SD catching up to CF

[r3g]

More is more with 32GBs of Secure Digital flash storage

SanDisk is one of the top flash memory manufacturers in the world with products such as flash media in various formats including Secure Digitial, Memory Stick (http://www.dailytech.com/SanDisk+Announces+New+microSDHC+M2+Memory+Cards/article7862.htm), and Compact Flash, USB thumb drives, and even high-performance solid-state drives using NAND flash memory. Even that is just a percentage of its total sales as many flock to purchase SanDisk's higher capacity offerings.

Because SanDisk is one of the main producers of flash media it must keep up with the industry in producing refreshes and updated capacities of its flash media products. Today SanDisk announces details on the pricing and availability of its additions to the Ultra II line (http://sandisk.com/Corporate/PressRoom/PressReleases/PressRelease.aspx?ID=4091) of SDHC flash media.

SanDisk announced the development of its Ultra II 32GB SDHC card during the third quarter of 2007 and the capacity point has been awaited by enthusiast photographers and those looking for high-capacity SDHC cards in general since then. Photographers require this increase in storage capacity as more digital cameras are moving to the double digit mega-pixel range and RAW file sizes are not getting any smaller.

With higher file size comes the need for higher read and write speeds as more data has to be written to the media before the next shot can be taken. SanDisk claims the new Ultra II products feature read and write rates of up to 15MB/sec as opposed to the 10MB/sec read and 9MB/sec write rates of the previous generation Ultra II SDHC products, a 50-66% potential increase in performance.

SanDisk details 3 models in this launch with the 32GB and 16GB Ultra II SDHC cards along with an 8GB version in its Ultra II Plus line. The difference between the Ultra II and the Ultra II Plus lines is that the latter features a built-in USB connector hidden within the casing of the media for a wider range of applications.

Pricing on SanDisk's new offerings start at $100 for the 8GB Ultra II Plus, $180 for the 16GB Ultra II, and $350 for the 32GB Ultra II. The 16GB and 32GB Ultra II SDHC cards also come packaged with a SanDisk MicroMate USB 2.0 Reader, which SanDisk states is a $20 value.

The 8GB Ultra II Plus and the 16GB Ultra II should see the light of day this coming March while the 32GB Ultra II will be ready to scoop up high-quality digital photographs in April.

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Sandisk+Details+32GB+SDHC+Pricing+and+Availability/article10536.htm



First thing that comes out of someones mouth during a SD vs CF debate is "CF has bigger capacity!" What say you now? :D:p

[cdifoto]

First thing that comes out of someones mouth during a SD vs CF debate is "CF has bigger capacity!" What say you now? :D:p

CF is faster. SDHC are still relatively slow cards, even Class 6. SD is tiny. Easily broken. Easily lost. No need for SD in a dSLR. I'm still looking forward to getting a couple huge SDHCs though...going to start putting a 16GB each of the CF and SD slots and use the backup feature. I'd rather both slots be CF but I'll make do since the concept is to avoid changing cards during an entire 12 hour wedding shoot if possible (and I shoot RAW).

[fotogmarc]

Yup, CF; faster. :p

[griptape]

I don't even care about capacity and speed (do I REALLY ever need to shoot 6,000 pictures on a single card?). I just like the fact that it's a little larger, easier to handle, and harder to lose.

[GaryS]

The thing is... it doesn't matter what we think or prefer. CF is on the way out, and SD (and SDHC) is where the market is going.

I'm sure there were people who preferred SmartMedia...

[Rhys]

The thing is... it doesn't matter what we think or prefer. CF is on the way out, and SD (and SDHC) is where the market is going.

I'm sure there were people who preferred SmartMedia...

I don't know so much. CF is much bigger capacity and faster. XD tops out at 8GB. I don't know the limit for SD. I do know that at 25MP most 4GB cards will be pretty useless and most pro cameras are heading past 25MP soon.

[cdifoto]

I don't know so much. CF is much bigger capacity and faster. XD tops out at 8GB. I don't know the limit for SD. I do know that at 25MP most 4GB cards will be pretty useless and most pro cameras are heading past 25MP soon.

