Worried about only having one card slot?

I've had three Lexar SDXC cards fail. Yes, they were always formatted in camera (before the start of every job) and handled carefully. Still to this day don't know why they stopped working - or rather they were no longer recognized by the camera. Two of them were bought at the same time, the third was a replacement for one of those that stopped working. I'm not sure I'd trust Lexar again.

I've never had a Sandisk card fail, but I have had two break, while putting them into the card reader in my metal cased Mac Book Pro. In both cases it was trying to get images at an event under pressure with very little working space. I was able to get the data off both, but they were then only fit for the garbage.

MisterBG said:

Holger Bargen said:

Richard B99 said:

In the persuit of a bit of lighthearted fun and an enlightening tale...

There is a lot of angst expressed every time a manufacturer launches a new body with a single card slot. A feeling of insecurity over whether those little cards are fragile and will die and loose our images perhaps?

Click to expand...

If you always buy professional gear you won't have to have this "angst". It is a professional way to have a backup for everything important - especially for data. No camera producer aiming with a product for the professional market will produce a camera without the option to have a backup on a second storage media - it may be a second SD card, an internal storage media or something we will see in the future (I have no idea if there is anything under construction).

If I work with two cards I use cards with similar speed but from different brands. Sometimes we can read about series of products with a common failure history - and this way I avoid to become a victim of cards faulty by design or production.

I have once had a faulty SD card (Kingston 16 GB) but there was already a backup of the data that were on the card and so it was no problem for me.

I think the risk of data loss from a faulty SD card is low - but there is a risk (even if you buy products from well known companies). If you are not a professional or using your camera not for a professional job where a client is witing for results, a loss of data would be annoying - but something you can bear.

If you have a faulty card or one where you have doubts about its health throw it away and do not try to cure it.

Best regards

Holger

Click to expand...

You obviously never used a film camera.
Back in the day I cannot recall a "professional" (whatever that means) camera that took two films.

Click to expand...

I did a lot of photography in film days. That days you had several bodies with you and if there was something wrong with one film 36 exposures were lost - and not the entire set of photos.

I remember that a friend had to take photos that days when it was very cold. His brand new Nikon quit working due to the temperatures and he ahd to do the shooting with the point-and shoot (it was a Pentax) of his wife ...

Best regards

Holger

BG454 said:

Plus in those days, you had to wait until the film was processed before you knew for certain what you had taken.
There were plenty of opportunities for the image to be lost after the shoot.

Click to expand...

Krav Maga said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Krav Maga said:

TeddyD said:

Why remove a card from the camera? Well, maybe home by your computer but not even then..

Click to expand...

Handing it off to a runner to upload, send, or dump on laptop (unless tethered) when on location.

Click to expand...

Runner? This is a technology issue. Images should be auto-uploaded via wireless to your laptop.

Click to expand...

Says who? "Runner" situations aren't the only circumstances of concern. I've shot in plenty of locations...

Click to expand...

You know, I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your reply but I realized that would only lead to a DPReview staple tit-for-tat chain. So I won't.

Instead I'll leave it that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

But until ILCs catch up to smartphones we have to use SD cards, as best we can.

Wayne

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60099810

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62018052

I personally have had 2 SD cards fall apart, but were readable. And I am very careful with my memory cards. Maybe not so much with the camera and lenses. But I am extra careful with the memory cards.

And I've had 1 SD card come from the factory dead.

Wayne Larmon said:

Circumstances? Was the card a name brand card? That was purchased from a reputable vendor? (i.e., not from Amazon or eBay.) Does the user always dismount the card properly? (From the computer, when in a card reader. And doesn't snatch it out of the camera before the camera is done writing to it.)

Was the card tested before being put into service? I always test new cards with h2testw.

Did you format the card in the camera you are using it in? Each time you start a new session?

If you are having card failures, the question is why you are having failures. It might be a workflow issue, not a camera issue.

Click to expand...

I think dual cards, at least for me, is a tool that can be worked into your workflow.

