Compact Flash vs. SD/ SDHD

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mercphoto

My 1D Mark II had CF and SD slots, as did the 1D Mark II N and the Mark III.

I listed the MarkIII, but for brevity, I was only listing more current cameras and not every camera back for the last decade.

It wouldn't be the first time Canon did something to piss off all their shooters.

*I'm Looking at you EF mount.

Very true, but at least that was for the long-term good of everyone.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by crbeveri

I shoot sports and find that there are times where I fill the buffer up quite quickly.

i shot a HS BB tourny Saturday and I can see how it could happen easily.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by kenw

i shot a HS BB tourny Saturday and I can see how it could happen easily.

yup, I shoot lacrosse and track usually for a High School. Noticed you live in Cypress, what BB tourny was it?

[kenw]

Originally Posted by crbeveri

yup, I shoot lacrosse and track usually for a High School. Noticed you live in Cypress, what BB tourny was it?

Neighbors' son was in the TAMU camp/tournament this past weekend at College Station. I do that just for fun; shot 3 games that aftn. It's good practice for me and allows me to shoot things I don't normally get to.

[crbeveri]

very cool, nice shot BTW... Looks like one of the Practice courts in Reed Arena.

[Angelo]

Originally Posted by Tom

What SD cards are faster and bigger than CF cards?

You can get a 32GIG CF card that reads at 90MB/s and writes at 60MB/s for $73.

I haven't seen any SD cards that come anywhere close to that. The fastest SD cards I have seen are about half that at 30MB/s - the Sandisk Extreme 30MB/s - which Sandisk has listed at $300.

Tom, where did you find a 32gig CF card for $73?
I need a couple of them.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Angelo

Tom, where did you find a 32gig CF card for $73?
I need a couple of them.

Pixtus.com: CE: Transcend 32 GB Compact Flash Card 400X (Blue)


Or $46 if you don't need speed:
Pixtus.com: CE: Transcend 32 GB 133x CompactFlash Memory Card TS32GCF133

[kenw]

CF is unfortunately on the way out. It costs a lot more to manufacture, fewer devices use it and due to the design, it has a lower mechanical reliability. Also the interface connectors (bent pins anyone?) are a lot more frail, costly and take up a lot more space. Sure, we've all washed CF cards and been lucky, but in reality, the SD card is infinitely more durable.

Leading edge technology will favor the more universal and less expensive SD/SDHC/SDXC formats. At this point, my SD cards can go in my 50d (via CF-SD adapter) the wife's camera, and the TV. I have direct input slots in 2 computers that take SD without any adapters/external readers. There are 128gb SD cards available, granted at $700/ea....and only 20mb/s. but then I once paid $79.99 for a 2x 64Mb CF card.

CF: the writing is on the wall. The young punk SD is still playing catch-up, but it will eventually pass up CF.

[Angelo]

Thanks Jake.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by kenw

CF is unfortunately on the way out. It costs a lot more to manufacture, fewer devices use it and due to the design, it has a lower mechanical reliability. Also the interface connectors (bent pins anyone?) are a lot more frail, costly and take up a lot more space. Sure, we've all washed CF cards and been lucky, but in reality, the SD card is infinitely more durable.

Leading edge technology will favor the more universal and less expensive SD/SDHC/SDXC formats. At this point, my SD cards can go in my 50d (via CF-SD adapter) the wife's camera, and the TV. I have direct input slots in 2 computers that take SD without any adapters/external readers. There are 128gb SD cards available, granted at $700/ea....and only 20mb/s. but then I once paid $79.99 for a 2x 64Mb CF card.

CF: the writing is on the wall. The young punk SD is still playing catch-up, but it will eventually pass up CF.

interesting... I've washed SD cards and they worked fine afterwards too.... guess that was also luck.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by crbeveri

interesting... I've washed SD cards and they worked fine afterwards too.... guess that was also luck.

I've washed both, and never had any of them fail either for that. but the sealed nature of the SD and the lack of places to trap moisture (at least in theory) make it more reliable and forgiving of my mental lapses. I do electronics packaging and just from a packaging reliability standpoint, the SD is far beyond CF from a design for reliability perspective. But more importantly from a manufacturer's viewpoint, SD is a lot cheaper to make. But due to the space available, I think CF will always hold a lead in sheer capacity. Speed will, imho eventually become a non-issue.

To me it makes no economical sense to pay extra $$ to have a card that can be written to faster than any device CAN write to it. I still use my lowly 133x CF cards and my 4x SD cards alongside my 266x and 10x cards.

sorry for venturing so far ot....

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by kenw

CF: the writing is on the wall. The young punk SD is still playing catch-up, but it will eventually pass up CF.

People have been saying that for years, but CF has consistently maintained a lead in both speed and capacity. Personally I've never bent a pin, and the CF cards themselves are quite durable not to mention easier to handle without dropping/losing. I'll stick with CF for as long as it's an option.

To me it makes no economical sense to pay extra $$ to have a card that can be written to faster than any device CAN write to it. I still use my lowly 133x CF cards and my 4x SD cards alongside my 266x and 10x cards.

It's not just about in-camera write speed (though many newer cameras are capable of UDMA write speeds), but also download speed to the computer after a day of shooting several GB worth of shots.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by kenw

I've washed both, and never had any of them fail either for that. but the sealed nature of the SD and the lack of places to trap moisture (at least in theory) make it more reliable and forgiving of my mental lapses. I do electronics packaging and just from a packaging reliability standpoint, the SD is far beyond CF from a design for reliability perspective. But more importantly from a manufacturer's viewpoint, SD is a lot cheaper to make. But due to the space available, I think CF will always hold a lead in sheer capacity. Speed will, imho eventually become a non-issue.

To me it makes no economical sense to pay extra $$ to have a card that can be written to faster than any device CAN write to it. I still use my lowly 133x CF cards and my 4x SD cards alongside my 266x and 10x cards.

sorry for venturing so far ot....

haha it's my post and you have answered things that I asked for. the difference between SD and CF so you sir have not ventured off at all imo.

with the micro chip getting smaller and smaller every day I agree that the size/ speed will become a mute issue in a few years. MY big thing is like you just pointed out is the speed. I use 200x (30mb/s) 8gb CF cards on my 1D's and they are faster than the 1D3 can actually write to it. I am wondering b/c the SD at higher capacity are still cheaper if I should get SD's over the CF. I am wanting to do some time laps where I need 1700 pictures or whatever and rather not have to change out cards in the middle of the whole thing.

[kenw]

actually your question makes a lot of sense and is one reason I bought a 10x SD to use with an adapter: cost/gb with a slight nod to speed, but for me speed was not the highest priority. Seems that you may be on the bleeding edge however, needing both GB and write speed. 1700...ouch.

yeah, we need to get together sometime.