My new 'fast' SD card

[Brownie]

In another thread I mentioned that I had ordered a faster SD card in an attempt to clear the A7RIII's buffer more quickly. I've been using the Sony Tough 277/150 and hoped that bumping the write speed would have a significant effect. I decided to try a Kingston Canvas React 300/260 based on reviews and cost, figuring if it didn't make a big improvement I wouldn't be out much.

Testing was simple. I activated the buffer display and pressed the button until the line disappeared and 'slow' appeared, then timed how long it took to clear the buffer. I ran this test with both cards several times and came up with the same answer:

• The Sony 128G 277/150: 27 shots to full, and a touch under 15 seconds to clear.
• The Kingston Canvas React 128G 300/260: 28 shots to full, a touch under 14 seconds to clear.

So...meh. Certainly not enough of an improvement to make any kind of noticeable difference in use. The 'slower' Sony tough card is $69, the Kingston is $82. I'd rather have the 'slower' Sony Tough card.

I might try it in the A7IV to see if the faster processer can put the card to better use. If not, I'll carry the Kingston as a spare. I have more trust in the Sony cards.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I remember using a standard sd card in my A7III. Then when I got the A7RIII I used the same card to see how it was, then I got a UHS-II card and it felt like a completely different camera. I was using the best Sandisk Extreme one.

Ever since then I just believe you should get the fastest card your camera can take from the start, even if it only makes a small difference. Might as well get the most out of your equipment.

 

[Brownie]

I remember using a standard sd card in my A7III. Then when I got the A7RIII I used the same card to see how it was, then I got a UHS-II card and it felt like a completely different camera. I was using the best Sandisk Extreme one.

Ever since then I just believe you should get the fastest card your camera can take from the start, even if it only makes a small difference. Might as well get the most out of your equipment.

Except my test just proved that in this case it doesn't make any difference.

The difference between UHS-1 and UHS-II is another issue and is significant for other reasons.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Except my test just proved that in this case it doesn't make any difference.

The difference between UHS-1 and UHS-II is another issue and is significant for other reasons.

I'm hearing you champion and a great demonstration on your behalf.

I thought I'd just mention my experience with cards for anyone who may care...

 

[Brownie]

I'm hearing you champion and a great demonstration on your behalf.

I thought I'd just mention my experience with cards for anyone who may care...

Your experience (champion) is typical and expected.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Your experience (champion) is typical and expected.

Tell that to the idiots on YouTube who do a camera review with an underpowered card...

Experience shows us the importance of this, but someone who doesn't know any better is exactly that, the poor bugger watches that review and doesn't know any better...

 

[iamdlewis]

I'd be interested in seeing the number in the A7iv. Mostly because the A7Riii was still in the 1 UHS-1 and UHS-2 and the A7iv has the 2 UHS-2 slots. Just wondering the if the generation improvements are more than just slot types.

 

[Brownie]

I'd be interested in seeing the number in the A7iv. Mostly because the A7Riii was still in the 1 UHS-1 and UHS-2 and the A7iv has the 2 UHS-2 slots. Just wondering the if the generation improvements are more than just slot types.

I'll try and do it tomorrow.

 

[Gaz]

I have two 64Gb TOUGH 277/150 V60 cards on A7iv. Without much calibration, shooting raw compressed, on hi+ at SS 8000, I hit the buffer in around 3 seconds. Running off 22 frames. Nothing to write home about, but I can buy faster cards.

I procedurally write raw compressed to slot 1 and 33M Heif to slot 2. In this test, interestingly, I hit the buffer in 4 seconds and rattled off 34 frames to each slot. That’s a bit better.

What have we learnt here? Gary failed science.

Maybe the image complexity also needs to be considered, with “compressed” images. The second recorded burst was a bright subject with nearly no detail (my computer monitor) whereas the first test had an image of an Indonesian Batik.

I can buy faster cards, one CFExpress and one 300/299 V90 and I’d expect never to hit the buffer.

I'll try and do it tomorrow.

All said and done, I no complain… but at the point that I need a CF express A card, I’m likely going to own an upgrade camera body. With two slots performing differently, how would you ever identify the bottleneck? Maybe it’s in the camera bus, or the raw files themselves, and nought to do with the card?

 

[Brownie]

I have two 64Gb TOUGH 277/150 V60 cards on A7iv. Without much calibration, shooting raw compressed, on hi+ at SS 8000, I hit the buffer in around 3 seconds. Running off 22 frames. Nothing to write home about, but I can buy faster cards.

