I know I am bucking the trend – I know camera manufacturers aren’t going to listen to me – but I am going to say it anyway – PLEASE stop making DSLRs that rely on SD cards.
They are a hassle – plain and simple.
On my recent Florida trip I suffered my first ever flash media failure. It was a San Disk Ultra II SD card. Fortunately I didn’t lose any images. But the card failed to format after my last download of images from it to Aperture.
I tried formatting the card in different cameras with no luck. The card is toast. It’s no big deal. It was a 2GB SD card. They’re a dime a dozen. But the problem is that these cards are so fragile and flimsy, they’re much more prone to failure. Perhaps I squeezed the card too hard when I pulled it from the reader. Perhaps it bent slightly when I put it into the camera. There are lots of potential explanations. No matter what the cause – it failed.
I have been using CF cards since the late 90s. I’ve literally owned more than 100 such cards. None of them has ever failed — ever. I even put one in the washer and dryer once (accidentally mind you) and it still worked.
Another problem I have with SD cards is their small size. They’re easier to lose (I lost one on this recent trip too. I simply can’t find it and they’re so small, who knows where it could be?) They’re also hard to hold on to, which makes them easy to drop in the field. When you work in some of the environments I work in, i.e., outdoors, in the sand, at the beach, etc., dropping a memory card isn’t a fun experience. Oh yeah, I did that too when I was in Florida.
So I managed to drop a card, misplace a card and have another card go bad. All of them were SD cards. NONE of them were Type II CF cards. I admit I’ve dropped a few CF cards, but never lost one. And given the number of cards and times I handle them, I’ve dropped about 20,000 percent more SD cards than Type II CF cards
I also admit that I don’t often use the SD cards. I was testing the D90 during the workshop and the darn thing ONLY works with SD cards, so I had no choice. While I
Post is made possible by sponsorship from:
Lensbaby
If the pros end up with SD (which I doubt they will) then manufacturers will make pro SD cards …right?
If the pros end up with SD (which I doubt they will) then manufacturers will make pro SD cards …right?
I have to agree with you Scott, I can understand the D40 and D60 using SD cards as they will mostly be used by people moving up from point and shoots who already have SD cards. I have the D90, and its great, but they should have moved to it CF!
Good point, well made!
I have to agree with you Scott, I can understand the D40 and D60 using SD cards as they will mostly be used by people moving up from point and shoots who already have SD cards. I have the D90, and its great, but they should have moved to it CF!
Good point, well made!
I hate to disagree with you, since you are far more experience working in the field. But I really hope that SD cards DO become the ubiquitous format going forward. These are my reasons:
1. Primarily, I like the idea because it will mean I can stop carrying around multiple formats for multiple cameras. My wife and I often carry around an SLR and our LX3 or other point-and-shoot, and it is just nice to be able to carry around 1 extra card for whichever camera may need it, rather than 2. We now have an XSi just for this reason.
2. I don’t like the pin structure CF cards rely on. I am always afraid of bending one which may be difficult to fix. Also, since the pins are on the camera-side, rather than the card-side, I couldn’t just run out and buy a new card.
3. Almost all laptops have SD card slots now (even netbooks), so I don’t have to carry around a card reader with me. I have a terrible habit of loosing exactly the reader I need at the time I need it, so not having to carry it around – and potentially loose it – is wonderful.
4. I also have washed an SD card, and it too was fine. The card format is sealed and very weather-resistant.
5. They are extremely cheap. I have recently been buying 3-packs of 8GB Sandisk Extreme III’s for (this is true) $0. That’s right. When the rebates come back (which they always have up to this point), they are free!
6. I prefer smaller cards. it doesn’t bug me in the slightest, and it means I can slip one in my wallet all the time just to have an extra around.
This is not to say my preference is better than anyone else’s, but SD-convergence definitely has its benefits as well.
I hate to disagree with you, since you are far more experience working in the field. But I really hope that SD cards DO become the ubiquitous format going forward. These are my reasons:
1. Primarily, I like the idea because it will mean I can stop carrying around multiple formats for multiple cameras. My wife and I often carry around an SLR and our LX3 or other point-and-shoot, and it is just nice to be able to carry around 1 extra card for whichever camera may need it, rather than 2. We now have an XSi just for this reason.
2. I don’t like the pin structure CF cards rely on. I am always afraid of bending one which may be difficult to fix. Also, since the pins are on the camera-side, rather than the card-side, I couldn’t just run out and buy a new card.
3. Almost all laptops have SD card slots now (even netbooks), so I don’t have to carry around a card reader with me. I have a terrible habit of loosing exactly the reader I need at the time I need it, so not having to carry it around – and potentially loose it – is wonderful.
4. I also have washed an SD card, and it too was fine. The card format is sealed and very weather-resistant.
5. They are extremely cheap. I have recently been buying 3-packs of 8GB Sandisk Extreme III’s for (this is true) $0. That’s right. When the rebates come back (which they always have up to this point), they are free!
6. I prefer smaller cards. it doesn’t bug me in the slightest, and it means I can slip one in my wallet all the time just to have an extra around.
This is not to say my preference is better than anyone else’s, but SD-convergence definitely has its benefits as well.
I actually kind of agree.
Now I came from using SD cards – I have never had any issue with either card, but a CF just ‘feels’ more robust to me. Of course, CF cards, if you disregard handling due to size, DO have more avenues to ‘fail’ theoretically – they have little holes to get particles in, and the sockets have pins that can be bent.
I’m not sure you can blame SD for being at fault for the failure, however. I know it’s your user experience, and I would probably feel the same, but you may as well blame San Disk, or the Ultra II name – a single instance of failure is a bit premature to make any conclusions.
I do agree that dSLRs should shy away- there’s no need to go SD for size – there’s plenty of room in a body. There’s no real logical reason for me – I just like the chunkiness of CF (and I actually have other SD equipment).
Scott, have you seen miniSD, and the even smaller microSD? The latter is like the size of your pinky fingernail, and maybe 1-2mm thin. Literally, these can be eaten without much thought – there’re even warnings on the packet – now THOSE are tiny. They ARE meant for cellphones, though.
I actually kind of agree.
Now I came from using SD cards – I have never had any issue with either card, but a CF just ‘feels’ more robust to me. Of course, CF cards, if you disregard handling due to size, DO have more avenues to ‘fail’ theoretically – they have little holes to get particles in, and the sockets have pins that can be bent.
