Why a step back? CF is established and I can hold it (I am 50). SDs are to glimpsy for my fingers. Of course SDs are cheaper and I could give it to my customers. But an adaptor is available for less than 20 €. There is no CF to SD adaptor out there now, right?
This is a pro body. Why should "pros" through away their trustable CF cards worth thousends of $?
big country wrote:
They should've stuck w/ sd and cf.
Read my comment. If I would like to have a SD for my customers I would put it in into an adaptor.
If I shoot for myself I would prefere to have to CF slots for not stopping shooting.
I have no issues in my 1Dm2 using an SD, and they have great capacity. My laptop has a built in SD reader, as does the ipad/ipod (using their little adapter).
Are there speed or capacity advantages to CF?
mxquattro wrote:
I have no issues in my 1Dm2 using an SD, and they have great capacity. My laptop has a built in SD reader, as does the ipad/ipod (using their little adapter).
Are there speed or capacity advantages to CF?
I do not think so. Not TODAY. They are even cheaper then CF. But when I started in DSLR SD was not an option. And if there is space enough for two CF- cards why not implementing CF adaptors offering two places for SD? Should be easy and great to have 4 SD cards in your body ...
CF for me. A good move by Canon IMO. SD is just WAY too fiddly - I want something that has a bit of bulk and doesn't feel like it'll snap if it's windy
I agree with the flimsiness of SD, but I never had an issue with them. Ive had a fair amount of CF cards become 'unreadable' but admittedly that was long ago and on older cameras. Im just weary I guess. I also have a fair investment in SD cards. Ralph, Im with you, its a good way to have 4 cards in your body.
I've tried both in my 1d mark II. Speed wise, I don't think that body is the best one to use...using both cards, the buffer fills up after 18 shots, and then there's a lag while it catches up with the writing to the card. I haven't seen much of a difference in how fast the body writes to the cards (using a sandisk 16 gig 60 mp/s CF card, and a PNY premium 16 gig SD card), but I'm guessing that the advancements in technology can utilize the faster write speeds of CF over SD now.
The point for me is:
After 2002 purchasing a 1GB Mikrodrive and later 2 4GB CF cards, an 8 GB one and at least 2 16GB ones, non of them till today (crossed fingers) ever failed. They are all still working (at least after 10 years maximum). I like things that work. I am not sure SDs would not. But I never used them. And just putting them out or in a friends camera was horror (for me). I need to have something in my hands/fingers. That is NOT SD.
PhilDWedding wrote:
CF for me. A good move by Canon IMO. SD is just WAY too fiddly - I want something that has a bit of bulk and doesn't feel like it'll snap if it's windy
+1...Also, CF cards are very durable...I'm embarrassed to admit I've washed & dried more than one CF card over the years! Luckily all survived with years of service afterwards!
While I think the migration to the same media type is a step in the right direction I'm surprised they didn't do the same as the D4 and make it CF & XQD
Luckily all survived with years of service afterwards! 
