I use Sandisk Extreme and Extreme Pro 16GB cards in my D700 all the time. Make sure your D700 has the latest firmware, A/B 1.02, before using the 16GB CF card.
One thing I've found in using 16GB cards is the D700 won't properly tell you how many photos you can put on the card. The Sandisk Extreme Pro card, when formatted, tells me I can get 605 RAW photos on the card, for example, but I typically get more than 1,000 RAW photos on it. If you go over 999 (It may be 1,000, but I don't remember.) photos, the camera will make a second folder on the card, so be on the lookout for that folder.
I want that the CF card must be as fast as possible, too. In the same time I don't want to waste the money, because as much as the CF speed is higher, the price rises up as well. But, I did not find anyware this parameter specified for D700.
Your advices helped me a lot to decide about the CF card that I will buy. So, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
You know a lot has to do with how you take photographs too. I often take wildlife photos at 8fps, which is another reason to gravitate toward the faster compact flash cards.
I decided to look at Ron Galbraith's web site for CF data. He's had it in the past, and I found some data for the D700. It's a bit old and the listing is for the older firmware, but it should be valid today, and it is an indicator that the D700 does take advantage of the faster cards.
For example, SanDisk Extreme IV 45MB/s Edition 16GB was able to write RAW files on the D700 at 27.6MB/s, but the SanDisk Extreme III 30MB/s Edition 16GB wrote at 22.2MB/s in the test. If you're using continuous high speed release mode, for example, that kind of difference is significant as you're taking at least 70MB of file size per second if you're shooting in RAW.
Those cards stored JPG files at a speed of 20.3MB/s and 17.3MB/s respectively, which is again significant.
I couldn't find data anywhere on the D700 and today's fastest cards, so I ran a quick test. I get about 75 photos stored before my D700 slows down, when I use the Extreme Pro vs. 62 with the Extreme CF card (Both 16GB cards), when at 3fps shooting RAW. (I only did one card each in the test just to get a feel for it, but I had noticed this in the past while shooting.)
So, it would appear the D700 takes advantage of the faster speeds of the cards. I wait until the cards come on sale to purchase them.
I know the link that you posted. I red these data before to post my question on the forum, because it was the only information that I found about D700 and CF I cards.
So, my concern was first about the capacity of the accepted CF cards, because on Nikon's site I found that only 8GB are recommended. Now, because you told me that is working, I will buy a 16GB memory card. And after your last test I will buy 600x speed memory card! Who knows ... maybe Nikon will upgrade the firmware in the future and the D700 will be able to use the 600x speed ... or maybe it is able with the actual firmware ...
The D700 (and D3) don't benefit from any more than 30MB/sec cards. Something internal to the cameras (probably Expeed) is limited to producing about that much data. Faster cards may work (I've had a 45MB/sec card in my D3) but also may not - Nikon are mum on this. At least in the camera, there is just no reason to buy anything faster than the current SanDisk Ultra 30MB/sec cards, which are dirt cheap these days. If you have a fast card reader you may find that faster cards download more quickly, but that's about the extent of faster cards on the D700.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Please, be so kind and send me (if exists on the WEB) the link from the site on where you found this interesting data about the max. accepted speed of 30MB/s for D700. I am interesting in, because maybe there are other interesting technical specifications about D700, too. I did not foud on my WEB searches this speed parameter.
Although this does not really answer your question, I feel compelled to add the obvious fact as a point to consider: when large-capacity cards fail, you are more likely to lose many more images. I had my own bad experience, and others had more than their fair share of this.
Personally, I only use the 4 and 8GB cards, and even with those, I don't wait to have them filled before swapping (when I can). In my opinion the hassle of the extra cards far outweighs the risks with high-capacity cards.
Hi Blondul, Just another handle on capacity, I have, 10 4gb for the reason, "don't put all your eggs in one basket!"
On the other hand, I do have 3 16gb cards for shooting BIF, found the 4gb kept running out just at the wrong time, FWIW, they are Sandisk Extreme 60mb/sec, work fine on my D700
An old fly fishing journo friend of mine, to use his expression, "just carry a hat full of cards", he doesn't trust any other storage system, he only downloads back at the office, even then, he keeps his cards full until his return,
Had to recover images for a friend of mine, lost 1100 images, all on one card! Some were corrupt as well, he had a cheap card, and never safely removed the card, until now
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
I certainly agree and subscribe to your concept, but there is much leeway as to what constitutes large cards vs. not so large cards.
If I was storing my files in a jpg format, 4GB to 8GB cards would be fine, but a 4GB card for me would hold only about 250 images as I shoot RAW. When I'm out shooting wildlife, or travel photos, especially travel photos at an event, such as a Civil War reenactment at Gettysburg, or a feast parade at Chichicastenago Guatemala from the church through the market, where I might be shooting burst after burst of shots at 3fps to 8fps. For one thing, I don't want to be swapping cards during such an event.
