Mass migration?

[Rhys]

I'm looking at the cameras that are out and that are coming out. One thing seems to tie them together - there seem to be two distinct standards developing in terms of memory usage:

Compact Flash seems to be suffering a userbase reduction and Secure Digital seems to be surging ahead.

I notice that SD seems to be aimed squarely at the amateur-type cameras while CF seems to be restricted to serious cameras. I won't mention Memory stick or XD as they're largely manufacturer's quirky choices that are restricted to Sony, Fuji and Olympus.

Are we going to see a migration from Compact Flash toward SD, universally? It would make sense to see a universal standard than the current 4 standards. I must admit to owning one single SD card and a stack of CF cards.

While I see no advantage in going over to SD or to CF from a usability or capacity point of view, I can see an advatage in SD in the fact it's slimmer than CF but what worries me about going over to an SD standard is that it's already changing with a mini-SD card currently on sale. Now I can see no earthly need for a mini-SD card. I like the CF card because all the contacts are covered. I like the SD card because it's flat and I can pack more into my shirt pocket.

If pro cameras stay with CF then I shall be very happy.

[Rex914]

I see no distinct advantage to SD cards other than size. A lot of cameras are slimming down and do require an SD card to make that miniaturization possible. Other than that, CF cards are still faster and higher capacity. I see no real incentive especially in the SLR realm to go to SD. Perhaps, they will offer SD as an option, but I'd be shocked and disappointed to see it take over as it simply makes no sense.

[Rhys]

I see no distinct advantage to SD cards other than size. A lot of cameras are slimming down and do require an SD card to make that miniaturization possible. Other than that, CF cards are still faster and higher capacity. I see no real incentive especially in the SLR realm to go to SD. Perhaps, they will offer SD as an option, but I'd be shocked and disappointed to see it take over as it simply makes no sense.

I agree. SD makes sense with smaller cameras although not much. My Nikon 3100 takes CF and slips well into a shirt pocket.

SD cards pack flatter which means I could carry more. On the other hand, CF is available more cheaply in larger capacities.

The disadvantage of CF is that if some muck gets into a pinhole, it's hard to un-jam the pinhole. Similarly if a pin in the camera gets bent...

[speaklightly]

For what it worth-

I had a Pentax Field Engineer share with me that SD is giving the manufacturers a cash incentive to make the change from CF to SD. That was why the Pentax 1stDS went to the SD. I must think that might also be true for the Nikon D-50 as well.

Certainly the "slimming down" in the D-50 was not huge and I would be hard pressed to say that it was demanded to reduce body size on the new D-50.

Sometimes cash incentives speak more loudly than we might think. Frankly I will miss the CF, as I rather like them.

Sarah Joyce

[John_Reed]

...to make a compact flash module, the CF card will always enjoy the advantage of providing more room for more chips than the smaller SD card. At this moment, isn't there at least a 2:1 capacity difference available? I haven't seen any 4GB SD cards yet, could be wrong? I have seen 4GB CF cards, though.

[jeisner]

Honestly do you use 4GB cards though???

Personally I own a 512MB and a 256MB backup, so that gives around 78 RAW photos (9.5MB each), and I have a 30GB portable storage device with USB OTG (camera plugs into it directly, as it and *ist DS are USB 2, transfer is real fast)...

In Australian dollars the 30GB HDD cost me $95 and the USB OTG case cost me $50 (a real bargain), I couldn't have got anywhere near 30GB of storage for $145, even in CF that would have got me a single 1GB card, and is about $100 cheaper than a 2GB card???

[kgosden]

I don't see much price difference between SD and CF these days; maybe about 10%. As for packing more inside the case, I can't believe that actually matters too much anymore since I would guess that a lot of CF cards have the same basic memory chips inside as Sd cards. Its the support circuits that differ most and I thought that CF requires more on board in that department.

[D70FAN]

Honestly do you use 4GB cards though???

Personally I own a 512MB and a 256MB backup, so that gives around 78 RAW photos (9.5MB each), and I have a 30GB portable storage device with USB OTG (camera plugs into it directly, as it and *ist DS are USB 2, transfer is real fast)...

In Australian dollars the 30GB HDD cost me $95 and the USB OTG case cost me $50 (a real bargain), I couldn't have got anywhere near 30GB of storage for $145, even in CF that would have got me a single 1GB card, and is about $100 cheaper than a 2GB card???

While most of us don't need 4GB CF cards, there are a lot of professionals out there that would like to see 8 to 10GB. Especially those using 11, 12, 16, and 22 Megapixel imagers in RAW, and shooting action where they are in continuous mode at 5 fps all day.

I was talking to a studio photographer (fashion) last week and he shoots tethered occasionally (using a 22MP digital back on a Hassy) just because 4GB is not enough(!), and when his models are in a groove he can't stop to reload.

So I have a feeling CF will be around for a while yet.