I procedurally write raw compressed to slot 1 and 33M Heif to slot 2. In this test, interestingly, I hit the buffer in 4 seconds and rattled off 34 frames to each slot. That’s a bit better.

What have we learnt here? Gary failed science.

Maybe the image complexity also needs to be considered, with “compressed” images. The second recorded burst was a bright subject with nearly no detail (my computer monitor) whereas the first test had an image of an Indonesian Batik.

I can buy faster cards, one CFExpress and one 300/299 V90 and I’d expect never to hit the buffer.




All said and done, I no complain… but at the point that I need a CF express A card, I’m likely going to own an upgrade camera body. With two slots performing differently, how would you ever identify the bottleneck? Maybe it’s in the camera bus, or the raw files themselves, and nought to do with the card?

According to Sony, you would only experience slower operation when writing to both slots simultaneously, like if you describe. In those cases the camera will be throttled to the slower of the two slots.

While the A7 IV has a dual SD/CF slot and a single SD slot only, the A7RIII has one SDH-II slot and one SGH-I slot.

My experience with the A7IV is similar to yours. It hasn't really been a problem for me, but the A7RIII stutters. I was in the hope of improving it somewhat. It seems I gained 1 image and 1 second, less than hoped. I figured even if I gained 5 images or 5 seconds it would be worth it.

I don't really expect to see much difference between the two cards with the A7 IV. I expect the camera to be faster and go farther before slowing down for many reasons. Larger buffer, smaller files, faster processor, etc. But I don't think the difference between the Sony 277/150 and Kingston 300/260 will be much different on the M4 than it was on the RM3.

I'll wait until after coffee...

 

[Brownie]

EDITED!!!

If anyone read the first version, please read this again.

This is weird. The first attempts on the A7 IV had the Kingston Canvas React performing WAY worse than even the 277/150 Sony. Where the Kingston had slightly better performance than the slower Sony in the A7RIII, it took twice as long to clear as the Sony when testing the A7 IV.

In the A7 IV, both cards allowed 19 images before hitting slow, but where the Sony cleared in just over 6 seconds the Kingston took almost 13 seconds to clear.

FWIW, I used the same lens as the A7RIII test just to avoid another variable. The burst rate was set to High, which on the A7 IV in RAW means 6 FPS.

I was pretty disappointed with those results and had given up. Before I put the camera away I decided to do it again. Now, the Kingston is clearing in half the time of the Sony. Instead of almost 13 seconds, it's now clearing in just under 4 seconds. That is a substantial improvement from the first test, and almost double the speed of the Sony.

I retested the A7RIII and there is no change.

For the record, I changed nothing. Everything was exactly the same. Also, I reformatted both cards on every single test for both cameras.

I have no explanation. These tests are inconclusive, I'd delete the entire thing if it didn't already have reactions. If anyone has any ideas I'd love to hear them

@Timothy Mayo, do you have a Kingston 128G you can check? My results for the Sony Tough 128 were identical to yours for the 64, but the Kingston is way off.

 

[iamdlewis]

So why I suggested this was because I am not convinced that the A7Riii has true USH-2 hardware given that the slots are a 2 & 1. The A7iv having both USH-2 slots seems to be much closer to the results that I would expect and closer to what I believe my A7Riv gets (though I haven't tested and don't really care because that isn't how I use that camera).

Why the first run was so different than the second run, I don't have answers for.

 

[Brownie]

So why I suggested this was because I am not convinced that the A7Riii has true USH-2 hardware given that the slots are a 2 & 1. The A7iv having both USH-2 slots seems to be much closer to the results that I would expect and closer to what I believe my A7Riv gets (though I haven't tested and don't really care because that isn't how I use that camera).

Why the first run was so different than the second run, I don't have answers for.

True, but I would expect the A7 IV to clear faster based on lower resolution, faster processor, and 8 fewer files. Considering all that, I think they're about neck and neck.

 

[iamdlewis]

True, but I would expect the A7 IV to clear faster based on lower resolution, faster processor, and 8 fewer files. Considering all that, I think they're about neck and neck.

That doesn't sound right that the A7iv has a smaller buffer than the A7Riii. From reading reviews most put the A7Riii buffer at about 28 RAW and I can't find any that state what the A7iv buffer is but 2 have said that the camera maintains the 10fps for over 8 seconds in RAW. If you are only getting 19 before hitting the limit then you are getting less than 2 seconds which would suggest something is wrong.

