 slower; maybe there is some cooling-down time to prevent overheating of the flash chip? After filling up the entire USB stick and deleting all the files again, there is no difference in performance compared to when it was fresh: 10 MiB/s for a burst write and 5 MiB/s for sustained writes.

    2. Re:How about when erasing sectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how the write times change when they become over-write times, and sectors have to be erased before they can be written.

      There really is not any such thing as "erasing", we use that term to refer to when we are setting the bits to some sort of default value... but it's all still writing.

      But if you were worried about it, all you'd have to do is re-format the card after you've loaded your data off of it.

    3. Re:How about when erasing sectors? by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      From an old unix hack.. You need two sync's to write all the cached filesystem data to a device..

      1st sync ques up the filesystem data blocks to be written to a device.. 2nd sync may (or may not*) wait for the super block to be rewritten again..

      (*no longer applies if device is re-ordering writes)..

  30. Yes by thepainguy · · Score: 1

    I have a Canon T3i and have tried to shoot 720P 60FPS video with cheap class 10 cards and the camera pukes after a second or so.

    It only works well with a Sandisk class 10 card.

  31. Class 6 are useally as fast as Class 10 by maxbash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always buy Class 6 SD cards, why because there slightly cheaper then Class 10 nearly always a smiler or identical card when from the same brand. Do I sound illogical? Study the specification, Class 10 has a less rigorous testing metric, they don't do any random access tests on Class 10 cards. So far I've had the best performance with Sanddisk Ultra class 6 cards. I admit I do push the random access on some of my uses, like using it has the system drive for a Nook Color, booting UBCD4win on a ISOSTICK. and as a system drive for a couple ARM Developer boards.

    1. Re:Class 6 are useally as fast as Class 10 by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      I always buy Class 6 SD cards, why because there slightly cheaper then Class 10 nearly always a smiler or identical card when from the same brand. Do I sound illogical?

      Yes, you do sound illogical, and a bit incoherent. You buy one class of cards because they are cheaper and smile at you? Class 10 cards are faster, which is what makes them Class 10 and not Class 6, though I've never seen one smile, so maybe you're onto something. Personally, I like frowner and scowler cards better than smiler cards - that tough look means business.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Class 6 are useally as fast as Class 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Study the specification, Class 10 has a less rigorous testing metric, they don't do any random access tests on Class 10 cards

      The people who care about it are usually photographers. We're not concerned with random access speeds, we're purely concerned with data writes. No big deal if it takes an extra minute or two to offload the images from the card, but even a short delay when the buffer is writing out to the card during shooting can be the difference between getting the shot and missing it completely.
      Of course if you're really a hardcore professional you'll probably be using a rig that writes to an external SSD and not be using cards to start with, but for the semi-serious folks the extra few bucks for a class 10 card really is worth it. (assuming the camera can actually support class 10 write speeds of course)

      The 'best' class card to use depends on what you're using it for. But even with devices like you're talking about, I'd probably chip out the extra $10 or so to go with a class 10 just to get rid of a potential bottleneck. But I agree that the class 6 will usually be fine for those applications, and if you're on a tight budget it might be worth saving a little cash.

    3. Re:Class 6 are useally as fast as Class 10 by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do sound illogical, and a bit incoherent. You buy one class of cards because they are cheaper and smile at you? Class 10 cards are faster, which is what makes them Class 10 and not Class 6, though I've never seen one smile, so maybe you're onto something.

      The problem is, many Class 10 cards boosted their ratings by over-optimizing for long sequential reads/writes, causing random-read/write speeds to suffer. I think the gap has shrunk with newer Class 10 cards, but a few years ago the effect was pretty dramatic. Lower-class cards could be significantly faster for non-contiguous workload patterns (such as running apps directly from a card):

      For instance: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33007926&postcount=26

  32. One thing IS worth spending more for. by sdsucks · · Score: 1

    Brand name cards for reliability & speed. I've seen more than a few cheap cards fail but never a good brand name card.

    Lower classed cards of a good brand are usually faster than higher classed cheap brands too. About all a cards class rating really means is that at some point it passed a very specific write throughput benchmark. Slow cards are near useless for many purposes. If you ever want to use the card outside of a shitty camera, you'll appreciate any extra speed.

    Note that most benchmark ignore read and write latency too, which can get very significant if using for other purposes.