I’m not sure you can blame SD for being at fault for the failure, however. I know it’s your user experience, and I would probably feel the same, but you may as well blame San Disk, or the Ultra II name – a single instance of failure is a bit premature to make any conclusions.
I do agree that dSLRs should shy away- there’s no need to go SD for size – there’s plenty of room in a body. There’s no real logical reason for me – I just like the chunkiness of CF (and I actually have other SD equipment).
Scott, have you seen miniSD, and the even smaller microSD? The latter is like the size of your pinky fingernail, and maybe 1-2mm thin. Literally, these can be eaten without much thought – there’re even warnings on the packet – now THOSE are tiny. They ARE meant for cellphones, though.
I went from the point and shoot with xD to the d40x with SD to the D300 with CF type II. At first I was put off by the larger size of CF but over time find them much more convenient.
From a hardware point of view the memory card slot isn’t the driving factor in camera size and form factor at the pro level and you can put more guts into the bigger CF type II size memory cards.
Perhaps my CF cards will end up being stored with all the 8-tracks, Cassette Tapes, and VHS tapes some day. Time will tell.
Kieth you will probably get your wish. I agree CF Type II cards aren’t perfect either. But then again, I’ve never had one fail. I never LIKED SD cards before. But I never had anything against them either. But having one fail was the last straw for me. You make good points, and as I say, I know I am bucking the trend.
Kieth you will probably get your wish. I agree CF Type II cards aren’t perfect either. But then again, I’ve never had one fail. I never LIKED SD cards before. But I never had anything against them either. But having one fail was the last straw for me. You make good points, and as I say, I know I am bucking the trend.
I haven’t seen the tiny cards you talk about but have heard of them. If the cameras start using those – I’ll probably get over my urge to upgrade because I’m thinking I’ll stick with shooting cameras that work with CF cards.
I haven’t seen the tiny cards you talk about but have heard of them. If the cameras start using those – I’ll probably get over my urge to upgrade because I’m thinking I’ll stick with shooting cameras that work with CF cards.
I completely agree. I had my first CF card fail about six weeks ago. Unfortunately, I lost about 100 images, but none were critical. Kingston promptly replaced it for free under warranty. Although, I’ve never experienced a failure with an SD card, they are indeed too small and more likely to get lost. My guess is that both are pretty reliable, but I’d worry a lot more with SD cards in my SLR’s.
The main point for me is robustness. As Scott said, CF cards are tough. A lot tougher than the SD cards. I don’t know about the rest of you, but sometimes my cards end up on the ground and under foot. Yes, thats my problem, but I sure like a card that can withstand that! I hope the CF cards remain on the PRO cameras.
The main point for me is robustness. As Scott said, CF cards are tough. A lot tougher than the SD cards. I don’t know about the rest of you, but sometimes my cards end up on the ground and under foot. Yes, thats my problem, but I sure like a card that can withstand that! I hope the CF cards remain on the PRO cameras.
Hey now Mike go easy on the 8-track jokes. Some of us still remember the good old days as good :)
Hey now Mike go easy on the 8-track jokes. Some of us still remember the good old days as good :)
I agree that MicroSD is definitely too small to use regularly in a camera, I have borrowed my cellphone MicroSD (with an SD adapter) once in a pinch. I was so glad I was able to make due with it at the time, but I would only consider using it as a last resort. For the life of me, I will never figure out how they can now fit 16GB onto a card you can literally hide under an Altoid.
I agree that MicroSD is definitely too small to use regularly in a camera, I have borrowed my cellphone MicroSD (with an SD adapter) once in a pinch. I was so glad I was able to make due with it at the time, but I would only consider using it as a last resort. For the life of me, I will never figure out how they can now fit 16GB onto a card you can literally hide under an Altoid.
I’ve had plenty of CF cards fail on me in the past few years, but to be honest, an SD card has never failed on me. I guess in any media format there are just duds occasionally. Personally I like CF better simply because they are less easy to lose! lol
I’ve had plenty of CF cards fail on me in the past few years, but to be honest, an SD card has never failed on me. I guess in any media format there are just duds occasionally. Personally I like CF better simply because they are less easy to lose! lol
I honestly don’t care whether it’s SD or CF, but I’m not a pro so my livelihood doesn’t depend on my photos. Worst case I loose a couple of good memories. Sad as that may be, it’s not the end of the world. However
I just want to point out that: I never had any issues with SD. I always use Sandisk Ultra II for my D90 and I have a few older Dane-elec Sd cards as well for my compact. Never dropped them, never lost any, never bent one, never lost a single image. Mind you I haven’t tried washing one either ;-)
I honestly don’t care whether it’s SD or CF, but I’m not a pro so my livelihood doesn’t depend on my photos. Worst case I loose a couple of good memories. Sad as that may be, it’s not the end of the world. However
I just want to point out that: I never had any issues with SD. I always use Sandisk Ultra II for my D90 and I have a few older Dane-elec Sd cards as well for my compact. Never dropped them, never lost any, never bent one, never lost a single image. Mind you I haven’t tried washing one either ;-)
Agreed sir, agreed!
You could always get the EyeFi SD card, have it setup an adhoc with your iphone (if you have one) then have it routinely transfer your photos back home. No need to swap out the cards as pics will be transfered on the fly as you take them (I haven’t tried this scenario but it sure does sound like it would be neat.)
Worse comes to worse couldn’t the make an CF adapter which would take SD cards? It would be easier to do that than the other way then you wouldn’t have to compete for which standard to use (card reader standard that is).
Don’t you mean CF Type I? The difference between the two is that Type I cards are 3.3mm thick while Type II cards are 5mm thick. Type II CF cards have been used almost exclusively as Microdrives (incredible small spinning hard drives inside a CF card).
As far as I know, Microdrives exist in up to 8GB capacities but are much harder to find, read and write slower, and are more prone to degradation when used in a camera (they aren’t solid state, bumps and movement that occur during use could damage the drive)
That being said, Microdrives can be recovered easier than standard Type I CF cards because programs like SpinRite – designed to recover desktop and laptop hard drives – works amazingly well on these beasts.
So, CF Type I or Type II? :)
Don’t you mean CF Type I? The difference between the two is that Type I cards are 3.3mm thick while Type II cards are 5mm thick. Type II CF cards have been used almost exclusively as Microdrives (incredible small spinning hard drives inside a CF card).
