CF cards... bigger is better?

[montreal]

I'm wondering...

Is it better to have 2 X 1GB CF cards or just one 2GB card? Is there a downside to having a bigger card? If not, why do people buy the smaller ones?

[scottbergerphoto]

The risk of using large cards is that if you lose one or if it malfunctions,then you lose alot of pictures. I use 3 2gb cards. It's a balance between the convenience of fewer cards to carry and switch vs. safety. Some people won't use anything larger then 1 gb.

[montreal]

The risk of using large cards is that if you lose one or if it malfunctions,then you lose alot of pictures.

Of course! I never thought of that. Makes perfect sense. Thanks!

Any other thoughts, anyone?

[gastroboy]

"never put all your eggs in one basket".

same with "never put all your picture on the one card". :-)

Anyway, I usually go by price. I think 2 X 1Gb is around the same price as 1 X 2Gb...well at least in OZ it is. so you might as well go for the 2 x 1Gb's because they are not really that hard to cart around.

an Oh...you probably don't need more than 2Gb unless you shoot photo's for a living or have a 1Ds MKII!!!!

[Bamamike]

@gastroboy
I disagree! If you shoot raw and jpg the 2GB runs out of space as soon as you might get the shot of your life. I have a 1GB CF, a 2GB CF and a 4GB microdive. Two weeks ago on a hot air ballon festival I shot about 3.7GB pics within 3 hours and I use "only" the 20D. On a dance recital I took about 6GB pictures in 2 hours, so don't think 2GB is enough. You never have enough memory unless you need 3 sets of batteries to fill them..... (I have 2 sets of 2 batteriesfor the power grip).

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, I agree with bamamike. The more memory the better! Unless you shoot straight up jpeg, you need all the memory you can get. I have a Lexar 80x 1gb card and it rocks, but I don't feel like blowing hords of cash on a couple more so I'm looking into buying an Epson P-2000. 40gb hard drive :) the thing looks sweet!

[tim]

Right now my sweet spot is 2GB. It's a tradeoff between risk of a faulty card/you stuffing up vs changing cards regularly. If you get large cards, go for good brands - i've never had a problem with Sandisk Ultra II cards.

[montreal]

Thanks for all the info. I have a 300d and I shoot Raw only. It's not that much trouble to batch convert everything to jpeg after and I prefer saving the space (only have a 512Mb right now...)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not a big subscriber to the "all eggs in one basket" theory where CF cards are concerned.. but I still agree with the direction of two small cards are better than one large one.

My method is this,.. if you can only afford 2GB of CF card.. then it is better to have two 1GB so ythat ypou can keep shooting while one downloads.

But I'd rather have two BIG CF cards than two small ones... ;)

[jfrancho]

I use six 512 cards. It really takes no time at all to change cards, and chances are, "the shot of your life," will be when you run out of card space - regardless of storage space. It wasn't intentional, but I find it conveniant the each card worth of data fits on a CD-R. I copy and burn each card before I begin any post processing.

[Citizensmith]

I use six 512 cards. It really takes no time at all to change cards, and chances are, "the shot of your life," will be when you run out of card space - regardless of storage space. It wasn't intentional, but I find it conveniant the each card worth of data fits on a CD-R. I copy and burn each card before I begin any post processing.

512Mb cards are great for anyone using a CD duplicater for backup rather than one of the little portable hard drives. Wonder when we will have HD-DVD-R/Blu-Ray backup units.

[ScottE]

I'm in the bigger is better camp for CF cards.

The more you have to handle your CF cards, the greater the chances of damaging or losing a card or getting dirt or moisture in the camera. With bigger cards you don't have to change as often and there are not as many to keep track of. If you have one card big enough to leave in the camera all day, there is no need for handling and it won't get lost unless you lose your camera.

As for failures, I have found the failure rate on Sandisk Extreme cards to be so low that I have not experienced one. I believe the Ultra cards are just as good except in extreme weather conditions.

The two failures I have experienced were with cheaper 512 mb Lexar CF cards. In both cases I was able to recover pictures up to just before the failure. A card failure does not necessarily mean you have lost all you pictures. I may only mean that you have lost the last two or three pictures and can throw the card in the garbage after you recover and download the earlier shots. My main lesson from this is, "Don't buy cheap cards."

