SD cards are uncomfortably small, I wouldn't want to try and handle them with gloves on. I don't see any benefit in the smaller size.
They aren't really faster for the most part, in camera - note that only the two top rated SD cards are faster than the fastest CF cards - well, I calling notably faster, anyway - I don't think 1/4 megabite/sec difference, or therabouts, to be significant...
I guess they have a slight edge, according to these tests from June 2006, but they are dependent on the in camera software/interface, so this will all change for the next camera. I don't see enough of a real world difference to force you to use a format you aren't comfortable with....
wtlloyd wrote:
SD cards are uncomfortably small, I wouldn't want to try and handle them with gloves on. I don't see any benefit in the smaller size.
.
I can think of one time I used SD over CF specifically. Client needed a shot "right away."
Shot it in camera .jpg, popped the SD card into my Palm Treo 700p, and literally in a farm field in Iowa, sent it as an email attachment. 10 minutes after I captured it in Iowa, they had it edited into a video in North Carolina. Yes, it could have been done differently, but this method was fast, efficient and free.
It makes sense for the lower line camera to begin to move to SD. But that doesn't mean CF wont work. Two slots, or more likely a supplied adapter that can remain in-camera. By providing both, the line can be moved to SD after several generations.
Or memory stick. I really like expensive, proprietary Sony solutions.
toni-a wrote:
I couldn't read all what was written in this thread but IMHO, I think Canon will work on the revival of the DO concept.
600 or 800mm f5.6 DO IS is very likely for me.
I guess also that Canon 100-400 is due to be replaced maybe a 100-400 DO IS.
OTOH we might see more IS lenses.
1.6crop camera users have the excellent 17-55f2.8 IS, full frame users just have 24-105f4 IS so a standard fast zoom with IS seems very likely what about Canon 24-70f2.8 IS or would they finally release the monster lens they decided not to put on the market: 28-135f2.8 IS.
Zeiss 21mmf2.8 is doing very well, Canon competitor 20mmf2.8 isn't up to the job, so maybe we could see a new Canon 20mm f1.8 L ...Show more →
You're far too confident in Canon R&D putting out something adventurous like any of the models you've suggested above. They're far more likely to finally release it after every other manufacturer does it. There is NO way they will release a 28-135 2.8 IS. Tamron sold a 28-105 2.8 for a while and it never really caught on and it was built pretty awkwardly as well. Performance was average. I think if Canon were to make one it would be for crop bodies and probably similar to the Nikon 18-135 in the sense that it's not f/2.8. Maybe f/4, thats a lot more conservative.
The Canon 20 2.8 is decent. It was a lot better on film. If you want a 20 1.8, why not try the EXCELLENT Sigma one? If Canon releases one, it'll be after Nikon releases a whole line of new primes, and it probably won't be as good. On the other hand, I have a feeling if Canon made an EF-S 22 f/1.4 USM and an EF-S 30 f/1.4 USM it would be wonderful. I'm not sure how many of those hypothetical primes would sell, since Canon would easily charge over $600 for each.
I don't know why people are against a move to SD. There's not any serious disadvantages to the format compared to CF especially with SDHC available now, but how many people regularly use more than 2GB cards anyway. The "don't put all your eggs in one basket" quote often comes up. But anyhow, that's no longer going to be a limit as all future cameras supporting SD should support SDHC.
As for reliability, I've yet to see anywhere that has conclusive evidence that either format is more reliable than the other. I've subjected both types of media to various types of abuse and they seem about equally resilient to me, and I haven't seen anything on the net or elsewhere that points to one being better in this regard.
That pretty much leaves only size. Well, for the camera designer SD is preferable in this regard as it leaves more space for other electronics. As for users, it's pretty much a wash I think. Some prefer one format over the other, others don't really care either way.
Personally I think with the demise of widespread use of microdrives and decline in CF use in general among other devices, DSLRs will move to SD. If not in this upcoming generation, then perhaps the next.
kisielk wrote:
I don't know why people are against a move to SD. There's not any serious disadvantages to the format compared to CF especially with SDHC available now, but how many people regularly use more than 2GB cards anyway. The "don't put all your eggs in one basket" quote often comes up. But anyhow, that's no longer going to be a limit as all future cameras supporting SD should support SDHC.
Did you actually read what people reasoned? Flimsy build, small size hard to handle and easy to drop, etc. Simply because it doesn't represent a problem for you, it doesn't mean it doesn't represent a problem for the rest of us.