    1. Re:One thing IS worth spending more for. by freemenow-linux · · Score: 0

      if you didnt know already i have seen some top of the line usb drives and sd cards fail more than the cheap ones

  33. No by freemenow-linux · · Score: 0

    in my personal opinion i wouldn't pay for the extra speed i just cant justify it seeing as i can go to my local Microcenter store (microcenter.com) and buy a 16gig micro SD card for around $10 and i recently bought a 32gig sd card for around $20.. now if i was doing something every day that i would need the extra speed for then yes i would spend the extra money.. and considering that i would never play a high resolution video from an sd card or usb drive let alone edit one as it is always much faster to transfer the file to the hard drive since the current r/w speeds of a hard drive are still faster than the speed of an SD card..

  34. Seasoned professional photographers... by Vylen · · Score: 1

    ... would take less burst shots than amateurs since they would know when to take a shot after having already framed it in their mind.

    Amateurs (and enthusiasts like myself) can often use burst shooting for shoot-and-pray. Hopefully amongst those photos something good came out!

    1. Re:Seasoned professional photographers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amateurs (and enthusiasts like myself) can often use burst shooting for shoot-and-pray

      Shoot-and-pray is not necessarily a bad thing. With some of the more active performers, you see certain precursors and it's ideal to continuous shoot in case a signature move or once-in-a-concert action shot happens. Those photos are split second and while I know some people can time it perfectly and get those moves in one shot, they're paid a *lot* more money per gig.

  35. Raspberry Pi? by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since SD cards are the standard storage medium for the Raspberry Pi, what about a speed comparison for that?

    1. Re:Raspberry Pi? by wakeboarder · · Score: 1

      If you use a class 4 card vs a class 10 card, you will be roughly 2.5x min faster, if you get a 30Mb/s card you will be 7.5x faster. Everything would load faster.

    2. Re:Raspberry Pi? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Yep, faster = faster, even on Raspberry Pi. Maybe not 2.5x or 7.5x faster, but a slow card will definitely be a bottleneck that limits overall performance.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  36. I'm guilty of overkill by Teknikal69 · · Score: 1

    I always buy class10 32gb cards I even have one in a sony ereader where I'm using maybe a gb at most and don't need that kind of speed whatsover it's a total waste even I recognise, I guess it's a character flaw with myself I've yet to get a 64gb one but I definitely do want them even if I never use the space.

  37. Yes, even for regular stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep lots of books on my SD card in my Android tablet. I noticed a huge difference in how fast the apps can even read the directory list of all the books there. Plus a huge difference in how fast the app can load the book off of the card. Synchronizing the SD card with my PC goes a lot faster too.

    As far as I am concerned, the Class 2 cards are just the crap they throw at consumers to make us think we are getting something when we aren't. They are only good for putting pictures on to send to your grandma. (And all my grandparents are dead, so that should tell you something.)

  38. THIS...was worth a study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Are faster grades of SD memory card worth the extra cash...

    Are you serious with this shit? The difference between a class-6 32GB card and a class-10 32GB card is seven fucking dollars.

    Any moron not spending that extra seven dollars after spending $1500 on the latest 427-gigapixel camera deserves to miss the shot.

    Let's put this another way. Chances are any device you're actually questioning could benefit with a class-10 card is likely hundreds of dollars, and therefore discussing memory speed options here is about as pointless as discussing which color memory card you should get.

    I don't know what is a bigger failure, someone actually studying this, or it being on Slashdot.

  39. Re:I've found reading is faster than writing anywa by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the on board SSD was 4GB. The factory installed version of Linux couldn't even update the day I took it out of the box because the drive was full. I put eeeBuntu on the thing and it worked out great. You would be surprised how many kids movies compressed to PSP size in stereo you can fit into a 32GB SSD card. She would watch movies and even play a few video games on that thing in the back seat. I gave it to my niece and nephew when I got her a newer Acer with a 10" screen.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  40. Fast and small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have done my own tests with a number of brands and speeds and now buy only one brand-
    SanDisk Extreme Pro.
    I have not had one single problem in the years since I switched to Extreme Pro cards and now use them in every camera they will work in. (My D70 with CF adapter will not work with these cards so I have to use an older, slower one. Yes, native CF would be better but I have a LOT of SD cards.)

    The buffer sizes are somewhat over-stated in some of these comments, unless folks are using the smallest, lowest quality settings for their images. Nothing out there right now will buffer 20 20mb RAW images in-camera.

    Faster is better and smaller is better- as long as the card works in the camera and the size is big enough for your needs. Multiple small cards does two things for you: eventually any card will die and if you are out and do NOT have a spare, no more pictures. Plus- two 8gb cards can cost less than one 16gb card.

