Card failures?

[Badwater]

Only card that ever failed was the ones in PS2, and a Sandisk SD card. They were bad right out the package.

 

[Gollan]

I've never lost images due to SD card failure and I've had my dual slot cameras set to "overflow" since I got them. In any case, the new Nikon cameras use XQD, which is even more reliable. I understand photographers being concerned about it, based on past experience, but I'm sure Nikon has good reasons to use one card slot (likely speed and reliability) and will have to educate photographers about the reliability of XQD and the benefits of only having one slot).

 

[golfhov]

I have had an SD card have an error and a micro SD die.

I think it all depends on what you are doing. If you are doing vacation snaps the risk and fallout is minimal.

If you are being paid well for a wedding it is a cost of doing business.

 

[bjn70]

I had a D70s at the time, I don't recall the brand of the CF card. I have never had a problem since. Since then I also try to buy cards with brand names that I have confidence in.

 

[tko]

I've never been in a serious car accident in 40 years of driving. I'm still wearing my seat belt.

Life versus a picture. Tough choice I guess.

Does your camera have airbags and ABS with auto-sensor brakes and 360 cameras? You know, just to prevent the a case of user error.

Never used the 2nd slot. Never had a failure. It won't kill me.

 

[ISO 1 Million]

I've been using sd and micro sd cards since 2005 or so. In that time, I've had at least 6 or 7 cards fail on me. There are always the telltale signs of severe slowing down, images not playing back, and extremely slow transfer speeds.

My most recent failure had me close to throwing my A7RII out the window. I had just finished a photoshoot with my dance instructor which took about an hour and a half. She has a busy schedule so it's not easy to set up another shoot. I got home, plugged in my sd card into the reader and it took nearly half an hour for the image previews to appear. When I tried to drag and drop them to my desktop, the status bar froze and gave me an ETA of several DAYS. I only had about 100 raw files. I knew it wasn't a problem with the reader because I tried several other sd cards and they all worked fine.

I eventually got the images after waiting several hours. I sent the card back to Sandisk and they replaced it for free. Now my A7RII sits on the shelf unused as I can never trust it ever again.

 

[Krav Maga]

I've never been in a serious car accident in 40 years of driving. I'm still wearing my seat belt.

Life versus a picture. Tough choice I guess.

Does your camera have airbags and ABS with auto-sensor brakes and 360 cameras? You know, just to prevent the a case of user error.

Huh? WTH are you talking about? You do understand how metaphors and similes work, right? The point is the wisdom of redundancy. I've never had a flat tire when driving. It would be stupid to not have a spare tire. Just like it's stupid to not have an extra slot if you're a serious photographer.

How many times do you think a wedding photographer would survive losing all their images? Hint, once because it would probably ruin their business.

 

[philm5d]

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?

Once and once was enough, well almost. A 4Gb card from my D2X. "Card contains no images" or similar was the message. I nearly passed out. It contained 200 Raw wedding images. Turned out to be a glitch in the card reader after all but I aged a great deal in the time it took to diagnose. What could an extra slot have cost Nikon 10$, 20$ ??? Sorry I won't risk work on one card only so won't be buying into the system as it stands. Silly Nikon.

You seem to contradict yourself. You had a problem with a card that wasn't a problem with the card. (?)

Had the camera had a second slot, would that have resolved the problem you had?

Of course not, however I was experiencing an "apparent" failure, which thank goodness, wasn't a card failure after all but enough for me to realise I want a back-up card when working. Didn't have the 2nd card option on the D2X but I bought a D3 the day they came on the market.

This thread is getting a bit like the "should I use a protective filter or not" argument. You just can't get through the concrete in some people's heads, that it's better to be safe than sorry especially when there is rarely any REAL practical downside in either case. With GOOD filters 99% of the time no problem and have saved my expensive front lens elements from all sorts of crud and chips over the years and with super high capacity cards no need to rely on overflow to have enough space, if you have 2 slots and value your images (whether pro or not), use slot 2 as back-up.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

I'm thinking of marketing a camera which not only has two card slots, but two lenses and two sensors and two batteries. Going by the arguments I'm reading here in favour of two card slots it should be very popular.

 

[golfhov]

I'm thinking of marketing a camera which not only has two card slots, but two lenses and two sensors and two batteries.

A weddding photographer typically has that plus more

Going by the arguments I'm reading here in favour of two card slots for pro work it should be very popular.

