M8 and SD

Currently most new compact digital cameras (and a few consumer SLRs) use SD

cards. Pro SLRs use Compact Flash. So why do you think Leica have chosen SD

for the M8?

 

John

Size?

Run a Google search on "CF" and "bent pins"...

 

SD is a better technology. Any card can lose data - only CF cards can cause $200 damage

to the camera.

 

Nikon D80 is replacing the D70s - and is adopting SD cards. Canon EOS 1D cameras offer

the option of CF AND SD.

 

Once upon a time CF was IT - Once upon a time CF cards were available in larger sizes for

less money. Now that SDHC allows 8 gig SD cards, CF will slowly fade away (as PCMCIA did

before it) - slowly due to the large installed base already out there and the availability of

the CF microdrives.

 

Other factors for Leica, specifically: SD is a Panasonic design (and we know who one of

Leica's partners is) , size (as already mentioned - although given that the huge DMR also

uses SD cards...), and SD has been Leica's standard, going back at least to the Digilux 1.

size.

A obvious advantage of SDs is: there are laptops whith SD only readers around.

 

From the ecconomical / logistics POV SD seems to be the best choice. MY old DSLR takes CFs. They've been the only medium of reasonable size at it's time; it stores 70RAWs on 1GB, which was a huge card then. - I recently grabed a P&S taking SDs and was extremely pleased to find out that 1GB of No Name SD is less than 18 Euro including shiping on evilbay, while CFs are significantly more expensive.

 

Is Leica machineguners 1st choice? - No- So why would the M8 need 8GB CFs?

 

Those companies providing prosumer bodys with CF slots just continue their old traditions - Leica have none or would you demand a SM slot for cards leftover from your 1.5MP Fujifilm Leica?

 

I'm not even pissed by Pentax (brand of my SLR system) offering their next higher end SLR with SD slot. I'll get cheap cards and keep my 3 CFs for the old body. O.K. CFs are pleasant to handle, but well, a Leica shooter is used to juggleing take up spools and base plates, so SDs shouldn't be a problem.

 

IMHO today SDs are the aequivalent of the 135 film cartridge, while CFs are becomming as common as 120. The M8 will be around for a while, so it has to be made for the future. Leica have probably another marketing target than frustrated 10D / D70 owners. BTW: Who has 4250 Euro ready to spend on a digital body should also have another 100 to burn on 4 GB of cards which will get him through a evening. Pro SLRs already have twin slots to allow the use of additional SDs as backup.

Is Leica machineguners 1st choice? - No- So why would the M8 need 8GB CFs?

 

For me, yes ... not for rapid fire, but for shooting 8 hours worth of wedding pix without

reloading. I use 8 gig CF cards now, and it's liberating. Less need to stop at an inconvenient

time ... and swapping cards is where bad stuff can happen during a hectic shoot ... especially

if you're working alone.

When SD cards are no longer available and yours are no longer working, it will be the demise of the M8.

 

Do you really want $5000 wraped up in an orphan.

 

CV got it right. Wait until the technology stabilizes.

Physical size of the SD being smaller than the CF is the obvious design decision.

 

Capacity is a different story. Mostly best CF cards store more than SD. The M8 SD choice in this respect can be an inconvenient, because it supposedly generates cca 10Mbyte RAW photo files (DNG). I expect Leica photographers to prefer RAW over jpeg, by far. A today's typical SD card would offer 1Gb while CF would offer 4Gb (most recent SD is 8Gb and CF 8Gb too, but that's a temporary months exception, soon the CF will be 12-16 GB while SD will level at 8Gb for long).

 

Transfer speed from buffer to card is also a criterium. CF cards usually transfer faster than SD, like half to double. It is a matter of "machine gun shooting" and Leicaists don't, but also a matter of how long the camera is unavailable for shooting, and Lecaists supposedly want their cameras not to be blocked because of some digital operation. M8 shoots 2fps up to 10 frames, after which there's reportedly 1minute of transfer to card (depends on card brand and camera technology to transfer), 1minute of not being able to shoot, during which the "decisive moment" may happen.

 

It is also to note that it is not only shooting 10 frames in a raw (keep shutter button depressed) that may fill the buffer (and force the 1minute wait) but also a manner of shooting whereby one shoots 2 frames in 1s, wait 1s, shoot another 3 frames and so on (not necessarily continuous "machine gun").

 

Finally, I would also expect that when the feature is there (2fps, no arm lever), some Lecaists will enjoy it, and push it to limits. This is very interesting to follow.

"When SD cards are no longer available and yours are no longer working, it will be the demise of the M8.

 

Do you really want $5000 wraped up in an orphan. "

 

Too funny. (You were being facetious, right?)

Right, many have predicted the death of CF cards when SD came out, of SD when miniSD and microSD (transflash) came out - none seems to happen. There are so many types of gadgetry out there with so different needs in terms of size, capacity and transfer speed... photo is but one.

 

Besides, one can put an SD card into a CF adaptor, a miniSD and a microSD into an SD adaptor and so on.

My GPS takes an SD card.

While they aren't quite as fast nor do they have the capacity they are smaller which makes for better camera design (smaller size less weight etc) just buy a few extreme 3 cards from sandisk and your good to go (2gig cards recommended)

SD is the new format; if you look the newer P & S from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, they all use SD. It's also gotten to the point where SD is about as cheap as CF, 4 GB SD card is only about $70, that would translate to about 1200 pictures @ 5 megapixels with my FZ20 (if it could support FAT 32). Even if you were shooting in RAW, that's still at lot pics.

 

The only advantage I see with CF is that it has a memory controller, with other formats you're at the mercy of the design spec. To support greater than 4 GB with SD, they had to create SDHC. Similar fates with Smartmedia and the various Memory Stick formats.

Obviously, Leica chose SD over CF because it is more expensive...

Ishik, I'm wondering. Would you kindly lead me to some site proofing your claim? - I'd really love to buy another 1GB CF for 25 or less Euro, shipped to Germany.

 

How significant does card speed influence the buffer flushing process asuming worst vs best card on the market? - I always believed a slow camera wouldn't need no fast card. - Also the SD choice doesn't seem that crucial to me, if even Pentax (well known for inferior data handling performance of their early DSLR) anounced a half capable prosumer DSLR useing SDs.

 

The argument of other devices like the mentioned GPS useing SDs counts for me. A spare card, carried by accident, might come in handy sometimes. I would have loved to have a chance to buy a memoryless MP3 player taking my CFs - there is none; they want SDs. Another spare card in a modern cell phone and you're almost sure to have one with you. - I once met a fellow photographer at a concert who forgot to bring any memory, while I was shooting Leicas only because of leaving the DSLR at home. The friend who sometimes borrows the DSLR always leaves one of my too few cards in his computer.

A few weeks ago, for the first time ever, I managed to bend the pins in the CF card slot of my pocket drive while attempting to download the card. These are delicate little pins, and it's hard to reach inside the card slot with a pair of pliers to straighten them. In fact, you may risk breaking them, potentially voiding the warranty on the device.

 

Fortunately, my pocket drive was replaced under warranty, and also I was lucky to have the "little accident" happen at home. Until now, I've been taking a huge risk in traveling with just one pocket drive for weeks at a time, without any other backup means or a laptop. I only have two 4GB CF cards. Thanks to this lesson, I now have a secondary backup pocket drive for long trips away from home. I am led to agree, SD cards are a safer choice.

 

Also of note to people, SD and SDHC cards are two different and perhaps incompatible formats. My new PanaLeica DMC-LX2 cam has an exclusive SDHC card slot, and while it will accept regular SD cards upto 2GB in capacity, anything over 2GB needs to be SDHC format as I painfully found out recently, forcing me to shoot JPGs with my only 512MB SD card on LX2. The 4GB SD card that I have (Transcend 150x version) will work fine in my Canon A620, but won't be recognized by LX2. Panasonic tech support explained that this had something to do with FAT32 file formats followed by 4GB regular variety SD cards. Sandisk is scheduled to release a 4GB SDHC card within days that I hope to get ASAP for my upcoming trip.

"CF cards usually transfer faster than SD, like half to double. "

 

Actually - when dpreview tested the Canon 1D Mk. II (which has both SD and CF slots), they

clocked the SD as FASTER in most regards than the CF.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page12.asp

From a mechanical engineers perspective, SIZE is the most important reason. On the Canon 1D series the SD is actually faster than the CF (marginally), they give you the choice of using either. Storage wise CF still wins in the number of Gb's will proabably for a long time.

 

Gerry

"So why do you think Leica have chosen SD for the M8?"

 

The truth is that it was most likely the medium the designers most preferred (for whatever reason). I suppose if they had chosen some other medium you, or someone else, would have asked why they chose that one.

 

In all practicality, what difference does it make?

<em>Actually - when dpreview tested the Canon 1D Mk. II (which has both SD and CF slots), they clocked the SD as FASTER in most regards than the CF.</em></em>

<p>

YEs, thanks for pointing this out. I'm surprised by that, and my remark about CF being "faster" than SD seem to have been wrong.

<p>

AS with all "faster/slower/better/worse" statements, the whole story is not easily describeable with just a few words, as you say "most" regards. For example, the same review above stating SD faster than CF shows it's only about writing to card (i.e. flush the photos and come back to shooting); it however shows the CF being faster than the SD when transferring the photos from card to PC (firewire reader benchmark).

<p>

Also, the compared cards (SD and CF), although both are SanDisk Ultra II, have different capacities: SD is 512Mb CF is 2Gb. So which one is faster at transfering 1Gb? Two SD cards or one CF.

<p>

I still assume overall performance of best CF cards to be better than best SD cards', simply because they have much more I/O pins and because they are larger in size. (a combination of capacity, read/write transfer, reliability).

<p>

SD is good too, and probably more than enough necessary for M8's other parameters.

An indicative example, the best CF/SD SanDisk today's bandwidth offer, at a given 2Gb capacity: SD Extreme III 20Mbps and CF Extreme IV 40Mbps. Moreover, it offers CF at a max of 8Gb while SD at a max of 2Gb.

 

This kind of CF/SD constancy at SanDisk has been similar for about 3 years since I'm following it.

i agree that sd and compact flash now cost the same

 

it was my distinct recollection, at the time the Digilux came out, that sd cost more than compact flash.

 

i may be wrong, but not usually....

>Actually - when dpreview tested the Canon 1D Mk. II (which has both SD and CF slots),

they clocked the SD as FASTER in most regards than the CF.

 

>>YEs, thanks for pointing this out. I'm surprised by that, and my remark about CF being

"faster" than SD seem to have been wrong.

 

AS with all "faster/slower/better/worse" statements, the whole story is not easily

describeable with just a few words, as you say "most" regards. For example, the same

review above stating SD faster than CF shows it's only about writing to card (i.e. flush the

photos and come back to shooting); it however shows the CF being faster than the SD

when transferring the photos from card to PC (firewire reader benchmark).

 

Also, the compared cards (SD and CF), although both are SanDisk Ultra II, have different

capacities: SD is 512Mb CF is 2Gb. So which one is faster at transfering 1Gb? Two SD cards

or one CF.

 

I still assume overall performance of best CF cards to be better than best SD cards', simply

because they have much more I/O pins and because they are larger in size. (a combination

of capacity, read/write transfer, reliability).

 

SD is good too, and probably more than enough necessary for M8's other parameters.

 

 

Take a look at Rob Galbraiths's memory tests. Here is the link for the Canion EOS 1D Mk II

N (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8200). You will see that

the 2gb Sandisk Ultra did better in SD than CF.

 

So it seems for some cameras SD may have a better performance future, IF the specs are

not a moving target. As an example the Epson P-2000 and P-4000 viewers need a

firmware upgrade to even read the 2gb SD cards. Not to mention problems that they might

have with the 4gb and 8gb cards.

 

OT of sorts, does using a SD to CF adapter eliminate the SD compatibility issues?

What are the SD compatibility issues? SDHC vs SD? (I don't know if it solves or not). Security features digital rights management? (usually high-end cameras don't do drm)...

<em>Take a look at Rob Galbraiths's memory tests. Here is the link for the Canion EOS 1D Mk II N (rg reference). You will see that the 2gb Sandisk Ultra did better in SD than CF.</em>

<p>

Yes, it reports SanDisk CF Ultra II 2Gb as 5.9/7.1 R/W Mbps while SD Ultra II _Plus_ is 6.3/7.3 (whatever "plus" means, but different). If I just compare the best that company has to offer for a given capacity, CF vs SD, I think I still conclude CF faster than SD.