A stupid CF card purchase?

armisiano

armisiano

Veteran
So I have the 7D, and with it I purchased two memory cards. Sandisk 32GB 60MB/s cards. They cost me about $200 each.

I read in the Canon 7D instruction manual that all I need is something 8MB/s. Which I'm guessing would be a H*LL of a lot cheaper!

So basically I'm asking opinions and experiences out there, did I waste my money? Because it's not too late for me to return these.
 
No, I don't think you wasted your money. I have Extreme IVs and also a 133x Kingston card. The Extreme IVs blow the 133x out of the water. It's a good investment in my opinion, though I have them in increments of 8GBs (just because I'm paranoid of data loss).

Kegan
 
You will appreciate the faster cards when you transfer 20GB worth of data (raw photos + video clips) to the computer.
Just make sure you have one of the Sandisk fast card readers (there's the imagemate as USB and another one in Firewire).
 
Okay, thanks for the comforting. Honestly, all I ever had for my Nikon D80 were Sandisk's fastest SDHC cards, and it really WAS worth it.

I think the reason I was so jumpy was just because of the amount of money I've spent on new equipment in what was just about 1 week. We're talking 7D, Battery Grip, 4 LP-E6 batts, 2 32GB CF cards, Zoom H4n, SmallHD DP1 field monitor kit with 2 extra batteries, and a few other trinkets. I just need to breathe, relax, and trust my purchasing choices, as none were bought on impulse.
 
When it comes to gear, it's only wasted money if you actually don't use it.

Sandisk makes great products for sure, you can't go wrong with them. I would've bought the same card if I had more $$$ to spend. I ended up getting a Patriot 32GB class 6 card instead, it was only $100 for me but obviously not as good or fast as the Sandisk 32GB.
 
SanDisks are the best cards for sure, but they are really expensive.

I just use the cheaper SanDisk Ultra $26 for 8gb from Cost Co and it works perfect for video. I've never had a single problem.

I also have Kingston Elite Pro 32gb ($79), which works pretty well. Sometimes you get the "about to drop frame" indicator, but it's yet to reach the drop frame point. But the Sandisk Ultras are better (but a little more expensive)

I also own a SanDisk Extreme 3, which works no better than any of the other CF for video. I got it for free from a Best Buy gift card, otherwise I would not have paid the expensive price.

I used all the money I save from the CF and bought the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens. A much better investment of your money than buying super fast CFs that work no better for video than the less expensive ones.
 
Thomas Lew said:
I only buy Sandisk Extremes. Not a waste of money. There's a reason they're that much money.
Click to expand...
Didn't we talk about this in another thread?

There are basically three reasons for the huge price premium, and only one of them has remotely to do with video.

1) Brand name. SanDisk is the most well-known brand for flash memory. Whether or not the actual quality of the product is objectively superior to other brands', the fact remains that bigger brands in any business command higher prices.

2) Memory card performance is only relevant if the photographer takes a lot of RAW images. JPEGs and videos simply don't require, nor properly utilize, all of that speed. But as with any technology, price does not scale linearly with performance. Take computer components, for example. The fastest chips on the bleeding edge might only be 20% faster than their mainstream counterparts, yet they cost 200% more. And the difference might not even be very noticeable in the real world.

3) Peace of mind. This is closely related to #1. Yes, you are definitely getting a quality, reliable product. The brand would not be as big as it is if it didn't have a reputation for quality. But the product might still not be objectively better than a comparable product.

#3 is the only reason that has remotely to do with video.

"There's a reason they're that much money" is really a specious, vacuous point. Unless you know what you're buying and why you're buying it, I just don't see any wisdom in buying out of a blind notion that pricier must mean better.
 
Also, to what I said above, I tend to use the SanDisks for the most important shots and use the Kingston for more of the less important BRoll type shots. The SanDisks do feel more reliable because I don't get those Almost drop frame error
 
im going for waste of money. I have 2 16GB Kingston 133x and many other people are using them.

$40 shipped, and just fine. Like you said, the manual only needs a certain transfer speed.

Having extra certainly wont hurt, and like someone else said it does speed up transfers to your comptuer. But for my use, an extra 4-5 mins transferring files is no biggie.
 
I guess it depends on if you're a hobbyist that can accept limitations on set, or if you actually care about the time of your cast and crew.

My 133x card sometimes shows a buffer full warning and will stop recording. Does it happen often? No. Does it happen enough for me not to want to use it on a paying gig as my primary card or on a set where I have to tell the director my camera stopped recording because I bought a cheap card? Yes.

This is why I have no problem spending the money on the right gear, the first time. If you do it for fun, sure, use a cheaper card - if you do it where time matters or as a backup (like I do) then it's perfectly fine.

I think the term, "waste of money" is entirely subjective and it depends on what you shoot.

Kegan
 
dont mean to hiijack but i cant find the topic about cf cards and recording times. I was lookin gon this topic so decided to ask here instead of start a thread.
what are the recording times with various cards (i;m aware of the 12 min limit). I guess i just need to know the time of one and i can work it out from there.
 
Hunter007 said:
12 minutes per 4GBs.

Kegan
Click to expand...

Thus my purchasing 64GBs worth of memory, as I will for my next film have a few all day on location shoots. 64GBs gives me 192 minutes of video (3 hours, 12 minutes). I figure with the occasional break in shooting to weed through and erase bad takes, I'll be perfectly fine.
 
I'd like to echo that I wish I had bought faster cards. I bought the the kingston 133x 16GB cards because everyone here recommended them as never having a problem. I've lost three shots this year because of the memory buffer filling up. It's random and pisses me off. Especially when I'm shooting a ski film. There is no take 2 when the track is already there.
 
Well I can say just from shooting a bunch of test footage I've had no problems whatsoever. There is no buffering. At 60mbps it's all instantaneous. And transferring files to my computers hard drive is quite comfortably fast.
 
Good stuff! You should be fine with 64GBs. I have 3 8GBs and the 32GB backup and very rarely have to use the 32GB on a day of shooting. However, when its all outdoor stuff (I'm talking narrative btw) and I don't have the time to dump footage, it sometimes has to come out as the backup. I'm usually fine though, so you'll definitely be more than okay provided you don't have a craaaaazy shoot schedule.

Kegan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top