Comments?
Fat-16 vs Fat-32
I was always bummed-out that my more expensive Transcend 150x card was always doggedly slow compared to a discount Dane-Elec 133x card. Shooting in high-speed burst I'd start getting the "busy" between shots after about 30-40 shots. Then I saw the FAT-16 formatted speed on the list here for the Transcend 4GB card and thought I'd try it. On one of the benchmark tests it actually surpassed the Dane-Elec card. Otherwise I was always getting speeds similar to those listed here for the FAT-32 Transcend 1GB card.
Suffice to say, if anyone has a 4GB card, they might want to try the FAT-16 formatting on it, not only for the boot feature but for an extra 40% increase in speed.
Here is another SD card Benchmark run for A620
I ran the Benchmark test with my A620 using a SanDisk Extreme III - 1Gb.
Results:
Write(RAW)= 9681
Write(Mem)= 9239
Write(64k)= 5104
Read(64k)= 6090
Can someone add this to this listed Benchmark results?
Benchmark for my cards on A570IS 1.01a
Camera - A570IS 1.01a
Memory - SanDisc microSD 2.0GB
CHDK - AllBest 50
Benchmark ran in Play mode.
Flash-card
W (raw) : 5523
W (mem) : 5273
W (64k) : 4085
R (64k) : 5914
Camera - A570IS 1.01a
Memory - SanDisc Ultra II 2.0GB
CHDK - AllBest 50
Benchmark ran in Play mode.
Flash-card
W (raw): 10718
W (mem): 10326
W (64k): 5872
R (64k): 5893
Adding summary
Maybe we could add a small conclusion/summary, eg warning people that it is useless to buy a card faster than 66X with a DIGIC II camera, because it will never go faster than 10MB/s / 66X ? Cyril42e 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)