Why DSLR still use CF card?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by james, Jul 4, 2010.

  1. james

    james Guest

    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.
    james, Jul 4, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. james

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:24:11 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-07-04 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <> said:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >Yup. They are a decent size for gorillas with fat fingers, like me.


    Now there's a compelling reason if I ever read one.

    NOT.
    LOL!, Jul 4, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. james

    Griffin Guest

    On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:10:42 -0700, "james" <> wrote this:

    >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.


    CF cards? Did I hear some one mention 'em? Excellent for doddery ole
    geriatrics like myself. Whilst I'm at it miniaturization really is a mixed
    blessing. Pass my cane some one I might just make it to the loo..........
    Griffin, Jul 4, 2010
    #3
  4. james

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 04/07/2010 10:10, 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.


    The CF card can still be a lot faster... (90Mbytes/sec for the latest
    CF, vs 35Mbytes/sec for SD)

    And since the CF card interface is a plain PC hard disk interface, you
    can use a passive adapater to connect the card to the PC and use it
    without the speed limitations of a USB or Firewire connection.

    But it is otherwise true that this advantage is becoming less important
    over time, and the SD card is climbing its way up the SLR family.

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Jul 4, 2010
    #4
  5. james

    ray Guest

    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.
    ray, Jul 4, 2010
    #5
  6. james <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 4, 2010
    #6
  7. "james" <> wrote in message
    news:i0pfm2$sek$...
    > 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.

    For the same reason they stick to film-era optical viewfinders I expect.
    Regards Mike.
    Ray Shafranski, Jul 4, 2010
    #7
  8. james

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 4 Jul 2010 14:03:10 GMT, ray <> 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
    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2010
    #8
  9. james

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> 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.
    nospam, Jul 4, 2010
    #9
  10. Gary Edstrom wrote:
    > 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 <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 4 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.
    >>> 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.


    Perhaps he'd reached his level of incompetence as a sales clerk.....

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jul 4, 2010
    #10
  11. On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:35:51 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >james <> 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


    What does it matter to you? You don't even own a camera that uses any card
    format.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jul 4, 2010
    #11
  12. james

    Better Info Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:21:14 -0700, Gary Edstrom <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 4 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.

    >
    >Well, SD cards do have two advantages over CF cards:
    >1. Size and
    >2. Much less chance of bending pins inside the camera.
    >
    >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.


    Except for those times that you are on an extended photo trek and you run
    out of storage space. Then you realize ... Hey! Those SD cards that I have
    in my MP3 player for songs and GPS for supplemental maps have about 20G of
    extra room! I can always replace all those map files and song and
    audio-book files later. What I can't replace is this moment in time for
    these photos of rare plants and animals that I may never find nor see
    again.

    I've had to do this before so I know how handy it can be having extra SD
    memory in your other always-take-along devices.
    Better Info, Jul 4, 2010
    #12
  13. james

    Peter Guest

    >> On 2010-07-04 09:35:42 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 4 Jul 2010 14:03:10 GMT, ray <> 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.

    >
    >

    The also takes longer to change than a CF card. (Assuming you include
    the time it takes to find it.)

    BTW have you noticed any time difference in writing the buffer to the card,
    between CF & SD?
    Peter, Jul 4, 2010
    #13
  14. james

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010070410294875249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-07-04 09:21:14 -0700, Gary Edstrom <> said:
    >


    >> 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.



    Not a smart thing to post.
    Hope Murphy doesn't rear his ugly head.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 5, 2010
    #14
  15. james

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010070416544711272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-07-04 15:47:07 -0700, "Peter" <> said:
    >
    >>>> On 2010-07-04 09:35:42 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 4 Jul 2010 14:03:10 GMT, ray <> 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.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> The also takes longer to change than a CF card. (Assuming you include
    >> the time it takes to find it.)
    >>
    >> BTW have you noticed any time difference in writing the buffer to the
    >> card, between CF & SD?

