16 GB Sandisk card in a Nikon D200

[Blitz]

I have burned 280 shots on one 170 minute dive..... It was the only thing that kept my mind off of the cold.

 

[justleesa]

Not to get picky, but the original question was simply whether it worked in the D200. (which I don't know the answer to)

just a touch picky :blinking: as you see I quoted Howard, giving him a reason why the OP might want a bigger chip.

 

[RonFrank]

Hi there

Here in denmark the prices for CF cards has dropped by nearly 50% the last 2 weeks.
Therefore the 16 GB Extreme III card from Sandisk is now afforable.

But before i buy, does anyone know if i can use it at all in my Nikon D200 ?

I think it will.

However think about it before you go that big. Larger cards are traditionally slower. If you have ONE 16GB card, and it fails (they are generally VERY reliable) you are done.

Do you really need 16GB for any one event? The answer maybe yes, but again, do you want your eggs in that one basket?

IMO 4X4 is a better way to go. I have not noticed a 50% drop, but they have definitely dropped some, maybe the 16GB more so than other as they were much more expensive per GB vs. smaller versions.

The 16GB cards are generally used by high end video folks where they can burn down that memory quickly. For todays DLSR's 16 GB is kinda over kill.

BTW, thanks for the heads up on pricing, I just got another 4GB card! $50 for the RI DATA 150X

THIS card is one of the best on the market currently, and at $50 for a 4GB card a heck of a deal!

 

[Kim]

just a touch picky :blinking: as you see I quoted Howard, giving him a reason why the OP might want a bigger chip.

Not at all......it's a useful comment. I'm curious though if someone knows the actual answer, so I didn't want the question to get lost.....

 

[RonFrank]

How can any of you shoot more than 240 (RAW w/ 4gb card) on 2 dives? That's 120 photos per dive, which if you're doing an hour dive, is approximately 1 photo every 30 seconds.

Even for 4 dives, I find that the 4 gb card is more than enough for me. YMMV

Actually you get over 300 shots on a 4GB card RAW+jpg basic compressed. Keep in mind that as you shoot, the camera adjusts the counter. I did a post on this a while back. The initial number of shots left is based on no compression, and worst case sizes. As the shots are stored, the camera adjusts the counter based on what has actually been shot, and the amount of space used. I have found that on a 4GB card I can generally get over 300 shots, and closer to 350.

 

[justleesa]

Wow Ron! Thanks for that link! Gonna get some 4gb's now

 

[HowardE]

Ok... not to maintain the hijacking of the OP, but does the 150x card actually make that much of a difference? (not that the $50 price doesn't just close the deal for me) Does it change the max amount of buffered shots on continuous shooting??

 

[RonFrank]

With my D70, I could shoot pretty well forever before the battery even dropped one bar on the meter. With the D200, it really sucks back the juice and I don't think I'd be able to get more than 300 shots or so before a recharge is needed. That's about enough to fill a 4G card. I wouldn't worry too much about running out of space on an 8G card as you'd need to charge your batteries first before that happens.

I can get about 400 shots shooting RAW+JPG basic on the D200, maybe more, but I have several batteries, and switch them out when they get down to about 20%.

The D200 actually is not much harder on batteries then the D70. Look at Phil's tests, the D70 did 2000 shots in jpg basic no flash mode, the D200 did 1800 shots in the same mode. The D200 does use more power, but it's also a lot faster with a larger sensor.

One reason the D70 appears to last forever is that the meter is inaccurate. Like many rechargeable batteries, it put's out full voltage until the very end, and then dies quickly fooling most charge metering systems. The EN-EL3e batter introduces a chip that uses more then just voltage to monitor the charge, and reports a more accurate reading as the battery discharges.

 

[Mo2vation]

How can any of you shoot more than 240 (RAW w/ 4gb card) on 2 dives? That's 120 photos per dive, which if you're doing an hour dive, is approximately 1 photo every 30 seconds.

Even for 4 dives, I find that the 4 gb card is more than enough for me. YMMV

They just don't dump their cards.

---
Ken

 

[RonFrank]

Ok... not to maintain the hijacking of the OP, but does the 150x card actually make that much of a difference? (not that the $50 price doesn't just close the deal for me) Does it change the max amount of buffered shots on continuous shooting??

You can find test's online. It makes a big difference when shooting at 5FPS, and then waiting for the buffer to flush. UW, you will NEVER fill the buffer if shooting with a flash.

Time, secs
RAW + 3872 [L] JPEG
1 GB Sandisk Extreme III - 4.5 Secs
1GB Luxar Pro 133X - 4.5
8GB Sandisk Ultra II - 6.3
Filesize 20,505 KB

So 4.5 seconds to flush an image vs. 6.3 seconds on a slower Ultra II card which I think is about an 80X card. That is rather significant.

The D200 is a fast camera, and creates a big file at 20MB when shooting RAW+JPG High, so a fast card is never a bad thing. Where it really shows up is in high speed shooting, but as you said, at $50, just go buy it!

It likely will not change the max buffered shots, but will allow the next shot to be done almost immediately after the buffer is full. If it takes 4 seconds to shoot 20 shots RAW, you have almost cleared one shot by the end of the burst if it takes 4.5 seconds to write the buffer. If it takes 6.5 seconds to clear the buffer (keep in mind the Ultra II is a fast card also, so a SLOW card could take 10 seconds or more to write an image) then you are waiting a couple seconds longer for the next shot, and for every shot if you keep shooting.

This type of shooting is done when shooting sports, or maybe wildlife (birds comes to mind). If you don't shoot like this, than a fast card does not really buy you much other than the fact it will ALSO download faster, which is another factor to consider.