i have noticed that as of recent there are regetfully fewer expresscard slots showing up on sub 17" laptops these days so i opted for the USB3 reader. bulkier but just a little bit more universal in its ability to plug into things.
If I where designing the camera I would put 2 like card slots in, I don't like that you now will need 2 different card readers. Do I dare relate it to having a film camera that takes 35mm and 110, you would always like to use the better format, 35mm. Okay I know it's a stretch.
david debalko wrote:
If I where designing the camera I would put 2 like card slots in, I don't like that you now will need 2 different card readers.
Glad you are not.
I don't see the benefit to have 2 CF slots which is a technology at the end of it's innovation cycle during the usage life of the D4..
I don't see the benefit to have 2 XQD slots, as the broader eco system around XQD need some time to fully develop.
Storage capacities of cards developed so fast, that most photogs would easily get one day of shooting on one card. If someone objects to carry a second card reader, take a bigger card in the one slot of your preferred format.
sjms wrote:
i have noticed that as of recent there are regetfully fewer expresscard slots showing up on sub 17" laptops these days so i opted for the USB3 reader. bulkier but just a little bit more universal in its ability to plug into things.
True.
According to dealers, Nikon is supposed to package a USB 3.0 XQD reader and a 16 GB XQD card to its D4 in some countries.
There is no USB reader currently available, that's why I took an express card reader for the time being.
Andy, I'm glad I am not the designer as well, I'm sure Nikon knows what they are doing, it just gets me a little nervous to spend 6000. on a camera that uses a card that is no where to be found and no other camera uses.
david debalko wrote:
Andy, I'm glad I am not the designer as well, I'm sure Nikon knows what they are doing, it just gets me a little nervous to spend 6000. on a camera that uses a card that is no where to be found and no other camera uses.
David,
as with most innovations, usage has to start somewhere.
So, almost by definition, the first product is a "lonely" product as nobody else is using it.
The good thing is, that already from the start, XQD cards are cheaper than the very highest performance CF cards (1000x). Given that CF manufacturers have to respect the price pyramid of its CF product lineup (1000x more expensive than 600x than 400x than 300x, ...) to avoid a complete price screw up in their existing market, the XQD format can pass on flash chip price reductions to the market much more aggressively.
Don't know about US prices, but a 32 GB XQD card over here is 230 Euro (incl taxes) vs. 250 Euro for the 1000x Lexar.
The D4 will probably be produced for 3 years. People will use it for 4 years. So we are speaking about 2019/2020.
Customers would have been upset, if the camera would have had only XQD slots, as they are rarer these days. Other customers would have been upset, if the D4 with 2 CF slots would force them after 2015/2016 to buy more expensive CF cards with slower performance. 2 different slots is one of the few economic ways for a migration into new card technology (if physically incompatible)
New stuff comes out on the flagship model. Look at Detroit with power steering, automatic transmissions, and electric starters.
A few years ago Nikon brought out the "G" lenses. The first ones released were consumer models. This started no end of rumors that the new lenses were actually optically inferior, not to mention the aperture ring. Nikon spent years explaining the "G" lenses were not inferior.
runamuck wrote:
New stuff comes out on the flagship model. Look at Detroit with power steering, automatic transmissions, and electric starters.
A few years ago Nikon brought out the "G" lenses. The first ones released were consumer models. This started no end of rumors that the new lenses were actually optically inferior, not to mention the aperture ring. Nikon spent years explaining the "G" lenses were not inferior.
Well, the "G" had nothing to do with optics per se, but removing the mechanical aperture control to save costs and simplify design. Of course they did that to all of the newer lenses and some of them were better because they were newer designs. Users of the older cameras were not amused, but digital camera were just gaining traction then and the future was clear.
Just remember that XQD is an open standards format. It was anounced in 2010 by Sony, Nikon and SanDisk with the Compact Flash Association releasing the final specifications and licensing it in December 2011.
Remember also that XQD's current `low' speeds and capacity are just a result of 1st generation tech. The standard actually allows for speeds from 1 Gbps (125 Mbyte/s) to about 500 Mbytes/s with potential capacity for storage to reach 2 TB and possibly beyond.
