CF vs. SD cards????

While anticipating the new D800, I'm curious as to why Nikon chose to make the dual card slots different. This does not really make any sense to me. I have alwys used CF cards. Is there any difference in quality/performance between the two types? I have always used CF cards. The only cameras I have have seen use SD cards are point &shoots. Are there any DSLR's that already use SD cards. Anyway, it just kind of bugged me that Nikon did this, and I was wondering if I was getting annoyed over nothing?

Chris

One review I read mentioned that this was done due to lack of space on the body. The SD card slot is smaller in size and it was therefore chosen for the second card slot, instead of going with two CF card slots.

All Canon Rebel series and 60D and most previous iterations use SD cards. My 60D handles all the formats of SD including the faster SDX cards. Don't know about the Nikons. I've never been aware of any difference between SD and CF cards image quality wise. But I know all the higher end DSLRs use the CF cards.

I use all CF cards in my camera and all SD cards in my Tascam digital field recorder, and performance-wise they seem to be the same when I copy over to my PC. The only thing I like about CF over SD is that they are stronger. If I sat my husky build on a wood bench with a memory card in my back pocket, I'd sure prefer it was a CF, lol!


But yes, it'd be nice to have the same format card with dual slots... it's like having to buy the same filters for a different sized lens.

If you're curious about performance, Rob Galbraith compiles a good speed guide for various card/camera combinations.

Basically, there's no real difference between CF and SD cards, and its just a bit of a nuisance. I wish CF would go away and all cards would just go to the SD standard myself, purely because of size and commonality across many devices.

I've never been aware of any difference between SD and CF cards image quality wise.

Well a quality difference would be impossible, since the identical data can be written to both.

I Have the Nikon D7000 and it uses the SD cards in two slots. I don't see any difference in pefrormance between them and the CF card in my D1x. My only complaint is that it is eaiser to misplace one of the SD cards

In my experience with the D300s, which also has both SD and CF slots, there is no quality difference at all. Personally, I appreciate having both type slots, as I have a million 8 GB CF cards from previous Nikons, and would not want to replace them all with SD's.
I suspect it's largely a matter of space available - a SD slot is simply smaller than a second CF slot.
And, frankly, for me and stiff hands in the cold - I'm happier handling the larger CF cards than the thin, tiny SD cards when changing cards.
Sandy

I wanted to add that we are in a great position now to get cards stupid cheap. The race is on for ultra fast cards (latest SanDisk are rated at 100mb/sec for CF and 95mb/sec for SDHC), and all of that has to do with the DSLR video craze. The faster you write video data (which is essentially 24 1920x1080 images per second) the less the camera heats up. I just video'd a wedding two weeks ago and with the 90mb/sec CF cards I use, the camera got warm but not horribly. If I used the 30mb/sec Extreme IIIs of yesteryear the 5D2 would have cooked and my batteries would have worn down in 20 minutes due to lack of UDMA support in the old cards.

What on EARTH does that mean to still photography? CHEAP SLOWER CARDS! When you see a 32gb Kingston for 39 bucks, SD or CF, GRAB IT if you don't shoot video! The cheap price usually means slower speed, but for stills, who cares? The marketing is all video centric now, and stills shooters rejoice. SO, you've got SD and CF? Great, get cheaper slower cards and enjoy the time we're in, lol. Oh, and let's dispell the old wive's tail: 16gb and 32gb cards don't fail faster than smaller ones. 16gb and 32gb cars fail as fast as 2gb cards when not taken care of. Make sure you always COPY from card to PC, never MOVE files from card to PC ("Move" means Copy then Delete), and always always format your card in camera prior to use. And Windows user should eject before pulling it from the card reader. I have bunches of 32's they fail not. I will now put the jinx on myself and say that I never had a card fail, 50,000+ images and 2TB of video footage later. I'm sure the card in my camera will melt tomorrow, but I got this far, so we're good.

How did I get going on THAT tangent?? G'nite folks! Up at 5am!

I agree with Sandy. It's nice to have slots for both SD and CF cards. I was annoyed with Nikon's indecision in the past. My first DSLR, a Nikon D70, used CF cards. When I moved up to a D80, I had to switch to SD cards. Then my D300 went back to CF cards. Arg!

The only exception or warning I might offer, is to consider the type of photography you're shooting. I shoot primarily wildlife, and speed sports and as such I am almost always shooting a 10 fps with my 1D MarkIV, and soon to be 12 fps with the 1Dx I have on order. That's capturing/writing anywhere between 210 - 240 Mbps to the CF card. For that reason I have always opted to get my hands on the fastest cards available, not the slowest. However, there are far more other genres of still photography where capture/write speed is of little concern.

Garry Revesz
Toronto, Canada

All my Nikon bodies use CF and I appreciate that I don't need to stock two formats. I also think the larger form factor of the CF cards makes them easier to handle.

However, a friend who still works at Intel here tells me that the physical interface (the pins) for CF cards were not originally designed for repeated change out of cards and that the interface on the smaller SD cards was designed with that in mind. I've never seen that claim documented in a published article (or even on a web site) but it would be interesting to hear from anyone with more knowledge on that.

When I first got my D300s I didn't like having to buy SD cards in addition to my existing CF cards. Now, however, I'm a fan. The built-in card reader on my computer reads SD but not CF. Now I just pop the SD card out of the camera into the computer. No more messing around with cables and external card readers. It's a small thing but downloading images to the computer is just that much more pleasant a task.

One significant benefit for SD is that Apple computers now come with a build in SD card reader. That saves money on additional hardware assuming you're willing to pay the extra bit for the Mac.

One advantage to the CF cards is that it is much less likely that you will damage the in camera slot with the CF cards. I have read many stories about bent pins with CF cards. Having said that, I am invested in CF cards and would probably resent being forced to change them all :-)