Printable View
This may be a stupid question, but i am new to dslr photography and I'm trying to learn as much as possible..
Do memory cards have any effect in image quality?
After I bought my XSI, I didn't have much money left and I purchased a Sandisk 2 GB card. I notice some people list the types of cards they have in their equipment list. Are there good and bad types/brands that effect image quality?
Thanks a lot!
No, the capacity, speed, and brand of card have no effect on image quality.
The capacity affects how much data can be stored. The speed affects how rapidly the camera can write images stored in the camera's shooting buffer onto the card. The brand of card may or may not be associated with its reliability.
On a slightly different note (sorry to highjack the thread but the original post has been answered) what are people's thoughts on the different brands of CF cards? I've always used Sandisk card without any issues but the Lexar UDMA cards are pretty attractive for the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
I just bought a x233 udma lexar 16gb for my 5d II and its been fantastic. I had a 4gb extreme III sandisk before and this is just a bit faster and quite a lot larger. No problems so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Just don't buy those cheapest cards you could find. Some images may be lost when you checked it in the computer. This usually happens when you shoot continuously. I only use Sandisk for my high speed needs.
what do you mean by a card being "fantastic" is they don't have anything to do with image quality..
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
Some people appreciate having a fast card that performs reliably for them, especially at a low price point. The big names (SanDisk/Lexar/Kingston) are generally slightly more expensive but are relatively more reliable than the more obscure brands. An unreliable card may show read errors in the form of corrupt images, for example. If this occurs even once, I personally recommend throwing away the card, as it can no longer be trusted to record data correctly (it also signifies that there may be a problem with the overall manufacturing quality).
I usually stick with the big names, and I never buy the largest capacities or the fastest speeds available, because these features are usually priced at a steep premium. I'll buy a moderately-sized card, one that meets my needs, with a speed that is sufficiently fast for the camera I am using. In a few years, what is considered top-notch will be middle-of-the-pack, and will be priced accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph
Agreed. But Lexar have a pretty good reputation. I probably woouldn't go for any manufacturer other than Lexar and Sandisk but sometimes I think you can pay that bit more for the Sandisk name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
Write speed and reliability are probably the two main reasons one would be satisfied with a memory card.
beat me to it wicker!
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Well I've tried Lexar before. No problems with that. My friend who shoots weddings use a Kingston. He said that he needs to wait for the camera to write on the card (buffer speed is a bit slow) when he shoots continuous. I've heard from other forums that Ridata can be easily be corrupted.
Hmm to bad I can't remember where I read the test, but there was a test off CF cards and Sandisk came out as the winner. While other brands also had 300x speed, the Sandsiks still performed better with reading and writing speeds. Just wanted to say that, because often other brands are not that much cheaper and with a good and reliable brand you get what it says.
Like the Intel vs AMD story. Both might have a quad core procvessor at 3ghz, but the Intelversion will seriously knock out the AMD version for whatever reason. I found this out by wanting to buy a 3,4ghz quadcore last summer when someone said and could show me that even a 2,7ghz Intel quadcore outperformed it... I really don't know why, but figures don't say everything I guess.
Jan
I use 8GB Lexar Professional UDMA 300x and the SanDisk Extreme III and IV, which are also UDMA cards. Since my 50D can take advantage of the UDMA they are the only cards I ever use. I have found very little difference in camera speed using any of those three cards, but the 300x Lexar and Extreme IV upload to my computer a little faster. Since both manufactures were aggressively rebating them the last couple years as I was acquiring them, the prices were pretty reasonable. I do get @2-6 more images on the SanDisk (I shoot RAW) than the Lexax, depending on settings/conditions.
Rob Galbraith has done some pretty detailed speed testing on the cards and various cameras. If your camera is listed, it is quite informative.
I am waiting for the 1D Mark IV to get listed. It will give me one more reason to covet it...[Y][:D]
Here is the link:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...e.asp?cid=6007
I hope this helps,
Chris