I'm comparing the D80 to the D200, and I've seen references to the type of memory card mattering. In particular, people seem to dislike SD. I use SD cards in my current camera and have never had a problem.
There was a time when CF cards were far cheaper then SD, but now there is no real difference in price. Unless you feel the need for the really large card I don’t see any advantage of CF over SD.
SD cards used to be more limited in size than CF cards, but SDHC has overcome that. CF cards were a standard for a long time for DSLRs, and people collected supplies of nice big cards, and some people just don't like change.
But from what I've seen SD cards are actually cheaper than CF cards of similar storage now, and you can get high speed, large capacity SD cards for very cheap. My take is that SD cards are smaller, lighter and more robust, having no breakable pins in the camera, and no holes in the card that can collect gunk, not that either of these has been a major drawback for CF cards. Anyway, I don't see CF cards being around for much longer. There's a much larger market for SD cards in todays compact devices that economy of scale is going to run CF off the market.
I have a PDA that takes both SD and CF cards. They both seem to work fine. All of my cameras use CF and I've never once worried about a card. I'm still worried about how flimsy my SD card is. I keep thinking the thing is going to get damaged. So my preference is still for the CF cards.
The big advantage of SD is that it drains the battery less. CF card slots receive power in order to run the micro drives and that power is sucked up even if you don't have a micro drive on your CF card. Thus, a camera that uses SD will have better battery life. I'm not sure how much, or if it's even significant, but that's the story i heard.
Also, because of it's size, and the mini and micro SD cards used in everything (phones, PDAs, GPS units...), SD is the future. CF cards will be phased out. Change now or change later.
Edit to add, the lack of pins on the camera that can get bent is a big plus SD has too!
My 5D and 20D cameras tend to last "forever" on a battery charge. If CF is draining the battery, it's doing so *very* slowly. More likely I'm draining the battery when IS is turned on (powering up the gyros that do the work). Even then, the battery lasts a very long time.
My beef with CF.
Most laptops have a card reader built-in that will read every card but CF. So you either download from camera via USB or carry a CF reader with you.
My beef with CF.
Most laptops have a card reader built-in that will read every card but CF. So you either download from camera via USB or carry a CF reader with you.
Most laptops dont need a CF reader because CF plugs wil plug into a type I PCMCIA slot. Which i have neevr had a laptop without a PCMCIA expansion slot.
The big advantage of SD is that it drains the battery less. CF card slots receive power in order to run the micro drives and that power is sucked up even if you don't have a micro drive on your CF card. Thus, a camera that uses SD will have better battery life. I'm not sure how much, or if it's even significant, but that's the story i heard.
Also, because of it's size, and the mini and micro SD cards used in everything (phones, PDAs, GPS units...), SD is the future. CF cards will be phased out. Change now or change later.
Edit to add, the lack of pins on the camera that can get bent is a big plus SD has too!
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take up a bit of a disagreement here.
Power consumed is based on work done. To say that a CF using flash is using the power that is assigned to a microdrive is like saying that 23 watt Fluorescent bulb is using the same amount of electricity as a 100 Watt Incandescent.
A 23 Watt bulb will consume 23 Watts of power regardless of whether it is plugged into a 40Watt capable socket, a 60Watt capable socket or a 100Watt capable socket.
Likewise, a Flash based CF card will consume no more power than an SD card of a similar PHYSICAL SIZE. Microdrives use more power because they have a drive motor in them. Neither Flash based CF nor flash based SD have any moving parts.
One thing about circuitry is that smaller circuits use less power. CF cards are physically larger than SD cards (not as much as you would think though... by volume, a flash based CF card (not a microdrive type) is only about 40% larger and thicker than a standard SD), so can potentially use larger flash modules.
As mentioned above, smaller means less power consumption (this is also a major contributing factor as to why I can get 1500 shots on my 30D, but with the same battery, could only get around 120-150 shots on my S30, and my friend's 300D can only get 5-600 on a larger battery), but when dealing with such ridiculously low power consumption as flash memory, this is a really, really insignificant difference.
On the other hand, one thing that does make a big difference when considering the physical size is that as things get smaller, they tend to get a little bit less reliable. Of course, the differences here are also minor as both CF and SD are extremely reliable.
I have several cards of both types which I have been using for around 4 years now, all of which are in use on a near daily basis, many of which see frequent switches from device to device. I've not seen any problems with pins breaking (with the exception of a card reader that itself was such utter garbage that in testing every single unit in-store, 12 out of 13 devices did not work) - and that was due to careless usage by the store employee.
I have however seen a few SD cards that have had their thin plastic casing cracked, snapped or split.
So far, out of around 15 CF cards, 1 has failed for me over the last 4 years.
Out of around 20 SD cards, 3 have failed for me over the last 3 years.
If you are just starting out, it shouldn't make a huge difference. Just make sure you have at least 2 4GB cards and a photo bank that can rip a GB in under 5 minutes. Unless you shoot an EOS 1D Mk III, that should be enough. And if you do shoot a Mk III, 2 4GB SD, 2 4GB CF, an 8GB of either type along with a pair of Photo Banks *MIGHT* be able to keep up with you... ;)
Oh and I don't think CF is ready to lay down just yet. Check out the 300X card reader that was released recently. Watch for 300X 8GB, 12GB and 16GB CF cards on the horizon.
