SD cards v CF cards

[cteagles]

Ok, this is a tricky one, neither seem to have a real weakness. Newer high end SLRs seem to have capabilities to take both. Which is going to end up as the preferred medium in a few years? Thoughts?

[ian in lancs]

Neither! On board memory and wifi download to display device. Probably iPad for at least the latter. Probably both.

[budfox]

Both have been around for ages, and will be around for many more years yet.

My D700 uses CF, my D7000 uses SD. I prefer the CF cards as they are harder to lose, but if you're the sort of person who transfers data by plugging the camera into a computer then that really doesn't become an issue.

[budfox]

ian in lancs said:

Neither! On board memory and wifi download to display device. Probably iPad for at least the latter. Probably both.

I wouldn't want to chuck 32 Gigs of RAW files over a WiFi network.

[RobDickinson]

There not going anywhere, but SD will push its way up the chain bit by bit.

CF have higher capacities and faster transfer rates, but advances are going faster than cameras are going up in pixels.

I use both in the appropriate bodies and tbh so long as the card fits I dont care what type it is.

If I was a sports tog shooting a 1dx at the Olympics I would want the fastest card I could get though!

[ian in lancs]

budfox said:

I wouldn't want to chuck 32 Gigs of RAW files over a WiFi network.

You're assuming people wait until they have that much to transfer in one go, assuming transfer speeds don't increase, RAW files will be the format choice and compression algorithms aren't improved. Assumptions that are all at odds with the trends.

Incidentally, taking portraits in my studio I have rarely taken more than 300 pics / 4hrs. Which on my D3x is about 10GB. And if my math is right 700kbs. Easy and most sports and some port togs shoot wifi or tethered. Wifi is the way to go - especially if you want to be first to the picture agencies. wifi is a bit (DYSWIDT) clunky at the moment but it will come.

[RobDickinson]

I'm assuming the big (sports) agencies use ethernet or card runners still in most venues

[budfox]

ian in lancs said:

You're assuming people wait until they have that much to transfer in one go, assuming transfer speeds don't increase, RAW files will be the format choice and compression algorithms aren't improved. Assumptions that are all at odds with the trends.

Incidentally, taking portraits in my studio I have rarely taken more than 300 pics / 4hrs. Which on my D3x is about 10GB. And if my math is right 700kbs. Easy and most sports and some port togs shoot wifi or tethered. Wifi is the way to go - especially if you want to be first to the picture agencies. wifi is a bit (DYSWIDT) clunky at the moment but it will come.

Well each to their own, but I do fill cards when shooting sports. I also think that RAW files will continue to be the format of choice for many togs, and current trends also suggest that file sizes will continue to get bigger.

WiFi will get faster, but then so too will wired connections. The USB3 connection on a D800 is probably going to deliver ten times the transfer rate that even the fastest current WiFi will do.

I'm not saying that there's no place for WiFi transfers, far from it, but just plugging a camera in is quick, simple and very reliable.

[Simpo Two]

Every extra link in the chain is a link that can fail.

[probedb]

ian in lancs said:

Neither! On board memory and wifi download to display device. Probably iPad for at least the latter. Probably both.

Except that doesn't really work when you're on the move. What cameras actually have enough onboard memory to store and entire shoot in RAW?

[ian in lancs]

probedb said:

Except that doesn't really work when you're on the move. What cameras actually have enough onboard memory to store and entire shoot in RAW?

not yet. The early iPods were pitiful by todays standards. integrating memory into the camera would make them lighter, faster and more reliable.

[chr15b]

A lesser consideration, but more devices have a ad slot than a cf.

[Fubles]

a consideration is that the successor to the CF card has already been realeased, the XQD card is available on the Nikon D4(presumably on the D4s aswel), but that's in addition to the CF slot. The prices for these cards are still quite high though.

SD cards also seem to be evolving, changing from SD to SDHC to SDXC so it seems likely that ll of the formats will be available to those that want them for some time to come.

[Boro]

Are microSD cards in their adapters any good for DSLR's or would I be better off using a standard SD card?

[budfox]

Boro said:

Are microSD cards in their adapters any good for DSLR's or would I be better off using a standard SD card?

They're OK, but I wouldn't specifically go down that route for a DSLR. I'd imagine that they cost a little more, they'd certainly be easier to lose, and there's also another set of contacts which could affect reliability.

[RobDickinson]

The CF format has been extended and increased in speed, xqd is by no means a shoe in successor

[cteagles]

Your responses seem mixed, I've only ever owned cameras with CF card slots.. annoyingly it seems SD cards are noticeably cheaper and a lot more universal. Though I do like the size of the CF cards and they seem much more robust.

[Simpo Two]

'Which is going to end up as the preferred medium in a few years? Thoughts?'

Frankly, does it matter? Memory is cheap.

[budfox]

Simpo Two said:

'Which is going to end up as the preferred medium in a few years? Thoughts?'

Frankly, does it matter? Memory is cheap.

I'd imagine the question was provoked by a desire to not buy a camera with a potentially obsolete storage format. That isn't an issue in my opinion, both will be in use for a number of years to come.

[richwig83]

Apple put SD slots in their Macbooks so thats a bit more convenient for me! I did by a CF to SD card converter to use with my DSLR, but every time I want to use it I can never find it! :-)