 

[Brownie]

That doesn't sound right that the A7iv has a smaller buffer than the A7Riii. From reading reviews most put the A7Riii buffer at about 28 RAW and I can't find any that state what the A7iv buffer is but 2 have said that the camera maintains the 10fps for over 8 seconds in RAW. If you are only getting 19 before hitting the limit then you are getting less than 2 seconds which would suggest something is wrong.

Well, one would think so. If you read @Timothy Mayo's test results in the resources tab above, you see the A7 IV has an unlimited buffer, if you use a CF Express card, and if you shoot lossy compressed RAW, and if and if and if.

My results are identical to his using an SD card. I think the A7RIII was optimized for SD, but the A7 IV was made for CF.

 

[Gaz]

EDITED!!!

If anyone read the first version, please read this again.

This is weird. The first attempts on the A7 IV had the Kingston Canvas React performing WAY worse than even the 277/150 Sony. Where the Kingston had slightly better performance than the slower Sony in the A7RIII, it took twice as long to clear as the Sony when testing the A7 IV.

In the A7 IV, both cards allowed 19 images before hitting slow, but where the Sony cleared in just over 6 seconds the Kingston took almost 13 seconds to clear.

FWIW, I used the same lens as the A7RIII test just to avoid another variable. The burst rate was set to High, which on the A7 IV in RAW means 6 FPS.

I was pretty disappointed with those results and had given up. Before I put the camera away I decided to do it again. Now, the Kingston is clearing in half the time of the Sony. Instead of almost 13 seconds, it's now clearing in just under 4 seconds. That is a substantial improvement from the first test, and almost double the speed of the Sony.

I retested the A7RIII and there is no change.

For the record, I changed nothing. Everything was exactly the same. Also, I reformatted both cards on every single test for both cameras.

I have no explanation. These tests are inconclusive, I'd delete the entire thing if it didn't already have reactions. If anyone has any ideas I'd love to hear them

@Timothy Mayo, do you have a Kingston 128G you can check? My results for the Sony Tough 128 were identical to yours for the 64, but the Kingston is way off.

Yep. On my A7iv writing to whatever card, whichever slot, whatever file type, writing to the card was inconsistent for me as well. There’s a firmware solution that we may never see.

In the interim, I won’t hold the shutter release button down for longer than 3 seconds in burst mode.

The upside is that CFexpress card prices are dropping.

 

[Brownie]

Yep. On my A7iv writing to whatever card, whichever slot, whatever file type, writing to the card was inconsistent for me as well. There’s a firmware solution that we may never see.

In the interim, I won’t hold the shutter release button down for longer than 3 seconds in burst mode.

The upside is that CFexpress card prices are dropping.

Wow. News to me. I never really checked before, mostly because I never shoot more than 1 to 1-1/2 second bursts. What started all this was shooting that ARCA race and realizing there's more in the A7RIII than I'm getting out of it. I've always treated it like a red-headed stepchild, second best, necessary evil. I should know better.

I'm going to head out to the track on an off-night and give the RIII top billing to see what happens with the new settings. I have a good feeling about it.

Edited to add: So far the Sony Tough is exactly the same every time.

 

[Brownie]

Interesting input from someone on another forum:

It may have to do with Physical Block versus Logical Block on the card. The type of memory used in these cards has a limited number of write cycles. To maximize life of the card, you want to spread write cycles over the Physical blocks. Formatting will clear logical blocks. If you wrote to the same physical blocks every time you formatted the card, you would limit the lifecycle of the card. So- somewhere in the card is a table that picks out the next blocks to write to. Also tracked- bad blocks that are mapped out. I'm equating this to a disk drive that uses Logical block addressing rather than physical blocks. To get "truly meaningful" results with a card that operates like this- you would have to start with a never-used-before card for each time doing a measurement, not just reformatting it.

You should also test performance at very high-ISO. Buffering in the camera and flushing to the card can create power draw issues. This can pull down available power for the rest of the camera. It can make a difference at very high ISO where noise can creep into the system. I tend to use a slower card for High-ISO to keep the camera "steady State".

This sounds possible, but with the Kingston Card being new and the Sony cards not, and the fact that both had repeatable results in the A7RIII, and the fact that the Sony had repeatable results in the A7 IV, I'm just not sure. I like @Gaz's explanation, because I can blame it on Sony!

 

[Gaz]

Interesting input from someone on another forum:



This sounds possible, but with the Kingston Card being new and the Sony cards not, and the fact that both had repeatable results in the A7RIII, and the fact that the Sony had repeatable results in the A7 IV, I'm just not sure. I like @Gaz's explanation, because I can blame it on Sony!

The evil lizard overlords have hobbled my write speeds so I upgrade one card to Sony CF express.