Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 13:29 On 2010-07-04 09:21:14 -0700, Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> said: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why high >> end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, not a >> feature. > > Well, SD cards do have two advantages over CF cards: > 1. Size and Nope, I prefer to have a less finicky, less likely to drop from my clumsy fingers. I use SD in my G11 and in the 2nd slot in my D300s for jpeg seperation. RAW going to CF, JPEG to SD. > 2. Much less chance of bending pins inside the camera. I have been using CF for 11years and I haven't bent one yet. > > First with DSLR cameras, the size factor really isn't important. A DSLR > is going to be larger anyway than a small P&S. Not much to be gained in > size by using a SD chip. Exactly > > The second factor, while technically true, certainly has not been a > problem with me. I have been shooting using CF cards for over 11 years > now in 4 different cameras and have never bent a pin inside the camera > while inserting the chip. I have the same experience with 5 cameras and three different readers, not one bent pin. > > The big advantage with staying with CF is that many people out there, > like myself, have quite an arsenal of CF chips and don't want to be > forced to buy different chips when buying a new camera. It's like one > of the big reasons for choosing a Canon 50D when I upgraded from the 20D > for me was that I didn't want to have to buy a whole new set of lenses. > The same can hold for CF chips. > > Gary Another point of agreement. However some of those early CF cards are of such small capacity, they gather dust today. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 13:52 On 2010-07-04 09:35:42 -0700, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> said: > On 4 Jul 2010 14:03:10 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > : On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, james wrote: > : > : > SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why > : > high end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, > : > not a feature. > : > : I think one significant reason is that many purchasers are repeat buyers > : - they already HAVE CF cards. IMHO - best route is to make a camera > : capable of using CF and SD. > > But the only reason for SD is to re-use the space reserved for the CF slot. So > (quite understandably) only the largest cameras have both. > > Bob By having both slots on my D300s I have several options; when shooting at an air show or other event I have a 16 GB CF & a 16 GB SD with the SD acting as an overflow for a filled CF eliminating the need to change cards at critical moments. (not that I have many of those.) and that is my default set up. I also have a custom menu option set up for shooting in camera B&W where the B&W JPEG is routed to the SD card and RAW is written to the CF giving me the best of both Worlds. I also do this when shooting RAW + JPEG separating RAW & JPEG. The same goes for the few times I have played with video on the D300s. I still find SD cards too small for my phatt phyngrs. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 4 Jul 2010 11:35 james <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. That's news to me. Pray tell, how many revisions of the SD card specs will it take to reach the capacity limits of the CF card, and how many incompatible or problematic changes will that cause? > Is there a good reason why high > end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, not a > feature. Except for the read-only tab (which is of little use in cameras) there is nothing an SD card can do better, and lots it can do worse. Try handling SD cards in thick gloves, just for fun. -Wolfgang
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 14:12 In article <nbm6g7-ua5.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > Except for the read-only tab (which is of little use in > cameras) there is nothing an SD card can do better, and lots > it can do worse. Try handling SD cards in thick gloves, just > for fun. sd cards are immune to bent pins since there aren't any pins to bend in either the card or the card cage. yea i know, you've been using cf for decades and never had a bent pin. go ask a camera repair shop how often it occurs. it's funny how the first thing they do when a customer has a problem with a camera is look into the slot. you don't see them doing that with sd. sd cards are more resistant to moisture than cf since there are no holes along the bottom. sd card cages are physically smaller which means smaller and lighter cameras (which a lot of people want) or more room for other stuff in a same size camera (which other people prefer). they're also less expensive which means the cameras can be less expensive as well (or the same price with more features). sd cards are vastly more popular, which means prices are lower, especially when they go on sale. i rarely see cf cards on sale, but i often see sd cards practically given away for free.
From: Gary Edstrom on 4 Jul 2010 14:15
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:29:48 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-04 09:21:14 -0700, Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> said: > >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> SDxx card have equaled or bettered CF card. Is there a good reason why high >>> end DSLRs still use CF cards? This actually seems like a turn-off, not a >>> feature. >> >> Well, SD cards do have two advantages over CF cards: >> 1. Size and > >Nope, I prefer to have a less finicky, less likely to drop from my >clumsy fingers. I use SD in my G11 and in the 2nd slot in my D300s for >jpeg seperation. RAW going to CF, JPEG to SD. [snip] That brings me to a related topic: The design of products for use by people who have less than perfect use of their hands. Back about 5 years ago, I bought a new television for my mother as her previous one had given out and was MUCH too old to be worth repairing. Of course, the remote control that came with the new set had numerous tiny buttons on it. I went to the local electronics store to buy a remote with larger buttons just for the basic functions. I just couldn't seem to get the idea across to the young sales clerk that some people, like my mother, are intimidated by numerous buttons and just don't have the dexterity anymore to push the tiny buttons on the original remote. I searched around on my own and found one that had big buttons, and just the basic functions: On/Off, Channel, and Volume. I took it and showed it to the sales clerk telling him that this was what I was looking for. He still couldn't grasp the concept of someone having reduced dexterity and being intimidated by a lot of controls. Gary |