Stupid Question about D300?

[56 Chevy]

Someone told me that the D300 can take two CF cards -- and not just one -- is that true ?

Just curious

Thanks in advance

 

[Delsorbo]

no it can't.

 

[56 Chevy]

Thanks Oscar -- I appreciate the clairification

 

[alexf]

Nope. That's the D3.

 

[73Z1]

The current D300 only takes one media card, but supposedly the soon to be announced D300s will take two media cards. SD and CF. That has been the rumor for a while now and according to nikonroumors.com they have a shot of the D300s rear LCD showing this.

 

[Southswede]

Just the one. Why are people so against the thought of an SD card in a camera that has had CF in the past?

I understand not having the SD cards. But beyond that, what is wrong with SD?

 

[pforsell]

Just the one. Why are people so against the thought of an SD card in a camera that has had CF in the past?

I understand not having the SD cards. But beyond that, what is wrong with SD?

Speed? Fastest CF cards (Sandisk Ducati) seem to happily run at 11 MB/s and fastest SD card I could find tops at sluggish 5.6 MB/s. I used MB = MegaByte, if you wish to compare Mb/s (megabits) the numbers above are 88 Mb/s and 45Mb/s correspondingly.

The 11 MB/s is still pretty slow compared to the 8 frames per sec D300, which produces 148 MB/s.

 

[Southswede]

Speed? Fastest CF cards (Sandisk Ducati) seem to happily run at 11 MB/s and fastest SD card I could find tops at sluggish 5.6 MB/s. I used MB = MegaByte, if you wish to compare Mb/s (megabits) the numbers above are 88 Mb/s and 45Mb/s correspondingly.

The 11 MB/s is still pretty slow compared to the 8 frames per sec D300, which produces 148 MB/s.

So with the D300s you can have both.....and if the write speed is not important.....

 

[73Z1]

Speed? Fastest CF cards (Sandisk Ducati) seem to happily run at 11 MB/s and fastest SD card I could find tops at sluggish 5.6 MB/s. I used MB = MegaByte, if you wish to compare Mb/s (megabits) the numbers above are 88 Mb/s and 45Mb/s correspondingly.

The 11 MB/s is still pretty slow compared to the 8 frames per sec D300, which produces 148 MB/s.

Actually the D300 Guide says that the max continuous speed is 8fps at the default NEF size. That is specified in the Guide as a 12-bit Lossless compressed NEF, which is listed by Nikon as having an average size of 13.6MB. At 8fps and 13.6 MB per file, the way I read it, the D300 is capable of a maximum sustained rate of roughly 108.8MB/sec. Still much faster than any SD or CF card.

Newegg.com is now listing the Transcend 600x CF cards which claim a data transfer rate of 87~92MB/sec. Nearly fast enough to keep the D300 from running out of buffer, (if the claim is true). Certainly would extend the time it takes to max out the buffer space.

 

[Big Daddy]

... But beyond that, what is wrong with SD?

Some prefer the size and handling of CF cards. CF cards are larger and usually feel more substantial than SD cards. SD cards are comparatively tiny and thin with more flexing.

The SD card's size can become a problem as it's easier to drop when trying to quickly change cards. And then if it drops in grass or brush, it's usually harder to find than a CF card!

OTOH, occasionally someone will run into a bent pin when trying to insert a CF card. Not that frequent, but it can put the camera out of commission.

It also seems that there are more notebooks that directly read a CF card without a card reader. They usually don't read particularly fast but can be useful in a pinch.

 

[Southswede]

It also seems that there are more notebooks that directly read a CF card without a card reader. They usually don't read particularly fast but can be useful in a pinch.

You have not looked at laptops in a while. I have not seen a CF slot in a couple of years. The trend seems to be all-in-one readers that do not support CF.....

 

[SteveAikens]

Newegg.com is now listing the Transcend 600x CF cards which claim a data transfer rate of 87~92MB/sec. Nearly fast enough to keep the D300 from running out of buffer, (if the claim is true). Certainly would extend the time it takes to max out the buffer space.

They're not available yet on Newegg. I have a notification turned on for 16gigs. I'll step on the bleeding edge for this one and let you know how it shakes out. Newegg wants $195 - the Transend site want $275.

I can wait for that much difference in price. I've missed some shots because the camera has had to wait to vacate some buffer - not a good thing. If this card works as advertised, that will be over.

 

[krautfed]

Can anyone explain to me the write speed in dummy terms? All I know, is that I picked used three cards a couple weeks ago, all with same settings... JPEG LARGE FINE w/ D Lighting. The cards were a Lexar Pro 133x, a Sandisk Ultra II, and some generic chinese card that my friend couldnt get to work in his Canon.

