Epson DURABrite T126520 Ultra 126 High-capacity Inkjet Cartridge Color Multipack -Cyan/Magenta/Yellow

Epson DURABrite T126520 Ultra 126 High-capacity Inkjet Cartridge Color Multipack -Cyan/Magenta/Yellow..

Grab Now Epson DURABrite T126520 Ultra 126 High-capacity Inkjet Cartridge Color Multipack -Cyan/Magenta/Yellow By Epson

Most helpful customer reviews

169 of 174 people found the following review helpful.
126 and 127 Capacities
By Mark Emdee
I received this reply from Epson about the capacity of each:
High-capacity Black (126): About 385 pages;
Extra High-capacity Black (127): About 945 pages;
High-capacity Cyan, Magenta and Yellow (126): About 470 pages;
Extra High-capacity Cyan, Magenta and Yellow (127): About 755 pages.

And the rest of Epson's reply:
Epson does not provide the ink volume in mls for its cartridges because mls do not translate into any usable print information. Mls will not tell you how much printing you can get out of a cartridge. To get an idea of how much printing can be done from a cartridge, Epson provides estimated page yields for the black cartridges and color cartridges for its printers.

89 of 96 people found the following review helpful.
Some tips to reduce ink usage -
By J. Skilton
My workforce printer sucks ink at an alarming rate. Some things I have found to reduce ink usage include: 1) set default to draft and black ink only (yes, it uses color when printing b&w text), 2) use smooth finish bright white paper, 3) decrease the gamma setting, 4) increase the brightness setting a lot and decrease contrast a little. The ink itself is fine, but the cartridges have a chip that makes them not refillable, and cheap Chinese knockoff cartridges are not coming onto the market as I had hoped they would when I bought the printer. So if you are stuck with a printer that takes these cartridges, the ink is really good, just too expensive, and no relief for that appearing after a year on the market.
.

32 of 32 people found the following review helpful.
Sells itself short
By Noodler's Pen
Ink is fast drying and non smearing. I prefer the output on this Epson printer to my Canon Pixma printer. This printer does go through Black cartridges quickly. I suggest unless you use a lot of color buying the 125 series low capacity color cartridges and coupling that with the high capacity 126 series Black cartridges. In addition, I have been able to print a good 20+ sheets in Black and White after the Epson printer ink utility states that the black cartridge is out of ink. I have not tried to use the suggestions from one of the other reviews to extend the life of black ink cartridges but I will try this. The cartridges are expensive and they do seem to get used up rapidly.

See all 354 customer reviews...More...

Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x 42mm Roof Prism Binocular

Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x 42mm Roof Prism Binocular..

GET Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 10x 42mm Roof Prism Binocular By Bushnell

