Card failures?

Card failures?


  • Total voters
    0
For some people the cost is quite high for that extra card slot.
As opposed to the cost of trying to recover lost files on that single card and the cost to your reputation and your business for losing a clients once in a lifetime images?
Why assume that everybody here is (a) a currently working professional and (b) spends much or all their working time shooting irreplacable images.

As soon as you accept(if ever!) that different people have different needs you'll realise that not everybody wants or needs the same as you.
 
There is certainly a right answer as to which is better for greatly decreasing the chances of losing images between a one slot camera and a two slot camera.
Sure - but that pre-supposes that the question "is it important to decrease the risk" has already been answered positively.
That type of question is always useful.
To me, it's not important, so I can't be bothered using two cards, even if my camera does have dual slots.
Perfectly valid statement of personal priorities.
Nonsense. Facts exist despite you denying their existence and utility.
The fact here is that Mike does not consider it important to him. You seem keen to deny that fact. His statement made no claims for universal truth about the effectiveness of dual slots for someone who considers that it is important to insure against losing images. It just says that FOR HIM it is not important enough to implement.
Yes, sir! Exactly.

Regards, Mike
 
The real challenge with these sorts of discussions is that it can be difficult to get some people to understand that different people have different needs. Costs and benefits can vary with the situation...
The real challenge with these sorts of discussions seems to be simply answering the OP's question:

" Have you lost images due the card being unreadable when you tried to copy to your computer?"
I'm glad somebody noticed!

I deliberately asked the question as a request for facts. I could have asked for opinions, as so often happens with these polls, but all I wanted was to know how many people had suffered card failures. This is unlikely to be useful for calculating percentages as I guess that a lot of people who have never had a card failure would not bother to reply, but tant pis!

Funnily enough I've had at least one answer where a responders poll entry was different from the facts related in a post they made to this thread.
 
For some people the cost is quite high for that extra card slot.
As opposed to the cost of trying to recover lost files on that single card and the cost to your reputation and your business for losing a clients once in a lifetime images?
Why assume that everybody here is (a) a currently working professional
I haven’t. All photographers take photos they wish to preserve. Professionals simply have more reason to do so.
and (b) spends much or all their working time shooting irreplacable images.
You've never taken any photos you wish to preserve?
As soon as you accept(if ever!) that different people have different needs you'll realise that not everybody wants or needs the same as you.
I've never met or heard of any photographer that has never taken any photos that they didn’t want to preserve, so it isn’t about me.
 
For some people the cost is quite high for that extra card slot.
As opposed to the cost of trying to recover lost files on that single card and the cost to your reputation and your business for losing a clients once in a lifetime images?
Why assume that everybody here is (a) a currently working professional
I haven’t. All photographers take photos they wish to preserve. Professionals simply have more reason to do so.
Non-professionals don't have clents to lose.
and (b) spends much or all their working time shooting irreplacable images.
You've never taken any photos you wish to preserve?
I didn't say that. I have taken many REPLACABLE photographs. Rather fewer irrepacable ones.
As soon as you accept(if ever!) that different people have different needs you'll realise that not everybody wants or needs the same as you.
I've never met or heard of any photographer that has never taken any photos that they didn’t want to preserve,
I didn't say that, either.
so it isn’t about me.
 
For some people the cost is quite high for that extra card slot.
As opposed to the cost of trying to recover lost files on that single card and the cost to your reputation and your business for losing a clients once in a lifetime images?
Why assume that everybody here is (a) a currently working professional
I haven’t. All photographers take photos they wish to preserve. Professionals simply have more reason to do so.
Non-professionals don't have clents to lose.
They don’t need any to want to preserve their images.
and (b) spends much or all their working time shooting irreplacable images.
You've never taken any photos you wish to preserve?
I didn't say that.
It's a valid question for someone taking a position against the utility of two card cameras.
I have taken many REPLACABLE photographs. Rather fewer irrepacable ones.
That you have taken many replaceable photos is irrelevant. It's the irreplaceable ones that matter and that a two card camera addresses. Since you do take irreplaceable photos then obviously a two card camera would benefit you too, as it would all photographers.
As soon as you accept(if ever!) that different people have different needs you'll realise that not everybody wants or needs the same as you.
I've never met or heard of any photographer that has never taken any photos that they didn’t want to preserve,
I didn't say that, either.
It's a valid response because as I said earlier, you are taking a position against the utility of a two card camera.
 
There is certainly a right answer as to which is better for greatly decreasing the chances of losing images between a one slot camera and a two slot camera.
Sure - but that pre-supposes that the question "is it important to decrease the risk" has already been answered positively.
That type of question is always useful.
Not to what he was responding to. I was merely remarking on the fact that a two card camera has obvious utility for everyone. That's why he owns a two card camera. 😉
To me, it's not important, so I can't be bothered using two cards, even if my camera does have dual slots.
Perfectly valid statement of personal priorities.
Yet he admitted later to using two cards.
Nonsense. Facts exist despite you denying their existence and utility.
The fact here is that Mike does not consider it important to him. You seem keen to deny that fact. His statement made no claims for universal truth about the effectiveness of dual slots for someone who considers that it is important to insure against losing images. It just says that FOR HIM it is not important enough to implement.
Read more CAREFULLY what he was originally responding to.
 
