New Delkin Black claims no buffer on Z9...

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

I wonder if their "laboratory tests" were just firing frames with the lens cap on. All black frame once compressed has a smaller file size.
I just tested the card again with lens cap on. I got 90 pictures before camera started to stutter. Only slightly better than when shooting regular image.
The camera does still keep on shooting at reasonably rapid frame rate, but with frequent stutter.
I guess practically speaking, you can keep shooting a prolonged action event and get plenty of pictures.
But it bothers me that Delkin would make the claims that they did. I really see no difference in performance at all between the older 128GB Delkin Black and the newer 150GB card.
At least with the new card they are giving some extra GBs and they have significantly reduced the cost of the card from $230 to $180.
If you have the older Delkin Black cards, unless you need more cards, I see no reason to buy the new card
 
argh. they just responded that they'll replace or refund my card. i wrote them back:

I'm interested to understand if the performance I experience is as Delkin expects it. A replacement only makes sense if you feel there is something wrong with my card.

I have not been able to find any combination of settings that allows me to replicate the advertised sustained 20FPS in lossless compressed raw.

i tried fixing my iso, shooting with the lens cap on, shooting at a high shutter speed and low shutter speed.

shooting as low as 1/250 still exhibits the same problem. going down to 1/200s slows the frame rate enough that the rate is sustained (not sure exactly what fps i'm getting, but you can hear it's slower than 20).
 
having not heard back from my last query to ask Delkin to clarify if my card is performing as they expect or based on what settings to replicate their performance, i am going to conclude their performance claim was based on a flawed "test".

my current summary of this card is that it's probably a smidge faster, but very similar to the Prograde Cobalt. which is to say, it's still probably the best card available, and it can maintain a very decent rate even after buffering, but i do not believe they meet the performance claims that got all the hype.
 
having not heard back from my last query to ask Delkin to clarify if my card is performing as they expect or based on what settings to replicate their performance, i am going to conclude their performance claim was based on a flawed "test".

my current summary of this card is that it's probably a smidge faster, but very similar to the Prograde Cobalt. which is to say, it's still probably the best card available, and it can maintain a very decent rate even after buffering, but i do not believe they meet the performance claims that got all the hype.
Your assumption is correct
 
It was an interesting few days for me after my last post on the thread here...

As John points out, Delkin has a new set of statements up, which I hope give a fairly accurate reflection of the performance of the new cards.

Why do I personally hope that? Those are my statements haha - and the reason why I've been silent on the thread for the past week.

I received the same, generic 'go look here' email, which pointed to the still-wrong "buffer doesn't max out" statement - so I wrote them, and they wrote back saying they wanted to apologize to users, and asking me to help them create a statement that was accurate. I said ok. But then I realized I needed to more fully understand what the actual performance is, rather than just disproving their claim.

So I did a *ton* of tests over the weekend, crunched the data, created graphs to get a deeper understanding of performance (not sure they'll post the graphs - I find them very informative). Then I set about to craft a set of statements they could reword into their own that would properly set the expectations for Z9 users. I kind of rushed through this to get the something on Monday since this was clearly a burning issue for them.

They ended up just posting exactly what I wrote (even leaving in the marketing-speak I wrote for them "our top competitors" lol), which I hope is ok since I put in a lot of "hedge" phrases in there e.g. "can deliver" vs. "will deliver". Overall, the performance is quite good, just not perfect ;)

Please let me know what you think of the statements, and if there are any places you bump on. I think it's pretty close, although I did try to keep things in a positive light for them.

Cheers!

...Dave...
 
As of now (5/20/22, about 2 pm CDT) this link takes you to the new statement and acknowledges Dave. Thanks Dave.

 
It was an interesting few days for me after my last post on the thread here...

As John points out, Delkin has a new set of statements up, which I hope give a fairly accurate reflection of the performance of the new cards.

Why do I personally hope that? Those are my statements haha - and the reason why I've been silent on the thread for the past week.

I received the same, generic 'go look here' email, which pointed to the still-wrong "buffer doesn't max out" statement - so I wrote them, and they wrote back saying they wanted to apologize to users, and asking me to help them create a statement that was accurate. I said ok. But then I realized I needed to more fully understand what the actual performance is, rather than just disproving their claim.

So I did a *ton* of tests over the weekend, crunched the data, created graphs to get a deeper understanding of performance (not sure they'll post the graphs - I find them very informative). Then I set about to craft a set of statements they could reword into their own that would properly set the expectations for Z9 users. I kind of rushed through this to get the something on Monday since this was clearly a burning issue for them.

They ended up just posting exactly what I wrote (even leaving in the marketing-speak I wrote for them "our top competitors" lol), which I hope is ok since I put in a lot of "hedge" phrases in there e.g. "can deliver" vs. "will deliver". Overall, the performance is quite good, just not perfect ;)

Please let me know what you think of the statements, and if there are any places you bump on. I think it's pretty close, although I did try to keep things in a positive light for them.

Cheers!

...Dave...
Dave

Really nice job helping them with communicating performance. I've followed up with a note to them recognizing their effective response.
 
Back
Top