Card failures?

[JahnG]

One 16 GB SD card, speed 10, of brand Transcend, a few years old, failed some time ago. The problem happened so that the card suddenly stopped recording further pictures. (The camera warned about the problem.) All the until then recorded pictures were ok. I formatted the card later, but it worked poorly, so I threw away the card. I was able to re-shoot the missed pictures in a few days.

I have used basically only Transcend SD cards for many years, and I continue to trust them. No other problems with these cards. Nowadays I however as a precaution bring with me a spare SD card, ( and a charged battery)

 

[Michael Fryd]

It happened to me once when I powered off a compact camera before the buffer had completed writing to card.

2 card slots were definitely needed when write speeds were slow. However, with fast write speeds, corruption is MUCH less likely on fast cards like XQD as capacitors will hold enough charge to complete a write up battery power is lost (by user error or failure).

Technically 2 cards are simply not needed on the latest cameras using fast write media. However, from a marketing standpoint, many users get peace of mind from an increased perception of fault tolerance.

If powering off your camera before a write finishes causes corruption, then the design of your camera is less than ideal. On my DSLR, I can turn off the camera, and it will continue to write until the buffer is cleared.

In any case, you do bring up a good point. Corrupted images may be a result of a camera issue, not a card issue. If it's a camera issue, then dual slots may not help. You may simply get the corruption written to both cards.

Is there also the possibility of user error? A lot of cheap cards are low speed cards, and possibly a user in a hurry could pull out the card before the camera has finished writing to the card resulting in data corruption. Also a lot of cards advertise a certain speed rating, while actual read/write speeds are often much lower.

Absolutely there is a possibility of human error. And dual cards may not reduce human error.

Right now I am sitting next to someone who spent 20 years shooting weddings. As a pro he would never do a wedding as a solo shooter. He felt that weddings were too important, and cameras can, and do, fail.

In his opinion, anything less than a backup shooter covering the same shots is not a professional job.

I'm not saying he's correct. I am merely pointing out that there is a wide range of opinions on the precautions a professional should take. For some dual card slots are not necessary. For others it's exactly what they are working for. For some, a dual card slot isn't nearly enough; nothing less than a backup shooter will do.

 

[BG454]

It happened to me once when I powered off a compact camera before the buffer had completed writing to card.

2 card slots were definitely needed when write speeds were slow. However, with fast write speeds, corruption is MUCH less likely on fast cards like XQD as capacitors will hold enough charge to complete a write up battery power is lost (by user error or failure).

Technically 2 cards are simply not needed on the latest cameras using fast write media. However, from a marketing standpoint, many users get peace of mind from an increased perception of fault tolerance.

If powering off your camera before a write finishes causes corruption, then the design of your camera is less than ideal. On my DSLR, I can turn off the camera, and it will continue to write until the buffer is cleared.

In any case, you do bring up a good point. Corrupted images may be a result of a camera issue, not a card issue. If it's a camera issue, then dual slots may not help. You may simply get the corruption written to both cards.

Is there also the possibility of user error? A lot of cheap cards are low speed cards, and possibly a user in a hurry could pull out the card before the camera has finished writing to the card resulting in data corruption. Also a lot of cards advertise a certain speed rating, while actual read/write speeds are often much lower.

Absolutely there is a possibility of human error. And dual cards may not reduce human error.

Right now I am sitting next to someone who spent 20 years shooting weddings. As a pro he would never do a wedding as a solo shooter. He felt that weddings were too important, and cameras can, and do, fail.

Using a second camera, in the days of film, was the insurance.
However, we never used cameras that took two rolls of film.

In his opinion, anything less than a backup shooter covering the same shots is not a professional job.

I'm not saying he's correct. I am merely pointing out that there is a wide range of opinions on the precautions a professional should take. For some dual card slots are not necessary. For others it's exactly what they are working for. For some, a dual card slot isn't nearly enough; nothing less than a backup shooter will do.

So if you want a backup, take a second camera. That way everything is backed up, not just the memory card.

 

[Mike CH]

So if you want a backup, take a second camera. That way everything is backed up, not just the memory card.

And then you better not drive in the same car after the shoot. Maybe better not even the same route or at the same time. And you probably better process the images in two different locations with two different backup schemes.

Defending against loss of data in depth is not as easy as it seems at first glance. But it is worth it to consciously decide how far to go.

Regards, Mike

 

[David Pavlich]

It happened to me once when I powered off a compact camera before the buffer had completed writing to card.

2 card slots were definitely needed when write speeds were slow. However, with fast write speeds, corruption is MUCH less likely on fast cards like XQD as capacitors will hold enough charge to complete a write up battery power is lost (by user error or failure).

Technically 2 cards are simply not needed on the latest cameras using fast write media. However, from a marketing standpoint, many users get peace of mind from an increased perception of fault tolerance.

If powering off your camera before a write finishes causes corruption, then the design of your camera is less than ideal. On my DSLR, I can turn off the camera, and it will continue to write until the buffer is cleared.

In any case, you do bring up a good point. Corrupted images may be a result of a camera issue, not a card issue. If it's a camera issue, then dual slots may not help. You may simply get the corruption written to both cards.

Is there also the possibility of user error? A lot of cheap cards are low speed cards, and possibly a user in a hurry could pull out the card before the camera has finished writing to the card resulting in data corruption. Also a lot of cards advertise a certain speed rating, while actual read/write speeds are often much lower.