[jeisner]

^^^ I agree, in pro cameras not doubt CF has its place still, but in consumer range (hobbyist) cameras it really doesn't hold much of an advantage anymore IMO

[Jredtugboat]

As far as size advantages, while I agree (obviously) that SD is a smaller, neater envelope, I must ask...to what end? :confused:

As cell phone manufacturers discovered (here in North America, at least), there's a limit to how small you want to make stuff. In HK I know they have lipstick-sized cell phones, but their usability (not including their fashion-statement, of course) is severely compromised by the fact that human fingers just aren't that small.

Years ago a friend of mine tried to talk me into Smart Media. "They're so much smaller!" he kept repeating. But again, I asked, to what end? Yes you can really stuff more of them into your pocket than CF, but how many of them would you have to have on hand in order for that to make a difference?

It's sort of like arguing that (monetary value aside) American dimes are better than pennies because they're smaller. Stuffing lots of pennies in your pocket hasn't become an issue for anyone.

My issues are speed, the toughness of the envelope, cost, and size. CF wins on cost, wins on speed (unless there are some 80x SD cards out there), and is even in terms of toughness and loses (sort of) in size.

Pop Photo did a test where they taped CF and SD cards down in Times Square squarely in the middle of traffic. All manner of vehicles passed over them and the cards were none the worse for wear, aside from some cosmetic damage.

[soothsayer]

for the D50, i think nikon is tryign to attract over the pocket camera crowd. no need to buy CF cards when you already have SD cards from your previous cameras.


also check this out.
SD card with USB built in (http://www.sandisk.com/download/photos/retail/ultra2-sd-plus-512mb-open-angle.jpg)

[Rhys]

for the D50, i think nikon is tryign to attract over the pocket camera crowd. no need to buy CF cards when you already have SD cards from your previous cameras.


also check this out.
SD card with USB built in (http://www.sandisk.com/download/photos/retail/ultra2-sd-plus-512mb-open-angle.jpg)

Or more likely, it's a way of separating the pros from the amateurs.

[D70FAN]

Or more likely, it's a way of separating the pros from the amateurs.

I call your attention to the Canon 1Ds Mark II, 1D Mark II, Kodak DCS Pro 14n, and Pro SlR/n. These use both SD and CF. Just thought you might find this interesting...

[D70FAN]

As far as size advantages, while I agree (obviously) that SD is a smaller, neater envelope, I must ask...to what end? :confused:

As cell phone manufacturers discovered (here in North America, at least), there's a limit to how small you want to make stuff. In HK I know they have lipstick-sized cell phones, but their usability (not including their fashion-statement, of course) is severely compromised by the fact that human fingers just aren't that small.

Years ago a friend of mine tried to talk me into Smart Media. "They're so much smaller!" he kept repeating. But again, I asked, to what end? Yes you can really stuff more of them into your pocket than CF, but how many of them would you have to have on hand in order for that to make a difference?

It's sort of like arguing that (monetary value aside) American dimes are better than pennies because they're smaller. Stuffing lots of pennies in your pocket hasn't become an issue for anyone.

My issues are speed, the toughness of the envelope, cost, and size. CF wins on cost, wins on speed (unless there are some 80x SD cards out there), and is even in terms of toughness and loses (sort of) in size.

Pop Photo did a test where they taped CF and SD cards down in Times Square squarely in the middle of traffic. All manner of vehicles passed over them and the cards were none the worse for wear, aside from some cosmetic damage.

Actually, in some of the newer dSLR's we can see two different ways of reducing size. One at the expense of battery size and one at the expense of (current) available memory size.

Canon reduced the size of the XT to the point where they had to decide to stick with CF and reduce the battery size or vice versa. The chose the latter.

Nikon and Pentax did the oposite with the D50 and *ist DS, and reduced the camera size (not as much as the XT), but kept a high capacity battery and reduced the memory slot size by going to SD. As a D70 owner I can tell you that the CF card had to be angled in to (barely) fit by the battery compartment.

I think that SD gives designers a lot more options to add features while keeping the size and cost to a minimum.

While they are still a little expensive you can get an adapter so your SD cards will plug into a CF card size adapter (Panasonic). Unfortunately, it's kind of tough to go the other way.

It is interesting to note that the very high end pro cameras from Canon and Kodak have slots for both. Are we covering all bases?

Keeping with the dual memory card theme, Fuji includes an xD card slot in addition to the CF card slot on the S3 (surprise), and combined SM + CF on the older S1 and S2 as did Olympus on the E10, E20, and C2500L.

From a surviveability point of view, I haven't heard of anyone having unusually high environmental failure problems with either format.

Last Note:

Sandisk has the Extreme III SD card (up to 1GB) which has a transfer rate of 20MB/sec. I think this qualifies as a 133X card.

[Rhys]

I call your attention to the Canon 1Ds Mark II, 1D Mark II, Kodak DCS Pro 14n, and Pro SlR/n. These use both SD and CF. Just thought you might find this interesting...

Hmm. Is there, in that case, a shift from CF toward SD? It would make a lot of sense if there was a universal standard rather than the muddle that currently exists.