For me, when I finish a day long shoot, I take one of the memory cards out of the camera (even before I start to pack up). Put it in a plastic protective case. Put that into an envelope and then put that in my shirt pocket.

Then, while I pack up and get ready to go home, I at least know where one copy of the pictures are at all times.

Then when I get home, I download the pictures to my computer and back them up on another computer.

For me, not only do I think about SD card failure, but also all the stupid things I can do that can damage an SD Card (or any memory card for that matter.)

I can lose it. Drop it and accidentally step on it. It can be stolen. Or I can accidentally push the wrong button on the computer at home and accidentally erase the memory card. LOL.

At a glance, having dual slots is a way to protect me from myself more than from the chances an SD card can fail. LOL.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Wayne Larmon said:

Wayne Larmon said:

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

People generally aren't good at evaluating risk. Or managing risk.

It would be simple if all bodies had the option of being purchased with one slot or two (or three or four.) It is not simple when major new camera bodies are released with a single slot. The risk factor becomes more nuanced.

Wayne

Click to expand...

--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tacticdesigns/sets/72157631300869284/

[FL][RP][LS][GC][51]

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And you can find endless people who have had a card failure, that have had no sizable effect on payment to said professionals.

Two slots is not the only solution for redundancy in the field. Conflating the risk with one specific solution does not lead to a valid conclusion.

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

I have to admit, I picked up a Sony Handycam (cheap one) to do what little video recording that I do.

It only has a single microSD slot. :O LOL.

But . . . my buddy has a video recorder that has a built-in hard drive.

He hates it because when it is filled up, he has to go to his computer to transfer and empty the files.

Which is fine when you have a computer nearby.

But when he is on vacation, he doesn't always like taking a computer with him.

Where as . . . me, I simply carry another microSD card with me. I can be lazy and still not have to worry about running out of memory with that video camera. LOL.

As for saving to HD or wireless transfer or uploading to the Internet, I would love that all to be easy, accessible and good price.

But . . . if I happen to have a camera that has dual slots and is capable of all these other backup methods, why wouldn't I shoot dual cards "and" save to the web as well?

That way, if the Internet access is spotty or not available (like shooting in a building where cellphone access is problematic, and the client won't open their WiFi to you), then you can at least be saving to 2 cards. And then when you leave the area where Internet access is spotty, then you can start uploading the files to the Internet.

?

Having access to one back-up method does not negate another.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

beatboxa said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And you can find endless people who have had a card failure, that have had no sizable effect on payment to said professionals.

Two slots is not the only solution for redundancy in the field. Conflating the risk with one specific solution does not lead to a valid conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is an impossible to replicate component of redundancy. You cannot get a simultaneous write at time of capture to another bit of media any other way right now. A second card slot is the only current solution that provides that for any ilc, anything close is much slower, and moreover requires external devices. And why anyone would vehemently reject the capability is baffling. A second card slot is cheap to include and easy to use. Why people doing paid work don't simply demand it is crazy. It's akin to not backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Just complete and total reliance on a single point of failure at a step of the image pipeline. Who thinks that is the perfect and optimal way to do things? If it was prohibitively expensive, or complicated, or relied on unknown componentry, then maybe. But, it isn't a single one of those things. It's so dead simple that the aversion to it is mind numbing.

confused circle said:

beatboxa said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And you can find endless people who have had a card failure, that have had no sizable effect on payment to said professionals.

Two slots is not the only solution for redundancy in the field. Conflating the risk with one specific solution does not lead to a valid conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is an impossible to replicate component of redundancy. You cannot get a simultaneous write at time of capture to another bit of media any other way right now. A second card slot is the only current solution that provides that for any ilc, anything close is much slower, and moreover requires external devices. And why anyone would vehemently reject the capability is baffling. A second card slot is cheap to include and easy to use. Why people doing paid work don't simply demand it is crazy. It's akin to not backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Just complete and total reliance on a single point of failure at a step of the image pipeline. Who thinks that is the perfect and optimal way to do things? If it was prohibitively expensive, or complicated, or relied on unknown componentry, then maybe. But, it isn't a single one of those things. It's so dead simple that the aversion to it is mind numbing.

Click to expand...

No, there are wireless synching solutions--and an external storage device provides more reliable recovery, in case the primary device is lost or stolen.

Wireless solutions would be akin to backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud requires external devices.

But dual slots would be like using RAID-1 within a single computer. How many people who complain of lack of dual slots use RAID-1 on their computers (which requires twin physical hard drives, written to simultaneously, within a single machine)?

In the last ten years I've used a lot more memory cards than cameras. I've had one memory card fail and four cameras fail. I've also had three lenses fail and two flashguns fail. I'm therefore much more worried about the risks of not having duplicate flashes, lenses, and cameras, compared to the risks of not having two card slots.

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

The designers of the new Zeiss are apparently thinking along these lines:


512Gb internal storage. But no card slot. Still - I've never had a storage failure on my iphone, so makes me wonder if it is mostly static discharge from installing and re-installing the SD card that causes failures.

stevo23 said:

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

The designers of the new Zeiss are apparently thinking along these lines:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/zeiss/compacts/zeiss_zx1

512Gb internal storage. But no card slot. Still - I've never had a storage failure on my iphone, so makes me wonder if it is mostly static discharge from installing and re-installing the SD card that causes failures.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it could also simply be component failure as well, like a memory controller or some other chip on the circuit board.

I have only had 1 SD card fail right out of the package.

Actually, thinking about it, I had 2 SD cards fail right out of the package. One I got exchanged.

But . . . I've had 3 USB sticks fail on me.

When I look up the symptoms on the Internet, most references guess that is was the memory controller on the circuit board that failed.

It's electronic after all.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

TacticDesigns said:

stevo23 said:

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

The designers of the new Zeiss are apparently thinking along these lines:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/zeiss/compacts/zeiss_zx1

512Gb internal storage. But no card slot. Still - I've never had a storage failure on my iphone, so makes me wonder if it is mostly static discharge from installing and re-installing the SD card that causes failures.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it could also simply be component failure as well, like a memory controller or some other chip on the circuit board.

I have only had 1 SD card fail right out of the package.

Actually, thinking about it, I had 2 SD cards fail right out of the package. One I got exchanged.

But . . . I've had 3 USB sticks fail on me.

When I look up the symptoms on the Internet, most references guess that is was the memory controller on the circuit board that failed.

It's electronic after all.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Click to expand...

That's good real life data. I've never lost an SD card but I have had one become unreadable after performing operations (delete) with my Mac. It reformatted fine and works fine now. I have had CF failures like this on a regular basis and like you, have lost (USB) memory sticks.

stevo23 said:

TacticDesigns said:

stevo23 said:

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

The designers of the new Zeiss are apparently thinking along these lines:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/zeiss/compacts/zeiss_zx1

512Gb internal storage. But no card slot. Still - I've never had a storage failure on my iphone, so makes me wonder if it is mostly static discharge from installing and re-installing the SD card that causes failures.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it could also simply be component failure as well, like a memory controller or some other chip on the circuit board.

I have only had 1 SD card fail right out of the package.

Actually, thinking about it, I had 2 SD cards fail right out of the package. One I got exchanged.

But . . . I've had 3 USB sticks fail on me.

When I look up the symptoms on the Internet, most references guess that is was the memory controller on the circuit board that failed.

It's electronic after all.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Click to expand...

That's good real life data. I've never lost an SD card but I have had one become unreadable after performing operations (delete) with my Mac. It reformatted fine and works fine now. I have had CF failures like this on a regular basis and like you, have lost (USB) memory sticks.

Click to expand...

+1

Now. I may have those 3 USB stick failures as examples because I run the equipment right up until it fails.

One was my first ever USB stick, a 256MB stick. And then my 2nd USB stick (8GB), and then my 3RD (16GB).

I do back up my memory sticks to my computer, so should I suffer a failure I only lose a day or two of changes.

And as the sticks get older, I swap them out and start using newer sticks.

But then I keep using the older sticks for non-critical things like shuffling my MP3s around or taking pictures to the local camera store to print out.

I am guessing that some people may never have experienced a failure because they are good at swapping out old equipment, as is a good idea.

But, having dealt with electronics, I understand that age is not the only determinant on when electronics can fail.

Electronics can fail at any time.

Actually, thinking about it, the 16GB USB stick was in a computer when there was a power glitch. Right after the power glitch I wasn't able to read the USB stick. The computer saw that it was there, but it was never accessible.

When I looked that one up on the Internet, I read posts that were saying that power fluctuations to a memory devices can definitely kill them.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

TacticDesigns said:

stevo23 said:

TacticDesigns said:

stevo23 said:

Wayne Larmon said:

TacticDesigns said:

Wayne Larmon said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

Click to expand...

I'm from the group that has never had a failure and I'd like to hear from the people that have had card failure(s).

Click to expand...

Here are a few post / stories that I've come across over the past little while . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61439082

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tony+...-18&sk=&cvid=498373024F664F7B91569E2B26979CCC

Click to expand...

This is salient but before addressing it I'll quote myself from another post in this thread:

... that current smartphones can transparently auto-upload images to the cloud. And they often have no slots at all because they use heaping gobs of internal SSD storage, so you can wait until you have a solid WiFi signal (if needed). In this respect smartphones are more advanced than ILCs are.

Back to the Tony Northrup link. Quoting from it

Tony: FYI single card problems are REAL. The new Canon EOS R failed with our fairly new pro-grade UHS-II card, ruining 3 A-roll segments for our review that I can't re-shoot. Frustrating!

Some replies to this

Tony: I do wonder why we don't hear about corruption on phones. Maybe it detects and fixes it, or maybe it's more reliable because it's hard wired and never gets removed.

(Another poster): A phone is sealed. An open SD slot on cam create points of vulnerabilities. Periodic removing/inserting SDs, conditions on how they're stored, SD contacts in the cam, SD slot exposed to many elements (foreign particles/etc), writing issues when cam experiences strong impact, etc.

(Another poster): So if we could just leave the card always inside the camera and just download our photos via USB, Bluetooth, wi-fi etc a redundant slot wouldn't be that necessary.

More posts along these lines, which gets back to what I said. ILCs are in locked into a technological backwater. It would be much better if cameras' primary storage was a large amount of SSD (like smartphones have), backed up with a single SD slot. The camera would be able to auto-back to the cloud (like current smartphones do right now). And would be flexible enough to also auto-backup to local devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) as is needed.

In addition to writing the images to an SD card for the very rare circumstance when all of the above SSD/local/cloud storage fails. Most photographers would never have to remove the SD card from the camera during the camera's lifetime.

This is only a minor extension of existing technology but would be a lot more reliable and be a lot easier to manage than how existing cameras work.

Sheesh!

Wayne

Click to expand...

The designers of the new Zeiss are apparently thinking along these lines:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/zeiss/compacts/zeiss_zx1

512Gb internal storage. But no card slot. Still - I've never had a storage failure on my iphone, so makes me wonder if it is mostly static discharge from installing and re-installing the SD card that causes failures.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that it could also simply be component failure as well, like a memory controller or some other chip on the circuit board.

I have only had 1 SD card fail right out of the package.

Actually, thinking about it, I had 2 SD cards fail right out of the package. One I got exchanged.

But . . . I've had 3 USB sticks fail on me.

When I look up the symptoms on the Internet, most references guess that is was the memory controller on the circuit board that failed.

It's electronic after all.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Click to expand...

That's good real life data. I've never lost an SD card but I have had one become unreadable after performing operations (delete) with my Mac. It reformatted fine and works fine now. I have had CF failures like this on a regular basis and like you, have lost (USB) memory sticks.

Click to expand...

+1

Now. I may have those 3 USB stick failures as examples because I run the equipment right up until it fails.

Click to expand...

Sort of me too.

TacticDesigns said:

One was my first ever USB stick, a 256MB stick. And then my 2nd USB stick (8GB), and then my 3RD (16GB).

I do back up my memory sticks to my computer, so should I suffer a failure I only lose a day or two of changes.

And as the sticks get older, I swap them out and start using newer sticks.

But then I keep using the older sticks for non-critical things like shuffling my MP3s around or taking pictures to the local camera store to print out.

Click to expand...

I tend toward the same - mostly they're for shuffling things around. So if one fails, I just don't have the ability to do a shuffle.

TacticDesigns said:

I am guessing that some people may never have experienced a failure because they are good at swapping out old equipment, as is a good idea.

But, having dealt with electronics, I understand that age is not the only determinant on when electronics can fail.

Electronics can fail at any time.

Actually, thinking about it, the 16GB USB stick was in a computer when there was a power glitch. Right after the power glitch I wasn't able to read the USB stick. The computer saw that it was there, but it was never accessible.

Click to expand...

They are very sensitive to current/charge discontinuities.

beatboxa said:

confused circle said:

beatboxa said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And you can find endless people who have had a card failure, that have had no sizable effect on payment to said professionals.

Two slots is not the only solution for redundancy in the field. Conflating the risk with one specific solution does not lead to a valid conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is an impossible to replicate component of redundancy. You cannot get a simultaneous write at time of capture to another bit of media any other way right now. A second card slot is the only current solution that provides that for any ilc, anything close is much slower, and moreover requires external devices. And why anyone would vehemently reject the capability is baffling. A second card slot is cheap to include and easy to use. Why people doing paid work don't simply demand it is crazy. It's akin to not backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Just complete and total reliance on a single point of failure at a step of the image pipeline. Who thinks that is the perfect and optimal way to do things? If it was prohibitively expensive, or complicated, or relied on unknown componentry, then maybe. But, it isn't a single one of those things. It's so dead simple that the aversion to it is mind numbing.

Click to expand...

No, there are wireless synching solutions--and an external storage device provides more reliable recovery, in case the primary device is lost or stolen.

Wireless solutions would be akin to backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud requires external devices.

Click to expand...

If you are RAW shooter - how long will you have to wait for the transfer of a single file?

My experience with on the fly use of external storage media: forget about it!

Not every photo session bears the risk of being not repeatable.

But if you have a situation you cant repeat, the security of two storage media is important.

I did some photographic work that has to be done at a certain day. On the same day we would have the chance to repeat the shooting of single photos - maybe even the entire series - but if a mistake was noticed the following date it would have been a drama.

First I did this shooting with Pentax K5. At the end of the session I transferred the data to a notebook and did a check of the files on the notebook in terms of technical quality and completeness.

Then we bought K3 which had two slots. This was a great improvement as I could do the check within the camera and even if one card should be corrupted the second would have the entire set of data.

I would not like to do the shooting of a wedding with a camera that has just one slot. If I would have to use a camera with just one slot I would use cards with very small capacity to minimize the risk of having a loss of enitre important parts of the celebration.

To me a professional camera should give you the options to use two storage media without technically complicated setups. There is no doubt about it.

For a hobbyist camera one slot is enough. If one shooting i lost - it still feels hard but you do not risk your job or big financial loss.

beatboxa said:

But dual slots would be like using RAID-1 within a single computer. How many people who complain of lack of dual slots use RAID-1 on their computers (which requires twin physical hard drives, written to simultaneously, within a single machine)?

Click to expand...

For important files I have a backup! I don't write this backup parallel - but the original data should be stored at two disks (at least).

Best regards

Holger

Absolutely! Due to the stress, I can no longer write as my hand shakes too much, and now I have a fear of stairs and light bulbs. Even the raccoons who own our dumpster give each other sad looks when I approach as if to say: "Too bad; he's deteriorating rapidly...we may need to find a new source for pizza crusts..."

Suggest you follow the usual medical solution to see if you can control the problem:

1. Get a therapy weasel.

2. Keep at least one liter of vodka or cheap whiskey on hand at all times.

3. Stop visiting DPreview sober.

--
"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber ("Animal House")

Holger Bargen said:

beatboxa said:

confused circle said:

beatboxa said:

noggin2k1 said:

You can find endless people who have never had a card failure, and endless people who have had 1 or more card failure.

It's a risk not worth taking for paid professionals. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And you can find endless people who have had a card failure, that have had no sizable effect on payment to said professionals.

Two slots is not the only solution for redundancy in the field. Conflating the risk with one specific solution does not lead to a valid conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is an impossible to replicate component of redundancy. You cannot get a simultaneous write at time of capture to another bit of media any other way right now. A second card slot is the only current solution that provides that for any ilc, anything close is much slower, and moreover requires external devices. And why anyone would vehemently reject the capability is baffling. A second card slot is cheap to include and easy to use. Why people doing paid work don't simply demand it is crazy. It's akin to not backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Just complete and total reliance on a single point of failure at a step of the image pipeline. Who thinks that is the perfect and optimal way to do things? If it was prohibitively expensive, or complicated, or relied on unknown componentry, then maybe. But, it isn't a single one of those things. It's so dead simple that the aversion to it is mind numbing.

Click to expand...

No, there are wireless synching solutions--and an external storage device provides more reliable recovery, in case the primary device is lost or stolen.

Wireless solutions would be akin to backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud. Backing up to another hard drive or to the cloud requires external devices.

Click to expand...

If you are RAW shooter - how long will you have to wait for the transfer of a single file?

My experience with on the fly use of external storage media: forget about it!

Not every photo session bears the risk of being not repeatable.

But if you have a situation you cant repeat, the security of two storage media is important.

I did some photographic work that has to be done at a certain day. On the same day we would have the chance to repeat the shooting of single photos - maybe even the entire series - but if a mistake was noticed the following date it would have been a drama.

First I did this shooting with Pentax K5. At the end of the session I transferred the data to a notebook and did a check of the files on the notebook in terms of technical quality and completeness.

Then we bought K3 which had two slots. This was a great improvement as I could do the check within the camera and even if one card should be corrupted the second would have the entire set of data.

Click to expand...

In camera check is just a preliminary check you got photos, not about quality.

Holger Bargen said:

I would not like to do the shooting of a wedding with a camera that has just one slot. If I would have to use a camera with just one slot I would use cards with very small capacity to minimize the risk of having a loss of enitre important parts of the celebration.

To me a professional camera should give you the options to use two storage media without technically complicated setups. There is no doubt about it.

Click to expand...

How many professionals shoot with one camera only? Besides the storage media there a bigger chance of some sh** hits the lens or the sensor. And if it goes unnoticed then the same stuff hits the fan too, I'd be worried sick.

Holger Bargen said:

For a hobbyist camera one slot is enough. If one shooting i lost - it still feels hard but you do not risk your job or big financial loss.

Click to expand...

Got three slots, in three different bodies

Holger Bargen said:

Holger Bargen said:

But dual slots would be like using RAID-1 within a single computer. How many people who complain of lack of dual slots use RAID-1 on their computers (which requires twin physical hard drives, written to simultaneously, within a single machine)?

Click to expand...

For important files I have a backup! I don't write this backup parallel - but the original data should be stored at two disks (at least).

Best regards

Holger

Click to expand...

Best regards

Teddy

Richard B99 said:

I was rather expecting people to enjoy and find something interesting in the story linked to. Did you find it a bit different and a little eccentric or did you not even bother looking?

Click to expand...

Great story, even with a Google translation!

Richard B99 said:

I'd really not expected the thread to, in the most part, degenerate....

Click to expand...

LOL

David5833 said:

Richard B99 said:

I was rather expecting people to enjoy and find something interesting in the story linked to. Did you find it a bit different and a little eccentric or did you not even bother looking?

Click to expand...

Great story, even with a Google translation!

Click to expand...

David5833 said:

David5833 said:

I'd really not expected the thread to, in the most part, degenerate....

Click to expand...

LOL

Click to expand...