    My last point:
    The ratings and classifications are NOT trustworthy and the errors are almost always on the low side. ALMOST always...
    I do have one ancient Transcend card that is FAST compared to most of the cards I have (including Lexar.) Reads AND writes faster.

    And yes, HD video can be recorded on any decent class 6 card- hell, if that is all you are doing just buy some really cheap, big class 6 or better cards and don't get too bound up about read/write speeds- you aren't pushing the cards that hard.
    If you are doing portraits or stills- hell, dig out your really ancient cards because it won't slow you down.

    But if you do action or wildlife- or want to be as prepared as you can be for sudden inspiration, get some good cards.

  41. Yes, you do need faster flash memory by wakeboarder · · Score: 1

    I thought that I was fine with the memory I had until I shot raw on DSLR, If you've never shot raw it will change your life. The files are 30Mb for one and 20Mb for the other DSLR that I have, so lets do a quick calculation to see what the time between shots would be on a class 2/4 card (~6Mb/sec) vs a class 10 (~10Mb/sec). If I wanted to save 1 file it would take me 5 or 3 seconds respectively for the larger files. This is absurd when you are shooting photography. So you ask, I have no fancy camera, why would I want a fast card? Lets suppose you fill that nice 32Gb class 4 card you bought up with files and now you want to get them off. Well it will take you around 2 hours to get those files transferred. You might as well burn a few DVD's while your at it. Now I only buy sandisk extreme, they are 45Mb/sec (with some at 95Mb/sec, which is almost fast enough to be a swapfile disk). I do have a Lexar and it is around 40Mb/sec and it does just fine. Not to mention if you do anything with video, they are starting 1080p@60fps or even 4k video on some cameras like a gopro 3, this generates large files and high throughput's, a class 10 card wont even cut it. So, you can buy a nice card now, or buy a cheap one now and a nice one later (unless you just store a bunch of text files on your flash device and only use it for that). You can pick up a faster card on sale for 25$ for 32GB. Don't even get me started on cell phones, I have an s3 and I've noticed a ~10% speed improvement after installing a faster card.

  42. not just for pictures by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    At work, we use them as the boot device and main mass storage device for our embedded systems. We build systems that deal with lots and lots of real time data. You're damn right it makes a difference.

  43. Need it for the megapixel race by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    In the newer cameras that have 15+MP sensors that are really good at taking pictures of the Sun and nothing else, and save raw images with no compression, and with rapid burst modes for "spray and pray" photography, you absolutely have to have the fastest flash cards you can get.

  44. In Soviet Russia, your TV watches YOU! by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    I live in Russia. I need a removable boot media which can be easily hidden. I do nothing bad: I just don't want my business to be stopped by seizure of computers containing vital information. Traditionally, if THEY want to extort business, they first seize all the computers under suspicion that they contain pirated OS and child porno. You can wait for end of investigation forever, while THEIR children play with your equipment, of just sell your business to THEM. If you are too impatient, THEY will find child pornography. THEY stop the politicians similarly, too, but there THEY look for MEIN KAMPF.

    In such conditions, the higher class the better. And the terminal server under the chair of a crazy old lady somewhere far enough will help, too.

  45. Good cameras don't use SD... by XaXXon · · Score: 1

    Don't all the high-end cameras still use CF? So much easier to work with. All my camears use CF.

    1. Re:Good cameras don't use SD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not anymore. Many pro-level DSLRs now have both CF and SD, and Canon's new 6D (which while a "budget" full frame camera... at $2K most people would consider it pretty high-end) is SD-only.

      Also how is CF easier to work with? If anything I would consider SD easier to work with, since virtually all laptops have SD readers built in.

  46. The camera is only part of the reason by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    I recently replaced my SDHC cards for my now aged Nikon D90 with Sandisk ultra 90MB/sec cards. The camera can't take advantage of them at all and I knew that going into it. I did it because it improves processing. Moving photos from a shoot went from a 20+ minute chore to something that is done in a minute or two on the PC. That makes it worthwhile to me. Fast cards really aren't all that expensive. Even though I shoot everything in RAW+JPEG fine, I have never filled a 16GB card in a single shoot.

  47. Speed isn't all about in-camera writing... by FLaSh+SWT · · Score: 2

    Professional testing has shown that the cameras I currently use (Canon EOS 1D Mark IV) top out around 66 MB/s when writing to the fastest CF cards.

    But in-camera speed is only half of what matters. As a photojournalist and sports photographer who works on tight deadlines most days, I also have to consider how fast I can download the images off the CF cards onto my computer for editing. With the right card reader you can download at up to 97 MB/s.

