142 of 152 people found the following review helpful
Perfect for Canon EOS 7d,
This review is from: Transcend 400X - 16 GB Compact Flash Memory Card TS16GCF400 (Blue) (Personal Computers)
Works perfetly in all Canon EOS 7d HD Movie modes. I purchased two of them along with my 7d and have just ordered a 32 GB Transcend to extend HD movie capacity from 48 min with this 16 GB to 96 min.
May 2011 Update: While this 400x Transcend continues to work perfectly with my 7d under almost all conditions, I have recently found one condition where the faster 600x Transcend MIGHT make a very modest difference. When you are shooting RAW at 8 frames per second with this 400x, the camera slows down to about 1 frame per second after the buffer is full -- about 16 shots. This would also happen at 600x, but I dont know how much it would improve. I just performed an experiment with my 32 GB 400x Transcend/7D and got the following number of shots off in five seconds:
1. Large JPG only: 39 shots (buffer never overloads).
2. Large RAW only: 23 shots (slows down after 16 shots). *
3. Large RAW plus Large JPG: 17 shots. (slows down after 7 shots) *
In summary, there is no reason for 7D owners to spend the big bucks to go from 400x to 600x for video and probably no significant improvement even for 8fps RAW. Check out the table on page 59 of your EOS 7D Instruction Manual and do the math for yourself. High speed (8fps) RAW generates about 200MB/s while the 400x cards and 600x cards handle only 60MB/s and 90MB/s respectively. Also note than if you are shooting RAW + JPEG, you can more than double your burst length by going to RAW only and converting later. Burst capability is therefore much more about the camera's buffer size and processing speed than about card speed. I have concluded that this 400X Transcend is the one for me and find no reason to spend more. If you are a 7D/600x owner who wishes to repeat this test with a 600x Transcend, I would greatly appreciate your reply to this post. For me, it would be an expensive experiment.
* Updated 8-4-2011, Note that this was for the 32GB card, the 16GB card might produce slightly different results.
* Update 2012: Canon introduced a major firmware upgrade this year that significantly improves on these processing times and adds other useful enhancements. If you have not yet upgraded to version 2.0.3, you should do so now.
Tracked by 7 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 1, 2010 7:40:55 AM PDT
Bryan W. Tosh says:
How is the CF card working now that it has been nearly 7 months? Is it still working? Some folks have complained about failed cards after one month. Curious to find out how yours are doing? Thanks.
Posted on Dec 7, 2010 2:46:59 AM PST
D. Adams says:
I would also like to know the answer to that other question. I also just bought a 7D and was wondering what card I should get. I'm settling on the 32gb 400x, here's crossing my fingers.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 7, 2010 8:24:06 AM PST
All three of my Transcends are still working fine at the five month point: One 32gb and two 16gb.
Posted on May 11, 2011 10:53:32 AM PDT
Steve Douglas says:
I am completely new to the DSLR world and just took possession of a Canon 7D yesterday with my only real interest in the video quality for underwater filming. I am a bit confused as to the cards I should get. Some have told me that class 10 cards are not compatible for all cams so I am not sure whether this is the case for the 7D or not. Also, some have said to get the SaniDisc Extreme rather than the Ultra while others mentioned the ProMaster brand. I haven't a clue as to the differences so any help would be appreciated.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2011 12:53:58 AM PDT
Reply to Steve Douglas: I have a 5Dm2 and 7D and use both for video. I use 16GB and 8GB Sandisk Extreme IVs and later picked up this 32GB Transcend 400x. All those cards work flawlessly and there's no buffer underrun or other capture issues. The question for you might be -- do I really need to spend all that cash on Extreme IVs, would an Extreme III be good enough? Same with Transcend's 400x versus the next slower one down. If you can afford the faster cards I'd definitely recommend it. A 32GB card will last a few years, possibly through your next camera body acquisition, where getting faster cards will pay off in the long run.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 31, 2011 6:58:34 PM PDT
Jason Collin says:
I have two Transcend 8GB UDMA 300x cards that are both 2.5 years old and have gotten have use as I have been a full time pro photographer since March 2010 and we part-time since June 2009, and before that did heavy hobbiest shooting since I got the first one in January 2009 and the second shortly after that. I have had zero problems with the cards. I shoot in RAW + JPEG basic on my Nikon D300 and use the card reader built into my Dell 24" monitor.
