Card Transfer Rates

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I searched the forum and found some old posts on SD cards and transfer rates, but I didn't find anything that that was current--although I recall some discussion of this recently, but couldn't find it.

 

In any event, SanDisk has one of its rebate programs going on right now so I thought I would buy some cards. Setting aside the issue of new firmware and modifications to the M9 (like an M10), is there any point in spending more for a 30 MB transfer rate rather than 20MB transfer rate from the standpoint of processing photos in the camera? I recognize that the answer may be different when it comes to transferring from the card reader to the computer.

 

Thanks

 

Jack Siegel

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[01af]

According to my tongue-in-cheek measurements, the M9 (with firmware 1.116) can write data to the card at max. 7 MB/s. So I think it makes sense to buy SD cards with a minimum sustained write rate of at least 6 MB/s, i. e. Class 6 cards.

 

A Class 10 card may or may not be faster—but if faster then by a factor of 7/6, not 10/6. However many Class 6 cards are faster most of time than 6 MB/s (but not fast enough to qualify as Class 10) so in real life, a Class 6 card often is just as fast as a Class 10 card ... in an M9, that is. So Class 10 cards are worthwhile only if you want, or need, to squeeze out the last drop of writing speed out of the M9, or if you want to take advantage of a really fast card reader when transferring files off the card.

 

Do not confuse the (unrealistic) nominal speed rating as stated by the card's maker and the Class <X> categories. The nominal speed is a best-case rate achieved only under ideal conditions (which conditions exactly usually remains the maker's secret); the Class designation states a guaranteed minimum sustained worst-case write rate. There are Class 2, Class 4, Class 6, and Class 10 SD cards available today (but no Class 8 as far as I know).

[sanyasi]

Perfect. Thanks much.

[scott kirkpatrick]

For still unexplained reasons, the M9 writes just a bit slower to SanDisk's Extreme III cards than to the Ultra II cards. Extreme III's are variously spec-ed at 25 and 30 MB/sec and as class 10 while Ultra II's (now just called Ultra) are at best class 4. Uploading to a computer using the Extreme IIIs does go faster in most readers, but the much lower cost of the Ultras makes them the best buy for the M9.

 

But remember that for bursts of less then 5-7 shots, the shot to shot time possible is dominated by processing in the cameras buffer, which is not affected by the speed of writing to the card. The time delay to review or zoom an image depends on card speeds, as does the time between shots once the buffer is full.

 

scott

[efftee]

For still unexplained reasons, the M9 writes just a bit slower to SanDisk's Extreme III cards than to the Ultra II cards.

 

Hi Scott, is that still unchanged with the new firmware? I heard about this curious fact when the M9 was launched.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Hi Scott, is that still unchanged with the new firmware? I heard about this curious fact when the M9 was launched.

 

I tested again with 1.116 and it's still the case. I speculate (a) other things got fixed, so some problems with non-SanDisk cards went away with 1.116 -- but I only use SanDisk, and ( the M8/9 just don't have the internal write bandwidth to exploit the fastest class 10 cards, so the more complicated interface that these might require is just taking up extra time, with no benefit. Anyway, Ultras are pretty cheap.

 

scott

[efftee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tested again with 1.116 and it's still the case. I speculate (a) other things got fixed, so some problems with non-SanDisk cards went away with 1.116 -- but I only use SanDisk, and ( the M8/9 just don't have the internal write bandwidth to exploit the fastest class 10 cards, so the more complicated interface that these might require is just taking up extra time, with no benefit. Anyway, Ultras are pretty cheap.

 

scott

 

Since I do not shoot C mode, I wonder if the quicker write time of Ultras on the M9 would make any noticeable difference? Especially since the quicker transfer rate of Extremes from card to HD would more than compensate for this anomaly.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Since I do not shoot C mode, I wonder if the quicker write time of Ultras on the M9 would make any noticeable difference? Especially since the quicker transfer rate of Extremes from card to HD would more than compensate for this anomaly.

 

No, read my post #4. Rapid shooting doesn't slow down until the buffer fills, and until the buffer fills, which card you are using doesn't matter. You can fill the buffer by pumping out more than 6 shots in less than about 20 seconds, which can happen in sports, kids, street shooting, theater, almost anywhere that you are trying to catch very evanescent expressions or arrangements of active people. Doesn't require being in C-mode, although that helps if you had the "discreet" mode of advance set.

 

scott

[efftee]

No, read my post #4. Rapid shooting doesn't slow down until the buffer fills, and until the buffer fills, which card you are using doesn't matter. You can fill the buffer by pumping out more than 6 shots in less than about 20 seconds, which can happen in sports, kids, street shooting, theater, almost anywhere that you are trying to catch very evanescent expressions or arrangements of active people. Doesn't require being in C-mode, although that helps if you had the "discreet" mode of advance set.

 

scott

 

So, other than the price factor, would you say that Ultras are overall preferred over the Extremes in an M9?

[ho_co]

F, I can't answer for Scott, but that seems to be your choice. If the Ultras work as quickly in the camera and cost less, for some of us that would indicate that they're the better choice.

 

If on the other hand your workflow gives you a real advantage by using the faster card since it can be read quicker, then that would seem to be the better choice.

 

Keep in mind also the fact that other cameras will come that can benefit from the faster transfer rate. Some people will buy the faster card today in the hope that the speed gain will be advantageous in future; others will figure that since the current prices will drop, it will be just as well to buy them when they have a camera that can make use of their extra speed.

 

Same argument holds for size. Used to be that 4G cards were "pretty big," but they don't seem that way any more since file sizes are growing so quickly.

 

You can defend any decision you make rationally. There isn't a wrong choice.

