New CF card or .....

[Rooz]

im sure its reliable but i'd never be at peace on the road transferring all those files onto a HDD that could fail any minute and i lose all my stuff. not to mention id be shitting myself that i couldnt see whats on the HDD. this is the smartest idea in the world...unless something goes wrong.

[Peekayoh]

Flash drives are no more reliable than Hard Drives! You still have the possibility of losing your images, albeit not all of them but Sod's Law dictates, the important ones.

What worries you about not seeing what's on the drive? The device verifies data integrity before it deletes the card, so you know the copies are good and there is a file browser which allows you to look at the drive content. You can't view the Image itself, of course, although there are other devices with a colour LCD which allow for that also (naturally at a higher cost).

My decision is based purely on cost and in the full knowledge that there is a remote possibility of data loss.

The 320Gig NexTo cost me £160 whereas 2x 32GB cards would have cost £380. If you need the security of a second backup, 2x NexTo at a cost of £320 are still cheaper. (BTW the hard drive in the NexTo is a standard SATA drive and replaceable).

Of course it's likely that the cost of CF cards will come down but I still think this is a good deal to have 60GB capacity available on one battery charge.

One other thing, the bigger the Flash card, the more images you stand to lose with a card failure. If an 8GB goes down, I could lose up to 211 RAW images but that becomes 846 images potentially lost with a 32GB card failure. So maybe the solution is more 8GB cards? 8x 8GB =£550, ouch!

[DonSchap]

Recently, as of a week ago, I was tossing around the idea of going with a 64GB Calumet ProSpec UDMA 420x CF Memory (<-click here) card, as the a850 can easily accommodate its use and it can hold just about a "quarter's worth" (12-weeks) of shooting on it.

Running around, hither and yon, leaves me always behind the eight-ball when I have to manage the data files, between school and home. Maybe it is just me, but when I off-load, these files just never seem to be handy or in the correct location, if I clear the card, so I usually have them in both the off load location and the camera. Having the 64GB memory card would be just about the right solution, as it remains on one card AND IN MY CAMERA ... for the whole session.

I always have the SONY 8GB MemoryStick alongside the CF card, just in case, as my insurance policy for "overflow" or a card burp.

Anyway, Peter ... that 64GB may be the right solution. Simple, complete and ...

HUGE!

Based on the performance of the 32GB ProSpec I bought last September, I may still do it. Its more about getting my rear in gear, driving down, and picking one up. It's currently ~$279 with the student discount.

[Elisha]

Why not get a netbook and a card reader?
Also, don't you chimp and delete any images off the card? Or do you only do that once off-loaded onto PC?
Don, I believe the Sony can only handle UDMA-5. Which is plenty. The only ones that can handle UDMA-6 is the 7D, MKIV and maybe the D3s.

[Gopher]

The α700 is very forgiving in that regard ... and 133x speed cards are just dandy, but they will not perform correctly in the α900/α850 camera. Just don't do it.

This is curious. What do you mean "correctly"? Makes you wait around or actually produces errors and fails to record? That would be weak and indicative of some serious, rudimentary programming down at the Sony camp and just difficult to believe.

For a weeklong trip my vote would be extra cards and maybe a hard disk just to keep them secure (but not actually delete any cards). Seriously; do you really want 50GB of ANYTHING!!? You'll dread the post processing for a month!

Maybe another alternative is a 2 layer DVD burner. Once burned and verified, DVDs are very dependable. Using 8GB cards will keep you from overflowing a single disk.

[DonSchap]

This is curious. What do you mean "correctly"?

The α850 faults out with the 133x speed CF cards. I have a few ... and they do not work after a couple shots. The FF camera buffer is trying to write faster than the card can --> CF Error!

Obviously, most people are unaware of this problem until they attempt it. If you read through several of the SONY DSLR forums, you will find plenty of references to this issue. I have tried to warn people of it, when I discovered it, myself.

Coverage of the issues was in this thread (page 18/post# 177)

No one is suggesting you NOT off-load what you can, when you can. Doing that is just prudence.

What I am suggesting is NEVER running out of room. Shoot until you go blind ... you have the room for RAW + JPEG (why skimp with the best?) Each image will take roughly 36 MB (w/ both RAW & JPEG). Do the math.

Look, we all have our ways of doing this ... and may good fortune follow us all.

Having a resource of relatively unlimited storage, for an all-day shoot, is simply magnificent. In fact, in doing so, I suggest that you had better have a second and third set of batteries to keep up! I know I do.

Decide as you know you must how to do it best ... help you, it can.

[SONYNUT]

Hmmmmmmmmm i've never got an error message on slow cards..they just work slower..