    This is why I always use the fastest cards I can, currently Sandisk Extreme Pro 90 MB/s, because even though the camera can't take advantage of that extra speed it will definitely save me time when it comes to editing.

    For people not on a time crunch or those who always download to their computer by plugging their camera in with a USB cord it is probably wise to save money and not buy the fastest cards out there.

  48. Not only that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    But there's this whole other class of cameras, video cameras, that write a continuous stream to the SD cards. AVCHD cameras are SD based. There your options are to get a card that's fast enough or to have to turn down your detail (or simply not record at all).

  49. It depends on the camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all very camera dependent. Some cameras benefit from faster cards, some don't. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007 has some extensive tests on different cards in the most common DSLRs

  50. They left out a lot of cards by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It didn't seem like a good test at all to me, they also left out some other cards that people might be likely to encounter in shopping (like Duracell).

    Also, of course slower cards are going to be slower - compare all cards with the same speed rating against each other please, not class 4 against class 10!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  51. 1080p video by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And don't even think about recording 1080p or 720p@60 without a class10 UHS1 type card

    Erm no. 1080p video or 720p@60 comes out to under 3mb/second. A class 4 card can theoretically do the job. Nikon recommends a maximum class 6 for unimpeded performance on their top of the line video cards. Also my new prosumer camera supports 13 frames in the buffer and my 6 year old DSLR supported far more as well and even with a piss-poor cards of yesteryear behaved admirably when taking fast action shots at sporting events in continuous release.

    The reality is that we were taking 1080p videos and shooting fast paced sporting events long before Class10 cards started coming out. Your comment is similar to those "professionals" who say that you can't photograph sports without vibration reduction, and piezoelectric focusing drives. Well I have sporting photographs from 40 years ago that prove otherwise.

    1. Re:1080p video by Maxwell · · Score: 1

      And don't even think about recording 1080p or 720p@60 without a class10 UHS1 type card

      Erm no. 1080p video or 720p@60 comes out to under 3mb/second. A class 4 card can theoretically do the job. Nikon recommends a maximum class 6 for unimpeded performance on their top of the line video cards. Also my new prosumer camera supports 13 frames in the buffer and my 6 year old DSLR supported far more as well and even with a piss-poor cards of yesteryear behaved admirably when taking fast action shots at sporting events in continuous release.

      The reality is that we were taking 1080p videos and shooting fast paced sporting events long before Class10 cards started coming out. Your comment is similar to those "professionals" who say that you can't photograph sports without vibration reduction, and piezoelectric focusing drives. Well I have sporting photographs from 40 years ago that prove otherwise.

      Erm, yes. Sorry, but it's just math. Bitrate*compression*framesize*FPS. Raw reate at 1080p is 6.22M/s w/o compression. There is a little overhead so use 6.5 to be safe

      1) Short of a very intense 60% compression you won't get down to 3M. Post processing yes, but in the camera on the fly? Pretty rare. In most cases you are looking at about 5.0M/s for 1080p. That is why many cameras have a 12minute limit on HD recording - at 12Min you've hit the 4G maximum file size. The Canon line which I am most familiar with has this limit. Many P&S cameras do as well.

      2) We weren't shooting 1080p video on class 10 cards "long before they came out". There weren't even consumer grade cameras capable of shooting 1080p at usable bitrate/frame rate until a few years ago. The SD Association *specifically developed* Class 10 cards for FullHD video in alignment with the introduction of 1080p capable cameras. At the same time. Class10=FullHD=10M/s target write. That's what they are for. It's on their website: https://www.sdcard.org/developers/overview/speed_class/ I'd love to see the link wherein Nikon specifically ignores the very public, published SD standard.

      That said, some premium manufactures switched to higher speed for all their manufacturing while continuing to label them seperately. SanDisk was notable for this. There are a lot of lesser labelled SanDisk that perform above their rated class speed. My advice stands: do not to try and get lucky with a class6. If you are going to shoot at 1080p@30 or 720p@60 just get the 10+UHS1 as recommended by the good folks who design them and don't waste your time.

      Finally, the newer PZ lenses are just phenomenal. Stick with the old lenses if you like, but I just plain get better shots with USM +IS then I was 40 years ago on my 35m Program AE-1 without either. Stop missing opportunities and get a faster focusing lens, and we'll have to agree to get off each other's lawn!

    2. Re:1080p video by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nice try, neither Nikon nor Canon allow uncompressed video to be recorded to the internal SD/CF card. Hence again why both manufacturers say in their manuals that a Class 6 memory card is sufficient to allow maximum performance to be attained shooting video out of the camera. With Canon you can load the magic lantern firmware and I believe you can get uncompressed video out via the HDMI cable. On the latest Nikons you need to tether via USB3.

