Hi all and happy new year. What card do you have your D800 set to write to first? Originally I had mine set to CF but changed as I find the SD card far more versatile these days.infact I would be happy now to have two SD slots in the camera.
I am with you I use the SD card 95% of the time and always have. It is just easier to use and just fits right into the laptop with no adapters. I guess I am used to them from my last camera also. I wished there were two SD slots too.
I have mine configured to use the CF card first, using the SD card as an overflow. Just prefer CD cards, which seem to be somewhat faster, even though for some reason most computers nowadays don't have an integrated CF card slot (my old Packard Bell, DOB 2006, sadly deceased 2010, did have a CF slot (it had a multi-card reader)).
D800, D700, D300
It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so.
Why is this thus? What is the reason of this thusness?
>Hi all and happy new year. >What card do you have your D800 set to write to first? >Originally I had mine set to CF but changed as I find the SD >card far more versatile these days.infact I would be happy now >to have two SD slots in the camera. > >Steve. > Likewise, I would also be happy with two SD cards in my D800. But if I were shooting a D4, I would want two of the fastest XQD cards.
I have the 95 MBs SanDisk 64GB SD card set for Stills with the 150 MBs Lexar 32GB CF card set for overflow and Video.
Any better grade desktop computer can be configured with a multi card reader but I have never found that a problem. I, almost without exception, download directly from the camera body. This eliminates the constant and recurrent removal process that risks damage to both card and internal pins. It also greatly reduces the ingress of dirt or other foreign matter to the camera body. Other than some gain in transfer speed, I doubt if one card is better than the other. Nikon pro digital bodies have always utilized the CD card and the SD was reserved for consumer level equipment. I suppose as far as Nikon was concerned, size did matter at the time. If I were to hazard a guess, I would imagine that the SD card as the second slot was for the same reason, grabbing some camera body real estate.
#8. "RE: CF or SD" In response to Reply # 0 Tue 01-Jan-13 04:14 PM by cfujii
Las Vegas, US
I favor CF cards and wish there were two of them. I use Lexar x1000 16GB cards which are pretty fast. When working with large RAW files, the faster the card the better. My Dell Optiplex 990 came with a media reader which included support for CF cards.
#10. "RE: CF or SD" In response to Reply # 6 Tue 01-Jan-13 07:19 PM by danshep
I too, would be inclined to the CF for NEF and SD for JPG.
The speed, as someone else indicated, would be important to me. Both my D2h and D700 carry Lexars. They are not the newest technology, but when I upgrade to a D800 or a D4, it will be a Lexar 16 or 32 - 1000.
May the NAS fairy bring you more Nikon stuff this year.
"Today is the tomorrow that yesterday you spent money like there was no"
Quote><<nfact I would be happy now to have two SD slots in the >camera>>Quote > Quote>Trouble is the fastest SDHC card is x600 and if you are a >sports or wildlife shooter low time buffering is required. >For most I guess x400 is quite enough (landscape, portrait >etc. etc). > >Richard
Actually, as far as I know, the D800 can not keep up with the 95mbs SanDisk SD card. If it could, I would want two XQD cards instead of CF.
Yes, I understand that. I read Thom Hogan's D800 guide and he recommended x1000 Lexar cards, but he did intimate that they were nor fast enough to keep up. Trouble is their the fastest so far. Goodness knows what we do if we end up with 50-60 Mp sensors
I think nowadays that both SD and CF are so good that it is becoming a matter of personal preference (with no right or wrong answers). the responses in this thread so far sort of show that. I use SD for JPG and video and CF for RAW. works well for me.
its just choice and convenience - however SD is usually cheaper than CF for same memory space and works as well; so I would choose SD as it has no perceptible disadvantage. Also most laptops have a SD card slot which makes it real easy to transfer data. unless you have spare CF cards lying with you, I dont really see reason to buy one and in any case for a D 800 any card with memory below 32 GB can fill up real fast.
I personally use a 64 gb sandisk extreme pro SD as primary storage and its as fast as any CF card out there.
I would agree with most of this. However, I'm sitting here looking at a SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 16GB SD card with a bent pin on the back which has caused it to go unreliable. I'm not without care when handling my SD cards and I've read of others having the same problem with the exposed pins on SD cards. Because of this, the closed connection and the build of CF cards seem to be more robust. For me at least, out in the field that's important.
