Discussion
I'm showing a wild difference in download speeds on my current set up. I'd be really interested to see your download speeds if you have a few minutes. This is what I have so far.
I have a single 480M file, best I can do so far from an unbranded year old 16 and 32G CF card is 31s downloading via a Firewire 400 CF Reader.
The USB2 readers were in the 1:30m range, although I think I got a different one to run to 60s. Interestingly at 1:30 though - it was practically the same for any CF card I gave it, which suggests the reader itself was limited.
But, I got an SDHC Class 4 4G card to run at 29s on the same USB2 reader that did 1:30m with the CFs. Go figure!
Got to rerun all my tests as the dog ate the table I had created with all the times!
I have a single 480M file, best I can do so far from an unbranded year old 16 and 32G CF card is 31s downloading via a Firewire 400 CF Reader.
The USB2 readers were in the 1:30m range, although I think I got a different one to run to 60s. Interestingly at 1:30 though - it was practically the same for any CF card I gave it, which suggests the reader itself was limited.
But, I got an SDHC Class 4 4G card to run at 29s on the same USB2 reader that did 1:30m with the CFs. Go figure!
Got to rerun all my tests as the dog ate the table I had created with all the times!
There were a couple of sites that used to try to keep up to dare with card and reader speeds but I think at least one of them is no longer active.
Last time I looked (3 or 4 years back I would guess) there were some stand out cards and readers and combinations of the two ... and the rest.
Your Firewire times seem pretty good - you sure it was 400 and not 800?
Last time I looked (3 or 4 years back I would guess) there were some stand out cards and readers and combinations of the two ... and the rest.
Your Firewire times seem pretty good - you sure it was 400 and not 800?
Pretty sure it's FW400, as there are only a couple of 800s ever built (not that many FW400 readers were built either, this one is Lexar).
I figure that I'm looking at 30 minute downloads each day, but I'd love to get it faster than that. (But don't really want to spend a fortune).
The weird thing is that I have two new CFs from last year (a 16G and 32G). The buffer on the 32G cleared much much faster than the 16G (in fact, the 16G would actually pose a problem as it was so slow on some sequences), but I can't find much difference between their read speeds on the FW400 reader (haven't tested write yet). Gonna test that write speed tomorrow.
I figure that I'm looking at 30 minute downloads each day, but I'd love to get it faster than that. (But don't really want to spend a fortune).
The weird thing is that I have two new CFs from last year (a 16G and 32G). The buffer on the 32G cleared much much faster than the 16G (in fact, the 16G would actually pose a problem as it was so slow on some sequences), but I can't find much difference between their read speeds on the FW400 reader (haven't tested write yet). Gonna test that write speed tomorrow.
JDRoest said:
I'm showing a wild difference in download speeds on my current set up. I'd be really interested to see your download speeds if you have a few minutes. This is what I have so far.
I have a single 480M file, best I can do so far from an unbranded year old 16 and 32G CF card is 31s downloading via a Firewire 400 CF Reader.
I can download 5-6Gb of RAW files in about 8 mins, but a few minutes either way isn't important to me. I'm more concerned with safety than speed.I have a single 480M file, best I can do so far from an unbranded year old 16 and 32G CF card is 31s downloading via a Firewire 400 CF Reader.
This may be of interest.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?...
The info is a year old but that probably means the world has caught up.
There is more to be found on the site with tests going back a few years. However, as Rob Galbraith has written in the news section, the site is in "deep hibernation" since he took a teaching job.
Having watched this test info over the years the conclusion I came to is that outright performance, reading or writing and in camera or in reader, cannot be assumed to be consistent and does not rely solely on file sizes.
Which is all rather interesting in a geeky sort of way.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?...
The info is a year old but that probably means the world has caught up.
There is more to be found on the site with tests going back a few years. However, as Rob Galbraith has written in the news section, the site is in "deep hibernation" since he took a teaching job.
Having watched this test info over the years the conclusion I came to is that outright performance, reading or writing and in camera or in reader, cannot be assumed to be consistent and does not rely solely on file sizes.
Which is all rather interesting in a geeky sort of way.
Simpo Two said:
I can download 5-6Gb of RAW files in about 8 mins, but a few minutes either way isn't important to me. I'm more concerned with safety than speed.
My main concern is having a solution that doesn't spend 2+ hours downloading 20G like last year. No joke, but I had one card reader that was taking 6-8 hours for 20G. I had a great CF reader that was downloading much faster than 2hours/20G, but as you say - it was unreliable for some reason. Think age had caught up with it and it was trying to die.This year - decent solution needed. Don't want to be tied to a machine each evening like last year.