As far as I know, Microdrives exist in up to 8GB capacities but are much harder to find, read and write slower, and are more prone to degradation when used in a camera (they aren’t solid state, bumps and movement that occur during use could damage the drive)
That being said, Microdrives can be recovered easier than standard Type I CF cards because programs like SpinRite – designed to recover desktop and laptop hard drives – works amazingly well on these beasts.
So, CF Type I or Type II? :)
You are a proponent of “Type II CF” cards? You probably havent bought a type II CF card in a very long time (relatively) Type II CF cards are the thicker variety that were required in the microdrive days, but any current card offering is a Type I CF Card. This may seem minor but CF type II is near extinct because it isnt necessary.
As for robustness of the card, your point is taken but also a bit off the mark. Talk to any camera repair facility and check on the cost of replacing the CF socket in a DSLR. You will find it over $100 for almost any camera, and even more $ or totally impossible for other cameras.
I would rather have my $35 4 GB card fail rather than my DSLR needing a $100 service visit because of a bent pin..
CF cards have sockets that collect debris in your pocket and then get jammed into the socket or bend the pis in the camera itself.
Wouldnt you rather have a single card fail and have the ability to continue with a new card than have the failure be catastrophic and take the camera out of commision till service, we all probably have more spare cards compared to spar cameras…
Further, SD cards have met CF in speed concerns, and ALL flash memory will fail, there is a finite number of writes for EVERY FLASH CARD… Maybe your SD card reached its end of life…
You are a proponent of “Type II CF” cards? You probably havent bought a type II CF card in a very long time (relatively) Type II CF cards are the thicker variety that were required in the microdrive days, but any current card offering is a Type I CF Card. This may seem minor but CF type II is near extinct because it isnt necessary.
As for robustness of the card, your point is taken but also a bit off the mark. Talk to any camera repair facility and check on the cost of replacing the CF socket in a DSLR. You will find it over $100 for almost any camera, and even more $ or totally impossible for other cameras.
I would rather have my $35 4 GB card fail rather than my DSLR needing a $100 service visit because of a bent pin..
CF cards have sockets that collect debris in your pocket and then get jammed into the socket or bend the pis in the camera itself.
Wouldnt you rather have a single card fail and have the ability to continue with a new card than have the failure be catastrophic and take the camera out of commision till service, we all probably have more spare cards compared to spar cameras…
Further, SD cards have met CF in speed concerns, and ALL flash memory will fail, there is a finite number of writes for EVERY FLASH CARD… Maybe your SD card reached its end of life…
I think the current popular CF standard of card is type I, even if the cameras often take type II as well. It’s the microdrives (miniature mechanical hard drives) that are usually type II.
Otherwise, I agree. CF cards seem to be available in faster speeds and are available in higher capacities sooner than any other kind. As long as they have that edge, you’ll keep seeing them in the pro cameras.
I think the current popular CF standard of card is type I, even if the cameras often take type II as well. It’s the microdrives (miniature mechanical hard drives) that are usually type II.
Otherwise, I agree. CF cards seem to be available in faster speeds and are available in higher capacities sooner than any other kind. As long as they have that edge, you’ll keep seeing them in the pro cameras.
I agree. CF cards my choice also.
Few more days till PMA!
I agree. CF cards my choice also.
Few more days till PMA!
Scott,
Consider yourself lucky that you’ve owned so many of them and you’re complaining about your first failure. Also even if you format the card and get format errors there are many (some expense) image recovery options. As I’m sure you know, when you format it doesn’t actually erase your data. Even if you have a memory card with bad sectors the data will still primarily be there. I’ve used many in the past and they work moderately well.
A lot of Windows/Linux machines have built in card-readers which is where the SD comes in handy. I have yet to find one that does have a built in CF card reader.
Scott,
Consider yourself lucky that you’ve owned so many of them and you’re complaining about your first failure. Also even if you format the card and get format errors there are many (some expense) image recovery options. As I’m sure you know, when you format it doesn’t actually erase your data. Even if you have a memory card with bad sectors the data will still primarily be there. I’ve used many in the past and they work moderately well.
A lot of Windows/Linux machines have built in card-readers which is where the SD comes in handy. I have yet to find one that does have a built in CF card reader.
Fixed the typo in the title – should read Type I not Type II.
Fixed the typo in the title – should read Type I not Type II.
Steve the SD card was nearly new.
Steve the SD card was nearly new.
Scott,
I totally agree and I sure wish the CF cards were to be the standard in the future. Just handllng them is easier especially in the dark.
Scott,
I totally agree and I sure wish the CF cards were to be the standard in the future. Just handllng them is easier especially in the dark.
Another aspect is speed. I don’t know the technical details, but CF cards have vastly better write speeds – a big issue to me.
I quite agree about the fragility of SD cards. My wife had intermittent problems with several in her P&S camera. I looked closely and noticed that the I/O pads had tiny plastic separator ridges. Several of these had come loose on multiple cards, they would randomly block the pads in the camera or reader. I tore them off and then the cards were OK. But it scares me silly to think about tiny bits of plastic floating around inside a camera.
I agree that CF cards appear more robust. SD cards are OK, but they always feel a little more fragile. Thanks to the small size of SD cards, I’ve fumbled with and dropped them more than once.
My Canon DSLR uses CF, but I already have trouble finding a good selection of CF cards are big box electronics stores. I hope it’s not a harbinger of things to come.
I agree that CF cards appear more robust. SD cards are OK, but they always feel a little more fragile. Thanks to the small size of SD cards, I’ve fumbled with and dropped them more than once.
My Canon DSLR uses CF, but I already have trouble finding a good selection of CF cards are big box electronics stores. I hope it’s not a harbinger of things to come.
Scott,
The CF cards are much more universal that you might think, too. Their interface is just a modified pin-out for IDE/PATA computer hard drives. With a simple adapter (contains no electronics, just wire traces), a CF card can be used as a computer hard drive. They are actually used for this purpose in a lot of embedded designs because the cards work in just about any environment and at almost any temperatures without fail.
They are also faster than SD cards, even when looking at the “standard speed” varieties of each. A good example of this is the Canon XSi / XTi. The XTi is older and uses CF cards, and can record 10 RAW images before filling up its buffer. The XSi – newer and using SD cards – can only record 6 RAW images before filling its buffer.
CF is evolving, too. a new spec based on SATA hard drive communications has been announced called CFast. This new replacement to CF cards will not be backwards compatible however – so don’t jump for joy just yet. CFast cards and equipment that use them are expected to be out by the end of the year.