I send data to the CF card 1st, followed by the SD card. I use a SanDisk card reader to transfer impages to my PC.
I use that CF card for RAW files and the SD card for JPGS and video. I got new cards, a Lexar 32GB CF and a Lexar 64GB SD. But the SD card has just died, is unreadable and is just 6 months old. I guess that I am happier with the CF cards.
Since I started digital photography 11 years I have had 16 CF cards ranging fro 32Mb to 16Gb and 14 SD cards. I've never had a CF failure, but I've had two SD card failures. SD's are not as physically robust as CF cards and I think that's where the main extra cost comes in.
My take on the results for the D800 and other cameras is that CF is a bit faster than SD - roughly 20-30% faster. With all the versions and naming conventions, its hard to truly compare apples and apples.
I'm currently using a Sandisk Extreme Pro 90x 32 GB card as my primary card. The reason is speed and durability. It tested at 52 MB / sec for RAW files with a burst of 27 images.
My secondary card is a Sandisk Extreme 45 MB/s 32GB SDHC which was tested to deliver 24 MB/s for RAW files and a burst of 21 images. I use the SD card for overflow, JPEG's, and video.
My alternate secondary card is an Eye-Fi Pro X2 8 GB card. This is tested at 12 MB/s and a burst of 17 images. I typically am using the Eye-Fi card for small basic JPEG's transmitted to my iPad for immediate viewing. Write speeds are very fast given the small file size, but the transmit over WiFi is noticeably slower and not practical for RAW.
I've noticed a big difference in download speeds with a Lexar USB 3.0 card reader. I did a little testing when I first got the card reader. The card reader was roughly 8 times faster on downloads than a USB 2.0 cable connection. The difference in download time did not matter much with a D300 or D700, but the larger files of the D800 and D600 transfer much faster with a card reader than a cable connection.
There is a big difference in price for more speed. My Sandisk CF card is 30% faster, but costs 4 times the cost of the SD card (but the SD card is a lower model). The SD card most equivalent to my CF card is half the cost and 20% slower.
What is needed depends a lot on subjects. If you shoot wildlife or sports and need a fast frame rate with long bursts, it's probably worth paying for a faster card. But a fast card commands a premium price and going with slightly slower cards can save a lot of money. You dearly pay for speed.
The Eye-Fi card allows the camera to transmit images directly to any wifi enabled device - phone, ipad, or PC. It comes with a USB adapter to update firmware and set up the card. It has free iPad application for easy use on the iPad and iPhone.
I looked on Amazon for a Sandisk or alternative wifi SD card. Apparently it is a Class 4 card that came out of a joint venture between Sandisk and Eye-Fi. It may look cheaper, but there are some differences between the older class 4 card and the newer Class 6 and Class 10 cards. Both of the 8GB Eye-Fi cards - the Class 4 from Sandisk and Class 6 Eye-Fi Pro X2 were for sale on Amazon UK. The Sandisk product is not sold in the US.
One of the key features of Eye-Fi is that the Nikon cameras recognize it with a menu option to control the card. It is brand specific for Eye-Fi. Another key feature is the customer support for Eye-Fi is pretty good - nice to have when you are trying to figure out what setting you have missed that is causing a connection not to work. The newer class 6 and class 10 cards (the Pro x2) support NEF files.
You can probably get away with a 4GB secondary card, but the added cost for the Eye-Fi Pro X2 cards is relatively small.
My D800 is set up to backup to a CF card, with a very fast SD as the primary. The main reason is that I like having an instant backup while traveling. The second reason is that CF cards are currently available in larger capacaties than SD, and at a lower cost per GB for the fast cards needed to accommodate that huge data transfer/file write requirements of a D800 saving an NEF+Large/Fine JPG. Seems to be working out well this way.
How about reliability and failure rate? These days the quality versions of both formats have a very low failure rate. But the CF cards are better in the quality department. This is really the only reason I use the CF as my primary.
Both shooting and download speeds are not that big of a deal for me. But if it were....its another notch for the CF.
>I would agree with most of this. However, I'm sitting here >looking at a SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 16GB SD card with a >bent pin on the back which has caused it to go unreliable. >I'm not without care when handling my SD cards and I've read >of others having the same problem with the exposed pins on SD >cards. Because of this, the closed connection and the build of >CF cards seem to be more robust. For me at least, out in the >field that's important. > >I send data to the CF card 1st, followed by the SD card. >I use a SanDisk card reader to transfer impages to my PC.
