The point is: we are shooters. Memory cards are just a tool. Better having a tool that works and is handable than one nobody knows about and can not hold it.
If 1D X would have offered 2 SD slots instead of CF - fine ...
If not, they know why ...
It is not realy important, what card slot you offer, when you offer ISO 50k, right?
Who cares about card sizes?
CF is faster. I have sd card fall apart, while cf cards are more rugged and stable. I also believe the spec for SD cards does not allow as a large a card as the cf spec does. I much prefer cf over sd cards.
If not, one still can put a SD into an CF adaptor. What is wrong with that? The opposite is not possible. And at least "1D X" is pro gear. Why should go Nikon the way and implement consumor stuff in its pro segment? They did not. D4 gives yuo one CF and another one in future CF. Where the hell is here SD? Why should a 1D X that overcomes Nikons D 4 in every case, step down here to comfort your consumer level?
at the end of the day ithink it rather funny that the OP is thinking a dual cf body is a step backward when ever since the 1 series has been CF & SD most people have been pleading with Canon to make it Dual CF .
In fact it was one of the Nikon Sticks that people kept beating Canon with when the D3 had 2 CF slots.
big country wrote:
every computer i own now has an sd slot. i have never had an issue w/ speed or reliability of an sd card.
I don't think there's problems with speed or reliability. There are problem is with *delivery*. The 1DX is a pro camera and they make money from images, so they need to get them to their source.
SD cards are fiddly and make the job of delivery more difficult because they're easier to lose, break etc...
I would not buy a camera with small cards as a wedding photographer. I want to know my couple are going to get their images...
I already have a decent investment in SD cards since my point and shoots as well as my 1d2 uses them. I know the 1d2 also uses cf but I never invested in it, but it sounds like it will be time to.
Just to be clear, I dont have a problem either way... cf or sd, I was just curious as to why they went that route, and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer. i understand user preferences, but was looking for a technical reason. Im sure Canon had a perfectly good reason for going that route, I was just curious as to what it was.
Ralph, I havent seen a PC with a CF slot in it for years now!!
mxquattro wrote:
I.. cf or sd, I was just curious as to why they went that route, and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer. i understand user preferences, but was looking for a technical reason. Im sure Canon had a perfectly good reason for going that route, I was just curious as to what it was.
well when you consider that CF has always been regarded as THE photograhy card it makes more sense.
back when the Rebel line went SD (XSi/450D) that was derided by quite a few as not being a 'proper' camera cos it took SD. same went for the 60D (the 50D is CF)
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
well your going to have to get used to it. XQD is coming and its smaller than CF (but bigger than SD)
Am I? This is just another new Sony product still not available telling anibody it is better then CF. And of course much more expensive. Letīs see if Sony maybe this time is able to place a photograpic product that is worth to think about. They did not the last 10 years even they bought the best but bankrupted companies ...
That Nikon made it a way into D4 is just a sign, that they sold their souls to get that sensor.
There I am with Canon staying with themselves offering just the best what is already available for free.
I think 2 CFs is the way to go. I hate having CF and SD on my MK3 and prefer CF over SD. I find the bigger CF cards easier to handle with gloves on and less like to get lost in a bag.
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?
The fastest CF cards are faster than the fastest SD cards. But of course there are plenty of relatively slower CF cards that are not as fast as many newer and larger SD cards. The largest SD card (SDXC spec) is limited to 2TB. The largest CF card according to the latest CF spec is 128PB (=128000TB). The largest fastest CF cards I've seen are 128GB with claimed speeds of 100MB/s. There are UHS SD cards with similar speed claims but not as large a capacity, and there are 128GB SD cards but they are a lot slower (of those that I've seen). The UHS-II spec tops out at over 300MB/s while the latest CF spec (UDMA 7) reaches 167MB/s and the XQD spec reaches 5Gbits/s (about 600MB/s).
After just talking with a friend of mine, he explained to me that CF requires a built in controller to operate, while SD requires the host to be the controller. That being said, the CF requires more power consumption, but he didnt know off hand the differences between the two. That seems like kind of a negative to me. But he also said that with CF having its own controller meant there would be less compatibility issues and potentially better data integrity.