Lexar's CF card (fastest at the moment) has a 1000x speed, roughly translates to a top read speed of 129MB/s - roughly XQDs starting speed.
CF is unfortunately reaching its ceiling in terms of capacity and bandwidth. Not so much a problem right now but 6 months or a year down the line I'm sure newer tech will be looking to push the boundaries again.
Video systems like RED and Scarlet are the kinds of hardware that really put a demand on storage systems like this.
you have covered what i have been saying all along. change is tough for some here (i think mostly because many have substantial collections of CF cards ). my only real comment is on the XQDreviews website. it is new i know but its info on the CF cards is limited and is lacking in all the info to get a full view of their capabilities. Read/Write facts on all the cards shown is needed and under what hardware.
david debalko wrote:
I should rephrase my question - If I don't have a XQD, or choose not to have a XQD card in slot A is it ok to have slot A empty and write to slot B?
Yes and Im sure A LOT of people are not eager to rush out and spend $229 on the xqd card and buy the $30 reader. So that is almost $300 I will be one to wait also ;(
JamesDelaney wrote:
CF is unfortunately reaching its ceiling in terms of capacity and bandwidth. Not so much a problem right now but 6 months or a year down the line I'm sure newer tech will be looking to push the boundaries again.
Video systems like RED and Scarlet are the kinds of hardware that really put a demand on storage systems like this.
This is so true! Lets just hope it does not remain proprietary and others will begin making them at better prices. $229 + reader is hard to swallow
the XQD format is NOT PROPRIATARY. it is an OPEN STANDARD developed by Sony, Sandisk (the originators of CF) and Nikon. any member of the CF group can access and use this standard and make XQD cards if they choose too. how many times does this have to be said?
rhyder wrote:
I'm surprised that you don't see why. Its to provide a transitional path, but then, a transitional path would be considered as gray tones, where you see eveything in Black and White..Yes or No..Up or Down.
I think you know all this actually...but you really enjoy being a contrarian.
Not really, I've always hated that the 1Ds3 had both CF and SD... Drove me nuts, I ended up never using the SD slot.. Basically I put a high capacity SD card in, and shot with CF cards and "backed up" on SD, then when it filled up, I stopped backing up and just continued to shoot the rest of the night with CF hoping that nothing was wrong with the CF cards. Then once I got home I loaded all the CF cards, and erased the SD card in camera.
Found it troublesome and wished there were two CF card slots. Would have made my life easier.
Nikon at one point knew the value of this, but opted to "transition" to XQD. Though again, I doubt it's just that simple.
Anyway, either way, I hope XQD is a solid problem free platform, since now I need to buy two of them and stuff them into the cameras for "backup" purposes.
BTW, I usually go through between 16-32GB per camera per day (two 16gb cards each camera, that's 4 cards, I have 10 16gb and a 32gb for when taking weekend trips).
So I'm looking at two 32gb XQD cards.. That's the cost of $460
Though most of the time I shoot 16GB per camera.
EDIT: And reader, although I probably won't use it, since I'll be using CF to do actual downloading, but incase CF fails, I do need the reader so that's $500 total
well if you are going through 16-32GB per day per camera that means you must be doing a thriving business and the cost factor is part of the equation. the price of doing business. all this should have been taken into account before you resolved yourself to purchasing i believe (2) D4 bodies. the ROI should be quite fast too. i consider cards a consumable.
you have some interesting logic.
you probably never had to purchase film and processing in large amounts
retro99 wrote:
Yes and Im sure A LOT of people are not eager to rush out and spend $229 on the xqd card and buy the $30 reader. So that is almost $300 I will be one to wait also ;(
I question the logic of anyone who buys a $6,000 whose primary benefits are low-light performance and speed, and then balks at an additional $300 (barely 5%) for a key piece of gear to maximize the benefits of that speed.
). my only real comment is on the XQDreviews website. it is new i know but its info on the CF cards is limited and is lacking in all the info to get a full view of their capabilities. Read/Write facts on all the cards shown is needed and under what hardware. 
I will be one to wait also ;(