Compact Flash cards - are they all the same?

[lderooy]

I am starting to look for CF cards. There are a variety of companies that make them and some of them are "ultra" type etc. Is there a difference or does the PocketPC use the slowest transfer speed etc so it does not pay to have a "faster" card?

[JonnoB]

Some are better than others.... there have been speed tests done before. Search for compact flash speed comparison on a search engine. For the most part, they have been all about the same for me - but others swear on one brand over others.

[lderooy]

So if I can find a faster card based on reviews etc, will the PocketPC operating system recognize the speed difference? Is there some cut-off point where the card can be too fast for the PocketPC and it does not make sense to purchase a faster card?

[bmhome1]

dpreview.com has speed comparison tests of many CF brand cards. There are large differences in read/write speeds by brand. Some brands consistently rate high while some other brands hover at the bottom. Similiar discussions about SD cards have different brands clearly loading large files to RAM faster than others.

Real-world: using faster cards may result in less multimedia stutters. I personally use only Lexar CF and SD cards for multimedia in my Nikon digital and 3955.

[ECOslin]

CF cards are...

a volatile issue. Depending on who you talk to this brand of card is better than that brand of card.

Some brands are marked with the same amount of MB capacity as others, but do not have the same capacity.

More recently, faster flash cards for 'professional' use, for CF capable cameras are out and are supposed to be faster than your average CF card.

I use Mr. Flash 128mb cards, which work for me in my stuff. Some folks will say they've had no luck with Mr. Flash brand cards.

Good luck finding a concensus.

Edward

[Pony99CA]

dpreview.com has speed comparison tests of many CF brand cards. There are large differences in read/write speeds by brand. Some brands consistently rate high while some other brands hover at the bottom. Similiar discussions about SD cards have different brands clearly loading large files to RAM faster than others.

Real-world: using faster cards may result in less multimedia stutters. I personally use only Lexar CF and SD cards for multimedia in my Nikon digital and 3955.
Here's the Digital Photography Review Compact Flash comparison test (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare) for you. They mesuare speeds in a card reader and digital cameras, but not a PDA (for obvious reasons).

Steve

[lderooy]

Thanks, I read through the Digital Camera review. It states the following:

As you'll see there's a big difference in performance depending on the device driving the card, don't buy a 12x card for your Nikon Coolpix 995 and expect to get 1,800 KB/sec, you won't.

I hope to soon get a CF sleeve for my Ipaq3650. Will there be a difference with the various cards with this device? For example if the ipaq can only transfer to a CF card at 8X it's not worth purchasing a 12X card. So does anyone know what the performance of a ipaq to a CF card is?

[bmhome1]

Actually I had a Nikon 995 and the difference between 4X Lexar, 8X Lexar and 12X Lexar write speeds was significant incrementally. Maybe not using the maximum throughput potential, but the speed difference was quantifiable, the experience coming from thousands of exposures (literally) with each.

Card read speed for PPC's is probably more relevent than write speed being more important for cameras. The point is to keep the bottleneck potential at the device not from the memory. It really depends on how demanding you are of your equipment. Does an extra half-second matter or not? If not, save some money. YRMV.