what size sd card

SpikeK6

SpikeK6

Messages
3,536
Name
Spike
Edit My Images
Yes
Just about to buy a canon 5D mk 4 and was looking at memory cards.
I have loads of 4gb and 8 gb cards but was thinking i might need more

Is this the case do I really need more than a 8gb on one card for the 5d mk4

I was thinking the bigger the card the more photos but then again if it gets corrupted you have lost more.

Thoughts

My last camera was a 7d and allthe cards I had where fine.
 
How many shots does an 8GB card hold? How many shots do you take before clearing the cards?

PERSONALLY, I use more, smaller cards rather than one or 2 large capacity ones just in case a cards gets corrupted or lost.
 
Nod said:
How many shots does an 8GB card hold? How many shots do you take before clearing the cards?

PERSONALLY, I use more, smaller cards rather than one or 2 large capacity ones just in case a cards gets corrupted or lost.
Click to expand...
Especially when on holiday or a trip, multiple small cards changed every day or two and kept separate from the camera is wiser.

It also seems that the larger the card, the sooner they fail!

I use 2 X 128 GB only in the G9 when I want to take a lot of video and raw, otherwise 32GB holds more than I would take in a day, and 64GB seems to offer the most GB per £
 
Does anyone here not shoot dual card, so that the camera writes the same file to both cards? Are you telling me you shoot small cards and then write to both?

Or are you just writing to single card and using small cards?

If you have 2 slots, in the 5D4, then not using that to write to both cards is not taking advantage of backing up, that would be a user error when a card gets corrupted. You will need to have both cards to be corrupted to be in trouble. large card or small card or not.

Just write to both slots, same file. Whatever size card. That is rule no.1 for back up, is to actually have a back up copy. Splitting to smaller cards isn't back up, it's just damage control.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Does anyone here not shoot dual card, so that the camera writes the same file to both cards? Are you telling me you shoot small cards and then write to both?

Or are you just writing to single card and using small cards?

If you have 2 slots, in the 5D4, then not using that to write to both cards is not taking advantage of backing up, that would be a user error when a card gets corrupted. You will need to have both cards to be corrupted to be in trouble. large card or small card or not.

Just write to both slots, same file. Whatever size card. That is rule no.1 for back up, is to actually have a back up copy. Splitting to smaller cards isn't back up, it's just damage control.
Click to expand...
Depends when and for what.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Always, for everything, like work, casual, everything.

Write to both cards, always, if your camera have 2 slots.
Click to expand...
I'm getting confused as to what you are asking, are you asking about when to use two cards for the same thing, or size of card?
There are several factors mentioned.
 
Sangoma said:
I'm getting confused as to what you are asking, are you asking about when to use two cards for the same thing, or size of card?
There are several factors mentioned.
Click to expand...

I am asking, are you shooting dual card slots?

For me, if you are writing to both cards, that is the most important, what size, doesn't matter. Whatever you want. If you prioritise back up then the No.1 thing is to shoot to both cards.

Otherwise you are not backing up anything.

If you are not shooting to both cards, when the camera is capable of doing so, shooting to tiny cards with the aim to minimise losses in cases of loss happens seems a backward way of doing things.

Also, and I do mean RAW to both, or if you like JPEG, then JPEG to both, at least the same file. Shooting RAW to one and JPEG to the other isn't not a true backup. You want the same file as you would have in case you lose 1 card.

If you do it this way, workflow becomes much easier. You format both cards together, they fill up the same time, you replace them both together.
 
Last edited:
SpikeK6 said:
Just about to buy a canon 5D mk 4 and was looking at memory cards.
I have loads of 4gb and 8 gb cards but was thinking i might need more

Is this the case do I really need more than a 8gb on one card for the 5d mk4

I was thinking the bigger the card the more photos but then again if it gets corrupted you have lost more.

Thoughts

My last camera was a 7d and allthe cards I had where fine.
Click to expand...
Try them out, if they work and the number of photos you take fit no need for more. When the 5DM4 was my main camera I used 32GB and 64GB cards for all-day events. And to Raymond's point, always wrote to both cards. There were a few occasions where this was important, the image had not been written correctly to one or other card and I needed to get it from the second card.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am asking, are you shooting dual card slots?

For me, if you are writing to both cards, that is the most important, what size, doesn't matter. Whatever you want. If you prioritise back up then the No.1 thing is to shoot to both cards.

Otherwise you are not backing up anything.

If you are not shooting to both cards, when the camera is capable of doing so, faffing about tiny cards trying to minimise losses in cases of loss happens seems a backward way of doing things.
Click to expand...
Well my original comment was mainly agreeing with Nod's comment about using smaller cards.

I agree with that comment whether it is single or dual card, whatever configuration the two slots are used in, especially on trips or holidays where loss/damage/theft are probably bigger threats to the cards than a card error.

