Sandisk v Eevrything else???

R

ricky1980

Messages
1,399
Name
Richard Wong
Edit My Images
No
why s sandisk cards at such a premium compared with other brands? I used to remember them being cheap and cheerful and kingston being expensive. Now kingston is typically 1/2 the price of a sandisk for the same storage and performance.
 
They're faster, and have a track record of being good, secure and fast.

If you want _really_ expensive, check out lexar ;)
 
SLRist said:
No, if you want expensive, try Red.

$495 for a 16GB CompactFlash anyone? :puke:

http://www.red.com/store/502006
Click to expand...

haha... people say that when the word 'photo' is in the name of any product, you can multiply the normal price by 10.

With broadcast video, multiply it by 100, with film, 1000 :p

on the other hand, being a video guy as well as photo, I would _kill_ to use RED gear :p
 
SanDisk is the way to go. I've had various makes fail but never a SanDisk. I'm looking for another card now -- waiting for a bargain to pop up.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
They're faster, and have a track record of being good, secure and fast.

If you want _really_ expensive, check out lexar ;)
Click to expand...

I was unfortunate enough to have a premium Lexar CF card fail.
 
actually i don't use CF, i use SD cards, i had a sandisk failed on me once
 
CF and SD are actually quite different technologies. Where as SD was developed to be a very small attached memory device, where the host device is responsible for managing read & write access, CompactFlash was developed as a solid state hard drive, and has on board hard drive interface circuitry. They are more robust and reliable than their SD (or SDHC) equivalents, as they were designed to directly replace hard drives, and have embedded error detection and correction logic, which makes corruption of the entire device much less likely. The only real disadvantage of CF cards is their physical size and the fact that they don't have a write protect switch. SanDisk invented the CompactFlash format, so it comes as no surprise that they're seen as the premium brand.
 
Galaxy66 said:
I was unfortunate enough to have a premium Lexar CF card fail.
Click to expand...

wow, that's some bad luck.

kryptix, mymemory have got the 'refurbished' sandisk cards in stock atm, 4gb extreme 3 for £15 posted :) several people, including me, found them to be fine.

Memory at the end of the day, is the very last thing to scrimp on, waaaaay after you've gone for a cheap old body, nasty, cheap, kit lens offbrand glass, etc... you still want to have decent flash memory :p
 
i think in terms of SD there shouldn't be any differences between the brands, as the chip i would imagine come from the same manufacture - samsung? and also its relatively low speed compared with CF cards, so the performance can't be that different.

why aren't all the cameras CF cards, i would really appreciated the option of having CF cards on the D90 as well as SD of course, cos they are a lot cheaper
 
I've still got a 1Gb IBM Microdrive with its PCMCIA adapter if you want real unreliability!
 
I use both Kingston and Sandisk 4Gb and 8Gb cards, never had any problems with either make and tbh although the Sandisk ones were more expensive I just fling in the first one that comes to hand as they all served me well so far.

Tommy.
 
I use Transcend CF cards, never had any fail and they are much cheaper and also offer much faster transfer speeds than Sandisk.

If you shoot sports or fast action in continuos high speed drive, I'd recommend trying at least a Transcend x 266 speed card. (y)
 
I've just received four more Sandisk CF cards. What strikes me is how much packaging and extra gubbins there are, surely they could reduce some of this and the price.
 
Just recieved another two 8g Sandisk IV's. Best price I found was from Amazon. Wanted to try other makes but after having no trouble from this make it seems to be tempting fate to change, isnt that how they make their money :thinking:
Trev
 
I now use Sandisk only, I bought a Kingston 8Gb recently and it started causing me problems when used in my 1Dmkiii, works fine in the other bodies but plays up on the mkiii so it is no longer used. For this reason it will be Sandisk only from now on.
Ricky
 
Trev4 said:
Just recieved another two 8g Sandisk IV's. Best price I found was from Amazon. Wanted to try other makes but after having no trouble from this make it seems to be tempting fate to change, isnt that how they make their money :thinking:
Trev
Click to expand...

Amazon have them for an unbelievable price..£52.48 IIRC. Warehouse Express are doing them for £99.99 and next cheapest on the net is £75ish..
 
The only sandisck cf card I have ev er owned failed and took the D200 with it, would never use one again.
 
I've used cheap nasties for the last 5 years with a 350d and never had one single problem with them.

Now I have a 1d Mk3 I need to look at more high performance/high capacity cards like the Sandisk Ultras.

There's a considerable price drop since I started off.

All the research I do keeps pointing me back to Sandisk.
 
OneTen said:
I've just received four more Sandisk CF cards. What strikes me is how much packaging and extra gubbins there are, surely they could reduce some of this and the price.
Click to expand...

It's to deter shoplifters. These are prime targets because they're very pocketable and very expensive.

I believe there's a bizarre requirement that some UK shops put on product manufacturers whereby the shop expect the manufacturer to make good thefts from stores, so there's no incentive for them to make the packaging smaller or easier to open. I'd imagine the only reason they don't make the packaging even larger is to save on shelf space and transportation costs.
 
SLRist said:
It's to deter shoplifters. These are prime targets because they're very pocketable and very expensive.

I believe there's a bizarre requirement that some UK shops put on product manufacturers whereby the shop expect the manufacturer to make good thefts from stores, so there's no incentive for them to make the packaging smaller or easier to open. I'd imagine the only reason they don't make the packaging even larger is to save on shelf space and transportation costs.
Click to expand...

Indeed, what he said :D Also, most stores now display the CF and SD cards behind the counter. :cautious:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
I don't rate Sandisk either mate, too expensive and too slow.

These are better for me and possibly any other Nikon shooters:

8 GB x 133 Speed CF £18.99

16 GB x 133 Speed CF £40.68

8 GB x 266 Speed CF £66.97
Click to expand...
you do realise that the link to the 8Gb Transcend 266x is dearer than the Sandisk Extreme IVs on Amazon (£52 for 8Gb & just as fast)?

I've got a mix of Lexar, Sandisk & Transcend UDMA capable cards & they've all been fine - I just buy whatever is cheapest out of those at the time for the spec. that I need.
 
heidfirst said:
you do realise that the link to the 8Gb Transcend 266x is dearer than the Sandisk Extreme IVs on Amazon (£52 for 8Gb & just as fast)?
Click to expand...

In my experience with my gear, Sandisk extreme IV's are no where near as fast as the x 133 Transcend cards. I think this is due to UDMA compatablity issues though.
I wrote a little here after getting rather annoyed with the extreme IV, as far as I can remember the extreme IV 8GB took nearly two minutes after a maxed out buffer shooting 14bit uncompressed NEF's, wheres the Transcend x 133 8GB took about 30 to 40 seconds, these results were consistent over the 5 day event.
It's worth noting that after your camera's buffer fills, you can't take another picture until another transfers to card.

As I mentioned, if you shoot sport or fast action then the Sandisk extreme IV speed is utter pants for Nikon.

This was the case during the European figure skating championships, when the skaters programs are around 6 minutes, two minutes of transfer is unacceptable.

At least at that time I had
x2 8GB Transcend x 133's CF's,
x2 Sandisk extreme IV's,
4 GB Sandisk extreme III and a 2 GB extreme III

Transcend FTW

Doesn't seem to be an issue with Canon bodies however, I'm not sure of the complete technical details but it has something to do with UDMA compatibility :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top