Scott,
The CF cards are much more universal that you might think, too. Their interface is just a modified pin-out for IDE/PATA computer hard drives. With a simple adapter (contains no electronics, just wire traces), a CF card can be used as a computer hard drive. They are actually used for this purpose in a lot of embedded designs because the cards work in just about any environment and at almost any temperatures without fail.
They are also faster than SD cards, even when looking at the “standard speed” varieties of each. A good example of this is the Canon XSi / XTi. The XTi is older and uses CF cards, and can record 10 RAW images before filling up its buffer. The XSi – newer and using SD cards – can only record 6 RAW images before filling its buffer.
CF is evolving, too. a new spec based on SATA hard drive communications has been announced called CFast. This new replacement to CF cards will not be backwards compatible however – so don’t jump for joy just yet. CFast cards and equipment that use them are expected to be out by the end of the year.
I’ve had tons of SD cards and none of them have ever failed. I guess it’s a matter of how they suit each person.
I’ve had tons of SD cards and none of them have ever failed. I guess it’s a matter of how they suit each person.
PREACH IT, SCOTT!
I dread the day I need to start keeping track of CF cards at weddings and location shoots.
PITA – so small and fragile.
It scares me to death
PREACH IT, SCOTT!
I dread the day I need to start keeping track of CF cards at weddings and location shoots.
PITA – so small and fragile.
It scares me to death
i mean SD cards
i mean SD cards
Of the many media cards I have had over the years, the only one’s I have ever had an issue with were SD cards, heck I still have the original 32 MB Nikon CF card that cam with my CoolPix 5000.
My 1 GB IBM MicroDrive (Type II CF) still works with out issue, though slow as a dog compared to a SanDisk Extreme III.
The thing I don’t like about SD cards are the exposed contacts, great design in that they are basically self cleaning (every time they get inserted they are cleaned by friction), but this also makes them more susceptible to static when stored not in a case.
You will pry my CF cards from my cold dead hands!
Of the many media cards I have had over the years, the only one’s I have ever had an issue with were SD cards, heck I still have the original 32 MB Nikon CF card that cam with my CoolPix 5000.
My 1 GB IBM MicroDrive (Type II CF) still works with out issue, though slow as a dog compared to a SanDisk Extreme III.
The thing I don’t like about SD cards are the exposed contacts, great design in that they are basically self cleaning (every time they get inserted they are cleaned by friction), but this also makes them more susceptible to static when stored not in a case.
You will pry my CF cards from my cold dead hands!
I did have a scare with a CF card in the past. My Canon Rebel XT was malfunctioning due to a corrupt card. There was no indication it was the card causing the problem and it took sending it to Canon 3 times before the issue was resolved. The card, once placed into the camera, wouldn’t let the camera turn on. I’ve never had this problem with SD cards, knock on wood. Plus, as you said, their cheap.
Scott-I hope your right. I like the CF media format. I only have a couple argurments:
1) is that I have ruined a couple CF card readers (those little pins bend so easy), though I suppose card reader failure is in favor of losing a card with images on it.
2) CF cards are far less available than SD.
3) CF cards are way more expensive ( I suppose that doesn’t matter to some) than the SD card.
Scott-I hope your right. I like the CF media format. I only have a couple argurments:
1) is that I have ruined a couple CF card readers (those little pins bend so easy), though I suppose card reader failure is in favor of losing a card with images on it.
2) CF cards are far less available than SD.
3) CF cards are way more expensive ( I suppose that doesn’t matter to some) than the SD card.
Wait a minute… It’s obvious to me after reading this thread:
1. FLASH as a memory technology is reliable
2. FLASH is cheap
So, why isn’t the logical conclusion; build FLASH into the camera. Sure, you can still have CF/SD slots, whatever, for transfer or backup. Point is, let the camera natively store most of what anyone needs (I know this adds cost, but it may be a value add feature). Manufacturers could make FLASH downloading wireless or as fast (or faster) than a good card reader. Wouldn’t this stop a lot of fumbling with cards?
Or, am I missing something?
…bill
Wait a minute… It’s obvious to me after reading this thread:
1. FLASH as a memory technology is reliable
2. FLASH is cheap
So, why isn’t the logical conclusion; build FLASH into the camera. Sure, you can still have CF/SD slots, whatever, for transfer or backup. Point is, let the camera natively store most of what anyone needs (I know this adds cost, but it may be a value add feature). Manufacturers could make FLASH downloading wireless or as fast (or faster) than a good card reader. Wouldn’t this stop a lot of fumbling with cards?
Or, am I missing something?
…bill
I cant stress this enough: !!! NEVER use SpinRite on any kind of Flash Media !!!
SpinRite is wonderful, but it is designed only for magnetic media such as hard drives and will kill flash media. This is because it operates by reading and writing sectors many thousands of times to test the recoverability. Hard drives can handle this just fine, but flash media wears out after only a thousand re-writes (or less). Now, I understand that a Microdrive is apparently magnetically-based, but I just want to make sure anyone who reads this comment doesn’t get confused into thinking microdrives/CF/SD were the same type of media. I can’t even be sure SpinRite should be used with Microdrives either.
I cant stress this enough: !!! NEVER use SpinRite on any kind of Flash Media !!!
SpinRite is wonderful, but it is designed only for magnetic media such as hard drives and will kill flash media. This is because it operates by reading and writing sectors many thousands of times to test the recoverability. Hard drives can handle this just fine, but flash media wears out after only a thousand re-writes (or less). Now, I understand that a Microdrive is apparently magnetically-based, but I just want to make sure anyone who reads this comment doesn’t get confused into thinking microdrives/CF/SD were the same type of media. I can’t even be sure SpinRite should be used with Microdrives either.
Scott,
I could see where you’d be really upset at losing your data/card for the first time. I can also see how easy it is to blame the type of card you were using. However, I tend to think this was more of a coincidence. I’ve been using SD cards for years and have never had a problem. In fact, for more then a year I’ve been using the foldable SD cards. These are great because you pop the card out of your camera, fold it in half and exposed is a usb connector that you just plug right into your computer. No need for a card reader (which you always needs for CF) and all you need is a device that accepts USB. The other benefit (as other posters have pointed out) is that everything accepts SD now a days from phones, to point and shoots, to DSLR’s, to notebooks, to printers, even LCD and Plasma screens. Sad to say but I can’t imagine the CF card hanging around much longer. Just my two cents….
