SP0 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) As has been noted (but not yet discussed much) on this forum, the Leica documentation ranks the Sandisk Ultra II as faster than the Extreme III - the opposite way around from what the manufacturers claim for the products' speeds. There has been some discussion that this is because the Leica interface was designed for the slower card. However what I'm thinking is that if the difference on writing is minimal, given I don't do much continuous shooting, wouldn't I be better off with the Extreme III because the later copying of the card to the PC should be faster? Any real-world test results for both writing (on camera) and reading (on PC)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi SP0, Take a look here Sandisk SD card speeds in M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2009 The most complete data on card speeds can be found at Rob Galbraith's website. His data on upload speeds shows that the ExtremeIII's are about twice as fast as the Ultra II's. He has test data for writing 20 jpegs and then for writing 10 RAW files to each sort of cards, and reports times for many Canon and Nikon models. The result is typically the in camera write speed of the Extreme IIIs is about 30-40% faster than the Ultra IIs. There is no data for Leica M8, however. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toke Posted September 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2009 I use sandisk ultra 11 in M9, it takes 6-7 photos before the buffer kicks in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted September 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2009 buffer is a big thing for me so I timed it when I got to handle the M9 yesterday -Sandisk 8gig Extreme III 30mb edition class 6 SDHC DNG only, from time you can't take anymore pics, until the write light goes off. uncompressed 18sec compressed 10 sec Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP0 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted September 11, 2009 Interesting. Still hoping someone who has the M9 will have a moment to run tests of both cards to verify Leica's strange ii-better-than-iii rating. I see from Rob Galbraith's data that he measured the III as nearly 2x the speed of the II, in an EOS-5Dii ... quite surprising that Leica would find the reverse result. (For those who haven't seen the Leica results, it's a little table in the M9 FAQ somewhere.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 11, 2009 I'm very suspicious, too. OK, I found an old 1GB Ultra II and a 1GB Extreme III of comparable vintage, plus some current 4GB and 8GB Extreme IIIs. Next step is to shoot about a dozen shots of a clock with a moving second hand with each one. In C mode and with repetitive shots in S. This will take a little while. Details later. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, unless there is some new generation of Ulta II's, the information in the FAQ seems wrong, at least for the M8.2. Here's my experimental protocol: set camera in C mode. DNG only. Shoot a moving second hand, and inspect afterwards to see how long things took. Shoot continuously at the interal limjiting speed of about 2 shots per second until the buffer fills. Continue shooting at the buffer clearing speed for 5 or 6 shots, measuring the time, then stop. Watch the blinking light. When it stops, indicating buffer empty, shoot one more to record the total time it takes to empty the buffer. M8.2 using Extreme III 8GB chip, mode 6: takes 12 shots in 5-6 sec, then shots 13 to 18 in 2 sec each. Buffer is empty 20 sec later. M8.2 using Ultra II 1 GB chip, purchased in 2006 or 7: takes 11 shots in 6 sec, then shoots 6 more at 3 seconds each. Buffer empties 26 seconds later. The extreme IIIs are faster. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted September 11, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 11, 2009 Thanks Scott, very useful. Will you repeat with an M9 if you have or are getting one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidowi Posted September 11, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 11, 2009 In my opinion the main problem related to the low writing speed is the long wait necessary when a fast focus check is needed enlarging the picture on LCD immediately after a shot. Till the led is blinking the camera can't show a detailed enlarged view but a pixelized preview. This time is extremely longer than the M8 and I think also than the DMR. This make the M9 less professional and I hope for some next adjustements. Testing an M9 at the presentation in Milan on the 9th I used a Sandisk 2GB extreme III, DNG only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 11, 2009 Thanks Scott, very useful. Will you repeat with an M9 if you have or are getting one? Sure. When, not if. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted September 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 11, 2009 When I tried out a demo M9 yesterday it was writing very fast, about 2-3s. This was DNG only compressed. Upon asking, I was told Sandisk Ultra II. With my 20Mb/s and 30Mb/s Sandisk Extreme III at home the writes are much slower, about 4-5s. So at the moment I tend to believe the Leica FAQ. Also looking forward to real world tests though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 11, 2009 Were you told why Ultra II is faster? Is there a difference between brand new SDHC mode 6 Ultra IIs and the ones that have been on the market for about 4 years now? Since Galbraith in Dec 2008 didn't see this, I'd like to understand what is behind the recommendation, and how are things likely to change as other new products come on the market. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 11, 2009 There seem to be many kinds of Ultra II s in circulation. Checking on Amazon, the ones sold today are SDHC, spec-ed at 15 MB/s for upload to the computer, and cost as little as $10.65 for 4 GB if you don't get the retail accessories. Mine are much older. Check Sean Reid's review for some interesting data about shooting speeds -- they depend on ISO setting! (Sean -- you've used Ultra IIs since you were shooting with the M8. Are your supply all original models, or have you been buying additional ones as the prices keep dropping, so that you have them with several ages, and old and new markings? If so, you can determine if all of them or only the new ones give greater shooting speed.) My hunch is that there is some small bug in the way the M9 is writing to the SD card, and that when they find it, all SD cards will be written to just as fast as they now write to the Ultras. But that's just a guess. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted September 11, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 11, 2009 I would venture its just a typo in the M9 FAQ. from unscientific testing, I've calculated the M8 to write at roughly 15mb per sec. This is through timing write speeds with Sandisk Ultra II SD (9meg per sec), Extreme III (20meg per sec) and the newer Extreme III 30meg edition SDHC cards. considering the M9 now provides files nearly 4 times the amount of data, with more buffer ram, I don't see how the math could make any sense for older SD cards that write at 9megs per sec to being faster than one that's over 3 times faster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted September 11, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 11, 2009 Were you told why Ultra II is faster? I'm afraid I didn't ask because I didn't expect the difference to be big. But now I would like to know myself because with the larger files comes the need for new cards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted September 11, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 11, 2009 there is a downloadable PDF on Leica's website called M9 FAQ's that state Ultra II's are faster. I'm afraid I didn't ask because I didn't expect the difference to be big. But now I would like to know myself because with the larger files comes the need for new cards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 11, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 11, 2009 There seem to be many kinds of Ultra II s in circulation. Checking on Amazon, the ones sold today are SDHC, spec-ed at 15 MB/s for upload to the computer, and cost as little as $10.65 for 4 GB if you don't get the retail accessories. Mine are much older. Check Sean Reid's review for some interesting data about shooting speeds -- they depend on ISO setting! (Sean -- you've used Ultra IIs since you were shooting with the M8. Are your supply all original models, or have you been buying additional ones as the prices keep dropping, so that you have them with several ages, and old and new markings? If so, you can determine if all of them or only the new ones give greater shooting speed.) My hunch is that there is some small bug in the way the M9 is writing to the SD card, and that when they find it, all SD cards will be written to just as fast as they now write to the Ultras. But that's just a guess. scott Hi Scott, I've got a mix of older and newer Ultra II's here that I've been testing with. I'm working on the ISO noise section now but this question is something I could come back to later. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 11, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 11, 2009 I would venture its just a typo in the M9 FAQ. from unscientific testing, I've calculated the M8 to write at roughly 15mb per sec. This is through timing write speeds with Sandisk Ultra II SD (9meg per sec), Extreme III (20meg per sec) and the newer Extreme III 30meg edition SDHC cards. considering the M9 now provides files nearly 4 times the amount of data, with more buffer ram, I don't see how the math could make any sense for older SD cards that write at 9megs per sec to being faster than one that's over 3 times faster. It's not a typo. I've asked, and it's based on measurements. That's why I think it is a bug. It's nice to think that the camera works best with the least expensive grade of cards. But when you look at the time to upload a 16GB card, it would be better to get the same write speed with all cards, including the 30 MB/s ones. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted September 11, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 11, 2009 In my opinion the main problem related to the low writing speed is the long wait necessary when a fast focus check is needed enlarging the picture on LCD immediately after a shot.Till the led is blinking the camera can't show a detailed enlarged view but a pixelized preview. This time is extremely longer than the M8 and I think also than the DMR. This make the M9 less professional and I hope for some next adjustements. Testing an M9 at the presentation in Milan on the 9th I used a Sandisk 2GB extreme III, DNG only. I agree. My brief test of the M9 showed that the time to "unpixelate" an enlarged review of the image (e.g., to check focus check) was incredibly long with the M9. Basically, if you tried to zoom in, you just saw pixels for quite a long time (I didn't time but it was much longer than the M8 -- using the same exact card). This was even after a single shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted September 11, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 11, 2009 hmmm, i dunno what to say then. I am attending another Leica event this afternoon. I will bring my Sandisk 1gig Ultra II standard SD cards (9megs per sec) to test then. the M9 still isn't as fast as I'd like it to be (at least not with Extreme III SDHC cards) so any speedup potential has my interest! It's not a typo. I've asked, and it's based on measurements. That's why I think it is a bug. It's nice to think that the camera works best with the least expensive grade of cards. But when you look at the time to upload a 16GB card, it would be better to get the same write speed with all cards, including the 30 MB/s ones. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.