Most helpful customer reviews

161 of 173 people found the following review helpful.
Almost Excellent
By Lee Choo
A brief summary of this review is that, after comparison with the Bushnell Legend HD 8x42, A Nikon Prostaff 7 10x42, a Nikon Monarch 5 10x42, and a REI 10x50, I decided to stick with the Bushnell 10x42 Legend HD; BUT the decision is a compromise, and I an not totally happy with the Bushnell product.
To understand how I came about to compare so many models, let me give you the entire story. Firstly I had decided to get a good pair of binos. I decided to get the Legend HD 8x42 mostly because of the good reviews, its larger Field of View and brighter image (as compared to the 10x42). So after I got it from Amazon and carefully testing the optics visually, I noticed that in the left side scope there was a slight misalignment of optics so that there was a larger than normal area of image blurring on the left side field of view (the normal for the Legend series, from my subsequent observation, being about at 25% of the edge area you begin to get blurring). This was only noticeable when focused on a uniform flat surface; something I could possibly live with. So I took the binos out to the beach for an afternoon of testing. The image clarity was great, so was the color saturation and contrast... but there was one thing I couldn't live with--the eye relief was too long for a non-eyeglass wearer like me. Observing objects at eye-level and above was okay, but when the binos were pointed downward, say at birds at the waterline from above, the binos actually had to be awkwardly positioned away at a distance without touching any part of your eye socket or face. Very awkward, unnatural, and uncomfortable positioning of the binos; something not sustainable for a any extended period of time without introducing hand-shake.
So I decided to return the 8x and buy a 10x Legend because the latter had slightly shorter eye-relief. The process was very easily done with Amazon, and the 10x binos came quickly. Immediately, out of the box, I noticed the right side eye-cup was crooked at an off-angle. I tried to lightly adjust it, but it was permanent. As I retracted the cup, it was rough and had no click stop like the other side. BAD QUALITY CONTROL. So I decided to give it a comparison test so I can decide whether to exchange it or simply return it and buy another brand of binoculars. I went to a local REI store which carried Nikon binos, and had the salesperson let me take a look at the afore-mentioned Prostaff 7, Monarch 5, and REI models. The quick summary is that REI unit did not stand out (even with the extra 50mm aperture)... the Prostaff and Monarch models performed very close optically (the salesman said the Monarch was slightly better but he bought the Prostaff for himself because of the price; I personally thought the Monarch had some flare/fringing issues worse than the cheaper Prostaff!) but the Monarch had better build quality... From the build quality of both Nikons, it was immediately obvious that they were built better than the bushnells: the materials were more solid, and the movements smoother than the Bushnells.
So after taking the 3 binos outdoors and looking through them, I asked if it was okay if I were to pull out the Bushnell I had to compare side-by-side. He said no problem. (I have to commend REI staff on their sales service!) Pretty obviously, optically, the Bushnells were superior. This was obvious in the color saturation and contrast. Even the salesperson, after looking through the Bushnells, stopped trying to sell me on the Nikons.
Since binoculars are mostly optical instruments, you pretty much have to judge them via optics--and not build quality, so I decided to stick with Bushnell and ask Amazon to exchange my current unit due to the eye-cup problem. And the 2mm-shorter eye-relief of the 10x model made it useable for me--a non-eyeglass-wearer.
Voila, in two days, my replacement came. The eye-cups are okay... but left/right performance still had some variance--indicating bad quality control. Also the focusing knob was not smooth through its entire range. I can live with this as the image quality is excellent. So, if you think you can handle the possible need for returns and exchange, I feel the Bushnell Legend HD 10x42 is an excellent binoculars for its price... but only 4-and-half stars, not 5. (I want to add that if your budget only allowed spending below $150, the Nikon Prostaff 7 would be a great choice. You forego some saturation, contrast, and FOV, but still get sharp optics, and get better build quality at a lower price... At about $300, I would not recommend the Monarch 5.) (Have to also give kudos for Amazon and REI too--for their excellent customer service '.)

37 of 43 people found the following review helpful.
Bushnell Legend Binocs are the Best!
By Sandygi
First - don't order the Bushnell binocular harness package that is offered - it is included with the binoculars!! (Amazon, you should remove this package option!)

Secondly - I am a docent at a seaside California state park and I use these often in all weather conditions. Had to have waterproof/fogproof. I just bought and received my 2nd pair of these, the first pair I have owned for about 7 years. I am not surprised they won the Binoculars of the Year award in 2012. They have made many improvements in the product design and have a nicer case and include the cool harness, and other extras. These binoculars are excellent and every one I lent the old pair to is impressed. I often get asked for info on what type they are. My first impression of these is that they are even better for viewing than the first pair, and with all of the upgrades, it makes sense. They are not too heavy, I didn't want to hike with a lot of extra weight.

I use them to view wildlife, on the beach or at sea, and I use them for bird watching as well. A respected mentor had told me long ago that the 10x42 size is very good for birdwatching, and I agree.

Due to sand getting into the eyecups from the blowing wind, etc. and me lending them to tourists who tend to be too rough with adjusting the eyecups (I will lend no more! ;-) I have sent my first pair into Bushnell for repair twice. They are very good, and usually a very quick turnaround time, with reasonable prices and excellent customer service by phone.

I highly recommend these binoculars, I will be loyal to Bushnell forever!

20 of 22 people found the following review helpful.
Legend HD Binocs
By Tom
These are the best binoculars I have ever used, period! Crystal clear view, perfect clarity, and very simple use. Almost gives the feeling of viewing in 3D. Would definitely recommend for any purpose.

See all 120 customer reviews...More...

Bear Motion for iPad Air - Ultra thin Folio Case with Detachable Bluetooth Keyboard for Apple iPad Air

Bear Motion for iPad Air - Ultra thin Folio Case with Detachable Bluetooth Keyboard for Apple iPad Air..