LOL – photographers will do ANYTHING for a chance to pick a side and argue when it comes to gear. More comments on this thread than many we’ve posted about more serious subjects. You gotta love it :)
LOL – photographers will do ANYTHING for a chance to pick a side and argue when it comes to gear. More comments on this thread than many we’ve posted about more serious subjects. You gotta love it :)
I’m hoping that once huge SD card chips get tiny and cheap, we’ll start seeing cards with RAID like redundancy built into them. Imagine an SD card with at least 2 SD memory chips embedded inside and a special processor in it to handle mirroring. This would make the card really reliable. Of course , we also need to move away from the horrible unreliable FAT32 filesystem.
I’m hoping that once huge SD card chips get tiny and cheap, we’ll start seeing cards with RAID like redundancy built into them. Imagine an SD card with at least 2 SD memory chips embedded inside and a special processor in it to handle mirroring. This would make the card really reliable. Of course , we also need to move away from the horrible unreliable FAT32 filesystem.
Thanks for the clarification, I had intended my spinrite comment to only be in reference to Microdrives, as these contain magnetic platters (they’re tiny hard drives). Spintrite will wear out memory cells on flash media, causing far more damage than good.
I remember an Episode of Security Now! (Hosted by the programmer of SpinRite) and one of his success stories was specifically related to running SpinRite on a Type II CF Microdrive.
Thanks for the clarification, I had intended my spinrite comment to only be in reference to Microdrives, as these contain magnetic platters (they’re tiny hard drives). Spintrite will wear out memory cells on flash media, causing far more damage than good.
I remember an Episode of Security Now! (Hosted by the programmer of SpinRite) and one of his success stories was specifically related to running SpinRite on a Type II CF Microdrive.
I submerged an SD card in 30 feet of OCEAN water for an hour, rinsed it in fresh water and it worked just fine. Unfortunately it was in my camera, turned on, when this happened. The camera did not fare as well.
Amen. CF cards for me only please!
The only thing I have against them is size and durability. Since I am an adult with appropriately sized hands, using memory cards the size and ruggedness of postage stamps is an extra hassle and unnecessary worry. I prefer a solid card that I can reasonably handle.
When I got my first DSLR, I was mortified about vulnerability of CF connector pins, to the point that I downloaded everyting by USB tether. But, when my brother caught wind of this, he assured me that even after 50,000+ shots and wearing out almost everything else on his old Rebel, the pins have never caused him an issue.
I’m happy to report the same and am sold on the CF format…of course I might stop caring when I get a cam or grip that can do data dumps via wifi… :D
Amen. CF cards for me only please!
The only thing I have against them is size and durability. Since I am an adult with appropriately sized hands, using memory cards the size and ruggedness of postage stamps is an extra hassle and unnecessary worry. I prefer a solid card that I can reasonably handle.
When I got my first DSLR, I was mortified about vulnerability of CF connector pins, to the point that I downloaded everyting by USB tether. But, when my brother caught wind of this, he assured me that even after 50,000+ shots and wearing out almost everything else on his old Rebel, the pins have never caused him an issue.
I’m happy to report the same and am sold on the CF format…of course I might stop caring when I get a cam or grip that can do data dumps via wifi… :D
Also worth mentioning and I don’t think anyone has said it yet:
CF cards are limited to a theoretical maximum capacity of 128GB. SD cards (of the SDHC variety) have a theoretical maximum capacity of 32GB. SD will surpass CF once again in capacity when SDXC becomes a standard (maximum capacity of 2TB) but CFast will bite back with the same.
Memory capacity is skyrocketing and costs are dropping through the floor.
Also worth mentioning and I don’t think anyone has said it yet:
CF cards are limited to a theoretical maximum capacity of 128GB. SD cards (of the SDHC variety) have a theoretical maximum capacity of 32GB. SD will surpass CF once again in capacity when SDXC becomes a standard (maximum capacity of 2TB) but CFast will bite back with the same.
Memory capacity is skyrocketing and costs are dropping through the floor.
Only some flash is cheap.
It is a risky thing to add internal memory and rely on it. What if it corrupts? Then you’re carrying around a camera with however much corrupt memory – I know there will still be the other slot, but it still not ideal. User replaceable memory just makes sense.
Only some flash is cheap.
It is a risky thing to add internal memory and rely on it. What if it corrupts? Then you’re carrying around a camera with however much corrupt memory – I know there will still be the other slot, but it still not ideal. User replaceable memory just makes sense.
Interesting. I have used CF in my DSLRs, yet I do not own a CF reader.
It’s true, though, that a lot of consumer devices are incorporating SD as a nearly de facto standard.
Interesting. I have used CF in my DSLRs, yet I do not own a CF reader.
It’s true, though, that a lot of consumer devices are incorporating SD as a nearly de facto standard.
On my oldest SD cards the little plastic dividers between the electrical contacts are starting to break but I haven’t experienced any other physical problems with them.
One of those oldest cards became unreadable a few months ago, possibly because when the divider broke a contact touched the wrong connector in the camera.
I was able to get all of the jpgs off of it using a program called PhotoRecovery but it was not able to recover the videos.
I always use card readers but have debated switching to a usb cable from the camera. With the size of cards available these days you could conceivably never have to open the card door on your point and shoot, reducing the risk of physical damage to the card and the card slot.
On my oldest SD cards the little plastic dividers between the electrical contacts are starting to break but I haven’t experienced any other physical problems with them.
One of those oldest cards became unreadable a few months ago, possibly because when the divider broke a contact touched the wrong connector in the camera.
I was able to get all of the jpgs off of it using a program called PhotoRecovery but it was not able to recover the videos.
I always use card readers but have debated switching to a usb cable from the camera. With the size of cards available these days you could conceivably never have to open the card door on your point and shoot, reducing the risk of physical damage to the card and the card slot.
In my life I’ve owned 5 CF cards and 5 SD cards – all Kingston. To date I’ve had 2 CF cards fail me, (one because I had been sitting on it alone for an hour!), but all 5 of my SD cards are still working great. I agree with Justin, that there are merely duds occasionally, and I don’t think it fair to assume the smaller card is more likely to fail. I’ve had a CF card fail in 6 months, and I have 5 year old SD cards.
I wouldn’t be sad at all to go SD on all my equipment – mostly so I didn’t have to carry both formats at one time, and I wouldn’t want to beef my point and shoot up in order to fit a CF inside.
