Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: pedz on December 20, 2006, 11:30:33 pm
-
I want to replace my Hitachi 4G CF cards. I've grown to just not trust them.
I was looking at the 2G SD cards -- Sandisk Ultra II probably. But then I noticed that there is a 4G version for roughly the same dollars per byte. So I started reading and it mentioned that things have to change when going to 4G and now they are called SDHC, blah blah blah. So, I got to wondering if the Canon firmware can support 4G in the SD card. (I know it can on the CF card but the SD card may be a different critter -- in fact it sounds like it is.)
Has anyone tried it?
Thanks.
-
Perry,
Obvously you have not read the What's New page on this very site.
Canon has announced a firmware upgrade to allow SDHC cards over 2 gig as of today. Just follow the links.
Check it out.
Rich
-
I've already seen one report that the firmware update also allows in-camera formatting of 4GB SD (not SDHC) cards.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I've already seen one report that the firmware update also allows in-camera formatting of 4GB SD (not SDHC) cards.
It does -- my 4gb non-sdhc cards now format in the 1dsII.
- N.
-
In that case, given that I understand the new 4GB SDHC cards are both slower and more expensive than the older 4GB SD cards, there would seem to be little point in buying the SDHC's. Of course, when the 8GB versions start becoming available at reasonable speeds and prices this will change.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
In that case, given that I understand the new 4GB SDHC cards are both slower and more expensive than the older 4GB SD cards, there would seem to be little point in buying the SDHC's. Of course, when the 8GB versions start becoming available at reasonable speeds and prices this will change.
This is a feature (or bug, if you like) of FAT, where performance is the loser as file system sizes grow.
It's easy to say now, but the memory cards would probably have been better served performance wise with UFS or a similar, simple file system, which scales better.
But FAT was an easier choice to make, most likely because it's supported natively by every Windows version, as well as by MacOS X and most unixes.
The performance per size argument was also used against the 2 GB cards over 1 GB cards, and as you can see in Rob Galbraith's performance database (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007), 1 GB cards still win.
Personally, I prefer 2 GB cards with my 20D, because at 8 megapixels, 150-200 images is approximately the highest amount of images I'm willing to lose in one go. (Not that I'm really willing to lose images, but, well.) For a 1Ds MkII, I'd probably still use my 2 GB cards for the time being, but buy new cards in 4 GB. And for one of those 39 megapixel digital backs, I'd certainly consider 4 GB, 8 GB or 16 GB cards.
-
Different strokes. With 12GB in my 1D Mark II's, I can shoot an entire sporting event — sometimes two — in RAW without having to open the camera in the field. I consider that a significant advantage. And if the shoot is something mission-critical, I can put the camera in backup mode and have all my eggs duplicated in two baskets.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)