If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
On 08 Jun 2007, GT wrote:
"Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. Joey wrote: If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory I don't believe the fact that it's a supercompact is relevant. The question is whether the camera can use it at all, but if it's recent there should be no reason why not. The speed rating of the memory is its maximum speed, so if the camera can't go that fast, then the memory will run at less than top speed, so don't worry about compatability due to speed. Compatability due to size of memory card may be an issue though - see Richard's last line below Realistically, you'll probably find no speed difference between a 40x and 133x card. If you buy based on the size and price rather than speed you'll typically end up with a fast (say, 133x) card anyway. Not true. It depends on what the camera is capable of - fast frame shooting will benefit greatly from faster memory, but I don't know how many frames per second this camera can do. Not if the camera cannot write at 133x, and AFAIK most can't. 133x is around 20MB/s write speed. Surely the limiting factor in the transfer from camera buffer to storage RAM will be the RAM speed - I would be very disappointed in a new camera if the buses couldn't handle something faster than 20MB/s. I would expect the theoretical bus speed to be many times that - maybe even 50 times faster than that!! You would expect the bus to be faster than 20MB/s and it probably is. This just means the bus isn't the bottleneck. You'll be hard pushed to find a digicam that can write as fast as 10MB/s. Expect around 5MB/s. You need to consider what the camera can achieve, not what the performance of an individual component (bus, card, etc.) is. But the camera is made up of these components and the performance of the camera WILL be as slow as the slowest component. Basically, there is the image processor, the bus and the flash storage. The image processor can internally process the image much faster than a flash card can read/write it. And the bus can handle data transfer at rates many times faster than any flash card. The camera has to interpret the data from the sensor and convert it to JPEG and write it to the filesystem, all of which imposes processing overhead. Unless the bus is the bottleneck the speed of it is irrelevant. Same with the card; if the card is at least 66x (that is 9.9MB/s) then it isn't going to be the bottleneck. My EOS can take 3 frames per second until the buffer is full. In 8Mpixels, high JPEG mode, it shoots about 14 shots until it has to sit and wait for the memory card to catch up - you can watch the access light to see this. In RAW mode, this delay is more obvious. So the image processor and bus are not the bottlenecks - the card is! I 'expect' that a compact digital camera will be slightly slower at processing images, but it is still a dedicated chip and will process images much faster than any memory card can transfer them. I don't think it matters how long the image processor takes to deal with the photo - it will be significantly less time than it takes the card to store it away - why else have Sandisk been working on faster and faster cards - the Extreme IV is with us now. I don't know figures, but it can probably save 30+MB/s, but will still be the bottleneck !! So based on the exchange here between Richard and GT, the answer to the OP (me) is that the memory should be reasonably fast but is not likely to have to be as much as x133 and something like x66 would most likely do. Did I get that about right? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
GT wrote:
"Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. Joey wrote: If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory I don't believe the fact that it's a supercompact is relevant. The question is whether the camera can use it at all, but if it's recent there should be no reason why not. The speed rating of the memory is its maximum speed, so if the camera can't go that fast, then the memory will run at less than top speed, so don't worry about compatability due to speed. Compatability due to size of memory card may be an issue though - see Richard's last line below Realistically, you'll probably find no speed difference between a 40x and 133x card. If you buy based on the size and price rather than speed you'll typically end up with a fast (say, 133x) card anyway. Not true. It depends on what the camera is capable of - fast frame shooting will benefit greatly from faster memory, but I don't know how many frames per second this camera can do. Not if the camera cannot write at 133x, and AFAIK most can't. 133x is around 20MB/s write speed. Surely the limiting factor in the transfer from camera buffer to storage RAM will be the RAM speed - I would be very disappointed in a new camera if the buses couldn't handle something faster than 20MB/s. I would expect the theoretical bus speed to be many times that - maybe even 50 times faster than that!! You would expect the bus to be faster than 20MB/s and it probably is. This just means the bus isn't the bottleneck. You'll be hard pushed to find a digicam that can write as fast as 10MB/s. Expect around 5MB/s. You need to consider what the camera can achieve, not what the performance of an individual component (bus, card, etc.) is. But the camera is made up of these components and the performance of the camera WILL be as slow as the slowest component. Basically, there is the image processor, the bus and the flash storage. The image processor can internally process the image much faster