Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 01 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 11:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why don't they have a shuffling mode for dual card cameras?

 
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Oct 01, 2014 11:26 |  #1

To my knowledge there is only 3 types:

1 Shoot until fill, then switch
2 Shoot the same thing to both cards so you have a copy
3 Shoot one file type to one and one to the other

Why is there no option to shoot the first image to card 1, second to card 2, third to card 1 etc.? Let's assume you lose a card in all 3 of the current types of writing options assuming you have two full cards.

1. You lose half of your pictures in a big chunk (i.e. first half of day or second half of day)
2. You are fine but you are limited to half as much space (as it is mirror if you have two 32 gig cards you can only shoot 32 gigs of photos)
3. You potentially lose all of your raw files. JPGs lost probably won't matter.

If you alternate cards and lose a card you can still potentially have every photo. For example in a wedding, if you lost a card, you would still have a story from the whole day on the second card. Sure you might not have a specific shot of the bride getting ready, but you will have some because the 4 shots you took of the bride tying her dress got divided up to two cards. Whereas if you were filling both cards and you lost one you would lose the first part of your day.

It also serves to maximize your memory. If you shoot two 32 gig cards you essentially have 64 gigs of photos. If you lose one of them, instead of taking a chunk out of your story, it kind of "thins" the photos from throughout the whole shoot.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jmikolich
Senior Member
Avatar
388 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Ohio
     
Oct 01, 2014 11:33 |  #2

seems like a good application for something like Magic Lantern...

But with the falling cost of flash memory, its not unreasonable to have 2x64gb cards in a camera.. considering to have dual slots you spent >1000 US and the cards would run you around 200.

That said, I think its a good idea, though the memory controller may not be so happy depending on the architecture of the circuitry behind it.


-Jim
Canon 5D3,5D3,5D2,6D,24 f2.8 IS,35L,45 TS-E,50L,85 f1.8,70-200 f2.8L II,100L
Rokinon 14mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,529 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Oct 01, 2014 13:16 |  #3

I would rather just shoot RAW to both cards to have a complete back up. Memory cards aren't that expensive that it's cost prohibitive to purchase two very large (or multiple) cards. I guess if one was in a bind for memory space though, your suggestion would be useful.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,061 posts
Likes: 184
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Oct 01, 2014 14:40 |  #4

Personally I want dual cards with staggered write and delayed backup.

That is, when shooting large bursts of photos at one time it will switch between which card it is writing the 'next' photo to during continuous shooting. So for a burst of photos half will be on Card A, and Half on B (assuming they're equal speed cards, a mismatch in speeds could see A freeing up for another photo to be written to it before B does.)

Then after the buffer is empty and no additional photos are being taken the camera will look at a list and start copying the files over to each card one at a time. if it gets powered off mid transfer then that photo gets 'flagged' on boot and the camera attempts an integrity check.


So you get the advantage of clearing the buffer as fast as possible, and reasonable file redundancy.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 01, 2014 15:16 |  #5

I see low application which is why this isn't available. Basically I suspect that people who need a backup need a real backup. If you shoot a wedding for pay, losing every other shot is better than losing the first half of the day, but it still isn't acceptable so what's the point? Especially when you can just put two big cards in the camera and have a full backup.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,061 posts
Likes: 184
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Oct 01, 2014 15:22 |  #6

JeffreyG wrote in post #17188443 (external link)
I see low application which is why this isn't available. Basically I suspect that people who need a backup need a real backup. If you shoot a wedding for pay, losing every other shot is better than losing the first half of the day, but it still isn't acceptable so what's the point? Especially when you can just put two big cards in the camera and have a full backup.

Writing every other photo to a card also means you can essentially double your card write speed, and clear your buffer faster. In my view it has just as much use as "Write to Card A till full, then use Card B", but spreads the data more evenly over the multiple cards.

While not a 'full' backup, it is still a far safer position than "Fill A then B" write option.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Oct 01, 2014 16:14 |  #7

JeffreyG wrote in post #17188443 (external link)
I see low application which is why this isn't available. Basically I suspect that people who need a backup need a real backup. If you shoot a wedding for pay, losing every other shot is better than losing the first half of the day, but it still isn't acceptable so what's the point? Especially when you can just put two big cards in the camera and have a full backup.

It would also help for travel photographers who could use the extra card space and don't want to lose an entire chunk of their trip if one card goes down. If you go to Spain and England you could potentially lose shots of an entire country.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,352 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 462
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 01, 2014 17:49 |  #8

benji25 wrote in post #17188543 (external link)
It would also help for travel photographers who could use the extra card space and don't want to lose an entire chunk of their trip if one card goes down. If you go to Spain and England you could potentially lose shots of an entire country.

OK, I'll admit the usefulness may be higher than I first thought. I'm not totally sure this would improve buffer clearing because I don't know that writing to both cards would really improve what the processor is doing. Maybe it helps, maybe not.

Like somebody else said, probably a ML software bit first.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Oct 02, 2014 05:03 |  #9

Luckless wrote in post #17188451 (external link)
Writing every other photo to a card also means you can essentially double your card write speed, and clear your buffer faster.

Er, no.

Imagine you're filling buckets from a hose. It takes the same time to fill 2 buckets if you do them one-by-one or you switch every few seconds.

As for insurance against losing images - this happens so rarely that it's not worth the hassle. I've been using CF cards for 16 years. Apart from losing a whole card I've never lost an image.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
78962
Member
154 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
Oct 02, 2014 05:22 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

benji25 wrote in post #17188040 (external link)
To my knowledge there is only 3 types:

1 Shoot until fill, then switch
2 Shoot the same thing to both cards so you have a copy
3 Shoot one file type to one and one to the other

Why is there no option to shoot the first image to card 1, second to card 2, third to card 1 etc.? Let's assume you lose a card in all 3 of the current types of writing options assuming you have two full cards.

1. You lose half of your pictures in a big chunk (i.e. first half of day or second half of day)
2. You are fine but you are limited to half as much space (as it is mirror if you have two 32 gig cards you can only shoot 32 gigs of photos)
3. You potentially lose all of your raw files. JPGs lost probably won't matter.

If you alternate cards and lose a card you can still potentially have every photo. For example in a wedding, if you lost a card, you would still have a story from the whole day on the second card. Sure you might not have a specific shot of the bride getting ready, but you will have some because the 4 shots you took of the bride tying her dress got divided up to two cards. Whereas if you were filling both cards and you lost one you would lose the first part of your day.

It also serves to maximize your memory. If you shoot two 32 gig cards you essentially have 64 gigs of photos. If you lose one of them, instead of taking a chunk out of your story, it kind of "thins" the photos from throughout the whole shoot.

#2 just seems perfect to me. 2x 64GB cards, space not really an issue.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 286
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 02, 2014 05:30 |  #11

Just buy two big cards and shoot the same on both. If you run our of space have more cards available. Cards are cheap and small. I'd rather have a complete backup than risk losing half my shots as you would with your suggestion when shooting a wedding... that isn't a backup... it is stupidity when you have two slots available.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
Avatar
2,165 posts
Likes: 640
Joined Nov 2009
Location: The Rhubarb Triangle
     
Oct 02, 2014 06:15 |  #12

benji25 wrote in post #17188040 (external link)
Why is there no option to shoot the first image to card 1, second to card 2, third to card 1 etc.?

I just don't see the point of it.


Some days I'm the dog, some days I'm the lamppost.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,061 posts
Likes: 184
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Oct 02, 2014 08:16 |  #13

hollis_f wrote in post #17189501 (external link)
Er, no.

Imagine you're filling buckets from a hose. It takes the same time to fill 2 buckets if you do them one-by-one or you switch every few seconds.

As for insurance against losing images - this happens so rarely that it's not worth the hassle. I've been using CF cards for 16 years. Apart from losing a whole card I've never lost an image.

That is only true if you're filling buckets with water from a hose and only have one hose. If you're writing data to cards then things are very different.

Flash memory is Slooooow, while volatile memories use for things like the camera buffer are exceptionally fast to read and write from. This is why you can take a bunch of photos really fast for awhile and then have it slow way down as it slowly writes to the card. However while CF cards might share a data bus they are completely independent devices, and that data bus can be easily made to exceed that of the CF cards. You can easily write two different files to two different drives at the same time, and therefore use less time over all.

It is far more like using two smaller hoses connected to a much larger hose, and then filling two buckets at the same time. You can only put water in so fast to a given bucket, but you have more than enough water in the pipes to fill more than one bucket at a time.

However my degree is in computer sciences, so I've actually done stuff like this with real hardware, and have no need to imagine it with buckets of water.


And as for insurance, fires happen so rarely... No one in my family has lost a home to fire in over 150 years, so why should any of us bother paying for insurance? Clearly it will never happen, and if it does it will obviously be on a home that isn't remotely important to us...


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Oct 02, 2014 08:23 |  #14

I think it's a very good idea.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Oct 02, 2014 10:08 |  #15

hollis_f wrote in post #17189501 (external link)
As for insurance against losing images - this happens so rarely that it's not worth the hassle. I've been using CF cards for 16 years. Apart from losing a whole card I've never lost an image.

That is almost more reason for it. Since they fail so rarely why have a complete backup? This way you maximize space and still have some recoverability when they fail once every 16 years.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,299 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why don't they have a shuffling mode for dual card cameras?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is RoydonsPhotography
521 guests, 404 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.