At no time did I say that at times I don't prioritise back-up, and there is no disagreement with "Whatever you want. If you prioritise back up then the No.1 thing is to shoot to both cards"
However, the main comment still applies, if I was on trip/holiday, I would not use the biggest cards possible, but just big enough to hold what I need between card changes.
 
Sangoma said:
Well my original comment was mainly agreeing with Nod's comment about using smaller cards.

I agree with that comment whether it is single or dual card, whatever configuration the two slots are used in, especially on trips or holidays where loss/damage/theft are probably bigger threats to the cards than a card error.

At no time did I say that at times I don't prioritise back-up, and there is no disagreement with "Whatever you want. If you prioritise back up then the No.1 thing is to shoot to both cards"
However, the main comment still applies, if I was on trip/holiday, I would not use the biggest cards possible, but just big enough to hold what I need between card changes.
Click to expand...

I don't know about trips....for paid work, weddings in my case, large cards, and few cards there is, fewer cards to lose. I think the opposite is true, if I have more cards, there is more chance of losing 1 of them.

When the job is done, I keep 1 card where I keep my wallet/passport, and another card in the case.

On a trip, I back up that day's photos onto a SSD in the evening.
 
Yes, the ideal is to back up to disk or cloud every day, but in many situations that is not possible, so changing the card ensures that if the camera is lost or liberated, the most you lose is what has been taken that day.

I am not more likely to lose a card because I have more than one, but having more than one means less is lost if one is stolen or similar.

And yes, most people I know keep the two cards physically separated. It would be pretty daft to keep the two cards together.
 
The 8GB card(s) probably aren't fast enough anyway they must be a good few years old.
Memory cards are relatively cheap though I doubt you would often need 128GB, 64GB x 2 would be a sensible minimum.
It would be wise to check the canon specifications page and get one they list there seems to be quite a few pitfalls like SDXC v SDHC and some might not work at all.
Usually Sandisk are default suggestion but I think they are nothing special having had three start to physically break up admittedly I tend to take them in and out to card readers a lot.
I've had good results with Kingston not on Canon but Sony
 
Thank you for all the answers. Forgot it’s two slot as well
Will see when it arrives how mine pan out then like has been said invest in larger cards but use both slots as a back up.

On that note could I use a large sd card and couple say 32gb cf cards. That way all photos on sd and split over cf.
sorry all new to this duel slot.
 
Even though the SD card slot is UHS-1, don’t write RAW to the CF and jpeg to the SD thinking smaller files = faster write time. It doesn’t work that way, the computer in the camera needs to convert the RAW file and it’s actually slower writing 2 different format. At least in my testing.
 
It depends on your style of photography, if you are shooting sports/wildlife or an extended trip, they will probably be too small, but if you taking a handful of landscape photos 8GB will likely be fine.
 
SD XC cards are quite cheap, even for Extreme Pro spec. Plenty of 32GB and 64GB cards available in both CF and SD fit. Just get the latest specs, still fairly inexpensive.

Size depends on what you are photographing, if it's slow and sedentary a smaller card will be fine but if you are into something more dynamic like birds or sport bigger is better - last thing you want to do is swap and change cards mid-shoot, you could mislay or accidentally overwrite your cards (I have a 120GB XQD in my D850 and I was astonished how quickly filled up during a Goodwood meeting).

My 3 DSLRs have 2 slots, the K-1 is 2xSD while the D850/D500 are 1xXQD 1xSD UHS-II. Slot 1 in all 3 is RAW and slot 2 is JPEG.
 
Well after a few days out with the camera weather and work allowing, I am finding the 8gb cards just too small and to be honest not fast enough either when shooting in burst mode.

So bigger faster cards is what i need.
 
don't just look af card GB also look at MB/s speed nothing slower than 95mb/s and preferably 170 mb/s. Why? A slower card can cause your camera to stop if using a burst mode. the camera takes the pictures fast but the card can't keep up so the transfer from camera to card halts. OOH just seen you have already found that out. A 128GB card is handy as well
 
Last edited:
As I said, as large as you can...

Smaller cards are usually old, and back then the speed is slow. So by going smaller cards, you are likely to have a slower card. Get a new card, even an ultra would have faster than old Extreme card speeds.

I've been through this, I've had this 5D2/3/4, been through the smaller cards just in case it gets corrupted routine, upgraded them all to larger cards. Larger cards is how I settled my routine on as it worked best.

So speaking from experience, having been through this, like I said in my 1st reply, largest card you can afford, shoot dual cards, back up to the SD, and both RAW. If you put Jpeg in 1 it slows it down as the camera have to convert it.

