Best memory card for the ist DS is ?

I hope I'm not being thick I did try and seach for an answer before posting !

Just bought new IST DS and have taken some test shots using normal 512 Mb SD card (i already own from op 555) which are fine.

Thing is want to use best quality card in terms of speed but more importantly quality to give optimum shots especially if I use RAW for any work I do.

Should I be investing in an SD ultra II card or Lexmark ones.

Please can someone who really knows their ist DS/photography (like John Riley-I notice your help seems spot on !) give me some valuable advice including pros and cons of the different spec cards ?

Thanks

Higbo

First of all - there'll be zero difference in quality of the image between cards. The images are digital. What will change is the speed of writing

If you are shooting RAW (which will give you the best quality compared to JPG, as well as the most flexiblity), then the write speed is most important.

Take a look at www.davoom.co.uk (especially under SD cards: http://www.davoom.com/products/index.php?boxaction=main&categoryId=12) - I've bought the Viking 66x speed SD cards from them and they work a treat You don't have to buy the most expensive cards.

(What's confusing is that the advertised speed of the card is the read speed, and the write speed is not often given. When taking photos it's the write speed that's the key!)

And while you're at it, I'd recommend investing in a USB2.0 card reader (from somewhere like www.7dayshop.com ).

Hope that helps,
Matt

Matt has beaten me to it, and said it all...

Sue and I use Jessops SD cards, and in terms of performance there has been no problem. What is worth noting is that the cards provided by suppliers like jessops who own-brand can end up being from different sources. As a consequence, we had several of a particular type that did not actually physically fit the camera - they were marginally too thick, causing difficulties inserting the cards and removing them.

As regards quality, as Matt says, the images are digital and data is data so there will be no difference.

Thanks very much for your help guys-John/Matt would you recommend I just stick to my basic card (bog standard San disk)for now then upgrade later if I need a better write speed for RAW etc ?

cheers

Higbo

It really is a personal choice depending on your requirements, but I can tell you that we generally take landscapes/studio portraits but not fast action sports shots so the standard cards have been no problem. We shoot in highest quality JPEG.

If we started shotting in RAW then the requirements might change, but I have no experience of that as yet.

Depends if you want to use your Optio 555 at the same time!!
Given the price of the Viking 66x 512Mb (made by Toshiba), I would get one of those
And... as John mentioned these have a sticker put on the SD card that makes it marginally too thick (for my Pocket PC at least). I just carefully removed the label, kept it in a safe place (in case I needed to return it ever), and all is fine now.
Matt

What I would like to know is: what is the limiting factor when it comes to writing to the card? At what point does the camera provide the bottleneck, so that it is not worth buying cards of a higher speed?

George

George - good question.
You can only find this out by trial and error. The CPU speed, plus the CPU design (whether it has dedicated SD interface circuitry) makes a big difference. Add to that the firmware design - which operating system, how the SD transfer was done, how quickly the RAW or JPG functions take. It's a great big cauldron
In the *ist-D there is little difference between the Lexar 40x and the 80x cards I have. The 80x seems faster at writing, definitely faster reading in the PC.
But yes, you're right the camera eventually becomes the bottleneck and the cards out pace it. At what speed though? You have to try it.
(In my Pocket PC, for example, a "standard" Sandisk is much slower than the Viking 66x card. Now whether a 40x is just as fast is another matter... )
Matt

Problem is: I can't try it if I don't have the card, and I don't want to buy the card until I know the answer. Snookered.

G

I have a 60x card and two 32x (all 512m). I shoot all sorts of stuff, and have used the 32x in continuous (shotgun in my case!) mode with absolutely no problem (often 6-8 shots at a time). The difference for me is in speed when moving files to pc where the 60x card is a fair bit quicker using my usb 2 card reader. I don't use raw much, tending to use highest quality jpeg.
my 60x card cost about 50 quid whereas the 32x card cost 28 quid, I'm going to buy another two cards for my upcoming holiday (as i also use a video camera which utilises sd cards), and I will go for the 32x or similar, as the difference in speed for me does NOT outweigh the difference in cost.

Thanks, John M,

That was just the sort of practical advice I needed.

George

But then, in the link at Davoom I gave, the Viking 66x card which writes at 9Mb per second is £32.95 for 512Mb delivered.
(The Kingston 512Mb is £27.95 that writes at 1.5Mb per second. I think £5 is worth the difference there )

Also, as I said, the write speed is not necessarily directly related to the read speed, which is the "32x", "60x" or "66x" refers to.

For example, Davoom list an Apacer 60x card that reads at 9Mb/sec (150k x 60), but writes at 6Mb/sec (150k x 40)
On the other hand the Viking 66x reads at 10Mb/sec (150k x 10), but writes at 9Mb/sec (150k x 60)
So, although at first glance there's little difference between them - 60x versus 66x - there is a great difference in write speed

So, as John rightly says the main speed advantage is in copying to the PC, yet there is a great variability in the write speed that is not often documented

Matt

32.95 pounds would swing it for me, as opposed to the 50 quid i paid for my 60x card. I'll follow you're link!

An update to the ist DS firmware is available from Pentax to enable the use of SD cards larger than 1Gb.

Download from http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/info/20050415e.html