Keith, netbooks may have SD readers built in, but for Mac Fanboys like myself, we’re still hauling around a card reader!
Keith, netbooks may have SD readers built in, but for Mac Fanboys like myself, we’re still hauling around a card reader!
Do you usually put your wallet in your back pocket so that you are sitting on it? I’d imagine that would be very risky with any type of card.
Do you usually put your wallet in your back pocket so that you are sitting on it? I’d imagine that would be very risky with any type of card.
Hey, you started it! :D
When thou doth voice upon the sacred instruments of our calling, invoking the Almighty for gear salvation, how be not the passions stirred amongst the flock?
The Reverend Q.
Bourne-Again Minister of the Church of the Immaculate DSLR.
:mrgreen:
Hey, you started it! :D
When thou doth voice upon the sacred instruments of our calling, invoking the Almighty for gear salvation, how be not the passions stirred amongst the flock?
The Reverend Q.
Bourne-Again Minister of the Church of the Immaculate DSLR.
:mrgreen:
I agree 100%. SD cards are worthless. CF is the only way to go.
I agree 100%. SD cards are worthless. CF is the only way to go.
Let’s not kid ourselves, ALL media are subject to failure eventually, including optical and hard disks, and the various memory card formats. The “too small” argument is very subjective: a CF card is too small in comparison to a DVD. I’ve never thought SD cards were too small, but I have thought that of microSD … even though I see that size is desirable for very small devices. I have no problems using SD cards in my camera, all of my cards have been reliable, and it certainly won’t prevent me from buying and loving a D90!
Let’s not kid ourselves, ALL media are subject to failure eventually, including optical and hard disks, and the various memory card formats. The “too small” argument is very subjective: a CF card is too small in comparison to a DVD. I’ve never thought SD cards were too small, but I have thought that of microSD … even though I see that size is desirable for very small devices. I have no problems using SD cards in my camera, all of my cards have been reliable, and it certainly won’t prevent me from buying and loving a D90!
Tman don’t see anyone here trying to kid anyone. I am merely stating from my “subjective” point of view – SD cards are a pain. Clearly you disagree. Glad you’re having good luck with your cards. One thing your comment seems to skip over is that while all media will eventually fail – and I agree with that – some media fail more readily than others. In my experience, and that’s the only experience I can write about with authority, the SD cards are more prone to fail.
Tman don’t see anyone here trying to kid anyone. I am merely stating from my “subjective” point of view – SD cards are a pain. Clearly you disagree. Glad you’re having good luck with your cards. One thing your comment seems to skip over is that while all media will eventually fail – and I agree with that – some media fail more readily than others. In my experience, and that’s the only experience I can write about with authority, the SD cards are more prone to fail.
Yep, and I have done it for years with no problem. Generally I’m not keeping much weight on the wallet, but I also think SD cards are more resilient than many people on this thread. If you are concerned about ‘sitting’ on your SD card, here’s an interesting and cheap DIY solution I’ve thought about trying out. Basically it involves cutting out an SD-sized hole in a credit card, and using it as sort of a mold for the SD card: http://www.instructables.com/id/ERJ7HKQU2LEWZMK6XD/
Yep, and I have done it for years with no problem. Generally I’m not keeping much weight on the wallet, but I also think SD cards are more resilient than many people on this thread. If you are concerned about ‘sitting’ on your SD card, here’s an interesting and cheap DIY solution I’ve thought about trying out. Basically it involves cutting out an SD-sized hole in a credit card, and using it as sort of a mold for the SD card: http://www.instructables.com/id/ERJ7HKQU2LEWZMK6XD/
Fortunately I’ve never experienced a failure with any of my flash cards, though like Scott, I do prefer the larger CFII cards. They just seem more robust and easier to handle in my aging hands. And I think they’re small enough. The SD cards are too small when you need to grab one to use quickly, like during a wedding shoot. Just because you can make something smaller, doesn’t mean you should!
Fortunately I’ve never experienced a failure with any of my flash cards, though like Scott, I do prefer the larger CFII cards. They just seem more robust and easier to handle in my aging hands. And I think they’re small enough. The SD cards are too small when you need to grab one to use quickly, like during a wedding shoot. Just because you can make something smaller, doesn’t mean you should!
I like CF more then Sd too. Why can’t the camera makers include both slots? My E-500 has both XD and CF. XD sucks even way more then SD but I have the option to use. I only use XD as a backup. For example if I fill my CF I can switch to XD without having to change the card or anything.
Assuming that the device is fast, but I usually find that separate readers are faster. If you’re moving gigabytes, the extra speed makes a big difference. Building memory into the device tends to be limiting too, it helps push along a manufacturer’s planned obsolescence, a larger card often breathes new life into “old” devices. Maybe wireless USB will help, but it’s not really out yet.
Wireless transfers are still a bad idea, it’s a LOT slower than reading by wire.
Assuming that the device is fast, but I usually find that separate readers are faster. If you’re moving gigabytes, the extra speed makes a big difference. Building memory into the device tends to be limiting too, it helps push along a manufacturer’s planned obsolescence, a larger card often breathes new life into “old” devices. Maybe wireless USB will help, but it’s not really out yet.
Wireless transfers are still a bad idea, it’s a LOT slower than reading by wire.
i use MicroSD in an adapter. :)
i use MicroSD in an adapter. :)
Nah. FLASH is as reliable as any mem storage. More so than any mechanical disk drive. Go look at SDD’s (solid state drives). If there’s a reason to physically take mem out of the camera, sure, CF/SD, eat your heart out. We’ve all been dupe’d into thinking removable mem is a feature when it’s really a cost cutting move by camera manufacturers from when FLASH was expensive hi-tech. Sorry, I just don’t “get” why mem has to be removeable if you can guarantee reliability. Only the data needs to move. There are many mechanisms to protect dedicated memory and guarantee relibility beyond anything you need in a professional camera.
The content I create on my PC/MAC is way more valuable than the images that I make (you don’t want to see my photos). I never feel compelled to pull the mem physically out of my PC, but I certainly move the data out (easily) all the time.
…bill
Nah. FLASH is as reliable as any mem storage. More so than any mechanical disk drive. Go look at SDD’s (solid state drives). If there’s a reason to physically take mem out of the camera, sure, CF/SD, eat your heart out. We’ve all been dupe’d into thinking removable mem is a feature when it’s really a cost cutting move by camera manufacturers from when FLASH was expensive hi-tech. Sorry, I just don’t “get” why mem has to be removeable if you can guarantee reliability. Only the data needs to move. There are many mechanisms to protect dedicated memory and guarantee relibility beyond anything you need in a professional camera.