LOL. There aren't even any 25MP dSLRs out yet, let alone "heading past" it. :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

I just wanna say: "SD does not fit in my CF or Memory stick slots" :rolleyes: Make the best one you want to ... it still won't fit. And don't go on about "SD Adapters" ... as you can see ... they may work in a laptop or a handheld ...

33018

but, the camera's door will not shut on a CF with anything sticking out of it! :eek:

33019

Although, one of you "industrious geniuses" out there might just "booger up" the cover door and cut a slot into it, to accommodate the SD memory module. There is always that. :rolleyes:

33020

Hey, it could happen! A bit more difficult to grip, to be sure. :rolleyes: And if the new Canon 450D XSi (which is already SD) is any indication (enlarged grip area) ... doing anything that interferes with a "photographer's grip" is a bad thing, indeed. With this idea, the SD-card would protrude by at least 10mm, right into the heel of your palm. Your ergonomics are effectively shot!

[r3g]

Yup, CF; faster. :p

ATM ;) give it time!:) right now CF still has its advantages over SD, but i see this article as a sign that that gap is getting smaller.

[erichlund]

I have a couple of devices that use SD, one of which is optional (takes just about anything - my 18" digital photo frame), and my cameras take CF.

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick with enthusiast cameras and above as long as they use CF. Easier handling and much more durable. Canon may be switching, but I'm hoping that Nikon will stay with CF on their higher level cameras.

Also, the 32GB card is wasted if your device cannot handle SDHC. You are limited to 2GB straight SD cards. My new TomTom GPS will not handle SDHC. But my camera will accept any Type I or II CF card made, and it will also handle micro drives, which use a type II slot.

Frankly, I don't know of any devices that won't accept Type II cards, but I've never seen a Type II CF card.

[Rhys]

I have a couple of devices that use SD, one of which is optional (takes just about anything - my 18" digital photo frame), and my cameras take CF.

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick with enthusiast cameras and above as long as they use CF. Easier handling and much more durable. Canon may be switching, but I'm hoping that Nikon will stay with CF on their higher level cameras.

Also, the 32GB card is wasted if your device cannot handle SDHC. You are limited to 2GB straight SD cards. My new TomTom GPS will not handle SDHC. But my camera will accept any Type I or II CF card made, and it will also handle micro drives, which use a type II slot.

Frankly, I don't know of any devices that won't accept Type II cards, but I've never seen a Type II CF card.

I saw a 1GB Microdrive about 5 years ago. I have a Nikon 3100 and that takes type 1 cards only.

[TNB]

First thing that comes out of someones mouth during a SD vs CF debate is "CF has bigger capacity!" What say you now? :D:p
Like the title says, "catching up" meaning still behind. ;)

The thing is... it doesn't matter what we think or prefer. CF is on the way out, and SD (and SDHC) is where the market is going.

I'm sure there were people who preferred SmartMedia...

I wish I would have read this prior to PMA. That must also be why I saw 64GB CF cards at PMA and NO SD cards that large. Damn, I should have asked them about it. Could have probably asked Canon and Nikon as well why their new flagship cameras have CF slots.

[Mark_48]

LOL. There aren't even any 25MP dSLRs out yet, let alone "heading past" it. :rolleyes:


http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/01/sony-25mp-full-frame-dslr-hands-on/

:D

Shouldn't have shown you, now you'll want one.....

[SpecialK]

I am reluctant to put all my electronic eggs in one large basket. It is rare that I can't take 30 seconds to swap out a card. And, I've gone back to using the smallest ones first, saving the larger ones for "in the boonies" emergencies...

[Rhys]

I am reluctant to put all my electronic eggs in one large basket. It is rare that I can't take 30 seconds to swap out a card. And, I've gone back to using the smallest ones first, saving the larger ones for "in the boonies" emergencies...

If I'm shooting a wedding then I don't want to be changing cards. I'm most likely to drop a card when I'm changing them.

[cdifoto]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/01/sony-25mp-full-frame-dslr-hands-on/

:D

Shouldn't have shown you, now you'll want one.....

That's just a mock-up though right? I didn't think it was in production yet. Either way I highly doubt I'd want to futz around with 25MP RAW files.

