PDA

View Full Version : *Ist DS & card speed



MatH
08-02-2005, 05:02 AM
I,m buying a Secure Digital card for *Ist DS. Since I plan to shoot RAW most of the time, I guess I'll need a big and fast card. I'm considering two 2GB cards:
- Apacer secure digital 150x and
- SanDisk secure digital Ultra II (66x)
I can get both of them for equaly hiiigh price. Apacer has 2 years warranty while SanDisk has 10 years warranty.
Does 150x speed (20Mbps) make any difference over the 66x speed (10Mbps) in *Ist DS?

allen1466
08-02-2005, 10:52 AM
Hey MatH,

I can't give you info about shooting RAW, but I use the *ist DS and I use the Extreme SD & Ultra II SD card and very pleased!! Fast write times!! The only reason I don't shoot RAW, no software to view them. But that is going to change shortly.

Make sure you do the firmware upgrade on the *ist DS before you buy the 1GB cards and higher. *ist DS has a problem recgonizing these cards. You can download the firmware upgrade from the Pentax website.

As for 1GB cards and higher, I've read not to buy them. Buy multiple cards of 512. If there is an act of higher power, you've lost all the pictures you taken. Also, it will take you forever to download onto your computer with larger cards. I have 2 digital camera magazines subscriptions. They both say not to buy the bigger cards.

Good Luck!! Allen

MatH
08-03-2005, 04:05 AM
Thanx for your advice allen1466, but IMO I see no point in using smaller cards. I prefer putting bigger cards in the camera and leave them there rather than swaping smaller cards.

WightWalker
08-03-2005, 03:43 PM
From my limited experience, there is mo advantage in using faster cards.

When I first purchased the *istDS, I was using a 'bog standard' SD card which took about 3 secs to write a RAW image file.

I upgraded to x66 speed cards with exactly the same write time.

philmorley
08-03-2005, 06:59 PM
Hi

the ds's write speed maxes out around 45x sd card. Anything faster is wasted by the camera, but is faster for downloading pictures if you use a card reader. so really comes down to how do you want to pay for faster download not faster camera speed :)

Rgds
Phil

StanleyL
08-03-2005, 07:17 PM
Thanx for your advice allen1466, but IMO I see no point in using smaller cards. I prefer putting bigger cards in the camera and leave them there rather than swaping smaller cards.If you're using RAW, go big and fast. Also; download time can take longer with those HUGE files.

Usage will grow to capacity. You'll find yourself filling it no matter how big it is.

Question is; how's your disk space and DVD burner?

MatH
08-04-2005, 03:42 AM
From my limited experience, there is mo advantage in using faster cards.

When I first purchased the *istDS, I was using a 'bog standard' SD card which took about 3 secs to write a RAW image file.

I upgraded to x66 speed cards with exactly the same write time.
Hmm... 3 sec to write the file. But you can still shoot while the file is being written, yes?


the ds's write speed maxes out around 45x sd card. Anything faster is wasted by the camera
Where did you find that information?

Everibody thanx for your thoughts and answers :)

Ishkabibble
08-30-2005, 02:18 AM
For what it is worth, I no longer trust Sandisk cards. I have had two locks stick on me, even though I never even use the lock function. The cards would not format and I was unable to erase files, despite the fact the card was in the unlocked position.

Sandisk confirmed the first one defective and was good about replacing it, but when the replacement also failed, I got my third card and sold it off on eBay. I now use Lexar exclusively and have had no issues. I'm certain there are other equally reliable cards.

My Lexar 80X works well and is acceptably fast. I shoot primarily in RAW mode, primarily because I like the added versitility of being able to post-process a better image. I have never found myself desiring additional speed.

MatH
08-30-2005, 10:56 AM
I just got a 2GB Transcend secure digital with 150x speed and DS doesn't recognise it :mad:
I thought it was a bad card, but when I put it in PowerShot A510 it worked without any problems.
Being as it is, it is very unlikely that the shop will take the card back or compensate for it :(
Am I suppose to wait for firmware update :confused: or is there another way arround?

MatH
08-30-2005, 11:35 AM
And now it stoped working in A510. "memory card error" it says. I'll return it.

Ishkabibble
08-30-2005, 02:24 PM
Hold your menu button down when you power the camera on. If your firmware is not 1.02, it is out of date. The Pentax site has good instruction on updating your firmware, and the process is easy.

My camera is only a couple weeks old, but even it came with 1.00. Chances are yours just needs the new firmware. 2GB cards would not read with the initial firmware.

Also, please consider formatting the card in the camera once your firmware is current. This ensures that the format is correct for the camera, and also corrects for small glitches.

Good luck!

astro
08-31-2005, 12:39 AM
I use the apacer 150x turbo memory card with my *ist DS. It works great. Super fast.
Took me around 5mins to copy all 2GB of it to my computer.
Sandisk is overrated and overpriced. I bet sandisk doesn't make flash memory anyways. Silicon companies do, such as AMD and Samsung. They just rebadge the cards.
The apacer is faster, there's no reason to get the sandisk.

MatH
08-31-2005, 04:38 PM
I updated firmware to 1.02
The card is faulty there's no question about it.
I thought I'll be doing some cave shooting this weekend with a friend that knows a thing or two more about photography. Even thou I got a faulty card I could do it with my current 512MB Viking if my brand new (but cheap) tripod hadn't broke :(
I'll have to postpone cave shooting for another week.

joelw135
09-03-2005, 10:36 AM
I use a Kingmax 60X 1Gb card, all I know it works.

MatH
09-16-2005, 12:58 AM
They sent me a new flawless Transcend 2GB card and it works two times faster than the old Viking 512 card in Pentax *Ist DS. It takes 3 sec to write raw image and 16 sec to write 5 raw images from burst mode. In both cases Viking took twice as much.