mem cards cf or ?

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Suspended / Banned
Messages
21,370
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
all the sports shooters I know use CF cards... not sd ... i have always used CF so never bothered to ask why... most have either or options
 
Guess it depends on what camera they are using as to which cards they use.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
Guess it depends on what camera they are using as to which cards they use.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

as i said in my question.. a lot of the cameras we use offer either or both.. the last 3 of my cameras have had CF and SD
 
Normally have a big SD card in and then just pulling the cf out to dump to laptop, means I always have a copy & card in camera just incase.

Hate working with SD they are way too small to handle quickly .
 
I tend to do things the opposite way around (as per usual! :D ).

CF & SD in the relevant slots, and for sport & news I record large fine jpegs to both. When it comes to transferring images to the PC I tend to use the SD card, because I find the onboard card readers (SD slot) in my laptops to be miles faster than a USB connected UDMA one to pull the data off a CF card. No other reason than that! :)

It's only really applicable to Canon users though, because all the modern Nikons (D3 series) have dual CF slots and not an SD one.
 
Mark thats aprt it :) the fact that laptops nowerdays ahve built in sd readers that made me think.. plus am sure sd is cheaper... but built in sd reader means one less bit of kit to worry about..

didnt know if CF where faster than SD? or summat like that..

I may swap over to SD if nobody knows a good reason why we use CF.. I never use two at once
 
DemiLion said:
It's only really applicable to Canon users though, because all the modern Nikons (D3 series) have dual CF slots and not an SD one.
Click to expand...

Would love to know why canon stayed with using two formats double SLots of a single formate makes more sense.

Suppose the added bonus of SD is no pins to bend or break ! Which is something I'm annoyingly good at.
 
I suppose because they are small.. easier to lose...harder to find pitchside if you drop it...stuff like that?
 
I do find them to small to work with quickly, especially if I have cold hands , which is why I normally move off the CF as I can handle them quicker .
 
I think on balance I prefer CF over SD. Most of the time it doesn't really matter, in fact SD may well have a slight advantage on speed and if you need to buy one in a hurry it'll probably be a lot easier to find.

But... come a COLD winters day CF will be a lot easier to handle, it'd get my vote anyway.

cheers
 
For me a big plus point of having an SD slot is that I can run an EyeFi card in it. It's a major bonus for event work or rapid filing (you can set it to transmit locked files only) and one hell of a lot cheaper than a WFT-E2. OK so the WFT has a bit more range, is less of a pain to set up and has extra features like direct transfer to USB drives etc, but it's also seven times more expensive!
 
I tend to use SD cards, mostly for the convenience of plugging them straight into the laptop.
On top of that, one of my bodies has had a bent pin in the CF slot for some time, and there seems to be a problem getting the spare part out of Japan to fix it.
I haven't found a problem handling SD cards. In fact, since I suffered the bent pin/damaged CF card, I feel more confident handling the SD cards.
 
I,like yourself Tony use two MKIV's I always have the SD card slot filled with a high speed 16gb Sandisk Extreme card, I select a slightly smaller file size for this card than i do with the CF option. My thinking behind this choice is this, The CF card write speed is faster than the SD hence the smaller file size selection. I have the write configuration set to write to each separately....If for some reason the CF corrupts or something similar, I still have the images on the SD, albeit a smaller file size but as you know yourself, something is better than nothing.

The EyeFi option is very useful but I use the WFTE2 on the MKIV.
 
Last edited:
zilly said:
Would love to know why canon stayed with using two formats double SLots of a single formate makes more sense.

Suppose the added bonus of SD is no pins to bend or break ! Which is something I'm annoyingly good at.
Click to expand...

I think its a great idea as it adds redundancy to your system, If the CF goes down on a shoot, You will still have the SD to rely on...and Vice-Verca
 
Acording to Nikon, CF cards are faster than SDHC and over the years CF cards have proven to be the most reliable.

I did have a link about Nikon's tests and reasoning for their choice to stick with CF's on pro bodies but cannot find it right now, will have a look later.

Most in built card readers on laptop/PC's now are sata which makes them very fast compared to the external usb readers.

It is possible (Canon 1D series) to transfer all the contents from the CF card to the sdhc card in the other slot and then use the SDHC card to transfer to the laptop if your stuck.
 
I understand the reasoning for using the two card slots at once... thats pretty obvious to be fair... my question was if only using one.. why CF over SD... So far we have pros and cons ....BUT are we now saying CF is faster then SD and more reliable? if so then its a no brainer :)

I just always use CF and never really wondered why :)
 
If we take Sandisk as an example,

fastest SDHC is 45 MB/s

fastest CF is 100 MB/s
 
Compact Flash has always been the faster format, and will probably always will be until the transfer speeds are faster than image capture. CF cards are more robust as well. I had somebody's cheap SD card disintegrate in my hands a few months ago. :eek: I can't even get a CF card to flex, nevermind break. :lol:

I think having a slot for each is the best of both worlds imho. It encourages people upgrading, it allows for backup, and with a SD slot cards are easily available.

However if I was a Pro, and I had a Pro camera, I would want two CF slots. I would want the most reliable and quickest cards/slots available.

When I got my D300S I started writing Jpegs to the SD slot, because I could, ;) even though I always shoot RAW files. I'd had the odd RAW file corrupt during continuous bursts (though not with the Sandisk cards I use now :D) They never got looked at, and were not even transferred. Then I was taking lots of pics quickly at a sporting event and it suddenly occurred to me that writing the info, even if they are Jpegs to the SD card as well could possibly slow the camera down at a crucial point. Two data streams taxing the processing power and buffers etc, (it may not make a difference but I can see how it could) so I use the SD slot as an overflow now. I hardly ever fill a card to use it, bit it is there if I ever forget extra cards.