I use 16GB cards as they seem a good compromise to me on capacity vs. security. By the way, I always bring a 500GB Hyperdrive Colorspace portable hard drive with me, and back up my cards every chance I get. When I travel, by the time I go to sleep, every card has been either uploaded to my laptop and my backup Hyperdrive, or to 2 Hyperdrives, if I'm saving space.
Then if you're shooting HD video with a DSLR, gosh does that eat memory.
I think your point is a very good one, but capacity is all relative to the photographer, and how they work, and what their needs are.
Absolutely -- I totally agree with you on the fact that we all have different needs and motivations. That is the reason I was very careful not to pose the fallible question of "why" or in any way to challenge whether it makes sense for the OP to use these high capacity cards.
I only felt compelled to make that point because the OP is a new (and a very welcome) member of this community, and he might not have been aware of the several threads where people discussed their data losses and corrupted cards. In fact, thinking "bigger is better", I almost got a couple of 32 GB cards myself to go with my new D700. However, reading these threads and reviewing my usage history, I realized that I will seldom fill an 8GB card at one time. For my needs, carrying 2-3 such cards is more than enough. Going on a trip -- I'll probably take 3 more.
Your case of video recording is certainly one that calls for those big-boys cards. I'm glad you brought it up, because although I was not asking it, I was actually wandering what reason one may have to stuff into one basket so many delicate eggs...
PS: are you still on assignment in Israel/Sinai/Middle-East ?
Your point that bigger isn't necessarily better was an excellent one to bring up. I'm glad you did. To date I've stayed away from the 32GB cards for this very reason.
Assuming the D800 which I'm more and more convinced won't be announced with the D4 later this week does have a 36MP sensor, that camera will likely need 32GB cards, and perhaps 64GB cards, plus it will undoubtedly have video, and as you put it, that would call for the "big-boy cards."
The upcoming D4, which I think will be announced this week and available in February, will need pretty big cards if you're shooting RAW with it and/or video. Those HD videos use up storage space quickly.
I'm back from the Middle East, thanks for asking, and was just on the West Coast shooting in the LA area. I'll be back on the West Coast again soon, then I'm be doing some winter work in the Northeast for a while. I'm lined up for several shoots in NYC. After that, I have no idea right now, but there are several possibilities coming up, and some inquiries coming in that I have to consider.
Sorry Rob, but you really aren't disagreeing with me.
If you would have included the entire sentence in the quote you would see that it referred to the D800 undoubtedly having video. Also, in my prior post to which Zevi referred, I explained that I was primarily a travel and wildlife photographer.
Especially when engaged in wildlife photography, I can easily go through 100-200 images in less than 20 minutes, sometimes much faster, and I wouldn't want to run out of storage space at the wrong time.
Finally, as I also said above, "...capacity is all relative to the photographer, and how they work, and what their needs are."
I agree that with regard to memory card sizes, one size doesn't fit all.
I discovered Hyperdrives and Epson's backup device years ago. I've since transitioned to two Hyperdrives in my backback for in-field backups. I don't like having stacks of cards to manage. The card goes out of the camera to drive 1, then drive 2, then back to the camera when the other card is full (and it goes to drive 1 . . . )
I use either a laptop and Hyperdrive, or two Hyperdrives for primary storage and a backup of my photos while traveling. I do have 4-16GB cards, as according to the situation, I can fill them quickly and don't want to carry or bother to use the laptop or Hyperdrives during time in which I can or am shooting, or carry them during shooting.
My Galapagos trip a few years ago is a perfect example. I was filling as many as 3 cards during each morning's or afternoon's hike. At lunch, and after our return to our boat at the end of the afternoon I copied the photos to the laptop and Hyperdrive.
I don't believe CF cards are an appropriate or safe media for long term storage. The Hyperdrives are also cost effective compared to a stable of CF cards, except perhaps for the "el cheapos" I would never consider purchasing.
I have a non brand name 24 GB CF card, I don't have it with me (in the arctic at present) so I can't give you the name. It's not the fastest card, but I have never had any problems with it. I do as a mater of practice format my CF card in the camera prior to using them.
Randy Scott Remember, sometimes it's not what happens to you that matters as much as your response to these happenings...
Do you have another memory with lower speed (for e.g. 266x, because according with what was said by our colleagues in these discussions, this is the maximum speed accepted by D700)?
I am asking this, because I am interested in to see if the write speed is higher when using 400x instead of 266x. If the write speed will be higher, then we can say that it is "profitable" to buy memory cards with write speed higher than 266x (approx. 40MB/s).
And ... nice horse pictures! I like a lot your gallery!
Thanks, Stelian, I'm afraid I haven't been very scientific about the cards. I usually just buy the "bang for the buck" best I can find. These work in a D300s, as well. The 32gb Trandscend 400x is under $70 at Amazon.
I have used 4 and 8 GB Sandisk Extreme III 30 MB/sec cards and Extreme IV and Ducati 45 MB/sec cards and found the 45 MB/sec cards clear the buffer faster in both D300 and D700 bodies. I have added a few 32 GB Extreme 60 MB/sec cards but have not had a chance to compare the write speed with the 45 MB/sec cards. I suspect they may be slightly faster but I have not formally tested them. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!