Physically larger means stronger under abuse AND more space inside...
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take up a bit of a disagreement here.
I questioned that from the person that I got the information from and they couldn't explain why or how the CF card still used more power even when it wasn't a microdrive, just that it did.
It makes sense to me that more power gets sent to a CF card, but I'm not sure if the CF card uses it when it's not a microdrive. This guy has been a great source for info and had never been wrong so i had no reason to not believe him and no motivation to prove him wrong.
Let me ask you all this, is there any credibility to the fact that comparing CF SD and XD that the SD seems to be the slowest for write speed, and the CF seems to be the fastest??? my own experience seems to bear that out....what say?
And another after thought, I was told by Olympus tech support that the reason they use CF is that you can still get high volume micro-drives in the CF format. ( note) the E500 uses two formats....CF and XD
Fair enough Dog... and I *have* been wrong about my fair share of things in the past... However, I don't think I am this time. I've spent a fair bit of time discussing these matters with people in the industry, having talked directly to high level employees of a number of flash manufacturers at shows, in general association or at their factories as well as having spoken out on a number of occasions on the subject of CF vs SD elsewhere. Power consumption IS directly related to work done.
It's hard not to run into flash engineers being a tech minded foreigner around here. ;)
Of course, technically speaking, your friend is right, it's just that the difference is so infinitesimal that it's hardly worth considering... (note that my CF using 30D can take 1500-1700 pics if I don't use my flash, but I've not heard of D50's or D40's doing significantly better than that)
Let me ask you all this, is there any credibility to the fact that comparing CF SD and XD that the SD seems to be the slowest for write speed, and the CF seems to be the fastest??? my own experience seems to bear that out....what say?
I would say that this is most likely down to your equipment.
My guess is that you are comparing a P&S camera with SD and your EVOLT with CF and XD. Feel free to correct me of course.
XD is notoriously slow - mostly due to low R&D capital for a format that owns an extremely tiny slice of the market.
Your SD from your two P&S cams isn't going to be used to it's maximum ability in either camera, and the rest would come down to your card reader's type.
Of course, your Evolt is likely going to outperform your other cameras for write speed.
On the other hand, maybe you have tried them in your card reader... IF you have a card reader which reads both types, then the comparison would be fair.
XD will always be slow in comparison.
CF has the POTENTIAL to be much faster due to the vastly superior number of pins, but it doesn't really use that much right now.
SD has had lots of money pumped into R&D because of its popularity in slim camera designs. Therefore, SD is running right on the cutting edge of it's potential. CF isn't really there.
My beef with CF.
Most laptops have a card reader built-in that will read every card but CF. So you either download from camera via USB or carry a CF reader with you.
Most laptops dont need a CF reader because CF plugs wil plug into a type I PCMCIA slot. Which i have neevr had a laptop without a PCMCIA expansion slot.
None of the newer Dell Inspirons have full-size PCMCIA slots, only ExpressCard slots, and there's only one CF-adapter ExpressCard available and it's $56. Even with PCMCIA slots you need a CF adapter, but they're much less expensive, like $10-12.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to take up a bit of a disagreement here.
I questioned that from the person that I got the information from and they couldn't explain why or how the CF card still used more power even when it wasn't a microdrive, just that it did.
It makes sense to me that more power gets sent to a CF card, but I'm not sure if the CF card uses it when it's not a microdrive. This guy has been a great source for info and had never been wrong so i had no reason to not believe him and no motivation to prove him wrong.
You'd have to compare the same sized cards (eg 2GB) being written to at the same rate, etc. The bigger issue with power is probably the battery size and the camera electronics. The memory chips on the CF and XD cards may be exactly the same. The interface chips may be more efficient on one card than the other, but its a trivial difference and will change as new chips are introduced.
One advantage to SD that people have pointed out before is that the connector doesn't require any holes on the PC board, has no pins to break, and has fewer connectors. This means that the connector is cheaper to buy and is cheaper to install, and is smaller (ie less board space=less printed circuit cost, smaller packaging in a P&S, ....)
I'm comparing the D80 to the D200, and I've seen references to the type of memory card mattering. In particular, people seem to dislike SD. I use SD cards in my current camera and have never had a problem.
Anyone know more about this?
Thanks!
bottom line is there's not enough of a difference in the two or their pricing to make it a factor in which camera to get.
Most laptops dont need a CF reader because CF plugs wil plug into a type I PCMCIA slot. Which i have neevr had a laptop without a PCMCIA expansion slot.
What?!? There is no way you are telling me that a CF Card will plug directly into a PCMCIA port.
the only thing i would be worried about is that SD uses pressure contacts where as CF uses pins, if you happen to benda pin its expensive to fix, but pressure contacts are more durable in that matter. I personally like CF better is thatyou can get bigger capacity on a card. sure theres SDHC now but not too many cameras can use sdhc yet