[efftee]

F, I can't answer for Scott, but that seems to be your choice. If the Ultras work as quickly in the camera and cost less, for some of us that would indicate that they're the better choice.

 

If on the other hand your workflow gives you a real advantage by using the faster card since it can be read quicker, then that would seem to be the better choice.

 

Keep in mind also the fact that other cameras will come that can benefit from the faster transfer rate. Some people will buy the faster card today in the hope that the speed gain will be advantageous in future; others will figure that since the current prices will drop, it will be just as well to buy them when they have a camera that can make use of their extra speed.

 

Same argument holds for size. Used to be that 4G cards were "pretty big," but they don't seem that way any more since file sizes are growing so quickly.

 

You can defend any decision you make rationally. There isn't a wrong choice.

 

Thanks, Howard. I only have 4gb Extremes and wondering if I should invest in some Ultras in bigger capacity for the M9.

[ho_co]

Yeah, decisions, decisions.

 

As I recall, I most recently bought a couple 16 Gig Ultras because they were fairly high on the M9 recommended list.

 

I've got several brands in 4 Gig and quite a few 2 Gig and smaller, dating to earlier cameras. Still using them on the M8, but planning for the M9.

 

Remember, we'll have to decide this thing all over again by the time the M12 comes out.

[scott kirkpatrick]

F, I can't answer for Scott, but that seems to be your choice. If the Ultras work as quickly in the camera and cost less, for some of us that would indicate that they're the better choice.

 

If on the other hand your workflow gives you a real advantage by using the faster card since it can be read quicker, then that would seem to be the better choice.

 

 

Thanks, Howard, for the nice summary. I hadn't answered because I thought the thread had said it all before. There is a need for bigger cards with the M9 producing 35MB files in place of the 10 MB files from the M8, and right now the 16GB products seem to have the lowest cost per MB, although sales of still larger cards for AVCHD video cameras may change the price curve soon. There may be even lower prices coming. I just ordered another 16GB Ultra, and found that the price for the slightly older Ultra II was the same, about $45, as I paid six months ago for another. Usually they move down more steadily than that.

 

scott

[efftee]

Yeah, decisions, decisions.

 

As I recall, I most recently bought a couple 16 Gig Ultras because they were fairly high on the M9 recommended list.

 

I've got several brands in 4 Gig and quite a few 2 Gig and smaller, dating to earlier cameras. Still using them on the M8, but planning for the M9.

 

Remember, we'll have to decide this thing all over again by the time the M12 comes out.

 

Frankly, I would've thought the firmware upgrade would resolve this anomaly but seems I'll likely invest in some 16gb Ultras.

[efftee]

Thanks, Howard, for the nice summary. I hadn't answered because I thought the thread had said it all before. There is a need for bigger cards with the M9 producing 35MB files in place of the 10 MB files from the M8, and right now the 16GB products seem to have the lowest cost per MB, although sales of still larger cards for AVCHD video cameras may change the price curve soon. There may be even lower prices coming. I just ordered another 16GB Ultra, and found that the price for the slightly older Ultra II was the same, about $45, as I paid six months ago for another. Usually they move down more steadily than that.

 

scott

 

Scott, kinda funny to hear M9 owners contemplating cards by cost per mb. You're right, of course.

[ho_co]

Hey, efftee, c'mon, man!

 

M9 owners can't complain about delivery waits any more, so there's a lot more analysis to do.

[Doc Henry]

Yeah, decisions, decisions.

As I recall, I most recently bought a couple 16 Gig Ultras because they were fairly high on the M9 recommended list.

I've got several brands in 4 Gig and quite a few 2 Gig and smaller, dating to earlier cameras. Still using them on the M8, but planning for the M9.

Remember, we'll have to decide this thing all over again by the time the M12 comes out.

Howard,

I never used the Sandisk 16 GB (which costs 39 Euros *) and I see it is in the list of new M9 firmware 1116. Do you think it would be faster than the 4 GB Class 6 ?

* Compared for example to 4 GB Extreme III 30MB / s at 28 Euros.

Thanks

Regards

Henry

[gearoido]

I just bought two Sandisk Extreme III SDHC cards for the new M9. I am sorry that I hadn't read this first. However with Ultra II cards I could only quickly shoot 6 shots before the camera paused to flush the buffer. Using the new cards I can shoot 7 and occasionally 8 shots before the camera pauses. I doubt that it was worth the extra money, but I thought it might be to someone else.

 

GaryO

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

... I never used the Sandisk 16 GB.... Do you think it would be faster than the 4 GB Class 6 ? ...

 

Henri, I'm flattered that you ask, but I have no way to recommend a card. And Leica's firmware will change, so what's right today may be wrong tomorrow.

 

The March 2010 FAQ you mention merely lists recommended cards, while the previous one from September 2009 ranked cards as to speed. (See below.)

 

What's interesting to me about the September list is that two cards with the same name but different sizes rank differently. Of course, it doesn't help that names are changing all the time.

 

My guess is that the two cards you name wouldn't show enough difference to worry about. The larger card would mean less card handling, but carries the disadvantage that if something goes wrong with it, you may lose more data.

 

I've gone to 16 Gig cards for convenience, but often use earlier cards 4GB and smaller. I don't have any 8GB cards.

 

Again, this is the old list of recommended cards; Leica has a later one on their M9 downloads page.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[digitalfx]

My M9 is very slow, a day doesn't go by where I do not have to wait on the buffer. Very frustrating.

 

Here are my card results:

Sandisk Extreme 8GB (Class 10 30MB/s) 7 shots to full buffer/42 seconds for writing to stop

 

Sandisk Ultra II 8 GB (Class 4) 7 shots to full buffer/47 seconds for writing to stop

 

I am now in the market for some larger cards (16GB), which are the fastest 16GB?