[Gopher]

The α850 faults out with the 133x speed CF cards. I have a few ... and they do not work after a couple shots. The FF camera buffer is trying to write faster than the card can --> CF Error!

Obviously, most people are unaware of this problem until they attempt it. If you read through several of the SONY DSLR forums, you will find plenty of references to this issue. I have tried to warn people of it, when I discovered it, myself.

Coverage of the issues was in this thread (page 18/post# 177)

No one is suggesting you NOT off-load what you can, when you can. Doing that is just prudence.

What I am suggesting is NEVER running out of room. Shoot until you go blind ... you have the room for RAW + JPEG (why skimp with the best?) Each image will take roughly 36 MB (w/ both RAW & JPEG). Do the math.

Look, we all have our ways of doing this ... and may good fortune follow us all.

Having a resource of relatively unlimited storage, for an all-day shoot, is simply magnificent. In fact, in doing so, I suggest that you had better have a second and third set of batteries to keep up! I know I do.

Decide as you know you must how to do it best ... help you, it can.

Thanks for the heads up.

I can say that I've been ho-hum about all the camera hype "my brand's better than yours" and this is the first time I've heard a solid reason to steer clear of Sony.

What you describe is pure and simple a fundamental programming flaw. If Sony finds it acceptable to leave it that way for more than a few weeks without a BIOS patch then I wouldn't trust them for anything! I mean; that's sooo much simpler of an engineering task than, say, getting IS right or designing a proper AF system!

If the write target were, say, a DVD then I could understand. To have the firehose simply break it's nose on a silocone based speed wall is just absurd! Laughable even!

[DonSchap]

I know what you mean Gopher ... I really do.

I took the same stand against Canon for LACKING a much simpler understanding of in-the-body stabilization (truly the most cost-effective measure with existing, non-stability lenses even created). I mean, who would be fool enough to keep building cameras without it, once the technology was proven ... leaving all those expensive

• PRIMEs (for example, EF 50mm f/1.2L USM; EF 85mm f/1.2L USM & EF 135mm f/2L USM),
• Zooms (EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM) and
• MACROs (EF 180mm f/3.5L USM)

and solid lens choices completely prone to sh-sh-shakability? Just to name a few, of course.


Well, the answer is obvious ... and abusive to a clientele that would have enjoyed having it in BOTH their camera as well as in their lenses. No, Canon and Nikon users get to pay for it in the their lenses ... yes, EVERY lens. Otherwise, grow a tripod!

Well, I waited for Canon to wise up ... that did not happen. I bolted to the best solution I could find. It's staying SONY and if I have to upgrade my memory card ... I thank the Lord that at least it is not all my lenses to I$. Good luck with that.

Keep shooting and thank you for your participation in our discussion.

[Gopher]

I know what you mean Gopher ... I really do.

I took the same stand against Canon for LACKING a much simpler understanding of in-the-body stabilization (truly the most cost-effective measure with existing, non-stability lenses even created). I mean, who would be fool enough to keep building cameras without it, once the technology was proven ... leaving all those expensive

• PRIMEs (for example, EF 50mm f/1.2L USM; EF 85mm f/1.2L USM & EF 135mm f/2L USM),
• Zooms (EF 17-40mm f/4L USM; EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM) and
• MACROs (EF 180mm f/3.5L USM)

and solid lens choices completely prone to sh-sh-shakability? Just to name a few, of course.


Well, the answer is obvious ... and abusive to a clientele that would have enjoyed having it in BOTH their camera as well as in their lenses. No, Canon and Nikon users get to pay for it in the their lenses ... yes, EVERY lens. Otherwise, grow a tripod!

Well, I waited for Canon to wise up ... that did not happen. I bolted to the best solution I could find. It's staying SONY and if I =have to upgrade my memory card ... I thank the Lord that at least it is not all my lenses to I$. Good luck with that.

Keep shooting and thank you for your participation in our discussion.

I'm with you on that. I do so enjoy the $3K I've spent in extra IS charges on my several IS lenses, not to mention that many of my fast primes are blessed with not having any chance at this wonderful "new" technology. Oh; and I really liked how my $1900 70-200 f2.8L IS will start depreciating like a rock now that the one with the new IS has been released!

Seriously though; I'd like to see how the in-camera IS compares with the in-lens ones. If nothing else; Canon could install in-camera IS and have it auto-disable if it senses an in-lens IS that should be better.

If Sony had a Canon-Mount-Converter I would probably give it a try ... that is, until I hear they can't even manage a simple task like properly clearing a buffer! What a joke!