      Also I'm not saying new features aren't great. I own a couple of VR / AF-S lenses myself. I'm just saying that modern photography wasn't invented with the modern camera. The only advance really that has happened in the last 5 years was ludicrously high ISOs which even the best of film chemistries weren't capable of giving rise to a new world of low light handheld photography. Every other form of photography has existed and resulted in quality shots for many years.

      You can stay on my lawn, I can't stand mowing so I put gravel in my front yard :-)

  52. Define "serious" by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    "Serious" can be highly variable, going all the way from 1 frame a day for long term stop motion work to over a thousand per second.

    ~60 fps would be an option for some high motion stuff.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  53. Suspicion of chinese dealers... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I'm not the only one to have read too many reviews of Chinese dealers to not have a healthy sense of 'buyer beware'.

    I've heard of things like '4GB' USB drives turning out to be 64-256MB models with the controller chip reprogrammed to report 4GB-which you don't find out until you try to read data written to the drive past the real limit. Class 10 SD cards that turn out to be no faster than class 4. Etc...

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Suspicion of chinese dealers... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yup, many of the reviews are hatchet jobs from competitors. Others are true. Though, with so many transactions, some manner of problem is to be expected, and as I said, customer service is not as good, whether by design or cultural issues, I can't tell.

    2. Re:Suspicion of chinese dealers... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Well, one of the sites that has a few of them is an independent reviewer. He still buys the stuff, just points out that 'buyer beware' and that you might want to order 2-3 of whatever, from different sources, while noting that he's got about a 10% failure rate, while the stuff is on average half the price or less. So on the whole he's ahead.

      Oh, and going by the prices I've been seeing, and having visited Walmart over the weekend, it has like a 20% markup over chinese direct-market, not 500%.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  54. UHS-I is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a 128 GB SDXC card from Lexar that boasts a steady read+write of 60 MB/s+. On Amazon, you can now find a 256 GB version that can do 95 MB/s. The Canon T4i officially and genuinely supports UHS-I cards now too.

    CF is dead.

  55. Fast SD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use fast SD cards to boot Arch Linux on my Chromebook. Slow would not suffice.

  56. "except when transferring to PC" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a Nikon D800. The D800 is not a particularly fast camera (4 frames/second spec), but the files are large. RAW files (14-bit, uncompressed) are 70MB each. I generally use lossless compressed 14-bit RAW, and the file size varies a lot, from around 35MB to 50+MB. On occasions I have shot 1000 images in a single session (I was using 16MB cards, and it basically filled three of them).

    The D800 will hold one CF and one SD card, and these days I typically load a 32GB CF and a 32GB SDXC. Transferring that much data from the card to the PC takes a while.

    I'm currently using Lexar 1000x CF cards (read speed rated at 150MB/s, I'm usually seeing well over 120MB/s while copying) and Sandisk Extreme 95MB/s SDXC cards (I don't see a full 95MB/s, more like 70MB/s). I'm using a USB3 card reader, and transferring from the card to a fast SSD, so pretty much I'm limited by the speed of the card. I loaded a slow CF card for one shoot because I mislaid my fast ones, and it was transferring at under 20MB/s - never again!

    I don't need the speed for shot taking. I typically shoot one image, then re-compose, so I'm putting no pressure on the buffer. But waiting for the cards to download? That's a major pain, and not to be underestimated. The fast cards really do make a difference.

  57. CF is bigger than SD by tepples · · Score: 1

    7MB/s is pretty slow by today's standards though. Most of my CF cards for my pair of D800E's are 30, 45, 90MB/s write.

    A CF card is also physically a lot bigger than a microSD card, allowing the card's controller to stripe data across multiple flash chips the same way an SSD's controller does.

    To a photographer nothing is worse and more distracting than a camera that doesn't go click when you push the shutter release!

    I'm not familiar with DSLR cameras, the ones big enough to take a CF card instead of an SD card. Do they play a note after each shot whose pitch gives the photographer an idea of how full the buffer is?

  58. No. by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

    No.

  59. Buy Monster SD by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    For $500 you get not only a fast SD card but also high quality gold contacts to ensure you photos are crisp and clear.

    I'm joking of course, but Monster isn't.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  60. Address limits for SD/CF? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Flat address space? Is that something the CF interface does? Since the NAND flash doesn't have any 'flat address space' - it just fills up an entire block of 32kB, and operationally, one cycles through the address several times until the appropriate #address lines needed for the memory range is covered.