Professional Web Applications Themes

SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ???? - Photography

I am in the market for a Digital camera and "film" I was looking at the Lexar Compact Flash Pro 40x 512MB. and the SimpleTech STI-pro/512 ProX High-Speed 512MB CompactFlash Card. The Simple tech is $147, and the Lexar is $170. Both are 512MB, both are fast. does anyone have any experience with ether of these cards? Simple Tech claims theirs is ultra fast, and uses less power. Is this a claim or verifiable fact? OR, am I stupid to consider ether card? Is there a better card out there for about the same price in the US?...

  1. #1

    Default SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    I am in the market for a Digital camera and "film" I was looking at the
    Lexar Compact Flash Pro 40x 512MB. and the SimpleTech STI-pro/512 ProX
    High-Speed 512MB CompactFlash Card. The Simple tech is $147, and the Lexar
    is $170. Both are 512MB, both are fast. does anyone have any experience
    with ether of these cards? Simple Tech claims theirs is ultra fast, and uses
    less power. Is this a claim or verifiable fact?
    OR, am I stupid to consider ether card? Is there a better card out there for
    about the same price in the US?


    Trey Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    I happen to have both a Lexar 12x 256CF and a Simple Tech 256CF. I
    use them in a Canon S400. they both work great. Can't really tell
    the difference.

    Bob


    "Trey" <treydog90hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<PWAPa.104317$98.3750092twister.socal.rr.com >...
    > I am in the market for a Digital camera and "film" I was looking at the
    > Lexar Compact Flash Pro 40x 512MB. and the SimpleTech STI-pro/512 ProX
    > High-Speed 512MB CompactFlash Card. The Simple tech is $147, and the Lexar
    > is $170. Both are 512MB, both are fast. does anyone have any experience
    > with ether of these cards? Simple Tech claims theirs is ultra fast, and uses
    > less power. Is this a claim or verifiable fact?
    > OR, am I stupid to consider ether card? Is there a better card out there for
    > about the same price in the US?
    Bob Briedis Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    [email]bbriedisexcite.com[/email] (Bob Briedis) wrote in message news:<269e555d.0307122040.f7d9137posting.google.c om>...
    > I happen to have both a Lexar 12x 256CF and a Simple Tech 256CF. I
    > use them in a Canon S400. they both work great. Can't really tell
    > the difference.
    Really.. so, does the S400 support the Ultra CF cards with faster
    xfer rates? Or is it somewhat of a waste to buy an Ultra card for the
    Canon S400?

    Turby
    Turbinator Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    The Ultra CF cards are just smaller. You would then have to get an adapter
    to put it in the CF slot. So I would think just good ol type 1 CF is your
    best bet.



    "Turbinator" <turbinator_870> wrote in message
    news:62743b11.0307151636.8decd05posting.google.co m...
    > [email]bbriedisexcite.com[/email] (Bob Briedis) wrote in message
    news:<269e555d.0307122040.f7d9137posting.google.c om>...
    > > I happen to have both a Lexar 12x 256CF and a Simple Tech 256CF. I
    > > use them in a Canon S400. they both work great. Can't really tell
    > > the difference.
    >
    > Really.. so, does the S400 support the Ultra CF cards with faster
    > xfer rates? Or is it somewhat of a waste to buy an Ultra card for the
    > Canon S400?
    >
    > Turby

    Trey Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    "Trey" <treydog90hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:VW1Ra.3549$nq3.83574twister.socal.rr.com...
    > The Ultra CF cards are just smaller. You would then have to get an adapter
    > to put it in the CF slot. So I would think just good ol type 1 CF is your
    > best bet.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Turbinator" <turbinator_870> wrote in message
    > news:62743b11.0307151636.8decd05posting.google.co m...
    > > [email]bbriedisexcite.com[/email] (Bob Briedis) wrote in message
    > news:<269e555d.0307122040.f7d9137posting.google.c om>...
    > > > I happen to have both a Lexar 12x 256CF and a Simple Tech 256CF. I
    > > > use them in a Canon S400. they both work great. Can't really tell
    > > > the difference.
    > >
    > > Really.. so, does the S400 support the Ultra CF cards with faster
    > > xfer rates? Or is it somewhat of a waste to buy an Ultra card for the
    > > Canon S400?
    > >
    > > Turby
    Ultra CF cards are not smaller. They are just good old Type I CF cards that
    can transfer data faster

    Bill Frank
    CompactFlash Association
    [url]www.compactflash.org[/url]


    Bill Frank Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    >
    > Ultra CF cards are not smaller. They are just good old Type I CF cards
    that
    > can transfer data faster
    >
    > Bill Frank
    > CompactFlash Association
    > [url]www.compactflash.org[/url]
    >
    Oh?? I thought they were smaller... hm.... Time to go shopping then!