Edited^.

I don't think you understand. For certain types of photography a second card slot is ideal. It could be workflow. It could be insurance.

 

[Mike CH]

You seem to contradict yourself. You had a problem with a card that wasn't a problem with the card. (?)

Had the camera had a second slot, would that have resolved the problem you had?

Of course not, however I was experiencing an "apparent" failure, which thank goodness, wasn't a card failure after all but enough for me to realise I want a back-up card when working. Didn't have the 2nd card option on the D2X but I bought a D3 the day they came on the market.

This thread is getting a bit like the "should I use a protective filter or not" argument. You just can't get through the concrete in some people's heads, that it's better to be safe than sorry especially when there is rarely any REAL practical downside in either case. With GOOD filters 99% of the time no problem and have saved my expensive front lens elements from all sorts of crud and chips over the years and with super high capacity cards no need to rely on overflow to have enough space, if you have 2 slots and value your images (whether pro or not), use slot 2 as back-up.

That’s actually a very bad example, particularly when you lead with “get through the concrete in some people’s heads” as that betrays a preconceived notion of there actually being a general solution concerning damage prevention and protection against data loss.

There isn’t such a general solution for everybody. What there is, is a general principle. That general principle says that, amortized, your efforts against damage and loss should not exceed your potential loss.

Thus it makes perfect sense for you to need a second card slot as the loss of 200 images from a wedding shoot can mean a heavy financial loss. The risk of said loss can be significantly reduced by investing in a camera with dual slots. Likewise with the protective filter. The risk of damaging a lens during a wedding shoot may also incur a financial loss. Thus it makes sense to protect against it. One way is to carry another lens. Another is to use protective filters, which is cheaper, but doesn’t protect against all kinds of damages and can cause a small imag degradation.

It’s completely different for me. Should I loose a card, so what? I’ll just go back later and re-shoot. Or ignore it, because half the fun is in the shooting, and I don’t earn any money from photography. And I don’t use protective filters (any more) because they are cumbersome, don’t protect against the kind of damages I’m likely to risk, and I’d rather not have the image degradation.

Regards, Mike

 

[Michael Fryd]

I really think the card slot issue is overblown. For years most of us made do with one card slot, and it has never been an issue.

I just bought a Pentax K1, which has two slots, but I would have bought it anyway regardless of number of slots.

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.

or other non-repeatable events. The folks that do are willing to pay a significant premium for a redundancy that will rarely, if ever, be needed. As it was explained to me.... one lost set of wedding images will destroy your business forever.

If your images are that important, then there are better ways of protecting them then dual card slots.

Get a camera with Wi-Fi, and set it to save each image to the internal card, and to upload it to your computer.

This not only gets you two copies of each image, but it gives you physical separation between the copies. Physical separation means that it is less likely that a single event (like the camera being stolen) will cause the loss of all copies.

If the images are really important, upload them over the Internet to an off-site server. This protects you if your gear is stolen on the way home from the wedding.

Remember, card failure is not the only thing that can cause loss of images. If that loss would "destroy your business forever" then it's worth dong real time backup over Wi-Fi. Why risk having both copies of the images on cards that are right next to each other?

====

Of course, if loss of the images really would be a catastrophe, then you need multiple shooters. Even if your camera fails, there's another shooter there who is shooting the same thing you are, and will get the shot.

 

[Michael Fryd]

....

Of course not, however I was experiencing an "apparent" failure, which thank goodness, wasn't a card failure after all but enough for me to realise I want a back-up card when working. Didn't have the 2nd card option on the D2X but I bought a D3 the day they came on the market.

This thread is getting a bit like the "should I use a protective filter or not" argument. You just can't get through the concrete in some people's heads, that it's better to be safe than sorry especially when there is rarely any REAL practical downside in either case. With GOOD filters 99% of the time no problem and have saved my expensive front lens elements from all sorts of crud and chips over the years and with super high capacity cards no need to rely on overflow to have enough space, if you have 2 slots and value your images (whether pro or not), use slot 2 as back-up.

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.

You should use a filter when the benefit of the filter outweighs the cost ("costs" can be money, time, effort, etc.).

You should have realtime backup of your images when the benefits outweigh the cost.

Someone shooting products in a studio will be in a different situation than someone who is the lone shooter at a wedding.