Special Price Bear Motion for iPad Air - Ultra thin Folio Case with Detachable Bluetooth Keyboard for Apple iPad Air By Bear Motion

Most helpful customer reviews

43 of 44 people found the following review helpful.
Changes the way I work with my Ipad Air
By D. Perkins
I am rating this 5 stars simply because so far everything promised has been realized. The bluetooth works smoothly although it takes some time to get used to it (I am writing this with the keyboard now), the keys are certainly adequate although if someone has very large hands they could be somewhat small for them, the keyboard can be easily removed when desired, and the leather texture is a nice feature. I suppose the only gripe I would make would be the thinness of the cover (compared to the Moko for example which I also have) without the keyboard but then again the case would be thicker and I have not had any experience where it has been a problem--just an observation and a comparison. The only other "issue" is getting used to the back key since I keep hitting the key above it which turns off the screen but it is becoming less of a problem with experience.

The pull out back so the Ipad Air can stand up works great. I am sitting here at Barnes and Nobles drinking coffee typing away and this is quite a nice experience. It may be that Bear Motion has learned from their past issues and put out a great product. In any case, if my opinion changes I will update this review.

43 of 49 people found the following review helpful.
iPad Air Case - too soft but keyboard is good so far (Day 1)
By review
3.5 stars. I just received my case today. I was so excited to get it, especially because I plan to use it to take notes in class and the onscreen keyboard doesn't quite cut it when you're trying to quickly take notes. The keyboard itself was incredibly easy to connect and I'm very happy with the feel of it. I'll have to adjust to the size and the placement of a few of the keys but I'm sure it will be a quick transition. I'll have to see how long the keyboard lasts given some of the reviews on this page.

However, the major drawback for me is with the design of the case itself. First of all, it is very flimsy. I wasn't expecting real leather at this price so that doesn't bother me. However, the case is very soft as some reviewers mentioned. It would have benefited from a hard insert of some sort. I don't think I could drop my iPad and expect it to survive the fall, which makes me very nervous. In fact, the $10 temporary case I bought will probably serve me better in that regard.

I still think this was worth the buy only because other keyboards were much more expensive. I only hope it stands the test of time.

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful.
Almost 5-Stars!
By Blazing Pascal
First, let me give you my typical usage. My iPad Air is almost always in the case. I only attach the keyboard when I am planning on using it (heading to the coffee shop, or otherwise planning to do a lot of writing). When not in use, the keyboard is in my office charging or waiting.

Having said that, let me talk about some negative reviews I have read. I have read a bunch of them and can say that I disagree in almost every case. For instance, 1. my keyboard stays on fine. No, it's not glued in there. It's just a magnet I believe and if I try to make it release, it will release. But in the course of my daily use, I have not had it slip or fall out yet. If I open up the case and shake it, it will fall out. If I am holding it as I always do when carrying my iPad, it's not going anywhere. 2. The kickstand holds my iPad Air up fine. Sure, I can tap the screen a bunch of times and it will eventually tip over, but who is doing that? I open up the case, pull out the kick stand, open up Byword or something, and start typing. The stand works fine for me. 3. It is true that the cut-outs are not perfectly placed. If you need to have your mic or camera centered perfectly, you may have a problem, but not a single thing is even partially obstructed in my case and I'm happy (which is saying something because I am a bit OCD). Now on to more positive things.

- I love the look of the case. The black leather (or whatever it is) with the brown or orange stitching looks great, imo. It smells good too!
- There is a secure flap with velcro holding the device in place and it does the job. How well you place the iPad will obviously determine how well the cut-outs are placed, too.
- The keyboard is at least as good as any other I have used (about five or six) and is my favorite so far. It is sturdy with a good throw and tactile feedback. Of course, that's a personal preference thing.

Basically, I am more than satisfied except for one thing: the top-right key is a lock icon which is used to lock the iPad. Used with the function key, it does the delete function. Below this lock key, and significantly narrower, is the backspace key. Now, if you are used to typing on the iPad or any number of other keyboards, you may expect to find the backspace key in the upper right corner. This is exactly what I expect. This means that every time I naturally try to backspace, I end up turning off my iPad! This is very annoying.

I wish that, at the very least, they would have made the lock work in conjunction with the Function key so that accidental presses merely tried to delete rather than turn the whole thing off. If that were the case, I'd give it five stars without reservation. The good news is that if you just press the lock again, it turns the iPad back on and you're right back where you were. Could be worse.