Absolutely there is a possibility of human error. And dual cards may not reduce human error.

Right now I am sitting next to someone who spent 20 years shooting weddings. As a pro he would never do a wedding as a solo shooter. He felt that weddings were too important, and cameras can, and do, fail.

Using a second camera, in the days of film, was the insurance.
However, we never used cameras that took two rolls of film.

In his opinion, anything less than a backup shooter covering the same shots is not a professional job.

I'm not saying he's correct. I am merely pointing out that there is a wide range of opinions on the precautions a professional should take. For some dual card slots are not necessary. For others it's exactly what they are working for. For some, a dual card slot isn't nearly enough; nothing less than a backup shooter will do.

So if you want a backup, take a second camera. That way everything is backed up, not just the memory card.

Of course you didn't use a camera with two rolls of film because two roll cameras didn't exist so that's all you had. Even the most expensive cameras in the old days used one roll of film. It has nothing to do with today's cameras. For someone that shoots food or landscapes professionally, two cards aren't necessary. For someone that shoots one off events like weddings is tempting fate by not shooting with two cards. Two card cameras are quite common now. Why anyone that shoots weddings or other one off events for pay would take a chance is beyond me.

A second camera is a good idea, but what about that 4 second fleeting moment? By the time you realize that something's gone amiss with the first camera, it'll probably be too late to get the other camera into the game. And, chances are you're shooting one camera with a short lens and one with a long lens, at least that's how most pros that shoot weddings have their cameras set up.

David

 

[Boomanbb]

It happened to me once when I powered off a compact camera before the buffer had completed writing to card.

2 card slots were definitely needed when write speeds were slow. However, with fast write speeds, corruption is MUCH less likely on fast cards like XQD as capacitors will hold enough charge to complete a write up battery power is lost (by user error or failure).

Technically 2 cards are simply not needed on the latest cameras using fast write media. However, from a marketing standpoint, many users get peace of mind from an increased perception of fault tolerance.

If powering off your camera before a write finishes causes corruption, then the design of your camera is less than ideal. On my DSLR, I can turn off the camera, and it will continue to write until the buffer is cleared.

In any case, you do bring up a good point. Corrupted images may be a result of a camera issue, not a card issue. If it's a camera issue, then dual slots may not help. You may simply get the corruption written to both cards.

Is there also the possibility of user error? A lot of cheap cards are low speed cards, and possibly a user in a hurry could pull out the card before the camera has finished writing to the card resulting in data corruption. Also a lot of cards advertise a certain speed rating, while actual read/write speeds are often much lower.

Absolutely there is a possibility of human error. And dual cards may not reduce human error.

Right now I am sitting next to someone who spent 20 years shooting weddings. As a pro he would never do a wedding as a solo shooter. He felt that weddings were too important, and cameras can, and do, fail.

Using a second camera, in the days of film, was the insurance.
However, we never used cameras that took two rolls of film.

In his opinion, anything less than a backup shooter covering the same shots is not a professional job.

I'm not saying he's correct. I am merely pointing out that there is a wide range of opinions on the precautions a professional should take. For some dual card slots are not necessary. For others it's exactly what they are working for. For some, a dual card slot isn't nearly enough; nothing less than a backup shooter will do.

So if you want a backup, take a second camera. That way everything is backed up, not just the memory card.

Of course you didn't use a camera with two rolls of film because two roll cameras didn't exist so that's all you had. Even the most expensive cameras in the old days used one roll of film. It has nothing to do with today's cameras. For someone that shoots food or landscapes professionally, two cards aren't necessary. For someone that shoots one off events like weddings is tempting fate by not shooting with two cards. Two card cameras are quite common now. Why anyone that shoots weddings or other one off events for pay would take a chance is beyond me.

A second camera is a good idea, but what about that 4 second fleeting moment? By the time you realize that something's gone amiss with the first camera, it'll probably be too late to get the other camera into the game. And, chances are you're shooting one camera with a short lens and one with a long lens, at least that's how most pros that shoot weddings have their cameras set up.

David

The reality is, dual cards make the minuscule chance that a card failure happens causing you to loose an image, just that much less. Having said that, you are much more likely to suffer human error or mechanical failure than a card failure.

 

[J A C S]

Twice, both SanDisk, and I only owned 5-6 cards so far, not counting P&S cameras.

 

[tbcass]

I've never had a card failure but I can understand the piece of mind that it can give a professional wedding photographer who stands to lose a lot. The fact is it can happen and if it happens it could be a disaster for them.

 

[tbcass]

I voted "never" because your question dealt with losing data due to card failure. I had one SD card fail, but I lost no data because there was a CF card in place as well (5DIII).

In your case it did happen but you were saved by the second card which is probably the whole point of the post, the value of having 2 card shots.

 

[tbcass]

People are bashing Nikon now for the single slot on the current Z's, but I think it was done deliberately to help distinguish the current models from an upcoming all conquering flagship.

All conquering? I doubt that but I suspect that it was done to prevent stealing sales from their DSLRs. These cameras are probably an attempt to attract new users not presently invested in Nikon or prevent Nikon DSLR users interested in mirrorless from buying another brand. I am surprised by the enthusiasm from existing Nikon users because it seems to me that previously most of them scorned mirrorless cameras.