Steve, I for one appreciate the comparison you have made between Lexar and SanDisk write speeds, but I think that if you compared cards of the same storage capacity, you might find a different result.
Second, I have taken shots alternatively in jpeg and tiff formats on my Nikon 950, using the same subject, lighting, etc. I used a 96mb SanDisk CF and got about 24 seconds write time in tiff and about 5 seconds in jpeg. When I enlarged the two photos and printed them, it was really difficult to tell if there was any substantial difference in the sharpness of the image. There must be SOME difference, but, for all practical purposes, I am now content to use the jpeg setting for the majority of my shots. The exception is when I do a shot where I expect to print only from a small portion of the frame or make a very large picture from almost the full frame.
The recyle time for jpeg is longer when using the internal flash because of the longer time it takes to recharge the flash. One of the answers for this situation is to use an accessory flash gun that will function at distances beyond about 12 feet, which is the limit of the tiny built in unit.
As for the future, I have been looking at my crystal ball and see two different SanDisk models appearing on the market. One is the super-reliable CF we have all grown to love or hate, as the case may be. The other is slightly less reliable, but faster--sort of the sport photographer's companion. The former is made by SNDK. The latter carries the SNDK label but comes from what formerly was Lexar but will end up being just a shell after the patent trial. Maybe Lexar can start a new business making those plastic protective cases. On the other hand, I've thrown my SNDK card around, stepped on it, dropped it into the mud, exposed it to dust, dirt, and a variety of contaminants, without finding any deterioration in performance. You just can't destroy this card!
Art |