There is certainly a right answer as to which is better for greatly decreasing the chances of losing images between a one slot camera and a two slot camera.
Sure - but that pre-supposes that the question "is it important to decrease the risk" has already been answered positively.
That type of question is always useful.
To me, it's not important, so I can't be bothered using two cards, even if my camera does have dual slots.
Perfectly valid statement of personal priorities.
Nonsense. Facts exist despite you denying their existence and utility.
The fact here is that Mike does not consider it important to him. You seem keen to deny that fact. His statement made no claims for universal truth about the effectiveness of dual slots for someone who considers that it is important to insure against losing images. It just says that FOR HIM it is not important enough to implement.
Yes, sir! Exactly.

Regards, Mike
Again, what you were responding to had nothing to do with what you do or find useful. I merely stated a fact, that a two card camera greatly decreases the chances of losing images compared to a one camera camera.

You also later admitted to using two cards under some conditions so your "I can’t be bothered" using two cards was not accurate.
 
For some people the cost is quite high for that extra card slot.
As opposed to the cost of trying to recover lost files on that single card and the cost to your reputation and your business for losing a clients once in a lifetime images?
Why assume that everybody here is (a) a currently working professional
I haven’t.
See the sentence in bold above.
All photographers take photos they wish to preserve. Professionals simply have more reason to do so.
Non-professionals don't have clients to lose.
They don’t need any to want to preserve their images.
and (b) spends much or all their working time shooting irreplacable images.
You've never taken any photos you wish to preserve?
I didn't say that.
It's a valid question for someone taking a position against the utility of two card cameras.
I have not taken 'a position against the utility of two card cameras'. I have agreed with the opinion that it is a matter of personal judgment whether it is worth the cost, effort or whatever to use a two card camera as a way to reduce the risk of losing images. Or indeed, to use any other particular strategy.

As you believe that it is valid to restate people's posts in any way that suits your argument I fail to see any value in continuing this discussion.
 
I've never met or heard of any photographer that has never taken any photos that they didn’t want to preserve, so it isn’t about me.
Then you have't met any who work by the hour.

If the card fails and you have to re-shoot, they get to bill more hours.
 
I've never met or heard of any photographer that has never taken any photos that they didn’t want to preserve, so it isn’t about me.
Then you have't met any who work by the hour.

If the card fails and you have to re-shoot, they get to bill more hours.
He also hasn’t been listening, or rather reading, all that closely to what people have been saying in this thread. And that’s before we get to the kind of convoluted, triple-negative kind of sentences as above...

Regards, Mike
 
There are $40,000 cameras being sold today with a single card slot. Different needs for different people. Shhh... I don't use protective filters either.
 
The real challenge with these sorts of discussions is that it can be difficult to get some people to understand that different people have different needs. Costs and benefits can vary with the situation...
The real challenge with these sorts of discussions seems to be simply answering the OP's question:

" Have you lost images due the card being unreadable when you tried to copy to your computer?"
I'm glad somebody noticed!

I deliberately asked the question as a request for facts. I could have asked for opinions, as so often happens with these polls, but all I wanted was to know how many people had suffered card failures. This is unlikely to be useful for calculating percentages as I guess that a lot of people who have never had a card failure would not bother to reply, but tant pis!

Funnily enough I've had at least one answer where a responders poll entry was different from the facts related in a post they made to this thread.
I voted "never". No more to be said.

Dave
 
I see a lot of negative comments (currently concentrated in Nikon Z threads, but lots of other places) about cameras with only one card slot.The main reason is generally given as 'insurance against card failure'.

I only have about 10 years of digital shooting under my belt, but I don't remember a single case where I lost images due to a card failing. Back in my pro days (film time) I remember one occasion where I lost images due to a film problem, and that was actually because the Ektachrome processing machine jammed.

So my question is: Have you lost images due the card being unreadable when you tried to copy to your computer?
Sry dude, but your poll doesnt really help here, as you dont seperate XQD cards which are a completely different kind of breed compared to old and flimsy SD cards. XQD also is PCIe and not SATA which is also superior and more reliable.
 
I will ONLY use cameras with THREE card slots. I absolutely can not lose any images and TWO slots are not enough because what if a failure of both cards occur?
so it's pretty safe for me to assume you never take a picture in your life....;-)
 
Nikon cured my GAS and saved me $3K+ by only including 1 card slot. I go to every paid shoot with a backup body, multiple lens, spare batteries, spare memory card. I always shoot redundant to both memory cards. it's ridiculous to just have 1 memory card slot.
 
Nikon cured my GAS and saved me $3K+ by only including 1 card slot. I go to every paid shoot with a backup body, multiple lens, spare batteries, spare memory card. I always shoot redundant to both memory cards. it's ridiculous to just have 1 memory card slot.
For me . . . I still want the Nikon Z6. LOL.

Yes. I wish it had 2 card slots.

But that is so I could have kinda tricked myself into thinking that it made sense to get it as a fun vacation camera that could act as back-up camera to my Nikon D750.

Then it could have been a two birds with one stone sort of thing. Or . . . have your cake and eat it too.

As it is, it doesn't scratch my itch as a back-up camera.

But . . . as a personal camera . . . I have to say I can't find anything I don't like about it.

When shooting for myself . . . I often shoot cameras that only have 1 SD card slot. :)

Although not a short term thing . . . I could see myself eventually having a Nikon Z camera of some sort. :)

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
Last edited:
Nikon cured my GAS and saved me $3K+ by only including 1 card slot. I go to every paid shoot with a backup body, multiple lens, spare batteries, spare memory card. I always shoot redundant to both memory cards. it's ridiculous to just have 1 memory card slot.
And in some situations it's ridiculous to have only one photographer getting the shot.

If you have two photographers capturing the shot, you really don't need the second card.

It really does all depend on the situation. What's right for some people may not be right for others.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top