So, as I said in my original reply, largest card, fast as you can afford. :tumbleweed:

64G is fine but i found 128G to be the sweet spot...hence 128G recommendation in my 1st reply, from my experience of using the camera.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
If you put Jpeg in 1 it slows it down as the camera have to convert it.
Click to expand...
I have never heard this before - I thought jpeg files were quicker to transfer to the SD card due to the smaller file size, more than compensating for the file conversion overhead.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I have never heard this before - I thought jpeg files were quicker to transfer to the SD card due to the smaller file size, more than compensating for the file conversion overhead.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, looking at specs of cameras, usually it is the card interface that is the slowest link.

I remember the JPEG conversion being a limiting factor with older cameras with slow processors,
It is more a high number of files in the buffer that slows things down, as the camera will run out of buffer, so they can take less RAWs before slowing down to the card interface speed.

Maybe the comment was relating to only the camera mentioned in the OP, and it may be true in relation to that camera.
 
I only use Sony tough sd cards now. There is an app on my laptop that scans the card when I download pics and alerts me if there are any issues with the card. Hopefully will stop me finding out there is an issue too late.

They seem better built than the average sd card, solid, water resistant etc. No flexing or bending, no 'fins' on the contacts that often go, no lock switch.

Two versions, one slower than the other, 300 read and 300 write for the more expensive version (G) and 300 read and 170 write for the less expensive version (M).

I use the G for raw in slot 1 and M for jpegs in slot 2.

Yes, they are more expensive than the average sd card. We invest so much in kit, the sd card isn't an area we should scrimp on if we value our pics, especially if shooting commercially.

T

I also have a WD HDD with sd card slot (like this one) when I had a camera with on sd card, to download pics during an event rather than waiting until the end. Don't actually feel like I need it anymore since having 2 sd cards in camera.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
As I said, as large as you can...

Smaller cards are usually old, and back then the speed is slow. So by going smaller cards, you are likely to have a slower card. Get a new card, even an ultra would have faster than old Extreme card speeds.

I've been through this, I've had this 5D2/3/4, been through the smaller cards just in case it gets corrupted routine, upgraded them all to larger cards. Larger cards is how I settled my routine on as it worked best.

So speaking from experience, having been through this, like I said in my 1st reply, largest card you can afford, shoot dual cards, back up to the SD, and both RAW. If you put Jpeg in 1 it slows it down as the camera have to convert it.

So, as I said in my original reply, largest card, fast as you can afford. :tumbleweed:

64G is fine but i found 128G to be the sweet spot...hence 128G recommendation in my 1st reply, from my experience of using the camera.
Click to expand...
Hi
I did take on board what you said in your origional post about big and fast.
It was just a case of testing the waters so to speak.

I did get a free sandisc pro 64gb 170mb/s sd card free with the camera so will match that with an CF card and then go from there.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I have never heard this before - I thought jpeg files were quicker to transfer to the SD card due to the smaller file size, more than compensating for the file conversion overhead.
Click to expand...

I tried it...that was my conclusion.

Why did I try it? Because I thought I would save some money by getting smaller cards for the SD slot to save some money with JPEG, or 1 large card without having the change the SD and just change the CF (RAW).

But when I tried it...2 x RAW was just faster.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but wonder if this is another "angels on the head of a pin" argument.

Different people have different likes, needs and facilities - no one answer comes close to suiting everyone.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I can't help but wonder if this is another "angels on the head of a pin" argument.

Different people have different likes, needs and facilities - no one answer comes close to suiting everyone.
Click to expand...

I think you are right.
I think for what I use my camera for ( pure hobby and pleasure) I think either 32 or 64 gb CF cards will be more than enough, for me.
but fast as I can get as I like bird photography so sometimes burst mode so the faster the card the better.

Like what people say about duel slot so again same size SD card in there and write to both, that way backed up as well.
 
I use a Kingston Canvas React Plus 128gb 300MB/s read and 260MB/s write in my Olympus. Bought direct from Kingston to ensure I didn't get a fake.

Faultless performance to date.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Even though the SD card slot is UHS-1, don’t write RAW to the CF and jpeg to the SD thinking smaller files = faster write time. It doesn’t work that way, the computer in the camera needs to convert the RAW file and it’s actually slower writing 2 different format. At least in my testing.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily... the camera always has to create a jpeg; it is embedded in the raw file and it is the preview you see. If you tell the camera to create a second jpeg using a different compression algorithm/quality, that can slow it down (I don't know if that also changes the embedded jpeg).

When I got the Z9 I did a bunch of buffer tests because of how much noise I was hearing about needing the fastest cards. The main thing I found was that writing to a single card was by far the fastest, and as soon as writing dual files was activated things slowed waaay down. The next level was about the same if it was both files raw (He*), or raw + jpeg basic (large); and also about the same if both files were written to the same card (raw+jpeg) or to separate cards.
Interestingly, using lossless raw was slower than HE*; apparently the additional processing is more than offset by the smaller file size.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Not necessarily... the camera always has to create a jpeg; it is embedded in the raw file and it is the preview you see. If you tell the camera to create a second jpeg using a different compression algorithm/quality, that can slow it down (I don't know if that also changes the embedded jpeg).