Scott

[gastroboy]

are you guys serious? 6gb? holly crap....okay, I'll take that comment back... I guess if you shoot Raw + JPG then yes, 2GB will not be enough.

it would be interesting to see how many shots people normally take on an outing. I will only do maybe 100-150 per trip.

but as with computer hard disks....there is no such thing as too much storage.

[jfrancho]

I'm in the bigger is better camp for CF cards.

The more you have to handle your CF cards, the greater the chances of damaging or losing a card or getting dirt or moisture in the camera. With bigger cards you don't have to change as often and there are not as many to keep track of. If you have one card big enough to leave in the camera all day, there is no need for handling and it won't get lost unless you lose your camera.

As for failures, I have found the failure rate on Sandisk Extreme cards to be so low that I have not experienced one. I believe the Ultra cards are just as good except in extreme weather conditions.

The two failures I have experienced were with cheaper 512 mb Lexar CF cards. In both cases I was able to recover pictures up to just before the failure. A card failure does not necessarily mean you have lost all you pictures. I may only mean that you have lost the last two or three pictures and can throw the card in the garbage after you recover and download the earlier shots. My main lesson from this is, "Don't buy cheap cards."

ScottYeah, I know what you mean. The more you drive your car, the greater the chances of it breaking down. I'd be better off just starting it up and letting it run in the driveway, once in a while. That must be why we all drive BIG SUVs and trucks here in the USA. The cards were designed with use in mind, and as long you are careful, problems will be minimized. BTW, the cards I use are not "cheap cards," they are inexpensive Sandisk Ultra IIs.

[montreal]

Wow! I didn't think I would start such a passionate discussion :D

No one has pointed out that larger cards had inherent technical problems (speed, reliability, etc), which is what I was worried about.

I guess the next one I buy will be 2GB. It will be plenty enough for my Rebel (I shoot raw only) and it will still be a sensible size enough when I upgrade to a better camera with a better sensor.

[S230]

Montreal, just be careful and make sure if your camera supports 2gb. I believe that I once asked Canon if the Rebel supported over 2gb and they said it's not written that it is either.
I say it depends on the type of camera you have and if you plan on upgrading. Not long ago 256mb was a lot but now it's becoming larger. Money talks. If you can afford 2gb it's great but two 1gb card should suffice and also most cameras can support easily up to 1gb without issues. 2gb you may run into some odd cameras with problems.

I personally carry a load of CF cards ranging from 1gb to 512mb. I also whenever shooting onsite each of us would carry a portable storage on our belt. I used to carry a 10gb but it fills up quickly. now I have a 60gb on me.

[Longwatcher]

I am a believer in the "not all eggs in one basket" camp. My threshold for paranoia on losing images is around 100 images. So for me using a 1DsMkII, means my threshold is a 2GB card. I get a little over 100 images (on average) per card shooting RAW+M2 jpeg. So I am comfortable there. I currently have four 2GB cards, two 1GB cards, and three 256MB cards (the later left over from early 10D days).

If the card write times were slower to clear buffer, I might have a couple of 4 or 8GB cards for special events like fireworks, where I couldn't wait for the card to clear before changing out. But since it finishes writing within 1-3 secs after I finish filling the card, I don't feel the need for the larger cards anymore. I prefer the safety of multiple cards.

Lastly I always recommend a minimum of 2 of the largest cards you can afford, until you hit the paranoia limit. My reasoning being flash cards are the most likely point of failure for a digital camera, with batteries coming in second and lenses third. Any other failure is not going to prevent you from taking pictures when you need to or it is the camera itself that needs repair. Having only one card or set of batteries is asking for it.

Just my opinion,

[ryan_kalani]

The risk of using large cards is that if you lose one or if it malfunctions,then you lose alot of pictures. I use 3 2gb cards. It's a balance between the convenience of fewer cards to carry and switch vs. safety. Some people won't use anything larger then 1 gb.
this is the same reason why i use two 1 gig cards instead of one 2 gig