As for size: I use 8GB cards exclusively, and will switch to 16GB as soon as they are available in Extreme IV flavor. Again, just because you are afraid to put all your eggs in a basket doesn't mean that other people aren't, or that they are wrong / stupid / reckless. It's a calculated risk that everyone has to answer for themselves. A 2GB card gives me 100 shots, which is pretty much useless - to me.
YMMV. Don't imply from your needs upon the needs, or perceived needs, of others.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, I always suspected it and my wife keeps telling this to me but now I know for sure: I am not a normal person....
In mathematics, where things are defined with precision, normal means "being at right angles". Thus a person standing on the floor at right angles is normal, whereas a person resting horizontally on the floor is not at all normal. People try to meet the definition for nomal and buy beds for horizontal activities ...
stanj wrote:
Did you actually read what people reasoned? Flimsy build, small size hard to handle and easy to drop, etc. Simply because it doesn't represent a problem for you, it doesn't mean it doesn't represent a problem for the rest of us.
Well sorry, I wasn't speaking just from personal experience, but obviously you didn't read what I wrote. Where's the proof that SD cards are any more flimsy or susceptible to damage than CF?
As for size: I use 8GB cards exclusively, and will switch to 16GB as soon as they are available in Extreme IV flavor. Again, just because you are afraid to put all your eggs in a basket doesn't mean that other people aren't, or that they are wrong / stupid / reckless. It's a calculated risk that everyone has to answer for themselves. A 2GB card gives me 100 shots, which is pretty much useless - to me.
I also never said that other people don't use larger sizes, just based on my observation most people are still favoring lower capacity media. Again, as I said, it's a moot point anyway since SDHC supports up to 32GB size cards.
I'm not implying needs on anyone, but it's not hard to tell that there's a shift in the industry away from the CF format and towards SD.
Perhaps already discussed (I can't keep up with this thread!)
If Canon is coming out with a 40D, can we hope for dedicated buttons for Mirror Lock-up and ISO? How about a little dust/moisture sealing...doesn't have to be 1-series league.
I think if Canon can come out with a camera with combined features of the D200 and K10D, with some dedicated ISO and MLU buttons, and priced reasonably, they'd sell a ton (I'd buy one). I'm not sure they need to add megapixels or speed. If they would listen to photographers and work on ergonomics and functionality, it would make some Canon-ites (like me) more loyal (and they'd sell more cameras).
Oh, and how about DNG file format too? (wishful thinking)
kisielk wrote:
Well sorry, I wasn't speaking just from personal experience, but obviously you didn't read what I wrote. Where's the proof that SD cards are any more flimsy or susceptible to damage than CF?
Empirical evidence: one day of a CF card in my pocket, vs. one day of a SD card in the same pocket. Throw a cell phone, car keys, and some change into the mix. Try it yourself, and report back.
I also never said that other people don't use larger sizes, just based on my observation most people are still favoring lower capacity media. Again, as I said, it's a moot point anyway since SDHC supports up to 32GB size cards.
I can have a 16GB CF card today. Can you say the same for SD? By the time you will, I will have a 32GB CF card. And so on. Size (usually) matters, in more ways than one.
The biggest advantage that SD cards present over the CF cards is the contact interface.
CF card pins bend and break. I've been to countless photo print machines in various Costco's and Kinko's around the country, to find the photo kiosk machine is not accepting CF cards because someone jammed their CF card in wrong and bent the leading ground pins over.
SD cards, with their sliding tab contacts, do not have that problem.
It's just like the new SATA hard drive interface, with sliding tabs, instead of the old technology pin to hole interface of IDE.
It seems that all the newer design interfaces are of the sliding tensioned spring tab type (Firewire, USB, SATA, SD, etc). This makes a lot of sense to me, to maintain a high reinsertion cycle life without physical pin failure.
In this regard, the SD cards are far more robust and trouble free.
kisielk wrote:
Well sorry, I wasn't speaking just from personal experience, but obviously you didn't read what I wrote. Where's the proof that SD cards are any more flimsy or susceptible to damage than CF?
[...]
Card-wise, the SD format is more susceptible to damage than CF, and that's purely because of its format/design. SD has open contacts, so the risk of static discharge into the contacts is much bigger, and there is much less plastic to protect the flash chips themselves. Several people have had to pry the bottom part, the bit below the contacts, out of the slot separately because that part got separated during card extraction.
In defense of SD, there is the greatly reduced possibility of bending pins. But that's the slot-side of the equation, not the card.
With a SD to CF converter, the performance speed is not high, something around 1 Mb/sg (speaking by memory), but if you doesn´t shoot at high FPS, is enough.
Make search in E-Bay for "SD to CF converter" and you will be able to find someone