I am now thinking to add the 16GB 400x card for an upcoming 12 hour event job.
Posted on Aug 4, 2011 4:37:53 AM PDT
Chris J. Cacatian says:
You said that the 7D slows down after 8 shots (RAW) w/ the 16 GB transcend. Is that a typo? I'm wondering because the maximum burst (according to the manual) is 15 shots.
I've tried w/ my Sandisk Extreme (60 MB/s ver), and I got 18 shots before the buffer filled. I'm looking for another card, but I've noticed that the specs are different between the 16 GB and the 32 GB.
From Transcend's website:
Read 60 MByte/s, Write 30 MByte/s (8~16GB);
Read 90 MByte/s, Write 60 MByte/s (32~64GB);
You said you ordered the 32 GB Transcend, have you tried this in 8 fps burst and compared the times?
I'm asking because the 32 GB Transcend should give roughly the same number of shots in 5 secs as the Sandisk, but 2x the capacity at the same price. If the 32 GB is just as fast, I might order that one as a backup or use it for video.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2011 5:23:23 AM PDT
Chris J. Cacatian says:
ok, I just did my own test for my sandisk and the results were a little surprising.
first time I did it, the images were rather underexposed. The results were:
Large JPG: 40 shots (no slowdown)
Large RAW: 30 shots (slowdown after 18 shots)
Large RAW + JPG: 20 shots.
I decided to try it again, after considering the images being underexposed also meant smaller filesizes, so I exposed the image so there was a bell curve in the middle of the histogram. The results for that:
Large JPG: 39 shots (no slowdown). 276 MB total.
Large RAW: 25 shots (slow down around 12-14 shots I think). 664 MB total
Large RAW+JPG: 17 shots. 572 MB total.
My 2nd "normal image" speed test turned out pretty much the same as your original test.
What conditions are you shooting under when you're performing your tests? Are you properly exposing the images? Or doing a lens cap test?
Still, I guess there's not much difference either way I suppose. The discrepancies could just be a timing thing (user error--I tried). Despite the spec difference, now I'm unsure if I should just get the 16 GB version instead. Do you mind performing a burst test w/ your 32 GB card?
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2011 11:00:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 4, 2011 11:16:02 AM PDT
Thanks for posting your results Chris. After reading them, I repeated some of my test with a great deal more precision. This time, I recorded audio of the camera's shutter sound and measured time on my audio editing program. Previously I had just estimated it by ear and this was not good enough for the continuous burst portion. This time, I used my 32 GB Transcend 400x, bright outdoor light, ISO 400, and switched my 70-200mm L lens to manual, so that there should be nothing to slow things down. The scene was a fairly complex shot of some birds in a bush. Results were as follows:
Large Raw Only: 16 shots in first two seconds with no pause. Only 7 shots in the next three seconds for a total of 23 in five seconds. Last three seconds characterized by one or two shot burst with .4 second pauses between. Eight more shots in next five seconds with similar pattern.
Large Raw + Large jpg: 7 shots in first .85 seconds before pause, then another 10 in the next four seconds for a total of 17. The pattern of one or two shots separated by brief pauses seems to go on indefinitely.
I will update the results in my original post and hope this has been useful to you. Looks like the 32 GB Transcend might be about equal to your sandisk. For my purposes, I found that simply turning off the jpg and shooting raw only gave me all the burst capability I need.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2012 3:50:40 AM PDT
G. Slusher says:
I realize that this is more than a year after your comment, but it might help someone else. "Class 10" refers to SDHC cards, an entirely different type of card than this compact flash card. Your 7D cannot use SDHC cards. In the Canon line, the new Rebels and the 60D use SDHC cards, but the 7D and the X0D (e.g., 40D, 50D) use compact flash cards.