Sandisk standard versus Ultra memory cards

[mmessler]

Does anyone have a preference or any thoughts? I want to buy a 2MB card for my new 8MP camera, so that I can not have to worry about using multiple cards, but is there any advantage to the ultra that is worth a nearly $60 difference in price? Same store, there's the standard available for $29.99 after rebates, the ultra for $83.99. For me, it seems a no brainer to get the regular cards, but I was curious what others thought.

Also found another store where the difference is only $10, but they appear to be sold out of the ultra.

 

[ukcatfan]

It depends on the camera. If your camera can take advantage of the speed, then it will show in responsiveness. There are also other brands that are high speed cards. Have you considered buying online? I have been very happy with Newegg.com and I believe that Buy.com is also well respected for cards.

Kevin

 

[dmensing]

My understanding is the only difference between the standard card and Ultra is the speed at which the picture data is written to the card. The Ultra has a higher maximum speed. This really only comes in play when taking photos in burst mode. In addition, it depends on what the maximum write speed is of your camera. I read on a different board that my camera's write speed, Nikon D50, is slower than the Ultra card, therefore, it was a waste to buy it since the camera speed would be the limiting factor.

If anyone more knowledgable than me has a differing view, I hope I am corrected.

Thanks,
Dan.

 

[ukcatfan]

My understanding is the only difference between the standard card and Ultra is the speed at which the picture data is written to the card. The Ultra has a higher maximum speed. This really only comes in play when taking photos in burst mode. In addition, it depends on what the maximum write speed is of your camera. I read on a different board that my camera's write speed, Nikon D50, is slower than the Ultra card, therefore, it was a waste to buy it since the camera speed would be the limiting factor.

If anyone more knowledgable than me has a differing view, I hope I am corrected.

Thanks,
Dan.

Be aware that there are different grades of high speed cards. Your D50 will take advantage of the high speed. It may not take advantage of it completely, but it will be faster than a standard card. I am not a burst shot person, but when I have to put my standard SD card in my Pentax K100D, I notice the slowdown. The entire thing seems to run slower. If you shoot RAW, then high speed is practically a must.

They will also copy to your computer faster than a standard card.

Kevin

 

[barrie]

I use 1GB ultra cards for the speed reason. I've been told that 2GB cards will slow down when you have more photos on them. Also, I don't like to have so many of my photos on one card in case it gets lost or corrupted.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here is a site that gives some idea of what speeds we can expect from what cards in what camera. What?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

In some cases it is worth buying the higher speed cards, in others it is not. I can think of two or three occasions when I have had to stop shooting because of a full buffer.

 

[prowlerregal335m]

I just got a 2 MB ultra II from adorama last week for 38.95

 

[0bli0]

rob galbraith's site is very good, provided your camera is listed. remember it's also much faster offloading to the computer, so that may also be a bonus if you are shooting thousands of raw images in a day.

 

[Groucho]

On a long-ago thread, I listed out the read and write speeds of a ton of different 2gb SD cards. Sandisk Ultra 2s were strictly "middle of the pack", actually slower, than most cheaper cards. They read and write at 10m/s, which most cheaper hi-speed 133x/150x cards write at more like 13-15m/s, and read at 22-23m/s (off the top of my head.) One of these days I'll redo that list and put it on my site, so I can find it again.

Basically, you're paying a lot for the Sandisk name. If that makes you feel good because you trust their quality, that's fine - many people feel that way. I'm not willing to. Much of the time, I use an Ultra (that's the brand, not Sandisk) 133x 2gb that I got for $20 after rebate from ZipZoomFly, and I also have a PQI 2g 150x 2gb that was something like $25 after rebate.

FWIW, there is also the Sandisk Ultra 3, which does have faster write speeds than most cheap 133x/150x cards - but I think it's over $100 for the 2gb card, and it's virtually impossible to find.

Generally, most 2gb cards are pretty fast and you shouldn't notice a difference. The other day, I took just my camera (no bag) to my parent's house to take a picture of a train table I've been building for my son, and didn't realize that I had left my usual card in my computer. Oops! My father came up with a 16 meg card to borrow - enough for exactly one photo in RAW mode - and man! Did it take a long time to write! The difference was very clear. But I doubt you'll find a 2gb card that slow...

 

[Groucho]

I use 1GB ultra cards for the speed reason. I've been told that 2GB cards will slow down when you have more photos on them.

Where did you hear that? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. There's always 2gb of data on the card, whether it's storing zeros or whether it's storing the data that makes up your photo.

 

[BoardwalkBabe]

If you are a Costco member, they have a coupon out good for up to five memory cards. I picked up the SanDisk Ultra II 2.0GB for $30 w/the coupon.