XQD Cards with D500

[ShunCheung]

Personally, I don't care whether it takes 2 minutes or 20 minutes to upload 10G, 20G of images onto my computer. If it takes 20 minutes, I just do something else while the computer is downloading; it makes little actual difference to me.

 

Besides being fast when I capture action in 10 fps, 12 fps, XQD cards are thicker and harder just like CF cards, but XQD doesn't have those vulnerable pins for CF. Meanwhile, XQD are not nearly as easy to crack/damage or lose as those smaller SD cards. However, for small consumer devices such as compact cameras, phones, GPS ..., the smaller form factor for SD or even micro SD is critical.

[ilkka_nissila]

Personally, I don't care whether it takes 2 minutes or 20 minutes to upload 10G, 20G of images onto my computer. If it takes 20 minutes, I just do something else while the computer is downloading; it makes little actual difference to me.

 

I understand that but it is enjoyable when I can insert the card into the computer and start working almost immediately. It saves me the time of having to figure out what to do while waiting. I understand there are more patient people than I am out there. ;-) I remember when it took me over 10 minutes to scan a medium format film based image but I would like to minimize situations where I have to wait for the computer to do something. I guess the issue is that nowadays I shoot so many images that every bit of waiting time adds up to a significant issue. I try to reduce the amount of shooting that I'm doing but somehow it's not working really. If I shoot a reduced number of frames in one event then I quickly shoot another and forget my restrictions.

 

The XQD card is really for video.

 

John, the D5 records 4K video with a bitrate of 144Mbit/s, whereas the 5D Mark IV records video at 500Mbit/s, yet the latter only supports CF and SD UHS-I cards which are much slower than XQD. So there is absolutely no need for the D5 to have XQD cards for video. Much lesser cards would achieve what is needed for storing that data, it seems. (I understand that not every CF or SD UHS-I card can support 4K on the Canon 5D IV but there are some that do - according to a Canon rep, most current CF cards should be fine though I don't know the specifics).

 

I think of XQD mostly in that it solves the two mechanical issues of SD and CF cards: the former are flexible and in my experience can stop working in a few years' of use, and the latter have pin holes and the camera side and card reader side pins can be broken. It can be awkward when it happens to the camera: you can no longer use that slot without repair. XQD hard a hard casing and the readers do not use pins, so there should be fewer problems. What's nice is that the Sony G series XQD readers that came with the cards I purchased have closed front doors which should reduce dust accumulation and soiling of the contacts of the reader. XQD cards and readers just seem better made and more professional. The high speed of the cards is very enjoyable to me. As I've said before I would expect the D810's successor to have at least one XQD card. This would probably allow Nikon to increase burst lengths when using those cards and perhaps add a little to the fps rate as well, if the processing capability of the camera permits that. I'm not a huge burst user, in fact on the D5 I have set the CL to 8fps and if I shoot continuous release, I usually select that mode instead of 12fps simply because I get a more practical number of images from the situation and it is easier to fire single shots when needed, furthermore the focusing and viewfinder blackout is for a shorter proportion of the time at those settings. At 12 fps I would just get a lot of near-identical frames that I don't need. It depends of course on the subject matter that is being photographed. Anyway I rarely run into the buffer in the D810 but on the D750 the buffer size was sometimes an issue that could easily be solved by incorporating either SD UHS-II or XQD slots, or one of each, without having to incorporate a larger memory buffer into the camera. I don't want to pay for SD UHS-II cards since they cost quite a lot if they're fast, and I don't trust them to last long in my use. Perhaps if I used the USB connector to transfer the data I would get greater longevity from SD cards but I don't want to take the risk of pulling from the cord, potentially dropping the camera or damaging the connector on the camera side, so I use a card reader because I think it is safer to do so. This means the cards are subjected to more stress than they would be if they forever stayed in the camera. XQD cards can take that, I believe. SD and Memory Stick cards have given me problems and so I avoid them where possible.

 

As I said I'm not a big burst shooter, but in the D5 the 8fps bursts seem to produce an extremely high AF keeper rate even at wide apertures so I'm beginning to warm up to this mode of camera operation rather than my usually preferred single shot mode. I think an image buffer of 50 is sufficient for all my needs apart from figure skating where it may actually be hit occasionally. However, some of Nikon's cameras have buffers much smaller than that and I think the easiest way to get past that would be to support fast cards more widely, if Nikon doesn't think the cost of adding actual physical memory buffer is feasible (for whatever reason). Investing in faster cards helps also transfer times to the computer and not only when shooting, whereas increasing the memory buffer size just helps during use of the camera. The D5's memory buffer is actually large enough that I could have gotten the CF version and not suffer from the limit in burst shooting but I prefer the newer cards and have been delighted with them in practice. I think sometimes it's time to let go of the past and move on to present day technology.

Edited June 5, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

[rodeo_joe1]

The maximum current read speed of XQD cards appears to be 440MB/s (yeah, right!), while SDXC UHS iii allows for speeds up to 640MB/s. There's also no reason why more SD manufacturers shouldn't follow Samsung's lead and fix an aluminium or dural plate in place of the cardboard or paper label commonly used. This not only strengthens the casing, but also acts as a heatsink to dissipate heat generated by high speed transfer. It's a short leap to make half of the casing from metal and attach it directly to the flash memory chip.

 

So the SD format ain't dead yet! Besides which, the XQD format was dreamed up in 2010 and so is quite old technology that still hasn't made much a of a dent in the market. After 7 years you'd have thought it would have become mainstream were there any need or demand for it. The current drop to a reasonable price asked for XQD cards is beginning to look like a fire sale.

[danny_weber]

"What do you mean by "2nd generation copy issue" ?"

- Any copying process has the chance of introducing an error. A single bit "glitch" can cause a JPEG file to get completely scrambled and unreadable. Therefore it's safer to transfer the original file than to copy a copy.

 

I think the chance of this happening on an in-camera copy is minute, plus the original is still on the XQD card. I have never had a file garbled in a copy operation or even in many-generation copy operations. I could argue that my suggestion is safer, since the original is untouched in case there's a problem, but either argument is specious in my view--it just doesn't matter in reality.

 

Danny W

[Larry_G1664882113]

Wow, This has generated a lot of interesting response. Thank you all. Since I have a D500 with XQD and SD slots, I will make the SD card a backup slot. That way I can transfer the files to my WD My Passport Wireless Pro hard drive using the SD slot in the portable hard drive. I will try out the XQD using a card reader with USB before using it in the field. If it works fine. if not, I'll stick to the SD card for transferring files. Larry