***** Make a new one with the backspace/function+lock key on the top right and the Delete key beneath that and I will buy another one and tell everyone I can to get one too.

So, if anyone knows of a way to reprogram that key, please let me know! Either way, you will have to decide whether that's a deal breaker for you. I will just keep practicing and hopefully get used to it. We'll see.

See all 329 customer reviews...More...

Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Lens for Canon (Black)

Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Lens for Canon (Black)..

Buy Rokinon FE14M-C 14mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Lens for Canon (Black) By Rokinon

Most helpful customer reviews

146 of 151 people found the following review helpful.
One of the best wide angle primes at a bargain price.I
By K. Dardashti
I am using this lens on a Canon 5D Mark II. I have several zoom lenses in this range, but was looking for a fast, superwide prime. The choice would be this or the Canon 14L II. This is the same as the Samyang, rebranded.
After receiving the lens, I ran some tests against 16-35 2.8, and sigma 12-24, and was floored. The corner to corner sharpness of this lens is fantastic. I peaks at around 5.6, but the corners at 2.8 are better than the other 2 lenses at f11. the microcontrast and color is very good. The barrel distortion is hefty, and complex with a mustache distortion, however, often not well visible in landscape, but visible in architectural images. It is correctable using a $25 program called ptlens, and there is also a profile for acr 6.1 out there, which works great. It is an absolute bargain. I purchased a focus confirmation chip for 14 from ebay, glued it on, and I get focus confirmation too.

feb 2012 update
I have had this lens along side Nikon 14-24 2.8, adapted to canon with use on my 5d2, and at 2.8, the rokinon is sharper in the corners has less flare and less CA than the mighty Nikon. However the nikon has less distortion, and catches up by f 5.6 even in the corners. Additionally, do not rely on the distance markings on the focus ring. On my copy infinity focus is achieved at the 3 meter marking. 3 meters is achieved at 2m. for my style of shooting I dont find this troublesome at all. for landscape shooting I focus with live view anyway. for hand held, my focus is between 1 and 2 meters most of the time and it works fine.

71 of 77 people found the following review helpful.
Sharpest lens I ever used, but check for issues
By J. Kim
This is the new version with the auto-exposure chip (only for Nikon mount) and UMC coating. My impressions:

Pros:
-Sharp, sharp, sharp. Even at f/2.8, this lens is sharp. At its sharpest aperture, f/5.6, it's sharp corner-to-corner on an APS-C camera.
-Very good build quality. Solid weighty feel, brass mount, and smooth dampened focus ring.
-By far the least expensive 14mm around.
-No problems with auto-exposure or focus confirmation (including the electronic rangefinder function on newer Nikon bodies)
-FX or DX

Cons:
-Cheap rear cap fits a little loose. I swapped mine with a Nikon cap.
-Has significant mustache-type barrel distortion in the middle of the frame. Not a lens for architectural photography. However, this can be mostly corrected in post-processing (with the $25 software PTLens, or user-created Lightroom profiles on the net).

Some considerations:
-Like some other ultra wide-angle lenses, the front element is large and bulbous, and the hood is integrated and non-removable. You can't attach any filters, so this lens requires more care to avoid scratches on the front element. The lens cover should be kept on at all times when not in use.
-Although the lens works great with my DX camera, it's really meant for FX cameras. On my DX Nikon the full-frame equivalent focal length is 21mm, which sits in an odd space between UWA and WA. DX users should probably consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or Sigma 10-20mm instead for their UWA needs. However, this lens beats both for corner-to-corner sharpness.

UPDATE:
I sold my Nikon AE copy and re-purchased this lens for Canon mount, for a Canon 5D body. My new copy was just as sharp as my previous copy in the center. However the lens showed de-centering on the right side, which was significantly blurrier than the left even when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. This area would not be visible on an APS-C body, but was visible enough on the 5D that I returned it for a refund. I deducted one star from my rating until I can test another copy.

68 of 78 people found the following review helpful.
Excellent Value - the best in its class
By Sanity Advocate
I purchased this lens several months ago to use on my Canon 5d mark 1 camera. This is by far the sharpest, most flare-and color fringing-resistant lens in its class. I owned the Nikon 14-24mm lens and this lowly lens beats the Nikon hands down on all counts, exept vignetting (easily correctable in Photoshop) and distortion - but get a PT Lens software, which has this lens correction pre-programmed in its database and distortion becomes a non-issue.