That is exactly why using a card reader puzzles me. Cable transfer provides much less strain/risk and I have not been able to discern the reason for the use of a card reader in lieu of the method designed and provided by Nikon. I actually back up twice. I use a second CF card in my D3s, copy to the computer and retain the CF card properly marked as secondary storage. CF cards are about as fool proof as one can get until one gets to SSD.
>That is exactly why using a card reader puzzles me. Cable >transfer provides much less strain/risk and I have not been >able to discern the reason for the use of a card reader in >lieu of the method designed and provided by Nikon.
Well, I can offer you several reasons.
1. Speed. Using a card reader is MUCH faster, and when I am working on deadline, I simply don't have the time to wait for a transfer of files. In fact, I don't transfer those files via card reader until I get home, I read the files straight off the card in the field for submission.
2. Familiarity. I've never bent a pin on any card ever. With on the order of 100k shots last year, never a problem once. Can't speak to how other people manage to get it wrong.
3. Immediacy. When I am gathering information off my cameras, I am usually in the field. Sometimes I need to put that camera right back into use. I am not going to carry around a laptop at half-time on a soccer field, baseball field, basketball arena, or similar connecting cables to my cameras and dumping data.
>I actually >back up twice. I use a second CF card in my D3s, copy to the >computer and retain the CF card properly marked as secondary >storage. CF cards are about as fool proof as one can get >until one gets to SSD.
That said, I have seen MORE bent pins on CF than SD by a WIDE margin.
<<However, I'm sitting here >looking at a SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 16GB SD card with a >bent pin on the back which has caused it to go unreliable.>>
Far more likely to be catastrophic with a CF card. My first digital camera was a Minolta Dimage 7 and the CF card bent the internal pin For a long time after that I used the camera to USB method, but that would be painfully slow now.
I'm not sure you want to transfer HUGE D800 NEF files via the wifi - that is sloooooow, really sloooow. Transfering 100's of NEF files through wifi - well grab a cop of coffe Also beware it will consume some battery life.
JPEG's are smaller and transfer will (of course) be faster, so if it's for fast display on a table (i.e. iPad) then jpeg will be good, so you could put the NEF on the CF and the jpeg on the SD - I guess that will be great.
My D800 is setup as Sandisk Extreme Pro 64g SD primary, Sandisk Extreme 64g CF secondary (backup). I am a predominantly raw shooter. I can plug both into my computer so the only reason I chose the SD card is due to its downloading speed to my computer.
#34. "RE: CF or SD" In response to Reply # 19 Fri 11-Jan-13 03:31 AM by M_Jackson
>I've noticed a big difference in download speeds with a Lexar >USB 3.0 card reader. I did a little testing when I first got >the card reader. The card reader was roughly 8 times faster >on downloads than a USB 2.0 cable connection. The difference >in download time did not matter much with a D300 or D700, but >the larger files of the D800 and D600 transfer much faster >with a card reader than a cable connection.
I was about to post this info when I found Eric's comments. I added a few USB3 ports and hubs to support the card readers and hard drives. They are much faster than USB2. (Eric reports 8 times faster, but even if it is only four times faster, it is worth it to me) I haven't had a lot of problems with bent pins on my CF cards either, so I use USB3 card readers anytime I can. I use a USB3 XQD reader for the primary card in my D4, too. It is hard to use USB2 anymore!
Edit: After I posted this, I see the D800 comes with a USB3 cable and is supported by USB3 tranfers. Reading directly from the camera might be a viable option for some.
I did a little experiment taking 10 shots on my D800 in RAW (74meg) on my Scandisk Extreme Pro 16G SDHC card and 10 shots on a 32G Scandisk Extreme Pro CF 1 card. Downloading thru the D800 the CF card took 30 seconds and the SDHC about 27 seconds. I think that using a 2.0 USB port that the speeds of the two types of cards are comparable. Thus for the same speed SDHC may be a better value right now.
Clearly if you have a USB 3.0 port speeds will increase.
I much prefer leaving the card in the camera as the odds of a broken pin ,dirt etc are near zero.