The content I create on my PC/MAC is way more valuable than the images that I make (you don’t want to see my photos). I never feel compelled to pull the mem physically out of my PC, but I certainly move the data out (easily) all the time.
…bill
It is a feature. Surely you have listened to the podcast and seen how different users use their cameras. Some people get paranoid about a single large storage and wish to use several smaller ones.
Point is, it is for configurability. You choose how much memory you want. Some people really want high speeds of transfer for example, and they can get the faster memory card, and remove it for use in a high speed reader. You lose this option for on board memory. Sure, you can have an extra slot – but then why have the onboard memory if you’re just going to use the slot? I hardly ever pull my memory card out, preferring to transfer by cable. I use a 1 or 2GB card. Would that be enough for you?
A PC is very different. The operating system is on that storage, not just ‘disposable’ files. And the data is controlled by much more robust/powerful systems. Besides, the hard drives ARE removable – not to mention all the removable media for a PC such as USB drives and discs.
I’m not saying there is NO need for internal memory (in fact many P&S cameras have them), but it’s an unnecessary one – and probably not a feature most people want.
It is a feature. Surely you have listened to the podcast and seen how different users use their cameras. Some people get paranoid about a single large storage and wish to use several smaller ones.
Point is, it is for configurability. You choose how much memory you want. Some people really want high speeds of transfer for example, and they can get the faster memory card, and remove it for use in a high speed reader. You lose this option for on board memory. Sure, you can have an extra slot – but then why have the onboard memory if you’re just going to use the slot? I hardly ever pull my memory card out, preferring to transfer by cable. I use a 1 or 2GB card. Would that be enough for you?
A PC is very different. The operating system is on that storage, not just ‘disposable’ files. And the data is controlled by much more robust/powerful systems. Besides, the hard drives ARE removable – not to mention all the removable media for a PC such as USB drives and discs.
I’m not saying there is NO need for internal memory (in fact many P&S cameras have them), but it’s an unnecessary one – and probably not a feature most people want.
I really couldn’t care less which format I use – they are all cheap. The pins on the receiving end of a CF card have the ability to bend and the contacts on SD cards can wear down over time. If you have big fingers, I can certainly understand the tiny-ness factor, but it seems that everything is always getting smaller these days, so it seems like a losing battle. The funny thing is, if you open up the inside of a CF card, it’s this tiny little chip in a big housing….I would guess (though do not have direct evidence to support this guess) that the innards of a SD card and a CF card (from the same manufacturer and of similar capacities) are virtually the same.
I really couldn’t care less which format I use – they are all cheap. The pins on the receiving end of a CF card have the ability to bend and the contacts on SD cards can wear down over time. If you have big fingers, I can certainly understand the tiny-ness factor, but it seems that everything is always getting smaller these days, so it seems like a losing battle. The funny thing is, if you open up the inside of a CF card, it’s this tiny little chip in a big housing….I would guess (though do not have direct evidence to support this guess) that the innards of a SD card and a CF card (from the same manufacturer and of similar capacities) are virtually the same.
Without MTBF numbers, there is no reason to believe that SD cards are less reliable than CF cards. One person’s experience is not statistically significant enough to make a judgement call on this issue.
Without MTBF numbers, there is no reason to believe that SD cards are less reliable than CF cards. One person’s experience is not statistically significant enough to make a judgement call on this issue.
My guess is the ardent SD supporters are reacting to this piece the way the Canon v. Nikon folks do because at the end of the day, they feel like I devalued the choice THEY made to shoot SD. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply shared my empirical data and my own experience.
My guess is the ardent SD supporters are reacting to this piece the way the Canon v. Nikon folks do because at the end of the day, they feel like I devalued the choice THEY made to shoot SD. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply shared my empirical data and my own experience.
Aaron I re-read my piece twice and if you would do the same you’ll see that nowhere did I claim that SD cards are less reliable than CF cards. Also – if you want MTBF data – go get it. Try Google. Personally, I don’t care. All I know is that in my case SD is all that’s failed me. And then there’s the remainder of my argument that the cards are small and harder (for me) to use because they are easier to drop and break.
Aaron I re-read my piece twice and if you would do the same you’ll see that nowhere did I claim that SD cards are less reliable than CF cards. Also – if you want MTBF data – go get it. Try Google. Personally, I don’t care. All I know is that in my case SD is all that’s failed me. And then there’s the remainder of my argument that the cards are small and harder (for me) to use because they are easier to drop and break.
Interesting that you have more trouble with SD, I’ve never had either type of memory card fail (dead tree percussion) though I’ve often wished I could get my Compact Flash cameras to operate on SD. So many of my devices nowadays are resorting to it that the convenience is tempting. My video camera, dslr, point and shoot, home server, and laptop could all support one format of memory card that I could buy in bulk and swap out as needed. Plus I could leave my card reader at home and use an integrated SD card reader for convenience and cleanliness. I have considered trying one of the compact flash to SD adapters but am not entirely sure about the reliability of adding another point of failure in the middle.
Interesting that you have more trouble with SD, I’ve never had either type of memory card fail (dead tree percussion) though I’ve often wished I could get my Compact Flash cameras to operate on SD. So many of my devices nowadays are resorting to it that the convenience is tempting. My video camera, dslr, point and shoot, home server, and laptop could all support one format of memory card that I could buy in bulk and swap out as needed. Plus I could leave my card reader at home and use an integrated SD card reader for convenience and cleanliness. I have considered trying one of the compact flash to SD adapters but am not entirely sure about the reliability of adding another point of failure in the middle.
“But the problem is that these cards are so fragile and flimsy, they’re much more prone to failure.”
“But the problem is that these cards are so fragile and flimsy, they’re much more prone to failure.”
I see the problem – I didn’t say they were less reliable as you suggested. I said they were more prone to failure due to physical damage. To be clear, I wasn’t talking about MTBF type failure – I was talking about failure due to breakage.
I see the problem – I didn’t say they were less reliable as you suggested. I said they were more prone to failure due to physical damage. To be clear, I wasn’t talking about MTBF type failure – I was talking about failure due to breakage.
