56 of 57 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2014
So I got this card and it was immediately apparent that it was faster than my older 400x cards. I guess that is to be expected. Anyway, I started to wonder just how fast it was. I guess it's pretty new, there were no official reviews on the internet of this card
I did find this thread on the Fred Miranda Forum. [...]. Unfortunately there was no data available for this particular 1066x card. So, I decided I'd add my own. (I'm vw151 on FM) Here is what I found.
17-40L @ 24mm
Lexar 32 GB UDMA 7 1066x ------------156 shots in a 30 sec burst
I did the test 2x got 155 once, 156 once
Another metric I thought might be useful in this thread was total size of the files produced to account for the difference in file size made by different cameras. The 1Dx vs the 1D4 for instance.
Anyway in both cases, my combined total file size was about 3.19GB Do the math and that works out to about 106MB/second. File sizes are about 21MB per image. I think the frames recorded plus this data gives a clear picture of the card's performance.
I have 2 cards. I'm gonna run the test 2 more times with the other card.
I did 4 more tests on the 2nd card but changed up the parrameters in the 2nd 2 tests.
155 shots 3.23GB RAW 12FPS Avg. 5.16 FPS 107.67MB/sec
148 shots 3.11GB RAW 12FPS Avg 4.9 FPS 103.67MB/sec
312 shots 1.57GB JPEG 12FPS Avg. 10.4 FPS 52.33MB/sec
324 shots 1.63GB JPEG 14FPS, Mirror Locked Avg. 10.8 FPS 54.33MB/sec
The interesting thing was, Jpeg @ 12FPS, It didn't sound like I ever got off the buffer but Jpeg @ 14fps it got into the buffer hard at about 10 seconds in. but it still made more pictures in 30 seconds.
I also see file transfer rates from the card to an SSD or RAID0 at around 115MB/sec.
Please keep in mind these are real world benchmarks, not lab tests. None the less, if I reproduced the test on the FM forum reasonably well it seems the write speed in a 1DX is no better than the 1000x which the tester managed 160 shots in 30 seconds. Nothing wrong with that as the 1066x is just the successor to the 1000x and it seems we are reaching the maximum of the CF interface with these cards.
35 of 35 people found the following review helpful
on March 31, 2014
This review is from my perspective as a photographer.
So there are times when "it's happening" (I shoot mostly concerts) and I cringe when the buffer on my camera fills and the shutter stalls and I see "that shot" being missed. If you have a camera that can take advantage of UDMA 7 (I shoot a Canon 5D Mark III and it can) and you need to make sure you get "that shot", then spend the dough and get this card.
It writes to the card fast enough that you can shoot full speed continuously - forever.
Spending thousands on a better lens doesn't mean a thing if the shutter doesn't click when you need it to.
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful
on July 14, 2014
I purchased the 16GB version, I was previously using (mostly) a pair of 16GB Lexar Professional 400x (60MB/s) cards.
I did a test to see how much faster this card was than the 400x. Lexar states that the 400x is rated at a guaranteed 60MB/s rate, where the 1066x is rated up to 160MB/s.
I am using these cards in a Canon 5D Mk II. During my test, I used manual mode with the following settings:
F/4 @ 24mm
continuous shooting mode
ISO, see results below
I was shooting in RAW with all in camera corrections turned off (which is how I normally shoot anyways). I used a 10 second burst timed by using a timer. This was not scientific, so allow for +/- 1 frame margin of error.
27 Frames @ ISO 100
25 Frames @ ISO 800
24 Frames @ ISO 1600
21 Frames @ ISO 3200
20 Frames @ ISO 6400
The burst would slow at 14-12 frames, depending on the ISO.
34 Frames @ ISO 100 (21% faster)
32 Frames @ ISO 800 (22% faster)
31 Frames @ ISO 1600 (23% faster)
29 Frames @ ISO 3200 (28% faster)
26 Frames @ ISO 6400 (23%faster)
The burst slowed at 17-16 frames, it was very consistent no matter what the ISO was.