than a flash card can read/write it. And the bus can handle data transfer at rates many times faster than any flash card. The camera has to interpret the data from the sensor and convert it to JPEG and write it to the filesystem, all of which imposes processing overhead. Unless the bus is the bottleneck the speed of it is irrelevant. Same with the card; if the card is at least 66x (that is 9.9MB/s) then it isn't going to be the bottleneck. My EOS can take 3 frames per second until the buffer is full. In 8Mpixels, high JPEG mode, it shoots about 14 shots until it has to sit and wait for the memory card to catch up - you can watch the access light to see this. In RAW mode, this delay is more obvious. So the image processor and bus are not the bottlenecks - the card is! Doesn't matter. In tests the EOS 350D only writes images at between 4 and 6 MB/s. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7699 Doesn't matter if the card and bus can do 20MB/s, the camera still doesn't. I 'expect' that a compact digital camera will be slightly slower at processing images, but it is still a dedicated chip and will process images much faster than any memory card can transfer them. I don't think it matters how long the image processor takes to deal with the photo - it will be significantly less time than it takes the card to store it away - why else have Sandisk been working on faster and faster cards - the Extreme IV is with us now. I don't know figures, but it can probably save 30+MB/s, but will still be the bottleneck !! Err Sandisk are generating big numbers because big numbers sell. Besides, faster is *better*, it's just not guaranteed that anything can use the extra speed yet. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
Joey wrote:
On 08 Jun 2007, GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. Joey wrote: If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory I don't believe the fact that it's a supercompact is relevant. The question is whether the camera can use it at all, but if it's recent there should be no reason why not. The speed rating of the memory is its maximum speed, so if the camera can't go that fast, then the memory will run at less than top speed, so don't worry about compatability due to speed. Compatability due to size of memory card may be an issue though - see Richard's last line below Realistically, you'll probably find no speed difference between a 40x and 133x card. If you buy based on the size and price rather than speed you'll typically end up with a fast (say, 133x) card anyway. Not true. It depends on what the camera is capable of - fast frame shooting will benefit greatly from faster memory, but I don't know how many frames per second this camera can do. Not if the camera cannot write at 133x, and AFAIK most can't. 133x is around 20MB/s write speed. Surely the limiting factor in the transfer from camera buffer to storage RAM will be the RAM speed - I would be very disappointed in a new camera if the buses couldn't handle something faster than 20MB/s. I would expect the theoretical bus speed to be many times that - maybe even 50 times faster than that!! You would expect the bus to be faster than 20MB/s and it probably is. This just means the bus isn't the bottleneck. You'll be hard pushed to find a digicam that can write as fast as 10MB/s. Expect around 5MB/s. You need to consider what the camera can achieve, not what the performance of an individual component (bus, card, etc.) is. But the camera is made up of these components and the performance of the camera WILL be as slow as the slowest component. Basically, there is the image processor, the bus and the flash storage. The image processor can internally process the image much faster than a flash card can read/write it. And the bus can handle data transfer at rates many times faster than any flash card. The camera has to interpret the data from the sensor and convert it to JPEG and write it to the filesystem, all of which imposes processing overhead. Unless the bus is the bottleneck the speed of it is irrelevant. Same with the card; if the card is at least 66x (that is 9.9MB/s) then it isn't going to be the bottleneck. My EOS can take 3 frames per second until the buffer is full. In 8Mpixels, high JPEG mode, it shoots about 14 shots until it has to sit and wait for the memory card to catch up - you can watch the access light to see this. In RAW mode, this delay is more obvious. So the image processor and bus are not the bottlenecks - the card is! I 'expect' that a compact digital camera will be slightly slower at processing images, but it is still a dedicated chip and will process images much faster than any memory card can transfer them. I don't think it matters how long the image processor takes to deal with the photo - it will be significantly less time than it takes the card to store it away - why else have Sandisk been working on faster and faster cards - the Extreme IV is with us now. I don't know figures, but it can probably save 30+MB/s, but will still be the bottleneck !! So based on the exchange here between Richard and GT, the answer to the OP (me) is that the memory should be reasonably fast but is not likely to have to be as much as x133 and something like x66 would most likely do. Did I get that about right? Err yeah about that. To be honest you'll probably find the best deals are in the 133x and 150x cards anyway so it is becoming moot. ;-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:31:05 +0100, Joey