I must agree with Scott. The camera world has followed along the electronics industry with the ‘prime directive’ to constantly make products smaller and smaller. There are just times when the savings in space is just not worth it in my opinion. If you have a pro or prosumer dslr, the compactness of the camera is less important than the useability of the device.
I must agree with Scott. The camera world has followed along the electronics industry with the ‘prime directive’ to constantly make products smaller and smaller. There are just times when the savings in space is just not worth it in my opinion. If you have a pro or prosumer dslr, the compactness of the camera is less important than the useability of the device.
My Cannon S5 IS takes SD and my Cannon Rebel XT takes CF. It seems my camera dictates my choice. Oh well, guess one needs to get the camera that fits your card choice.
I’d have to agree with Scott. I personally like the size of the CF card and it seems appropriate to have something as “solid” (not in a physical sense) as a CF. On the subject of the pins, CF cards are similar to the Parallel ATA (PATA) / IDE connections that computer hard drives used to use. Essentially a CF is pretty much a “solid state” IDE hard drive. I guess what they can do is develop a new connection for the CF (perhaps CF Type III? haha), like how all new computers use Serial ATA (SATA) connections now and, of course if anyone here is the least bit proficient with computers, SATAs don’t use pins. But in any case I feel like SD cards just aren’t up to “pro solidness” that one should have when shooting.
I’d have to agree with Scott. I personally like the size of the CF card and it seems appropriate to have something as “solid” (not in a physical sense) as a CF. On the subject of the pins, CF cards are similar to the Parallel ATA (PATA) / IDE connections that computer hard drives used to use. Essentially a CF is pretty much a “solid state” IDE hard drive. I guess what they can do is develop a new connection for the CF (perhaps CF Type III? haha), like how all new computers use Serial ATA (SATA) connections now and, of course if anyone here is the least bit proficient with computers, SATAs don’t use pins. But in any case I feel like SD cards just aren’t up to “pro solidness” that one should have when shooting.
With almost 1000 votes cast – it looks like the TWIP audience agrees with me at a rate of about two thirds for CF to only one third for SD.
With almost 1000 votes cast – it looks like the TWIP audience agrees with me at a rate of about two thirds for CF to only one third for SD.
I haven’t used the CF cards so I have no comparison experience, just SD and SDHC. Just an example of how tough a Sandisk Ultra II 8GB is I was using one in a PVR on a motor cycle. It is mounted on the dash which has most of the heat from the engine coming up onto it and it is also in the sun. The unit got so hot the screen shut down, I couldn’t even touch the unit. When I ejected the cars the label had bubbled and it was almost to hot to handle. I though damn that’s toast, but no the video recorded was fine and I am still using the card as my second. I use a 16GB now. I did loose a bit of capacity and don’t rely on it, but it still goes. Remember the Ultras and Extremes are much more robust than some of the lesser brands and no names. I would like to see if a CF would handle that exposure and I expect that an Ultra or Extreme probably would. Size, you get use to it I s’pose.
Scott I remember in some of your posts you say you have big hands, may be that’s it. Just joking.
I haven’t used the CF cards so I have no comparison experience, just SD and SDHC. Just an example of how tough a Sandisk Ultra II 8GB is I was using one in a PVR on a motor cycle. It is mounted on the dash which has most of the heat from the engine coming up onto it and it is also in the sun. The unit got so hot the screen shut down, I couldn’t even touch the unit. When I ejected the cars the label had bubbled and it was almost to hot to handle. I though damn that’s toast, but no the video recorded was fine and I am still using the card as my second. I use a 16GB now. I did loose a bit of capacity and don’t rely on it, but it still goes. Remember the Ultras and Extremes are much more robust than some of the lesser brands and no names. I would like to see if a CF would handle that exposure and I expect that an Ultra or Extreme probably would. Size, you get use to it I s’pose.
Scott I remember in some of your posts you say you have big hands, may be that’s it. Just joking.
I’ve got to agree with Scott. SD cards are fine for P&S cameras where chances are the user will never take it out of the camera (just download via USB and use one big card) … but for any DSLR, even the D40-D90 and Rebel series, it should be CF. It’s a far more reliable media.
I’ve got to agree with Scott. SD cards are fine for P&S cameras where chances are the user will never take it out of the camera (just download via USB and use one big card) … but for any DSLR, even the D40-D90 and Rebel series, it should be CF. It’s a far more reliable media.
CF cards also have an on-board memory controller, which I don’t believe SD cards have. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the controller is capable of mapping bad sectors in order to not write data to them, which could prevent data loss.
CF cards also have an on-board memory controller, which I don’t believe SD cards have. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the controller is capable of mapping bad sectors in order to not write data to them, which could prevent data loss.
I believe the Lenovo W700 has a CF card reader. That thing is a beast though.
I like the size of the SD cards, though they are indeed easy to loose. I think I have lost one or two, can’t even remember anymore. And 2 have physically been destroyed (those cheap plastic SD card cases that come with some cards seem to make more damage than they help protect the cards… one card is now 2 parts, and the other card has lost the lock switch, rendering it useless). Still, the convenience of a built in SD card reader in my laptop, and having SD cards in many other devices makes me prefer them.
I believe the Lenovo W700 has a CF card reader. That thing is a beast though.
I like the size of the SD cards, though they are indeed easy to loose. I think I have lost one or two, can’t even remember anymore. And 2 have physically been destroyed (those cheap plastic SD card cases that come with some cards seem to make more damage than they help protect the cards… one card is now 2 parts, and the other card has lost the lock switch, rendering it useless). Still, the convenience of a built in SD card reader in my laptop, and having SD cards in many other devices makes me prefer them.
Pingback: TWIPPHOTO.COM » God Save the Type I CF Card - TWIPPHOTO.COM | CameraSpare.Com
Pingback: TWIPPHOTO.COM » God Save the Type I CF Card - TWIPPHOTO.COM | CameraSpare.Com
I have to agree also with Mr. Scott. My first digital cam- a Point and Shoot- used SD. the card was corrupted just weeks after. I used a couple cameras after that, DSLRs and P&S’s, most use CFs and to this day all cards still work. I, as of now, own three or more unusuable SDs.
CF cards are still a great option.
I have to agree also with Mr. Scott. My first digital cam- a Point and Shoot- used SD. the card was corrupted just weeks after. I used a couple cameras after that, DSLRs and P&S’s, most use CFs and to this day all cards still work. I, as of now, own three or more unusuable SDs.
CF cards are still a great option.