Now, a 21-28% faster card may not seem to be impressive, but in practice it is very noticeable. One thing I did notice was that the buffer was clearing out 4-5 times faster with the 1066x over the 400x and when the shots started to slow, the 1066x was very consistent and slowed from about 4 frames to 2 frames a sec, in contrast, the 400x would slow to 1-1.5 and would hesitate sometimes.
Also, here is another thing to keep in mind; I'm using a camera that was designed and sold in 2008 If you are using a newer model DSLR, your results will most likely be more impressive.
I also did a download test to see how much faster it would download. I used a USB 3.0 SanDisk ImageMate all-in-one on a computer using Windows 7 64 bit. I shot 30 images of the same scene onto each card. The 1066x had 604 MB of info and the 400x had 603 MB. The 1066x downloaded them in 6.01 seconds and the 400x did it in 7.60 seconds.
My download test showed the 1066x being 21% faster, which is pretty consistent with the in camera results.
*An interesting side note; when I was shooting the 30 frames for the download test, the 1066x rate of fire stayed consistent all the way through the 30 frames, the 400x slowed considerably at 25 frames and was maybe doing a frame a second until the 30th frame. *
If you don't shoot action, weddings, wildlife, or some other fast changing or moving subject, this card will probably be over kill. If you do use the burst mode with any regularity, I would most definitely recommend getting one (if your camera supports this card).
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on October 1, 2014
For the longest, I have been a loyal SanDisk fan. I have used nearly all of their SD & CF cards at various 15/30/45/60/80/90 MB/s speeds. Unfortunately, some of their faster CF cards were cost prohibitive. I don't particularly need anything above 60MB/s for photography and have used SanDisk's 32GB 60MB/s over the past 4-5yrs. However, recently with the advent of Magic Lantern's RAW video feature, I have been aching to try it out. Although Computerbay cards have had substantial success, I didn't trust the brand. B&H had an awesome sale on these Lexar 1066x and I couldn't resist. I purchased 2 of the 64GB because the 128GB doesn't sustain >90MB/s write speed for 1080p RAW (Magic Lantern) video.
With that been said:
This baby works like a charm! Absolutely flawless for RAW video on the 5D Mark III! Solid performance. 64GB equates to about 12min of RAW recording. So if you're planning on doing large RAW projects, I'd recommend buying several of these.
I have used these cards on multiple wedding photography gigs. Obviously the large capacity & speed is nice but not necessary. Again, they performed admirably.
On regular compressed video: performed flawlessly on the following cameras that I have used: 5D Mark III, 5D II, and 7D.
On the 5DIII, with compression, I was able to get about 4.5hrs of footage.
On the 7D (no option for compression size), I got about 3.5hrs footage.
Anyways, these are great cards! I rarely use my Sandisk CF cards anymore. These have been my go to cards for the last 3-4 months.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on July 3, 2015
My wife just brought this card to me where I am photographing on assignment overseas. I bought two, actually. One is fine, the other one is clearly very used and is DOA. They are only giving me just over two weeks to return it, but shipping from Africa is a month. Right this second, I only have a macro lens on me, but you can see the scratches in the attached picture...it also has a dent. This really upsets me. Ugh.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on October 3, 2014
I'm using this card to shoot RAW video on a Canon 5D MKIII (and MKII). In that reguard, it works without issue. For regular photography, this card's speed is quite nice when coupled with a USB 3.0 card reader. I can download a whole shoot (of RAW photos of course) in a few seconds.
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
on January 30, 2015
Previously OPENED!!! Fingerprints ALL over the card. I'm guessing someone stole the code for Image Rescue... Card works, I'm just a little pissed I paid $250 for a used memory card...
