Nikon D80

rpstewart · 11 Aug 2006 at 09:14

If you look at Rob Galbraith's tests it's clear that SD is quicker, by up to 15% or so (Extreme III SD v Extreme IV CF). Capacity isn't that much of an issue, most people prefer to go with multiple smaller cards than one large one. Price is a non issue as well, just had a quick check and 2Gb of Extreme III CF was £83, 2Gb of Extreme III SD was only £76.

On top of that SD is smaller and has a more reliable mechanical interface.

Energize · 11 Aug 2006 at 09:24

Well personally I prefer one 8GB card for £104 over many small ones which are more likely to get lost. Theres certainly no reason to decrease compatibility anyway.

SDK^ · 11 Aug 2006 at 09:33

Energize said:
Well personally I prefer one 8GB card for £104 over many small ones which are more likely to get lost. Theres certainly no reason to decrease compatibility anyway.

Talking of speed Energize - A fast 8GB Compact card costs £260

I would much rather have 2x 1GB cards and a 20GB portable storage device

Anyway, I don't understand why there are so many people against SD cards.
They are faster, cheaper, smaller and less prone to damage. If you lot had your way we'd still be using film - move with the times !!!

Energize · 11 Aug 2006 at 18:53

They aren't cheaper though, thats my point and they only go up to 4GB. In other devices sd cards can't accept as many add ons as cf ones can.

bigredshark · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:02

SD is maybe marginally quicker, is definately easier to loose, definately has a better mechanical interface and is smaller capacity, thats the facts really.

Personally I prefer a few large cards (2/4 GB) rather than many small ones, it's easier, saves swapping them all the time and I'll never buy a portable storage device as I travel with my laptop (and as I recall the epson P2000 won't display images over 8.something mp, which cuts out half the functionality.

bigredshark · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:04

Energize said:
They aren't cheaper though, thats my point and they only go up to 4GB. In other devices sd cards can't accept as many add ons as cf ones can.

But, phones, pdas and several other things can accept SD, such devices accepting CF are thinner on the ground. Might not be an issue if you're shooting with an SLR but it at least means if you're running short of space you could grab an SD you usually used to music for instance.

Energize · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:16

If device can accept cf it can easily accept sd as well through the same slot. My pda for example has a cf slot but I can use an adaptor that costs next to nothing to use sd cards in the slot.

bigredshark · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:21

Yes, but my PDA has an SD slot and no CF slot, as does my laptop as it happens and some phones take SD i believe. not much use trying to get an SD card in one of those

Energize · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:23

Point is though you can use an sd card in a cf device so theres no need to render peoples cf cards useless by removing the cf slot.

bigredshark · 11 Aug 2006 at 19:27

Energize said:
Point is though you can use an sd card in a cf device so theres no need to render peoples cf cards useless by removing the cf slot.

Well, my PDA would have to be bigger to accomodate a CF slot, no way it'd fit in a phone. In the end SD is smaller and easier to integrate, it's also the most popular consumer camera format, is backwards compatible with MMC.

Don't get me wrong, I like and use CF, but there are fewer and fewer reasons to keep using it in new cameras