Someone who is the only shooter at a wedding will have different needs than someone who is part of a team, where multiple people get each shot.

In regards to filters or dual card slots, there is no single answer that's right for everyone.

 

[Mike CH]

I really think the card slot issue is overblown. For years most of us made do with one card slot, and it has never been an issue.

I just bought a Pentax K1, which has two slots, but I would have bought it anyway regardless of number of slots.

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.

or other non-repeatable events. The folks that do are willing to pay a significant premium for a redundancy that will rarely, if ever, be needed. As it was explained to me.... one lost set of wedding images will destroy your business forever.

If your images are that important, then there are better ways of protecting them then dual card slots.

Get a camera with Wi-Fi, and set it to save each image to the internal card, and to upload it to your computer.

This not only gets you two copies of each image, but it gives you physical separation between the copies. Physical separation means that it is less likely that a single event (like the camera being stolen) will cause the loss of all copies.

If the images are really important, upload them over the Internet to an off-site server. This protects you if your gear is stolen on the way home from the wedding.

Remember, card failure is not the only thing that can cause loss of images. If that loss would "destroy your business forever" then it's worth dong real time backup over Wi-Fi. Why risk having both copies of the images on cards that are right next to each other?

====

Of course, if loss of the images really would be a catastrophe, then you need multiple shooters. Even if your camera fails, there's another shooter there who is shooting the same thing you are, and will get the shot.

It really depends on what “that important” means.

General statements - “you must do this; this is the only thing that will help” - rarely do anything but help polarize, as what is needed and what is sensible is situation dependent. There are multiple stages between dual card slots and your solution scenario that could be suitable, depending on what “that important” actually means to the person.

E.g. your solutions may also not be sufficient - what if you’re in an area, where there is no cell connections for a proper off-site backup copy, what if there is a risk of catastrophic loss of all photographers incl. their cameras, etc. etc. etc.

Regards, Mike

 

[LChen]

Not a pro, never had a card failure. But I guess for pros it’s like a seatbelt. You fasten it even though you have never met an accident.

 

[PhilDunn]

Oh, but I did shoot weddings, and I was a newspaper photographer. All without two card slots. And I survived just fine.

During the film era? This is no longer the film era. We now have the means to greatly prevent the loss of images. Only a professional fool of a photographer would shoot without a camera that has two card slots.

 

[Gizmo89]

As an amateur, I've never had a camera in the last 15 years with dual memory card slots. Isn't dual memory card slots a fairly recent feature that only happened within the last 8-10 years? What did wedding and other pro photographers use before then?

Because judging by the responses so far, it seems reasonable to conclude that wedding/pro photographers, who take thousands of photos on a regular basis; and constantly removing the memory cards, putting more physical wear and tear on them, are more prone to having memory card failures. Conversely, amateurs and those who don't shoot as many pictures and don't put a lot of wear and tear on their memory cards, are less prone to having memory card failures.

 

[The Davinator]

Oh, but I did shoot weddings, and I was a newspaper photographer. All without two card slots. And I survived just fine.

Yep. Did about 750 weddings in my career and over 2000 lifestyle sessions...film and digital. Never had any issues...ever. Card failure, when it happens, involves a photo or two...not the whole card. Funny how many amateurs taking photos of their cats need dual cards....while arguing with those of us who actually worked on a professional level.

 

[Gizmo89]

Oh, but I did shoot weddings, and I was a newspaper photographer. All without two card slots. And I survived just fine.

Yep. Did about 750 weddings in my career and over 2000 lifestyle sessions...film and digital. Never had any issues...ever. Card failure, when it happens, involves a photo or two...not the whole card. Funny how many amateurs taking photos of their cats need dual cards....while arguing with those of us who actually worked on a professional level.

I'm curious as to what people did before dual memory card slots were invented?

 

[PhilDunn]

As an amateur, I've never had a camera in the last 15 years with dual memory card slots. Isn't dual memory card slots a fairly recent feature that only happened within the last 8-10 years?

What did wedding and other pro photographers use before then?

They occasionally lost once in a lifetime images.

Because judging by the responses so far, it seems reasonable to conclude that wedding/pro photographers, who take thousands of photos on a regular basis; and constantly removing the memory cards, putting more physical wear and tear on them, are more prone to having memory card failures. Conversely, amateurs and those who don't shoot as many pictures and don't put a lot of wear and tear on their memory cards, are less prone to having memory card failures.