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on June 22, 2014
The fastest cameras I own are: (A) D800 and (B) D7100 The D7100 is SD-only, so that leaves me with the D800, D700, and D300s cameras that can use these CF cards. The D300s and D700 Card slots don't write NEARLY fast-enough to take advantage of these cards over my Lexar 1000x or even 800x cards. So while these DO offload faster to my computer through my USB 3.0 reader, there is no advantage to these for me beyond off-loading photos to my PC faster through the card reader. The D800 only fires at 4FPS when I use 14-bit RAW + JPEG Fine, so it's not like my shots come noticeably faster. Now with a D4/D4s I can see where there would be a big advantage with these cards. I imagine that the Canon camp will experience much of the same, but I can't say for sure since I never use Canon DSLR cameras myself. Either way, I am getting these so that I am future-proof when the next gen of Nikon cameras that use faster card writing become available...
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on September 8, 2015
I purchased two Lexar CF cards and Lexar Professional USB 3.0 Dual-Slot Reader. The first Lexar CF card I tried turned out to have multiple bad blocks. I lost about 900 raw photos. The jpeg copies on my San Disk card survived. Then stupidly thinking this was a fluke, I tried again with the other Lexar card I had bought. Here's the story of that experience.
I have always used SanDisk, but when I got my new Canon 7D Mkii (with two card slots) for shooting Birds in Flight (BIF) I decided on the basis of a professional memory card review to try Lexar for the CF card slot. The first attempt to do this failed because the card had bad blocks (reported by my Drive Genius software). To try again with the second Lexar are was a big mistake. Every picture stored to the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s came out fine. Nearly every photo scored on the Lexar Professional 1066x CF was lost. The SD card was read by the reader slot on my MacBookPro. The Lexar card was read by the Lexar Professional USB 3.0 Dual-Slot Reader.
Actually the experience was a lot like watching the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland slowly disappear! The photos were viewable on the camera, then when I put them in the Lexar reader, I could still see them all. Then I started to transfer them to a folder on my Mac. The first 20 or so made it over to the Mac, some of the others seemed to, but didn't really transfer and it was taking longer and longer for each one to transfer. The last ones to seemingly transfer took about an hour. Then the transfer stopped. I clicked on the last file. It could not be read it said. It was corrupted. So were the others back up the list until I got to the first 15-20 files. These few photos were actually on my Mac & viewable, but then the corrupted files started to disappear. I would click on a file and nothing would happen except that it was not longer in the list. I thought I was seeing things. I used the "Get Info" command which said that the card was almost full, but by this time, any attempt to access the card was met with a statement that the card was empty! I tried the Image Rescue software the Lexar provides in the box. No photos to rescue! What? How can the card be almost full and empty at the same time?
Since I had no other CF reader, I was stuck. I could do nothing with the first Lexar card. Even the camera could not access it. The second card still had images on it but they were inaccessible. So I reformatted the card. Then I wondered if the fault was in the Lexar reader. So I tried my Snadisk sd card in the Lexar reader. This card I knew had always worked fine. I started to transfer the files to my Mac. Yup! the first few transferred then the process slowed to a crawl, then files that appeared to be safely in my Mac started to disappear when I tried to view them. It was happening again! But this time I had another way to access the files on the card. I put the card in my Mac's SD card slot and there were all my files. So I duplicated all the files still in their folder, and moved them onto my Mac. Opened the folder and all the files were on my Mac safe & sound. However, the Lexar reader still couldn't see the files on the card. According to it, they were gone!
So was the fault in the Lexar CF cards? Well, one certainly had bad blocks. The other? I don't know. Was the card the problem or the reader or BOTH? IMO, both were at fault. I am NEVER buying another LEXAR memory card product.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on May 4, 2015
I used to use SanDisk, then I tried one of these Lexar 1066x cards and wow! Super fast! Perfect for my new Canon 7D Mark II! I still find the SanDisks a bit faster for the SD cards, but for CF cards, it's Lexar all the way!