    >
    > Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk
    > Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when I
    > have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time difference.
    > The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC because the CF
    > was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent change at all, even
    > with the spec difference between the two cards.
    > That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for???
    > --



    That occurred to me. I have not noticed any real difference between UDMA and
    an ordinary CF card.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 5, 2010
    #15
  16. John Navas wrote:

    > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:46:50 -0400, in
    > <4c312dfa$1$5542$-secrets.com>, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>news:2010070416544711272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>
    >>>On 2010-07-04 15:47:07 -0700, "Peter" <> said:

    >
    >
    >>>>BTW have you noticed any time difference in writing the buffer to the
    >>>>card, between CF & SD?
    >>>
    >>>Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk
    >>>Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when I
    >>>have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time difference.
    >>>The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC because the CF
    >>>was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent change at all, even
    >>>with the spec difference between the two cards.
    >>>That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for???

    >>
    >>That occurred to me. I have not noticed any real difference between UDMA and
    >>an ordinary CF card.

    >
    >
    > Depends on what you mean by "ordinary" and on what camera you have --
    > some ordinary cards are slower with some cameras. There's also the
    > issue of speed if you move them to a fast reader/writer on a computer.
    >
    > SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any
    > camera I know of.
    >

    I agree. I have Extreme II and Extreme III UDMA, and I too see no
    change in speed. Haven't used the Extreme Pro yet( a bit too expensive
    ). But then again the buffer of my camera is too slow to make use of
    the new standard. So essentially, I see no difference between the two
    cards. However, I plan to purchase anew camera soon with a faster
    buffer and UDMA standard, and then I'll expect to see some difference.

    As far as the difference between SD and CF, never having used SD, I
    can't speak intelligently about that, except that I purchased a compact
    SLR for my wife, who is photographically challenged, and uses a micro SD
    card. Since I do all the changing, size is a factor, and I'm not
    thrilled with the micro card. In particular storing a filled card in
    the field. They're so small, they're easy to lose, even with the card
    reader that I use as a storage unit since it is less likely to get lost.
    I suppose the SD would be only slightly better.
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 5, 2010
    #16
  17. james

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any
    >camera I know of.


    Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified
    to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you
    own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera".

    It does work both ways, doesn't it?

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 5, 2010
    #17
  18. james

    John Navas Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:46:50 -0400, in
    <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:03:47 -0700, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>SanDisk Extreme III is what I use and recommend, fast enough for any
    >>camera I know of.

    >
    >Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified
    >to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you
    >own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera".
    >
    >It does work both ways, doesn't it?


    It does, as should be clear if you actually read what I write,
    instead of dashing off a silly off-point response.

    --
    Best regards,
    John

    Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
    it makes you a dSLR owner.
    "The single most important component of a camera
    is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
    John Navas, Jul 5, 2010
    #18
  19. james

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:54:47 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >Not really, I am using SanDisk UDMA 60MB/s CF as primary, and SanDisk
    >Extreme III 30MB/s SDHC as secondary. I mainly shoot RAW only, and when
    >I have shot RAW+JPEG using both I have not perceived any time
    >difference. The same applies for the few times it switched to the SDHC
    >because the CF was full, the switch was seamless with no apparent
    >change at all, even with the spec difference between the two cards.
    >That makes me wonder what I am buying the UDMA cards for???



    To enrich the manufacturer?
    Bruce, Jul 5, 2010
    #19
  20. james

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:33:42 -0500, Neil wrote:

    > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:03:10 +0000, ray 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.ÃøO$

    >
    >
    >
    > Who can afford A Canon eos 1Ds mk111 ? My pension won't run to it.


    Mine would, but I eschew Canon.
    ray, Jul 5, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric Stevens

    Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?

    Eric Stevens, Nov 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    252
  2. Steve

    Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?

    Steve, Nov 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    258
    David J Taylor
    Nov 8, 2008
  3. Don Stauffer

    Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?

    Don Stauffer, Nov 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    397
    dj_nme
    Nov 9, 2008
  4. Jürgen Exner

    Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?

    Jürgen Exner, Nov 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    812
  5. SMS

    Re: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?

    SMS, Nov 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    287
    Me Here
    Nov 7, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page