JDRoest said:
My main concern is having a solution that doesn't spend 2+ hours downloading 20G like last year. No joke, but I had one card reader that was taking 6-8 hours for 20G. I had a great CF reader that was downloading much faster than 2hours/20G, but as you say - it was unreliable for some reason. Think age had caught up with it and it was trying to die.
This year - decent solution needed. Don't want to be tied to a machine each evening like last year.
I have a relatively quick (well, it was 2 or 3 years ago when I bought it) Sandisk reader that works consistently at USB2 sort of speeds. However, once or twice, for reasons I did not work out, it seemed to slip to slow USB 1 mode. Stopping the process and using a different USB port seemed to get it back to expected speed. I suspect the computer rather than the reader. The original port worked normally next time I used it. Computers - you have to love them.This year - decent solution needed. Don't want to be tied to a machine each evening like last year.
Did you dig around on the Galbraith site? Somewhere there is a long history of tests. Mostly useless now of course but an interesting record of changes over time. No doubt things are similar today but generally faster at each level for newer cards.
Ken Rockwell ran some comparisons a few years back.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/sd-speed-test-2009...
Again it's the variability rather than the measured performance from that point in time that is of greatest interest.
It's actually Rockwell's article that made me find a FW CF reader in the first place.
But what I think I've run into with my tests and my limited kit is that some readers have a definite performance limit. Eg my USB2 reader will show 1:30m for a 480M copy regardless of CF. It's very difficult to get a good correlation between speed of the card vs a reader that's able to run at decent speed itself. I'll post the times shortly.
Good to know about you finding that one device switched to USB1 because I swear that's what one of the readers I had was doing (the really slow one).
But what I think I've run into with my tests and my limited kit is that some readers have a definite performance limit. Eg my USB2 reader will show 1:30m for a 480M copy regardless of CF. It's very difficult to get a good correlation between speed of the card vs a reader that's able to run at decent speed itself. I'll post the times shortly.
Good to know about you finding that one device switched to USB1 because I swear that's what one of the readers I had was doing (the really slow one).
JDRoest said:
It's actually Rockwell's article that made me find a FW CF reader in the first place.
But what I think I've run into with my tests and my limited kit is that some readers have a definite performance limit. Eg my USB2 reader will show 1:30m for a 480M copy regardless of CF. It's very difficult to get a good correlation between speed of the card vs a reader that's able to run at decent speed itself. I'll post the times shortly.
Good to know about you finding that one device switched to USB1 because I swear that's what one of the readers I had was doing (the really slow one).
I have not tried the experiment but wonder if using a powered USB hub might have an effect. But what I think I've run into with my tests and my limited kit is that some readers have a definite performance limit. Eg my USB2 reader will show 1:30m for a 480M copy regardless of CF. It's very difficult to get a good correlation between speed of the card vs a reader that's able to run at decent speed itself. I'll post the times shortly.
Good to know about you finding that one device switched to USB1 because I swear that's what one of the readers I had was doing (the really slow one).
I have seen reports of tethered cameras performing slowly or not at all due to poor USB cables or low power outputs for the length of cable and it strikes me that once in a while any USB powered connection could see a voltage drop - especially from a notebook.
I have the same sort of issues when travelling. A couple of 16Gb CFs shot during the day can take a while to download and . Run out of time and charge if running on battery. So card and reader speed is an issue - but so is power consumption. I have an external battery pack bit over the years the machine I use seem to arrive with power connector sockets that no longer match the array of adapter tips I have available. Progress I guess.
Simpo Two said:
Maybe the make of card is important?
I use Lexar Pro, and together with my £10 Hama USB2 reader it's fine.
The specs of both card and reader can be important - likely neither will operate at the claimed max theoretical throughput. But some combinations (add the USB port in there as well) may work better more often than others. However it may also depend on other things going on in the system and what sort of security checking may be applied ans so on.I use Lexar Pro, and together with my £10 Hama USB2 reader it's fine.
Do you have any USB 3 ports on your machine? If so, then I'd recommend the Lexar Professional card reader (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lexar-Professional-Dual-Slot-Reader/dp/B004P8J1DU)
After years of getting along with a variety of cheaper card readers, I bought one of these about 6 months ago and have been very impressed with the performance. I haven't timed it, but it doesn't seem to take more than about 5 - 6 minutes to download a 16Gb card.
After years of getting along with a variety of cheaper card readers, I bought one of these about 6 months ago and have been very impressed with the performance. I haven't timed it, but it doesn't seem to take more than about 5 - 6 minutes to download a 16Gb card.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff