XQD vs SD card

[...]

n057 said:

Why then do you get a Ferrari in the first place?

Click to expand...

Because they look cool and are chick magnets, even with bicycle wheels.

More seriously, camera bodies have many features, and buffer size is only one. if someone isn't using the buffer up, is happy with the copy-to-computer speed of SD, and doesn't need an in-body file backup, there is no reason to get XQDs. It's just more money out the door.

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 said:

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Because many or most people don't do long bursts. I don't. For most people, it just creates a vast number of pictures to cull. Not for all, of course, just most. For those people, spending on an XQD to enable long bursts is an absolute waste of money.

As for "penny pinching", it isn't pennies. A 120GB Sony XQD is $205 at B&H, which for most people is a car payment, not a penny.

Even if it were a penny, a penny saved is a penny earned. The best discount one can get on any product is 100% - by not buying it.

rumple said:

n057 said:

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Because many or most people don't do long bursts. I don't. For most people, it just creates a vast number of pictures to cull. Not for all, of course, just most. For those people, spending on an XQD to enable long bursts is an absolute waste of money.

As for "penny pinching", it isn't pennies. A 120GB Sony XQD is $205 at B&H, which for most people is a car payment, not a penny.

Even if it were a penny, a penny saved is a penny earned. The best discount one can get on any product is 100% - by not buying it.

Click to expand...

Then don't buy it. In your case it would be a real waste to spend, after spending that much on the camera itself.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 said:

rumple said:

n057 said:

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Because many or most people don't do long bursts. I don't. For most people, it just creates a vast number of pictures to cull. Not for all, of course, just most. For those people, spending on an XQD to enable long bursts is an absolute waste of money.

As for "penny pinching", it isn't pennies. A 120GB Sony XQD is $205 at B&H, which for most people is a car payment, not a penny.

Even if it were a penny, a penny saved is a penny earned. The best discount one can get on any product is 100% - by not buying it.

Click to expand...

Then don't buy it. In your case it would be a real waste to spend, after spending that much on the camera itself.

Click to expand...

No, I use both XQD and SD to have in-body backup. My entire point is that it isn't for everyone, while some other people are trying to encourage the OP (and presumably others reading the thread), who does not need the second card, to buy one, in the end, just for the sake of having a shiny thing to go with the shiny camera body.

rumple said:

n057 said:

rumple said:

n057 said:

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Because many or most people don't do long bursts. I don't. For most people, it just creates a vast number of pictures to cull. Not for all, of course, just most. For those people, spending on an XQD to enable long bursts is an absolute waste of money.

As for "penny pinching", it isn't pennies. A 120GB Sony XQD is $205 at B&H, which for most people is a car payment, not a penny.

Even if it were a penny, a penny saved is a penny earned. The best discount one can get on any product is 100% - by not buying it.

Click to expand...

Then don't buy it. In your case it would be a real waste to spend, after spending that much on the camera itself.

Click to expand...

No, I use both XQD and SD to have in-body backup. My entire point is that it isn't for everyone, while some other people are trying to encourage the OP (and presumably others reading the thread), who does not need the second card, to buy one, in the end, just for the sake of having a shiny thing to go with the shiny camera body.

Click to expand...

Yes. :-D

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

n057 said:

BMI_Bill said:

Yes, I left the SD off. I'm unfamiliar with the xqd so didn't realize they were different sizes.

Click to expand...

Although the XQD format was defined by Sandisk, Sony and Nikon, it seems that most of the patents are held by Sony. The first cards available were by Sony and Lexar. Then Lexar dropped out of manufacturing, and because of the Sony patents, others have a hard time making a decision to manufacture them. Fortunately the successor of XQD, CFExpress, is more open, and it is compatible with XQD, requires just a firmware update to implement for existing hardware.

Hopefully Nikon will issue firmware updates to all its XQD cameras.

Search Google for more info about XQD.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional information. Much appreciated.

A lot depends on what you photograph - and how.

Back in 2014 shooting the Tour de France I had some buffer limitations though using 2 bodies and lenses it was not a problem.


Last man after a crash (see his knee and ripped shorts) being encouraged to the finish line.

Some cheaper and older SD cards are extremely slow.

Other SD that come near XQD performance can cost more than XQD :-|

With XQD I do not have buffer issues.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than the equipment being used.

rumple said:

[...]

rumple said:

Why then do you get a Ferrari in the first place?

Click to expand...

Because they look cool and are chick magnets, even with bicycle wheels.

More seriously, camera bodies have many features, and buffer size is only one. if someone isn't using the buffer up, is happy with the copy-to-computer speed of SD, and doesn't need an in-body file backup, there is no reason to get XQDs. It's just more money out the door.

Click to expand...

I use both slots when covering bike-a-thons. Second slot (SD) is overflow. I have three XQD and six or more SDXC UHS-II 300MB/s cards (I can't remember, not at home to check), all 128 GB. I also shoot M43 with two E-M1 MK II, so it's kind of ridiculous not to use the second slot.

rumple said:

n057 said:

rumple said:

atalwar said:

[...]

Thing is IMO, If you are spending money on this kind of performance camera, then you should invest into the Optimal Media that this was designed for/with to get the optimal performance. It's all about the completely tuned ecosystem when it comes to performance machines.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. it's all about the feature sets that one needs. If someone isn't doing long, repeated bursts at Ch, they will never experience "optimal performance". Maybe they bought the camera for other reasons, like excellent low-light focus performance.

Click to expand...

The buffer is capable of handling single shots with any card, but with the proper card, it can also handle long bursts. Why penny-pinch?

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Click to expand...

Because many or most people don't do long bursts. I don't. For most people, it just creates a vast number of pictures to cull. Not for all, of course, just most. For those people, spending on an XQD to enable long bursts is an absolute waste of money.

As for "penny pinching", it isn't pennies. A 120GB Sony XQD is $205 at B&H, which for most people is a car payment, not a penny.

Even if it were a penny, a penny saved is a penny earned. The best discount one can get on any product is 100% - by not buying it.

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of car your getting for $205 a month unless you're on a lease, but neither here or there. The worst situation on any product is buying one that doesn't meet your needs, resulting in shelling out more money to get the upgraded version.

Leonard Shepherd said:

A lot depends on what you photograph - and how.

Back in 2014 shooting the Tour de France I had some buffer limitations though using 2 bodies and lenses it was not a problem.


Last man after a crash (see his knee and ripped shorts) being encouraged to the finish line.

Some cheaper and older SD cards are extremely slow.

Other SD that come near XQD performance can cost more than XQD :-|

Click to expand...

Totally agree, especially the Sony Tough SDXC UHS-II series, which I am slowly switching to my other cameras.

Leonard Shepherd said:

With XQD I do not have buffer issues.

Click to expand...

It's cost versus need. XQD 64 GB 440MB/S will give you a burst of about 200 frames, before needing to catch up. At 10FPS per second, that's about 20 seconds of continuous shooting. But it costs $120. A SD card 64GB 300M/S will cost about $110. However slower SD cards in the 95MBS read range, will around $45 @ 64 Gb. I need the Xqd for shooting sports. You may not.

Rich Rosen said:

It's cost versus need. XQD 64 GB 440MB/S will give you a burst of about 200 frames, before needing to catch up. At 10FPS per second, that's about 20 seconds of continuous shooting. But it costs $120. A SD card 64GB 300M/S will cost about $110. However slower SD cards in the 95MBS read range, will around $45 @ 64 Gb. I need the Xqd for shooting sports. You may not.

Click to expand...

I haven't received the camera yet (this week) so forgive my ignorance but wouldn't I be using only one card slot without the XQD card?

Rich Rosen said:

It's cost versus need. XQD 64 GB 440MB/S will give you a burst of about 200 frames, before needing to catch up. At 10FPS per second, that's about 20 seconds of continuous shooting. But it costs $120. A SD card 64GB 300M/S will cost about $110. However slower SD cards in the 95MBS read range, will around $45 @ 64 Gb. I need the Xqd for shooting sports. You may not.

Click to expand...

Because the things I shoot NEVER require bursts as long as described above, I have not invested in an XQD card. I use the 95 mbs SC card. However I am curious about how many frames you could take before slowing down with this card. Certainly it would be more than just the capacity of the camera's buffer because the buffer would be continuously cleared as you shoot -- just not cleared as rapidly as with the XQD card. Would it be half as many frames (10 seconds or 100 frames)? Perhaps fewer, perhaps more?

Perhaps it is as simple as the difference between the 95mbs rate of the SD and the 440 mbs of the XQD. The SD has just 21% the speed, so maybe it is 21% of 200 frames. (i.e. 42 frames or just over 4 seconds). But since the buffer itself has some capacity, perhaps the 21% is applied to the portion of 200 frames that exceed the buffer capacity. That sounds more likely, but I don't know what the buffer capacity is alone so can't make that calculation. And I guess it would depend on the file size so shooting 12-bit lossless compressed raw (as I do) would be different than shooting 14-bit raw.

I think this statistic might be useful to someone who is evaluating whether their shooting style demands the speed of the XQD.

For the benefit of the new owners following this thread, it may be important to let them know that if they use both the XQD and SD cards together (the camera has two separate card slots -- one for each type) the burst limit may be dictated by the slower of the two cards, This may depend on whether the second card is designated as merely overflow when the primary card is full or if it is set up for duplicate storage of the images. There are all kinds of things to be considered in this calculus of cost versus need.

BMI_Bill said:

Rich Rosen said:

It's cost versus need. XQD 64 GB 440MB/S will give you a burst of about 200 frames, before needing to catch up. At 10FPS per second, that's about 20 seconds of continuous shooting. But it costs $120. A SD card 64GB 300M/S will cost about $110. However slower SD cards in the 95MBS read range, will around $45 @ 64 Gb. I need the Xqd for shooting sports. You may not.

Click to expand...

I haven't received the camera yet (this week) so forgive my ignorance but wouldn't I be using only one card slot without the XQD card?

Click to expand...

Yes, you would be using only one card slot.

My previous cameras only had one card slot, and I survived. I did not have SD cards before, so I decided to go XQD only.

Most of the time, I don't shoot long bursts , however it takes longer to empty the buffer with a slow cards, and you could end up shooting a series of short bursts in succession and while the buffer is emptying you are put on hold.

As for cost, I bought two 32 GB 440MB/s cards back in March 2016, and have not had to spend anything for new cards. No regrets. Even those smaller cards give the 200 shot buffer, which I have used on accasion, more for show than for need.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

Yes. There is one slot for XQD, and one slot for SD. It's important to note that if you use both cards in tandem (meaning one for raw, one for JPEG, or one to duplicate the other), the buffer will be limited by the slower card (usually SD). If you use one to back up the other (overflow), the buffer will be as large as the primary card (usually XQD), but when full, the buffer will change to the 2nd card. Because of the deeper buffer of the XQD card, it is my primary card in my D500. My SD card is there for overflow only, except when the event I am shooting doesn't require continuous bursts. In those instances, one card is set for raw, the others for JPEG. --

Rich Rosen
https://www.flickr.com/photos/richardrosenphotography

SamNC said:

On my D500, I have not ever used an XQD card. Is it much better than the SD cards I use? I know the write speed is faster, but I am not really sure how that impacts my shooting. Even in a fast sequence of action shots I take, my card (camera?) does not run out of memory during the write sequence.

Click to expand...

Fastest XQD is much faster than fastest SD

what pictures do you take?

On a slightly tangential topic, and I hope this is OK in this thread, I did find a valuable use for the XQD card in my D500.

I used to think there was no point in having an XQD card, even though I do a lot of burst shooting birds. An XQD card reader would be more expense and very little gain in photo quality. But then I missed several potentially important shots because
I had left my SD card in the card reader at home before I left for a shoot. So I got an XQD card, and have set my SD card to backup. So now if I leave it at home by mistake, the camera writes to the XQD card and I can later copy the files to the SD card in the camera. I still don't have an XQD card reader and currently don't need one.

richard stern said:

On a slightly tangential topic, and I hope this is OK in this thread, I did find a valuable use for the XQD card in my D500.

I used to think there was no point in having an XQD card, even though I do a lot of burst shooting birds. An XQD card reader would be more expense and very little gain in photo quality. But then I missed several potentially important shots because
I had left my SD card in the card reader at home before I left for a shoot. So I got an XQD card, and have set my SD card to backup. So now if I leave it at home by mistake, the camera writes to the XQD card and I can later copy the files to the SD card in the camera. I still don't have an XQD card reader and currently don't need one.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have found the exact opposite of my experience ;-) I swiped the second 64Gb SD card from my D7200 (and swapped it for a lower capacity card) and slotted it into my D500 as a just-in-case overflow. I have never needed the actual overflow capacity, but I have (just once) left home with the XQD card left behind in the card reader and the spare XQDs sitting useless in my bag when I hit a spot of intense action. I hit the buffer very fast and probably lost 10-15 shots that I would have liked to have taken, including the climax of the action. I was not happy ... Now I check very carefully before heading out, but with hindsight I would prefer a camera with two identical card slots. And for anyone who thinks that XQD cards are expensive, I used to shoot on Kodachrome 64. I have had many sessions where I shot well over 1,000 shots, which on Kodachrome in late 1990s prices was $13.00 for 36 shots in the UK (including processing and mounting) - or $361 for 1,000 shots (and non-reuseable). Compared to that XQD cards are a miracle and a real bargain. We used to say that "cameras are cheap, it's film that hurts." Now we whine about the exact opposite.