SanDisk SD Cards v. Samsung Cards - a Test (Page 2): Were either of those cards SDHC or SDXC. The MB/s numbers refer to read speed do they not. All card packaging never quote write...

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Were either of those cards SDHC or SDXC. The MB/s numbers refer to read speed do they not. All card packaging never quote write speeds. Of the two brands both make their own internal chips per a couple year old article I once read.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

John_F wrote:

Were either of those cards SDHC or SDXC. The MB/s numbers refer to read speed do they not. All card packaging never quote write speeds. Of the two brands both make their own internal chips per a couple year old article I once read.

Since the OP mentioned 128GB capacity, they would be SDXC (SDHC Max is 32GB). You're correct - manufacturers usually quote max read speed and print it on the card (because the # is higher), so you always need to look up the total spec. which includes write speed.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Dan De Lion wrote:

My only complaint about the D750s I own is the rel... (show quote)

Dan, I have no idea what the Samsung level of card is. I do know that the SD Extreme Pro will both read and write at 90/90.
There's a VERY good chance that the Samsung card is performing at 80/40, so empting the buffer at 1/2 the speed.
Did the cards cost the same, or did the SD cost more? You probably just got what you paid for.
The camera was designed to operate at a certain speed. The manufacturer will state what card speeds are recommended to be used. Too much card will just be a waste of money.
On another hand, something I know nothing about but If the camera will empty faster using a card that's faster than the manufacturer recommended card, will the camera empty faster? And if it will, are you in essence creating more heat than the camera is designed to operate at and can dissipate? Kind of like over-clocking a computer? Could the camera burn out? I have no idea but perhaps someone here might have some knowledge of camera operating temperatures. More is NOT always better is it? Just saying!!
SS

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

Dan De Lion wrote:

My only complaint about the D750s I own is the rel... (show quote)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

SharpShooter wrote:

Dan, I have no idea what the Samsung level of card... (show quote)

So the data acquired by the sensor and subsequently digitized by the A/D has to be clocked into (written to) the buffer memory and subsequently moved to the memory card. This process will be controlled by the processor, but whether the data has to pass through the processor would depend on the specific architecture. Either way, the data movement to the card will take less time with a faster card. My guess is that the processor is the primary heat generating device, not the memory, and since the total operation is taking less time, even if the processor is heavily involved, the total heat generated would be at worst, the same, and most likely less with a faster card. In either case, since the write operation is fairly short compared to the total processor time when the camera is in operation, my thought would be that heat due to a faster write would not be an issue.

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

SharpShooter wrote:

Dan, I have no idea what the Samsung level of card... (show quote)

Samsung card is 90/50 that is why it performs worse

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

TriX wrote:

So the data acquired by the sensor and subsequentl... (show quote)

Thanks triX. The heat thing was just so thing that comes to mind sine the Maura threes do specify card requirements. Many formal testers do test those speed limits with different cards for max camera performance. I just don't know anyone that tests Nikon in the same way that The Digital Picture tests Canons. Thanks
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

JohanneT wrote:

Samsung card is 90/50 that is why it performs worse

JT, I had pretty much predicted that but had no idea the actual spec. My guess is the Samsung card was also much more affordable.
If a person does ONLY landscape, and many do, the faster cards are PURELY A WASTE OF MONEY!!
Thanks
SS

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

SharpShooter wrote:

JT, I had pretty much predicted that but had no idea the actual spec. My guess is the Samsung card was also much more affordable.
If a person does ONLY landscape, and many do, the faster cards are PURELY A WASTE OF MONEY!!
Thanks
SS

SS, the problem is when you do low light and long exposures....

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Personally, without testing, I'd choose SanDisk over any other brand.
--Bob

Dan De Lion wrote:

My only complaint about the D750s I own is the rel... (show quote)

wmontgomery Loc: Louisiana

Test site confirms: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d750/fastest-sd-card-speed-tests/

Dan De Lion wrote:

My only complaint about the D750s I own is the rel... (show quote)

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

wmontgomery wrote:

Test site confirms: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d750/fastest-sd-card-speed-tests/

Thanks that excellent

Jim Bob

Dan De Lion wrote:

My only complaint about the D750s I own is the rel... (show quote)

SanDisk. Everything else is a crap shoot.

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

Jim Bob wrote:

SanDisk. Everything else is a crap shoot.

I got a scandisk Extreme Pro and is more than double the speed and download speed also increased more than double
I test the Samsung 38 shots buffer full and scandisk 104 shots full
Thanks guys for your help..appreciate

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

camerapapi wrote:

For many photographers JPEG files are not an option. I have repeatedly said here that modern JPEGs are excellent files and that I use them often.
Shooting JPEGs in sequence allows to shoot MORE than using RAW files and still, as per my experience, the files are of excellent quality.
Make a test with JPEG. I bet you are going to be pleasantly surprised if lots of shots handled by the buffer is your concern.

Check out this video it could change your mind https://www.slrlounge.com/workshop/dynamic-range-and-raw-vs-jpeg/
I wish I had never shot anything else than Raw. I sitting old photos that are basically unusable because jpeg are limited in post processing.