wrote: So based on the exchange here between Richard and GT, the answer to the OP (me) is that the memory should be reasonably fast but is not likely to have to be as much as x133 and something like x66 would most likely do. Did I get that about right? Mostly, but in general when you see a card with only one speed rating like 133X, that is the read, not write speed. You'd be interested in the write speed of course and that is generally lower than read speed. I would recommend a card with read speed higher than 66X also because once you have a lot of pictures on it, a card reader can transfer those to the PC faster and the card would have a longer viable lifespan. Wherever you plan on buying, it should not cost substantially more to get a card with higher speed until you get to the premium grade cards, and that might be the break-point which makes the best value. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
GT wrote:
"Joey" wrote in message ... If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? x133 is medium to fast. However, how many shots can the camera take in a second? If you were looking at an SLR with 2 or more frames per second, then memory speed starts to become an issue, but if the camera can only shoot 1 frame per second, then memory speed doesn't really matter. Except most compacts can shoot video. When my 1GB card failed and I had to use a 256MB, I couldn't shoot sustained video. I guess any big, newer card should be fast though. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
"Richard Polhill" wrote in message
.. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. Joey wrote: If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory I don't believe the fact that it's a supercompact is relevant. The question is whether the camera can use it at all, but if it's recent there should be no reason why not. The speed rating of the memory is its maximum speed, so if the camera can't go that fast, then the memory will run at less than top speed, so don't worry about compatability due to speed. Compatability due to size of memory card may be an issue though - see Richard's last line below Realistically, you'll probably find no speed difference between a 40x and 133x card. If you buy based on the size and price rather than speed you'll typically end up with a fast (say, 133x) card anyway. Not true. It depends on what the camera is capable of - fast frame shooting will benefit greatly from faster memory, but I don't know how many frames per second this camera can do. Not if the camera cannot write at 133x, and AFAIK most can't. 133x is around 20MB/s write speed. Surely the limiting factor in the transfer from camera buffer to storage RAM will be the RAM speed - I would be very disappointed in a new camera if the buses couldn't handle something faster than 20MB/s. I would expect the theoretical bus speed to be many times that - maybe even 50 times faster than that!! You would expect the bus to be faster than 20MB/s and it probably is. This just means the bus isn't the bottleneck. You'll be hard pushed to find a digicam that can write as fast as 10MB/s. Expect around 5MB/s. You need to consider what the camera can achieve, not what the performance of an individual component (bus, card, etc.) is. But the camera is made up of these components and the performance of the camera WILL be as slow as the slowest component. Basically, there is the image processor, the bus and the flash storage. The image processor can internally process the image much faster than a flash card can read/write it. And the bus can handle data transfer at rates many times faster than any flash card. The camera has to interpret the data from the sensor and convert it to JPEG and write it to the filesystem, all of which imposes processing overhead. Unless the bus is the bottleneck the speed of it is irrelevant. Same with the card; if the card is at least 66x (that is 9.9MB/s) then it isn't going to be the bottleneck. My EOS can take 3 frames per second until the buffer is full. In 8Mpixels, high JPEG mode, it shoots about 14 shots until it has to sit and wait for the memory card to catch up - you can watch the access light to see this. In RAW mode, this delay is more obvious. So the image processor and bus are not the bottlenecks - the card is! Doesn't matter. In tests the EOS 350D only writes images at between 4 and 6 MB/s. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7699 Very interesting - I was not aware of that! So that suggests that there is another component causing the bottleneck - the 'transfer chip' that sits at the business end of the flash transfer bus! Doesn't matter if the card and bus can do 20MB/s, the camera still doesn't. Am I right in saying 6MB/s equates to around 40x? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
GT wrote:
"Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message .. . GT wrote: "Richard Polhill" wrote in message . .. Joey wrote: If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory I don't believe the fact that it's a supercompact is relevant. The question is whether the camera can use it at all, but if it's recent there should be no reason why not. The speed rating of the memory is its maximum speed, so if the camera can't go that fast, then the memory will run at less than top speed, so don't worry about compatability due to speed. Compatability due to size of memory card may be an issue though - see Richard's last line below Realistically, you'll probably find no speed difference between a 40x and 133x card. If you buy based on the size and price rather than speed you'll typically end up with a fast (say, 133x) card anyway. Not true. It depends on what the camera is capable of - fast frame shooting will benefit