As files get larger, and HD video starts to be more prevalent, card speed becomes a factor to consider, and the CF cards are the fastest you can get. ;)

I get the feeling that the fastest CF cards seem to be waiting for the cameras to catch them up, but the fastest SD cards seem to be designed to be just fast enough. For now anyway. ;)
 
If you use both CF and SD (for backup), does it slow the buffer much/at all?
 
alexw9 said:
If you use both CF and SD (for backup), does it slow the buffer much/at all?
Click to expand...

This is a good point, as I would think the buffer can only be emptied at the speed of the slowest card, so if using SD as a backup there would be no point in buy the fastest UDMA CF cards, you may as well just have the slow cheap CF as these are as fast as the quickest SD cards.
 
This is the reason why CF cards are much bigger than SD cards because of the amount of chip & circuitry involved inside the case for speed, buffer etc.
This is what i'd put it down to anyway :shrug:
 
I have been using 16Gb SD cards but just bought a 32Gb CF card.

I tried writing to both cards at the same time and it seemed to me that the buffer took much longer to clear. The CF card also got corrupted when I wrote to both. I haven't tried writing to both on high speed since (1D Mk 3) but I will try and see.

Haven't had a problem with the CF since.

I also snapped a Kingston SD card recently. Very poor plastic compared to the other Transcend cards I have.

It is convenient having an SD card reader in the laptop. Although I have just ordered a ExpressCard54 USB 3 card http://www.kikatek.com/product_info.php?products_id=95285

Also just got Lexar USB 3 card reader for CF and SD cards http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lexar-Professional-Dual-Slot-Reader/dp/B004P8J1DU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311507488&sr=8-1

And a 16Gb USB 3 memory key http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/9895084/art/corsair/flash-voyager-16-gb-usb-3.html?srcid=867&key=MR8oI0dtauONf4hyBTYBVSwbEycMFoS7T7sWMgc2YE94cEF3ObDaL4t1UGEBVHpMQXdZVg==
 
When I had my 1DsMk3 I used both but the SD card was an EyeFi card so downloaded the jpg images straight to my lappy, the CF card had the RAW files on it.
 
bigrob said:
It is convenient having an SD card reader in the laptop. Although I have just ordered a ExpressCard54 USB 3 card
Click to expand...

I have an express 54 CF card reader in mine but it takes the laptop an extra 5 minutes to load (litrally) so i ahve to take it out slightly when starting up.. otherwise works a treat as a built in cf reader :)
 
A week or 2 ago, there was an article in AP about Memory Cards and there is a chart comparing buffer clearance times for 30 raw images on an EOS-1DMark IV. The Panasonic Class 10 SDHC took 24.6 seconds while the Lexar Professional CF 133x was slightly slower at 27.2sec. the Lexar Pro CF 300x took 12.6 and the fastest on test was a Lexar Pro CF 600x @ just 8 sec.

Of course, a major bottleneck is at the transfer stage, with Thunderbolt being by far the fastest and USB1 the slowest. I know somw computers with built in readers have them plugged into an internal USB port which may be slower than those in the case.
 
I personally prefer CF cards due to the larger size, which means in some situations (such as when shooting gigs) it is much easier to change cards in dark conditions (and easier to spot if you drop it!) Also, I've never had a CF card fail on me, but two SD cards have (one separated in half and the other kept corrupting).

Although I do find it odd how laptops tend not to have CF card readers built in, my MacBook Pro only has SD (and don't most higher end/pro cameras use CF anyway?)
 
wicker_man said:
Although I do find it odd how laptops tend not to have CF card readers built in, my MacBook Pro only has SD (and don't most higher end/pro cameras use CF anyway?)
Click to expand...

Supply and demand, how many people have highend cameras compared to point and shoots. or how many people use CF compared to SD. SD is by far the most widely used memory card from full size to mini and nearly every mobile has a micro sd slot in it now.
 
Both my DSLRs use CF cards while the compacts use SD. Phone uses a micro MS (being a Sony Ericcson!). I much prefer CF to SD
 
Little John said:
Supply and demand, how many people have highend cameras compared to point and shoots. or how many people use CF compared to SD. SD is by far the most widely used memory card from full size to mini and nearly every mobile has a micro sd slot in it now.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I would have expected higher end laptops such as the MacBook Pro to have CF cards slots as well. Although it did take Apple long enough to put even an SD slot in!
 
I can't see why a manufacturer would build a CF reader into a laptop nowadays when chassis space is at a premium (different for case built PCs/MACs of course). CFs belong in a fairly niche market and the requirement levels just wouldn't justify the need to include them.
 
CF for me evey time. I have broken several SD cards in the past, and haven't managed to physically break a CF card yet (not since my last IBM microdrives), although I have had 2 sent back to lexar under warranty.

But the main reason for me was an article that I read many years ago about the way the different cards store the data.

If I remember correctly, I read that the FAT is different on SD as it is to CF, (or the method of storing the data) so if it gets corrupted on SD it is much less likely to be recovered.

I have been shooting digital since 1995 when the only memory available was PCMCIA spinning hard drives at 64mb for £300! I had loads of them fail, so researching the most reliable types and brands was very important at the time. It isn't quite as bad nowadays as the refined production techniques and lack of moving parts has made the cards infinitely more reliable. But SD still feels more flimsy than CF, and I am much more prone to losing them!

That said, I do have a few CF to SD, and CF to micro SD adapters so that I can use different card types it the D3x, just in case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top