[cdifoto]

I am reluctant to put all my electronic eggs in one large basket. It is rare that I can't take 30 seconds to swap out a card. And, I've gone back to using the smallest ones first, saving the larger ones for "in the boonies" emergencies...


If I'm shooting a wedding then I don't want to be changing cards. I'm most likely to drop a card when I'm changing them.

I wouldn't use such large cards if I wasn't using RAW and/or if I only had prosumer bodies with single CF slots. The 1D II has dual slots with backup capabilities, so I think I'd be safe with larger cards that eliminate (or at least significantly reduce) the need to swap out. The changes of a single card failing are already pretty slim, and the chances of two cards failing is even more remote. Plus, there are many recovery softwares available.

[SpecialK]

If I'm shooting a wedding then I don't want to be changing cards. I'm most likely to drop a card when I'm changing them.

I can see the inconvenience if you don't have an assistant, but a wedding is even more reason I would change cards.

[Rhys]

I can see the inconvenience if you don't have an assistant, but a wedding is even more reason I would change cards.

The times when you;re more likely to get corruption errors are when you're quickly swopping cards. Better to use a single card. As CDI says - there's a ton of recovery software out there. PLUS.... Once you earn enough from photography to make it worthwhile you can then buy a dual slot professional camera and save to both SD and CF.

[K1W1]

CF cards are the 1.2MB 5.25" floppy discs of the early 21st century.
SD cards are the 1.44MB 3.5" floppy discs of the early 21st century.
Both of them will be obsolete and well dead before this monotonous, regular and pointless CF vs SD argument every reaches a conclusion.

This argument has been going on for at least 6 years now and every time it arises on any forum those people who have CF cameras swear that CF is better than Dolly Partons mammary glands and those who have SD cameras confirm that using SD is better than a week in the Playboy mansion. You are all entrenched in your positions so why not just agree to disagree and get on with something useful?

[cdifoto]

This argument has been going on for at least 6 years now and every time it arises on any forum those people who have CF cameras swear that CF is better than Dolly Partons mammary glands and those who have SD cameras confirm that using SD is better than a week in the Playboy mansion.

I have a camera that takes CF as well as SD, I make use of both, and I still say CF is better. You're absolutely incorrect - nothing is better than Dolly Parton's mammary glands except a week at the Playboy Mansion WITH Dolly Parton.

[K1W1]

And people who have cameras that take both CF and SD constantly demonstrate that they are self centred and greedy. :D:D

[DonSchap]

And people who have cameras that take both CF and SD constantly demonstrate that they are self centred and greedy. :D:D

The SONY α700 uses both CF and Memory stick, although you have to choose which is receiving the shots.

33064

I currently have a 16GB CF and an 8GB Memory Stick riding around in the camera.

You get about 100 images per GB of storage, with it in ExtraFine-JPEG file format ... just about 50 images per GB in RAW file format ... or about 20MB per image. I have to laugh when I look at my old 16 MB CF that came with my Canon EOS 20D kit. It could NOT even hold one RAW image from the SONY α700. Personally, I wish I still had the darn thing. I'd love to see what the camera says, when you stick it in and select RAW format. I imagine you would probably just see the four yellow bars (----) in the image count.

33063

What I try to do is use the CF for most RAW images, when the quality counts and switch to Memory Stick for Very-Fine JPEGs ... just for speed sake. I have found that Post-Processing is just seems a lot faster when you group the shots in this way. Again, YMMV.

Greedy? ... Yes ... yes ... lots of images! :D

[GaryS]

Looks like CF is going to be replaced/upgraded in the coming years.

CompactFlash revamp aimed at cameras (http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9877176-39.html?tag=nefd.lede)

I hadn't heard before that a new CF standard was in the making.... But this link says that it will be a completely new type, incompatible with current CF cards and cameras.

[TNB]

Just wondering . . . will the price of high speed fps camera bodies drop as well.

The new version, called CFast, has faster data-transfer speeds that could let photographers take more continuous shots without waiting for the camera to catch up, cut camera makers' costs for built-in buffer memory, and make it swifter to review photos on a camera or copy them to a computer.