What size memory cards do you use?

What size cards do you use?

  • <2GB

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • 2GB

    Votes: 11 7.1%

  • 4GB

    Votes: 56 35.9%

  • 8GB

    Votes: 79 50.6%

  • 16GB

    Votes: 59 37.8%

  • 32GB

    Votes: 19 12.2%

  • 64GB

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • 128GB

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • >128GB

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Total voters
    156
I'd love to understand the technicality of why a larger memory card is more likely to corrupt compared to a smaller capacity?
 
dejongj said:
I'd love to understand the technicality of why a larger memory card is more likely to corrupt compared to a smaller capacity?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to find this out aswell! Curiouser & curiouser.
 
IamAshlyRose said:
I shoot with a couple of Sandisk 8GB Extreme 60MB/s cards & have never had any troubles with them. Heard many stories of larger cards failing before the 4GB & 8GB cards. I've always preffered to avoid 16MB & above as they have been more likely to currupt in the past.
Click to expand...

Really? And what evidence do you have for this statement?
 
dejongj said:
??? But aren't you the one making the statement that they do?
Click to expand...

I've experienced them doing it only once before personally during college but I couldn't explain the technicalities as to why it'd happened. I don't believe it's every large card but these days I prefer working with the 8GB cards. Personal preferrence?

hollis_f said:
Really? And what evidence do you have for this statement?
Click to expand...

I don't understand.
I was just answering the original poster's referrence to cards failing recently :blush:
I used to work in Jessops & a surprising number of customers returned telling us that their cards had currupted & they 'hadn't done anything to cause it'. Who knows? Didn't intend to 'make a statement' nor critisize large cards!

I'll casually stop posting in here now :(
 
Last edited:
4 x 4gb sd
1 x 2gb cf
1 x 1gb cf

not for any reason other than they were all i could afford:)
 
I'm still a little worried about using one big card, I have stuck at 8GB, big enough to not be changing cards too frequently but still using more than one for a day out. Have a mixture of 2GB, 4GB and 8GB cards.
 
i've still got the 4gb my camera came with but have just ordered 2 new 16gb cards with the cashback i recieved from nikon
 
IamAshlyRose said:
I'll casually stop posting in here now :(
Click to expand...

There's no need for that, I'm sure they only meant it out of curiousity.

I too have heard of more large cards failing than small, but I also think part of the reason could be that smaller cards are cheaper (mostly) and if they fail it's not so hard to just throw them away without a second thought. So far I've had 1 card fail on me and that was a Sandisk Ultra 4GB MicroSD, it only cost me a couple of pound so I had no problem just throwing it in the bin.

Interesting results so far, pretty much what I was expecting apart from I thought there would be more 2GB users.
 
Toggerman said:
Interesting results so far, pretty much what I was expecting apart from I thought there would be more 2GB users.
Click to expand...

I've used 2GB's before but after upgrading my body to the 5D MKII & learning how to work in RAW I've found I need more space! It all depends on circumstances.
 
I have 1x8gb CF card and 3 or 4 16gb cards - on my 5D2 that means approx 500 RAW files. I get twitchy with any less than that as I regularly come home with 3 or 4 hundred shots of nothing useful :D
 
IamAshlyRose said:
I was just answering the original poster's referrence to cards failing recently :blush:
Click to expand...

And in answering that question you made a statement that I, and it seems other, found to be highly dubious - "I've always preffered to avoid 16MB & above as they have been more likely to currupt in the past." All you were being asked to do was to justify that statement.

Trying to persuade people that using large cards is a bad idea - just because of some invention about them being "more likely to corrupt" is not very helpful. If you are going to make outrageous claims then you should be prepared to back them up with evidence.
 
hollis_f said:
And in answering that question you made a statement that I, and it seems other, found to be highly dubious - "I've always preffered to avoid 16MB & above as they have been more likely to currupt in the past." All you were being asked to do was to justify that statement.

Trying to persuade people that using large cards is a bad idea - just because of some invention about them being "more likely to corrupt" is not very helpful. If you are going to make outrageous claims then you should be prepared to back them up with evidence.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything! I've & preferred weren't words used to 'persuade' others not to use large memory cards. I think you've entirely misinterpreted my post & read it as a form of attack against what tools other photographers prefer to use whereas my actual intention was just to add variety to a thread & give my own personal prefferences. If a card happened to currupt I'd rather potentially lose 8GB worth of data opposed to 32GB. By no means did I ever intend to make a 'statement' that'd require 'justifying'. I hate feeling like I have to defend myself, but I'd never accuse someone of being wrong to use a large memory card & I don't think my post was 'an outrageous claim' nor an 'invention' on my
part. It wasn't propaganda against larger memory cards, simply something we obviously can't get on the same page regarding. I think Toggerman understood where I was coming from.

Different experiences & thoughts come from different individuals.

If I offended you with my 'outrageous' post I'm actually sorry as it wasn't my original intention in the slightest!
 
Last edited:
IamAshlyRose said:
I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything! I've & preferred weren't words used to 'persuade' others not to use large memory cards. I think you've entirely misinterpreted my post
Click to expand...

I can see only one way to interpret - "they have been more likely to currupt in the past"
 
hollis_f said:
I can see only one way to interpret - "they have been more likely to currupt in the past"
Click to expand...

Rather than accusing me of being outrageous, why not tell me how & why I'm wrong as I joined this forum to learn aswell as talk about things that interest me. I guess there's not much more to say, just accept my apology for clearly offending you.
 
Last edited:
Another thread resulting in 'bad blood' there was clearly a statement that was written in haste and the poster has CLEARLY apologised and fully justified their comment (even though I feel they didn't need too) cant we just be grown up and move on

I personally use no larger than 8gb mainly for all the reasons people have stated above

Peace out x
 
I honestly just wanted to know what technical reason (since I can't think of any) there would be why larger cards are more likely to corrupt. I can understand not unmounting cards whilst writing to them, but size I just don't get. I just thought there was something in it that I should know since I used 64Gb and 32Gb cards...Not that I ever come anywhere close to filling them up with many photos...And I haven't ventured into using video on my camera yet...No bad blood intentions at all...
 
I suppose the most technical reason I can think of would be that the larger the capacity the more "blocks" of storage it has internally, thus increasing the probability of failure. Comparing an 8GB card to a 64GB card, the 64GB card would have 8 times the number of internal blocks, therefore an 8x higher chance of having a faulty block. However if you have someone with 8x 8GB cards and someone else with 1x 64GB card the odds of a failed block should be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top