When I got the Z9 I did a bunch of buffer tests because of how much noise I was hearing about needing the fastest cards. The main thing I found was that writing to a single card was by far the fastest, and as soon as writing dual files was activated things slowed waaay down. The next level was about the same if it was both files raw (He*), or raw + jpeg basic (large); and also about the same if both files were written to the same card (raw+jpeg) or to separate cards.
Interestingly, using lossless raw was slower than HE*; apparently the additional processing is more than offset by the smaller file size.
Click to expand...

My post is specific to the 5D4.

Hence i said "In my testing" refering to the 5D4, the camera that I used and the camera that the OP is using.

Not the Z9, a different camera by a different manufacturer...so I can't comment on the Z9, and have not.
 
My point is that there is no additional processing required to create a jpeg when recording raw as you stated... it's already generating/recording a full size jpeg; and that applies to every digital camera. I don't know what size/quality the default/embedded jpegs are on the 5D4; but they are typically large-normal.

The other point is that writing backup copies of any sort slows the process/buffer down far more (assuming the card isn't the limiting factor). So writing to two cards may not be the best choice in all situations, and it's not even an option for video.

And that doesn't consider complete loss either (theft/destruction/etc).

It's been a long time since I've had a card fail or lost a camera, but it does happen. My personal choice is to write to two smaller cards, I typically use raw + jpeg; writing jpegs to the second card and swap out the first card when (if) it gets full. It can be particularly useful for a longer trip as the stored cards are part of the three copy backup scheme.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
My point is that there is no additional processing required to create a jpeg when recording raw as you stated... it's already generating/recording a full size jpeg; and that applies to every digital camera. I don't know what size/quality the default/embedded jpegs are on the 5D4; but they are typically large-normal.

The other point is that writing backup copies of any sort slows the process/buffer down far more (assuming the card isn't the limiting factor). So writing to two cards may not be the best choice in all situations, and it's not even an option for video.

And that doesn't consider complete loss either (theft/destruction/etc).

It's been a long time since I've had a card fail or lost a camera, but it does happen. My personal choice is to write to two smaller cards, I typically use raw + jpeg; writing jpegs to the second card and swap out the first card when (if) it gets full. It can be particularly useful for a longer trip as the stored cards are part of the three copy backup scheme.
Click to expand...
My point is that I tested it with that camera, it was slower with Raw and jpeg.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Even though the SD card slot is UHS-1, don’t write RAW to the CF and jpeg to the SD thinking smaller files = faster write time. It doesn’t work that way, the computer in the camera needs to convert the RAW file and it’s actually slower writing 2 different format. At least in my testing.
Click to expand...
How did you carry out the test?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Set CF to RAW and SD to Jpeg, bursts until it hit the buffer, let go and watch it write to card.

Do the same but both to RAW. The RAW was faster to finish.
Click to expand...
Did you try the different qualities of jpegs, or did you just set it to the highest quality? Same scene and exposure for both trials? Was the number of images the same for both? Timed with a stopwatch multiple times? All of those things can make a difference...

When I realized that recording the highest quality jpegs slows things down I considered just recording raw to both cards... but that introduces a big penalty on file size, and it eliminates the ability of having instantly usable images and not having to import/edit them. And it screws with my backup scheme. So, instead I downgraded the quality of the jpegs recorded to the second card. After all, they are primarily there for emergency backup... but I still frequently just use the jpegs anyway.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Did you try the different qualities of jpegs, or did you just set it to the highest quality? Same scene and exposure for both trials? Was the number of images the same for both? Timed with a stopwatch multiple times? All of those things can make a difference...

When I realized that recording the highest quality jpegs slows things down I considered just recording raw to both cards... but that introduces a big penalty on file size, and it eliminates the ability of having instantly usable images and not having to import/edit them. And it screws with my backup scheme. So, instead I downgraded the quality of the jpegs recorded to the second card. After all, they are primarily there for emergency backup... but I still frequently just use the jpegs anyway.
Click to expand...

I would set it to the highest, I wouldn't set it any other size, the idea was to have a Back up. It was bad enough to use JPEG as a back up so using a small size would be pointless.

I didn't time it, the difference was big enough that i could tell without a stop watch. It was obvious to the point where I could tell it was much slower. I may have looked on my watch but I didn't get a stop watch out. It's like I can tell a Ferrari Enzo goes round the track faster than a Focus, I don't need a stop watch for that because the difference was large enough. If it was close then perhaps I would have timed it, but it wasn't.

So I did the test, notably faster with just RAW itself, and left it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top