Advantages:

Solidly built, operates smoothly, light (under 450 grams), much more compact than Nikon 14-24mm, incredible resolution, color balance and color fringing resistance - simply crushes Nikon 14-24mm (my personal experience and comparison and also see independent reviews on the Net), no flare, even when shooting straight into the Sun.

Disadvantages:

Fully manual - no auto anything, including the aperture (not an issue for this ultra-wide lens and actually is an advantge, since it greatly improves reliability).

No depth-of-field scale - not an issue for this ultra-wide lens; setting the focus to 1 meter and stopping down to f11 gives you the maximum depth-of-field (o.5 meters to infinity) at best optical performance. For wide-open shooting focus the lens manually.

Vignetting, especially at wide apertures - easily correctable in Photoshop, and gone by f11.

Significant complex distortion (5%) - get a PT Lens software, which has this lens' complete correction pre-programmed in its database and distortion becomes a non-issue.

Aperture blades may become sticky in temperatures below 32 degrees F (0 deg. C) - no significant impact, because the aperture control is fully manual. If this occurs, rotate the aperture ring back and forth a few times to take care of this in the field; there is no need to even remove the lens from the camera.

I highly recommend this lens.

See all 195 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens..

Buy Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

275 of 285 people found the following review helpful.
Going on vacation?
By Eric Slay
Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:

For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL... Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert.

And from a business perspective:

As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting.

And finally:
If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time... there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don't waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did.

If you're going to go wide.. go wide baby. ;)

119 of 121 people found the following review helpful.
Does exactly what its supposed to...a great UWA Zoom.
By Amazon Customer
I've read some pretty critical reviews of this lens; from my perspective some of these could be due to an occasional bad copy, but others are likely due to the owner expecting way too much from a UWA zoom lens. Most complaints center on lack of corner sharpness and/or light fall off/vignetting at the wide end and wide apertures. I've owned and extensively tested 4 high end UWA Zooms to date now; the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II, the 17-40 f4 L, the EF-s 10-22, and the Nikon 14-24 2.8 ED (the accepted gold standard for UWA Zooms), and can tell you that the Nikon is the only one that can reasonably (but not perfectly) hold the corners at the extreme wide ends of FL and aperture. Not surprisingly however the Nikon is yet another $400-$500 more expensive than the 16-35II (even more when you factor in the adapter to shoot on a Canon). In real world shooting at f/8 to f/16 however, I can confidently state that you are not going to see any meaningful difference between the 4 lenses without resorting to some serious pixel peeping gymnastics, and even then I'll gladly take bets that most couldn't tell the unlabeled photos apart. So confident in fact that I finally traded in my revered Nikon for an excellent copy of the 16-35II.

Yes, this lens exhibits some corner softness and light fall off at the wide end and/or at f2.8, however this starts to clear up nicely even as low as f/4 and is gone by f/8. By comparison, if you really want an eye opener, look at the vignetting on the 17-40 wide open (f/4) - two thirds of the image is dark with only a small central spot unaffected (incidentally, those that post that the 17-40 suffers no corner vignetting are probably shooting JPEG and not examining the RAW image). Contrast this to the 16-35 wide open at f/2.8 where only the extreme edges and corners are dark. Same with corner softness, it does exist at f/2.8 but clears up nicely by f/8. In all cases, if you shoot this lens at the same settings as the 17-40, it outperforms its smaller cousin in all aspects (and the 17-40 an excellent lens in its own right). The 16-35 is more than just a 17-40 that goes to f/2.8, it is a significant improvement at all apertures and focal lengths.

I did some extensive testing with filters and found, contrary to claims in other reviews, no detectible difference in vignetting between a slim or regular UV filter at the 16mm wide end. Maybe there is a slight difference that some purists can see, but for the life of me I can't tell the difference, so I use a regular thickness filter for the convenience of being able to use the normal dust cap. The 82mm filter size is also often cited as a point of criticism. Yes, 82mm filters are larger and more expensive, but that's the price you pay for a lens with these specifications. At least this lens will accept filters, try that with the Nikon. Finally, I've also heard criticism that this lens starts to go soft above 24mm, but I personally haven't seen any evidence of this either. Maybe those are bad copy issues again? But mine is perfectly sharp (stunningly sharp in the center) throughout the entire range.