    Trey Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    I stand corrected. I thought Ultra compact flash was a "new formfactor" It
    is not. Its simply Sandisk's Hi performance offering for the highend digital
    cameras. After looking at the performance numbers on the SanDisk site, I am
    not all that impressed with them. It appears the Lexar card is the fastest,
    but the Simpletech is the fastest for the money.


    "Bill Frank" <billfrankcompactflash.org> wrote in message
    news:vh9e0iq35avf14corp.supernews.com...
    > Ultra CF cards are not smaller. They are just good old Type I CF cards
    that
    > can transfer data faster
    >
    > Bill Frank
    > CompactFlash Association
    > [url]www.compactflash.org[/url]
    >
    >

    Trey Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    > Ultra CF cards are not smaller. They are just good old Type I CF cards that 

    Superb. So, are they generally compatible in most makes of cameras
    that use CF? Anyone know if the Canon S400 can take advantage of
    Ultra CF cards? Canon's site does not seem to doent this.

    Turby
    Turbinator Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    On 16 Jul 2003 14:55:34 -0700, com (Turbinator)
    wrote:
     
    >
    >Superb. So, are they generally compatible in most makes of cameras
    >that use CF? Anyone know if the Canon S400 can take advantage of
    >Ultra CF cards? Canon's site does not seem to doent this.[/ref]

    That is a slow camera. You might see some difference uploading to your
    computer.

    Fast cards are cheap, so no reson not to get on.

    PQI 40x F1, Transcend 30x etc are pretty much the cheapest cards out
    there.



    Gunn
    Chris Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    > That is a slow camera. You might see some difference uploading to your 

    Thank you - I have a line in on a SanDisk Ultra, I will try it to see
    if I have any good results. If there is anything notable, I'll post
    my results here. If not.. I may end up selling the CF on Ebay.

    Thanks for the response!

    Turby
    Turbinator Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    On 16 Jul 2003 23:53:37 -0700, com (Turbinator) 
    >
    >Thank you - I have a line in on a SanDisk Ultra, I will try it to see
    >if I have any good results. If there is anything notable, I'll post
    >my results here. If not.. I may end up selling the CF on Ebay.[/ref]

    Sandisk are pretty much the slowest cards out there.

    The Ultra has even slower reading time than the non-ultra
    (believe it or not!)

    In short, a mistake. Though they are reliable.

    Gunn
    Chris Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    > Sandisk are pretty much the slowest cards out there. 

    DOH! Ok, thanks for letting me know. Do you have any numbers to
    share, or any references for this information?

    Turby
    Turbinator Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    On 19 Jul 2003 01:40:15 -0700, com (Turbinator)
    wrote:
     
    >
    >DOH! Ok, thanks for letting me know. Do you have any numbers to
    >share, or any references for this information?[/ref]

    I did a search on google. I have a graph from a review which supports
    what I said about speed.

    Numbers: From the reviewers test:
    sandisk read/write: 913 / 651
    sandisk Ultra r/w: 882 / 836

    I did not save the link.

    The reliability thing is just hearsay!

    Gunn
    Chris Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: SimpleTech vs. Lexar, vs. ????

    > I did a search on google. I have a graph from a review which supports 

    Thank you, Chris.

    Update, I have received my SanDisk Ultra 256 meg CF. Works fine, did
    a few tests with it so far. Read somewhere that someone had trouble
    using an Ultra card in the Canon S400 - no problems here, photos
    taken, read back to a PC, and deleted off the card.

    Have yet to test transfer rates - will do that sometime soon. If I
    have any quantifiable results, I'll post them here along with with
    methodology.

    Turby
    Turbinator Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Lexar Firewire CF reader
    By Stuart Middleton-White in forum Photography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 16th, 04:38 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 15th, 08:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139