Canon 6D and SD cards

<p>The new Canon 6D uses SD cards instead of the old reliable Compact Flash cards. Is this a good choice and do you think Canon will be using the SD cards in their upcoming cameras ? As far as I know SD cards are now comparable to compact flash as far as speed. Not only that, they are more popular and sell at retail stores like Radio Shack in varying sizes.</p>

<p>I had problems trying to find Compact Cards greater than 2GB at Radio Shack. SD card are used in more electronic devices such as cell phones and MP3 players. But all this popularity makes me think of consumer Gizmos for the masses. </p>

<p>One thing Compact Flash card have going for it is that my desk top computer has a slot for Compact Cards not SD cards and they seem to be more rugged. Can anybody think of any other adavntages the Compact Card has over the SD card ? </p>

<p>They're cheaper and smaller. I like them. My laptop has an SD slot, no CF.</p>

<p>Most recent laptops and many desktops have slots for SD cards.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>SD card are used in more electronic devices such as cell phones and MP3 players<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The cards in phones and other portable devices are typically the smaller micro SD card. An adapter can be used.</p>

<p> </p>

I prefer CF I always buy good quality cards Lexar or Sandisk and usually modest densities but high write speeds. I like to

have smaller cards - never more than 16 GB so I don't lose as much. My Canons all use CF and I have only had two

cards go bad and both were several years ago. My Leica and G1 (m43) use SD and I have had more card issues with

these bodies. That said SD cards seem reliable enough although the Leica is very fussy about brand and size. You

should always format the card in the camera for best results.

<p>The SD cards have much more robust connectors. There have been several posts on this forum regarding bent pins as a result of forcing CF cards into the socket when the card is not quite aligned - and it is rather expensive to fix. SD cards would eliminate this problem.</p>

<p>It only really matters to me because I've got an investment in CF cards! I just picked up two 32GB 1000x (150mb/s) Lexar UDMA7 CF cards for my 7D via B&H's recent sale.</p>

<p>As long as they do the same job, I really don't care, though I prefer the handling of the CF cards to the tiny SD cards...</p>

<p>The SD cards most probably were used for the 6D due to physical size (also most likely why there isn't dual slots). It is a fairly compact full frame for Canon when compared to the 5Dx and even a bit smaller to Nikons most recent entry level full frame.</p>

<p>The fastest SD cards are slower (in camera) than the fastest CF cards, so high performance DSLRs will continue to have a CF slot. They may also have an SD slot, but they won't be SD only.</p>

<p>In camera, the fastest CF cards can write (and read) 2-4x faster than the fastest SD cards.</p>

<p>SD cards are fine in slower DSLRs. The new 6D isn't a speed demon so SD cards probably don't slow it down much.</p>

<p>I also prefer CF cards, mostly because of their size, the SD are just too small for my clumsy fingers, and hope they stay around awhile. Neither do I think the use of SD cards in the new camera portends the end of CF. Smaller isn't always better, but if it's cheaper, Canon may go that way.</p>

<p>@Bob - (not to hijack the thread) Do you happen to have any indication yet of the buffer size for the 6D? Didn't see that in the specs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you happen to have any indication yet of the buffer size for the 6D? [James G.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answers courtesy of Ken Rockwell:</p>

<p>73 JPG, 14 RAW, 7 RAW+JPG with slow card.<br>

1,250 JPG, 17 RAW, 8 RAW+JPG with fast UHS-1 card.</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d.htm</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you Peter. Don't know what I was expecting but the buffer numbers don't seem bad for 4.5fpm. Buying (or already having) a couple of decent 16MB SD cards would work for my needs at least, and be cheaper than the CF equivalent. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The SD cards most probably were used for the 6D due to physical size"<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I very much doubt the size of the camera body had anything to do with it. My old 350D (Rebel XT) used CF cards and had a very small body size (certainly smaller than a full frame 6D). I'm sure there were actually digital compact cameras that took CF cards back in the day. <br>

<br>

I think the most likely reasons for Canon choosing an SD slot are:<br>

1. The 6D does not have high enough performance to justify using larger, more expensive CF cards.<br>

2. The SD slots are more reliable with less chance of the dreaded bent pin syndrome.<br>

3. The SD slot acts as a further reminder to the consumer that the 6D is to be judged as a non-pro body (although not having a pop-up flash is just plain mean!)<br>

</p>

<p>The reason is simple. The 6D is intended to be a bridge camera for amateurs and hobbyists who want to move up the capabilities of a FF sensor. Obviously, speed is not a requirement.</p>

<p>Having to purchase an entire new set of decent CF cards could easily drive the cost of the camera (for a photog who has only been using SDs) up by 10-15% ($200+), whereas simply putting an SD slot in makes the purchase a more rationalizable choice for 'on the fence' consumers.</p>

<p>Good choice/bad choice is irrelevant, it's a choice that will sell more units (and not significantly handicap the camera).</p>

 

<p>Let us not forget that the 6D is <strong>UHS-1 card compatible.</strong></p>

<p>I prefer SDs for general use as they are easier to use with a laptop I just wish that Canon fitted an SD and CF like Nikon did with the D300s . I did find the SDHC cards slower than fast CF when shooting wildlife;It was good to have the choice. I cannot comment on SDXC as I dont have any.</p>

I think it was an expected choice. The trend has been to shift to SD for all but the most demanding applications...it costs less, takes up

less space, and customers like to be able to use existing cards. Since the 6D is clearly viewed by Canon as a step up from the xx0D and

x0D cameras, rather than a direct replacement for the 5DmkII or a backup pro body, I fully expected SD.

 

Do I like it? No. I elected to buy a new 5DmkII rather than wait a few months for the 6D in part due to the change. I prefer CF because it is

faster, especially now that I have a USB 3.0 reader in my new PC, greatly reducing transfer times. I use SDHC cards in my Delorme GPS

with 16-32GB worth of maps, and the transfer times for SD just don't compare yet. Plus, I have big hands, and CF cards are easier to

manipulate. Plus, since I've been using digital cameras since around 2000 when CF was more common even in consumer point and

shoots, I'm invested in CF.

 

Will it hurt sales? Nah. It will probably drive a handful of people upgrading from CF cameras to the 7D or 5DmkIII, which I'm sure Canon

won't object to in the long run.

<blockquote>

<p>I have big hands, and CF cards are easier to manipulate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really missed Smart Media cards because they were larger and easier to manipulate.</p>