In short, if you absolutely must have a UWA Zoom that has razor sharp corners at f/2.8, you're going to need to go to other extreme measures such as the Nikon 14-24 or maybe a Zeiss, but then you've got all of the manual focus/exposure issues to deal with. In most real world applications at f/8 to f/16, this lens easily holds it's own against the Nikon 14-24 and definitely edges out the 17-40. In my experience, if I am shooting at f/2.8, I'm likely trying to blur the background anyway, so why would I care if the corners are soft? And if shooting in low light I can't notice the vignetting in the corners either. In any case, it's easily corrected in DPP anyway.

244 of 258 people found the following review helpful.
Modest improvement mostly for full frame users
By George
I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven't seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.

But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don't shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don't appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn't shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.

My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can't bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

I haven't used many other lenses in the same range so I can't compare quality with other makers but I'm not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don't see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn't take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn't shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.

See all 166 customer reviews...More...

SanDisk Ultra 64GB SDXC Class 10/UHS-1 Flash Memory Card Speed Up To 30MB/s, Frustration-Free Packaging- SDSDU-064G-AFFP (Label May Change)

SanDisk Ultra 64GB SDXC Class 10/UHS-1 Flash Memory Card Speed Up To 30MB/s, Frustration-Free Packaging- SDSDU-064G-AFFP (Label May Change)..

Grab Now SanDisk Ultra 64GB SDXC Class 10/UHS-1 Flash Memory Card Speed Up To 30MB/s, Frustration-Free Packaging- SDSDU-064G-AFFP (Label May Change) By SanDisk

Most helpful customer reviews

67 of 71 people found the following review helpful.
Great read , but mediocre write
By Sushi Roll
I purchased the 32gb version . Its spacious and has great read speeds but the write speed is mediocre compared to my AmazonBasics 16gb microsd that gets 24MBps read and 22MBps write
Using a Transcend USB 3.0 card reader I get
On ATTO 45MBps read ; 14 MBps write
and on CrystalMark 45MBps ; 13 MBps write

352 of 401 people found the following review helpful.
I am dispointed
By Wei
I have this Sandisk Ultra 32GB class 10 30MB/s SD card. I have to say I am totally dispointed. It's SLOOOW. I did two speed tests.

First test was performed on a computer using a software named "CrystalDiskMark". I ran the test with 3 different SD cards on the same pc with same equipments and same setting.
Results:
Sandisk Ultra 32GB class 10 30MB/s SD card, Read 19.93MB/s and write 11.99MB/s.
Sandisk Extreme III 4GB class 6 SD (5 year old card), Read 18.67MB/s and write 16.67MB/s.
Transcend 16GB class 10 SD (8 month old), Read 18.74MB and write 17.25MB.

Second test was performed on Canon T3i DSLR with the same 3 SD cards tested above. In this test I set my DSLR to burst mode and TV mode with 1/50 sec. Within 30 seconds interval, I want to see how many pictures in RAW format my camera can shoot.
Results:
Sandisk Ultra 32GB class 10 30MB/s, 24 shots.
Sandisk Extreme III 4GB class 6, 34 shots
Transcend 16GB class 10, 33 shots.

Conclusion:
As you can see this Sandisk Ultra card havs higher read speed. I belived my card reader is max out at 20MB/s. that's why it show 19.9MB/s read speed. However for a digital camera and camcorder, the write speed is more important than the read speed. Both tests clearly show that the Sandisk Ultra only meets class 10 rating but far behind the other two cards. The cheaper Transcend card can outperform this ultra card easily in write speed.

58 of 68 people found the following review helpful.
Excellent card, but misleading.
By Roger
I am giving this memory card a 5 star review because it is sufficient for virtually all HD video needs. I can record at 1080p @ 30 fps on my Canon T3i with absolutely no issues, however the speeds I received when benchmarking were nowhere near 30 mbps. For sequential read I got 18.70 MB/S and for write I got 11.75 MB/S. Now I know its advertised as up to 30 mbps reads. But I feel it may be misleading. However since it fulfills all my demands perfectly I will give it 5 stars.

See all 1329 customer reviews...More...