greatly from faster memory, but I don't know how many frames per second this camera can do. Not if the camera cannot write at 133x, and AFAIK most can't. 133x is around 20MB/s write speed. Surely the limiting factor in the transfer from camera buffer to storage RAM will be the RAM speed - I would be very disappointed in a new camera if the buses couldn't handle something faster than 20MB/s. I would expect the theoretical bus speed to be many times that - maybe even 50 times faster than that!! You would expect the bus to be faster than 20MB/s and it probably is. This just means the bus isn't the bottleneck. You'll be hard pushed to find a digicam that can write as fast as 10MB/s. Expect around 5MB/s. You need to consider what the camera can achieve, not what the performance of an individual component (bus, card, etc.) is. But the camera is made up of these components and the performance of the camera WILL be as slow as the slowest component. Basically, there is the image processor, the bus and the flash storage. The image processor can internally process the image much faster than a flash card can read/write it. And the bus can handle data transfer at rates many times faster than any flash card. The camera has to interpret the data from the sensor and convert it to JPEG and write it to the filesystem, all of which imposes processing overhead. Unless the bus is the bottleneck the speed of it is irrelevant. Same with the card; if the card is at least 66x (that is 9.9MB/s) then it isn't going to be the bottleneck. My EOS can take 3 frames per second until the buffer is full. In 8Mpixels, high JPEG mode, it shoots about 14 shots until it has to sit and wait for the memory card to catch up - you can watch the access light to see this. In RAW mode, this delay is more obvious. So the image processor and bus are not the bottlenecks - the card is! Doesn't matter. In tests the EOS 350D only writes images at between 4 and 6 MB/s. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7699 Very interesting - I was not aware of that! So that suggests that there is another component causing the bottleneck - the 'transfer chip' that sits at the business end of the flash transfer bus! Yeah I kind of put it down to the processing on board, but it does seem rather slow. Doesn't matter if the card and bus can do 20MB/s, the camera still doesn't. Am I right in saying 6MB/s equates to around 40x? Yes. The multipliers are based on the standard CD-ROM transfer rate of 150kB/s. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
GT wrote:
x133 is medium to fast. However, how many shots can the camera take in a second? The IXUS series are normally capable of producing slightly more that 2 images/second at the highest resolution, until the card runs full. Assuming that an image is around 2-3 MB is size, a card capable of writing 7MB/seconds seems to be enough. As for movies, MJPEG (a common choice for small cameras) runs between 1 and 2 MB/sec. It makes me wonder just how slow my old non-movie-capable SD-card really was. -- Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:51:42 +0100, "GT"
wrote: Doesn't matter. In tests the EOS 350D only writes images at between 4 and 6 MB/s. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...?cid=6007-7699 Very interesting - I was not aware of that! So that suggests that there is another component causing the bottleneck - the 'transfer chip' that sits at the business end of the flash transfer bus! True, but, speeding up processing is one of the clear evolutionary points of newer cameras, that test was 2005. Also, that was a Compact Flash card not SD which could make a difference. Doesn't matter if the card and bus can do 20MB/s, the camera still doesn't. Am I right in saying 6MB/s equates to around 40x? yes, but it is really worth trying to think in terms of slowest possible? C'mon, a 133X 2GB card with 15.5MB/s write speed is a mere $23, versus ~ $15-20 or so for a lower end card (the exception being that some really low end cards are now practically free after rebate, but I've no idea about the rebated products in the UK). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820233021 While the price may be higher in the UK, it's probably also quite a bit higher because OP is thinking of buying it from a camera store which tends to mean a price premium and often older stock (slower stock) since they don't move product nearly as fast as a larger 'eTailer. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Recommeded memory speed for supercompact?
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:52:18 +0100, Joey wrote:
If I get a modern super-compact digital camera such as a mid-range Canon IXUS (US: Canon Powershot) for general use then ... ... what minimum speed of SD memory should I get to avoid delays? I see "x133" mentioned a lot on memory adverts. Is x133 fast, slow, just right for the sort of camera I am thing of? I would probably get 1GB or 2 GB from this sto http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index...uery=sd+memory You might as well get the cheapest ones you can find - you'll never notice the difference. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Memory: Higher speed w/o low lat. vs lower speed low lat. | ftran999 | Asus Motherboards | 2 | April 29th 04 04:37 AM |
FSB, Bus speed, memory speed??!! | esara | General Hardware | 1 | April 8th 04 04:19 AM |
P4C800-E Deluxe - CPU speed vs Timming vs Memory speed? | Paul | Asus Motherboards | 0 | February 7th 04 04:59 PM |
FSB Speed and Memory speed | John A | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | September 7th 03 07:01 PM |