8 gig card just over $100

[Chris Hurd]

I've spent $100 for 4GB earlier this year. I don't think it's being "taken for a ride" considering they're guaranteed zero-failure, plus it's a business purchase, plus it's already paid for itself. Personally I avoid cheap memory. To me it's like saying your images and your work are worth only that much.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Personally I avoid cheap memory. To me it's like saying your images and your work are worth only that much.

Honestly, if you are using respectable brands like Sandisk and Transcend, it's hard to make that argument. This isn't some bargain basement stuff.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I've spent $100 for 4GB earlier this year. I don't think it's being "taken for a ride" considering they're guaranteed zero-failure, plus it's a business purchase, plus it's already paid for itself. Personally I avoid cheap memory. To me it's like saying your images and your work are worth only that much.

Interesting, except I have never lost anything or had any issues on my "cheap" Kingston Elite Pro 133x memory, all four cards, that I buy at a about $30 for a 16gig stick. At that rate, I could buy 48 gigs of memory for same $100.00 you paid for your 4 gig. The same chips are handling Magic Lantern without issue. Doses that price difference make any sense ?

[Chris Hurd]

I've always thought highly of Sandisk and Kingston. I'm using Hoodman RAW cards (and I've paid full retail for them, by the way, don't let the Hoodman USA banners here on the site give you the impression that I get free or discounted gear from them, because I certainly don't!) -- I'll have to change my opinion of Transcend, I guess. I've never really thought of it as a Sandisk-level brand...?

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I'll have to change my opinion of Transcend, I guess. I've never really thought of it as a Sandisk-level brand...?

I didn't know what to expect when we started the EX1 vetting either, but ONLY Transcend and Sandisk came through as the solid brands. Don't Transcend make the CF cards for RED?

[Chris Hurd]

I thought Lexar made the CF cards for RED... whether they do or not, I know it's also a very good brand.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm all for brand loyalty... to a point. After years of only buying premium SanDisk, I decided to give Transcend a shot. Well, I've shot tens of thousands of images and hours of video on Transcend cards, and never had a single issue. The Transcends also have lifetime warranties.

I mean, I understand that people only want the best, but buying a $100 8GB card in 2009 is like buying Fiji bottled water to wash your car. Even if it's better water, your car sure doesn't care.

[Raymond Tsang]

We now have over 100GB of Kingston 133x Elites and have been using Kingstons (SD & CF) for several years now. Never had a problem with them. I'm all for buying the best you can afford (I used to buy SanDisk) but Kingstons and Transcends have been reliable enough for me.

That being said, I won't be surprised if a card failed on me since it's been 7 years of zero problems.

[Jimmy Moss]

The 8 GB card at b and h has a 65 mail in rebate.... I don't know if anyone noticed that in the link.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Not long ago, word from Canon was that UDMA cards were recommended. Slower cards could cause the codec to record at a lower bit rate.

I haven't tested this, and I don't know the original source, but I'm staying away from slower cards.

In reality, I think the choice comes down to what you shoot. We do narrative stuff and some very short bits, so my three 4GB SanDisk IV cards are all I need - along with a laptop for wrangling. If I were covering day long events, or paddling up the Congo, I'd buy all the 133x cards I could get my hands on.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Someone in your 5D/7D community needs to do the benchmark testing like we did in the EX1 community to find the best deals.

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

In photography sandisk is the gold standard. Few photographers who make a decent living use anything else. CF is not a commodity. One failure may cost more than all the savings with cheap cards. According to Canon, the minimum Sandisk that should be used is the extreme III. The newer version that is UDMA. Says 30mbs on the front. There's no advantage to Extreme IV with video.

Canon needs to switch to SDHC where the IO controller is in the camera. With CF we buy that hardware with every card.

[Mike Calla]

My HDV tapes, as Chris mentioned, are instantly archived... But this is the norm isn't it? You record to tape > capture > tape sits in a box in spare office - forever... Plus reusing HDV tapes isn't the greatest practice in the world unless you love drop outs! (drop outs are the bane of my existence !@#$@*&^!!)

If i was on a tapeless workflow i'd probably expense and archive flash memory too.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

...word from Canon was that UDMA cards were recommended. Slower cards could cause the codec to record at a lower bit rate.

That's correct. Using non-UDMA cards can cause banding / contouring / quantization artifacts in HD video.

[Bill Pryor]

I've always bought the best tapes available, whether Betacam SP, HD, HDV, whatever. I'd do the same with CF cards.

[Dan Chung]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

In photography sandisk is the gold standard. Few photographers who make a decent living use anything else.

Guess I'm not making a decent living then! I actually use Lexar 300x UDMA cards day in day out. Also have a couple of Sandisk UDMA as well.

Dan