All three cards would provide the same amount of frames, 17-18 frames, before it would stop (hit buffer?) while shooting on continuous high w/ MB-D10 and AA's. Does this mean that if I get a 300x card, I will not see an improvement?

 

[SteveAikens]

It's not that simple. You don't say what the size of the cards are. It does make a difference.

I can only tell you that in my camera, shooting RAW, MB-D10, CH in bright sunlight, I can hit 11 shots before slowing down with my Lexar 300X 16g. My Sandisk IV 16g gets me 10. Shooting with a Sandisk III [only 4 g] only gets me 7-8 shots before its slows.

I just test shot my 16g Lexar with your settings. My guess is your Lexar Pro is either 2 or 4 g. I only got 15 shots before the buffer got me.

 

[pforsell]

Can anyone explain to me the write speed in dummy terms? All I know, is that I picked used three cards a couple weeks ago, all with same settings... JPEG LARGE FINE w/ D Lighting. The cards were a Lexar Pro 133x, a Sandisk Ultra II, and some generic chinese card that my friend couldnt get to work in his Canon.

All three cards would provide the same amount of frames, 17-18 frames, before it would stop (hit buffer?) while shooting on continuous high w/ MB-D10 and AA's. Does this mean that if I get a 300x card, I will not see an improvement?

The card speed will have most impact on the speed how fast the buffer is empty again to be ready to accept more images. Also new card readers on your computer can take advantage of faster cards meaning shorter download times.

The card speed is slower than the camera output, but speeds are getting higher all the time. Then again there are some limits inside the camera because the camera was designed to have a certain maximum write speed, and at that point even a superfast card cannot help, unless the write electronics inside the camera are upgraded to provide faster speed.

Some cameras can use two cards concurrently to write even-numbered shots to one card and odd-numbered to the other doubling the bandwidth.

 

[krautfed]

thanks guys

It's not that simple. You don't say what the size of the cards are. It does make a difference.

The cheapo chinese card is 2gb, the Lexar 133x is 4gb, and the Sandisk Ultra II is 8gb.

 

[SteveAikens]

This will help - though I'm not getting the same results he is, generally he's pretty close.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9254

 

[Retief]

It's not that simple. You don't say what the size of the cards are. It does make a difference.

The controller in the card itself and how it reacts with the D300 is the most important factor. The original Transcend UDMA cards, which I tried when the D300 first came out as they were significantly less than Sandisk, read and wrote at UDMA speed connected to a Sandisk Firewire 800 reader on my computer. However, they would only get non-UDMA write rates in the D300. Further research showed that the UDMA spec allows the controller to go into UDMA mode either by default or on command from the "writer", apparently the D300 does not send this specific command bit. At the time I was contacting Transcend and they were not planning to change their controller firmware to default to UDMA.

The upshot is that the Transcend acted, in the D300, just the same as a Sandisk Extreme III. You might check around, I think Sandisk may be running some sort of rebate on the 8 and 16gb Extreme IV 45 mbs cards.

 

[73Z1]

The controller in the card itself and how it reacts with the D300 is the most important factor. The original Transcend UDMA cards, which I tried when the D300 first came out as they were significantly less than Sandisk, read and wrote at UDMA speed connected to a Sandisk Firewire 800 reader on my computer. However, they would only get non-UDMA write rates in the D300. Further research showed that the UDMA spec allows the controller to go into UDMA mode either by default or on command from the "writer", apparently the D300 does not send this specific command bit. At the time I was contacting Transcend and they were not planning to change their controller firmware to default to UDMA.

The upshot is that the Transcend acted, in the D300, just the same as a Sandisk Extreme III. You might check around, I think Sandisk may be running some sort of rebate on the 8 and 16gb Extreme IV 45 mbs cards.

Did you use the green Transcend T266X cards?, It may be that Transcend has modified the controllers since your tests. The Transcend 300x ranks higher than all other UDMA cards except Sandisk IV and Ducati in Rob Galbraith's tests with the D300. In the D3 the T300X is ranked even faster than the older Sandisk IV, but not the new improved SanDisk IV. My experience matches Rob's findings. The 4Gb T300X are exceptionally fast in my D300 and D3. Transcend sold a green label T266X CF card which was was not up to the claimed speed if you wanted a fast card in the camera. I have 2 of those. In camera they are barely faster than my older version SanDisk II cards and those were sub 133X. The spec claimes 266X average read/write and in a card reader they read faster than 266X to compensate for slower than 266X write in the camera. Work ok in the non-UDMA D200 though.

SteveAikens, please let us know your results when you get the T600X card. If the T600X cards live up to the claims, it would be a good bit cheaper than buying the $500 buffer upgrade for the D3. :smile:

 

[SteveAikens]

No problem, I'll certainly post my results.