Does this corrupt memory cards?

mjkent

mjkent

Messages
65
Edit My Images
No
So, I attended a Photography training course recently and during the course, the tutor saw me delete an image 'in camera'. He said that deleting images this way "is the easiest way to corrupt a memory card". Anyone else know if this is fact or not?
 
Although I rarely do that, I can't see why that would be the case.
I think formatting the card is preferably done in camera though rather than in/on the computer.
 
He’s right.

It’s a habit I try to avoid, but when I’ve done it in the past, it has coincided with memory card problems.

With the size of modern cards, there’s no good reason to take the chance.
 
I remember reading about this somewhere a good while back, he was correct.

It something to do with the missing image being deleted but still showing in the table on the card. The card thinks it’s still there and won’t write over it which can cause the card to become corrupted. It was something along those lines anyway. It was also mentioned it was a more common issue with Nikon in particular due to the way some of their camera write information to the card.

So yeah probably best not to do it.
 
Kiss of death, never corrupted any of my cards, canon based cameras.
Matt
 
I read that a while back but can't remember where , although rare it will increase the chance of a currpt card
 
I have done it regularly with all my cameras I have never had a corrupted card yet.
 
Do it all the time and have never experienced a corrupt card ... sound like anecdote to me, otherwise it would be irresponsible for camera manufacturers to fit a 'Delete' button.
 
I don't see it, and I haven't in practice. Deleting an image is simply a re-write of a FAT entry, and even if it goes bad it shouldn't corrupt the entire table. I don't see it being any riskier than taking an image is.

I suppose there is the fact that it is an *unnecessary* write operation so poses an increased risk.

increased_risk.png
 
May happen with fake/cheap memory cards but I have always used Sandisk ones and never ever had one get corrupted by doing this. and that is having taken thousands of photos with them
 
So chimping and deleting is best avoided?

Granted I do not not always delete the worst but have done so on occasion without any issues that I can recall.
 
Whether he is right or wrong, to be on the safe side, I have stopped deleting in camera as memory is so cheap. Always use Sandisk SD cards and only one has got corrupted before and until know I always deleted in camera.
 
Now I understand we are talking about cameras here, but these cards are used in a variety of different devices. So are we saying individual files on cards (no matter what that file is) should be deleted in the device it was written by. That would rule out nearly everybody that deletes music, photos, documents from smartphones (where expanded memory is an sd card).
 
Nostromo said:
Now I understand we are talking about cameras here, but these cards are used in a variety of different devices. So are we saying individual files on cards (no matter what that file is) should be deleted in the device it was written by. That would rule out nearly everybody that deletes music, photos, documents from smartphones (where expanded memory is an sd card).
Click to expand...
No, that's exactly the opposite of what's being said. Or have you missed out a 'not'?
But we are talking specifically about how cameras manage their file structures.
 
Last edited:
Snapsh0t said:
No, that's exactly the opposite of what's being said. Or have you missed out a 'not'?
Click to expand...
Yes you're right, I've missed "not".
Now the question is do I amend or leave. If I amend, then your comment will look a bit weird, if don't then it'll make no sense to others:D
Oh the dilemma (n)
 
I’ve never heard of this theory before and I’ve been deleting images in camera since I got a digital camera 15 years ago, in fact I don’t think I’ve ever done it any other way. To date I’ve had exactly zero corrupt cards. Not to say it won’t happen, but my own circumstantial evidence suggests it’s unlikely, so I’m unlikely to change.
 
It seems to me that the link is a tenuous one to say the least.

I've deleted images in camera thousands of times and never had a problem with a card.

If it happens one day, who can say it was the deleting of images that caused it?
 
So, unticking a box to mark that a file is to be ignored would corrupt a memory card?
It seems highly unlikely.
The delete function does not actually delete anything. It changes a 'one' to a 'zero'.

I'm in the 'done it and no ill effects' camp.
 
kendo1 said:
The delete function does not actually delete anything. It changes a 'one' to a 'zero'.
Click to expand...
Really?
I believed that it removed the file from the database on the card, therefore telling the operating system that whatever space the file took up is now usable, which is a bit more than changing a one to a zero.

But I could be wrong, I’m not a programmer, just did a few years in IT support.
 
What about micro SD cards? Generally reliable or not. I've had 3 become corrupt in 2 years that have been used in phones and tablets. All decent brands but it's the reason I won't use them with an adaptor in my camera. Possible the deleting of things 'in phone' is damaging them? It's probably all crap but I'm interested in people's opinions.
 
Phil V said:
Really?
I believed that it removed the file from the database on the card, therefore telling the operating system that whatever space the file took up is now usable, which is a bit more than changing a one to a zero.

But I could be wrong, I’m not a programmer, just did a few years in IT support.
Click to expand...

{EDIT: You're almost correct. It doesn't remove the image data - that is pointless ( or unnecessary!) all you have to do is put a marker to show that this data can be overwritten - change a 'one' to a 'zero' }
Data recovery software will 'refind' a deleted image. It will eventually be overwritten, but not necessarily straight away.
The tick box allows that data space to be overwritten, but it depends on several factors. Generally, free space at the 'end' is used first before 'spaces' are utilised.
My degree was in Data Processing and Systems Analysis :)
 
Last edited:
That site gives no reasons, it just repeats the myth.

As long as you format occasionally, you won’t encounter any issues. FAT is prone to fragmentation so deleting and rewriting compressed files (which have variable length by definition) will lead to excess fragmentation and likely a drop in performance.

The idea that you can ‘scramble’ the data and corrupt the card is b*****ks, however.
 
f/2.8 said:
I remember reading about this somewhere a good while back, he was correct.

It something to do with the missing image being deleted but still showing in the table on the card. The card thinks it’s still there and won’t write over it which can cause the card to become corrupted. It was something along those lines anyway. It was also mentioned it was a more common issue with Nikon in particular due to the way some of their camera write information to the card.

So yeah probably best not to do it.
Click to expand...

what a load of twaddle
sounds like scaremongering
where did you get the information from the Sun newspaper :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
thats why the camera makers have a delete button on the cameras
if the americans thought this was true they would be taking the camera manufacturers to court
 
Hypothetical old wives tale. I must have deleted many thousands of images in-camera, over many years, with all kinds of cards. Never had a problem. We all do it.

And deleting images, or re-formatting a card, doesn't actually delete anything but simply reassigns the cells for over-writing with fresh data. But until they are over-written, the original data remains intact and is easily recovered (with simple and free generic software like Recuva https://www.piriform.com/recuva ). Actually erasing all data, by over-writing everything with zeros, takes a long time in a PC.

Edit: MUCH more likely problems are mainly physical, such as simply losing the card, treading on it, putting it through the washing machine (survivable) or tumble-dryer (they don't like that), crap on the contacts and bent contact pins (CF cards especially).
 
Last edited:
I don't think I have ever deleted an image in camera.
I transfer everything to storage and then format the card.
I only do that as it is quicker than erasing single files. I cannot imagine that deleting an image from a card will automatically result in a corruption.
 
Total tosh, been working in IT for 30+ years, been shooting digital for the whole time its existed, if I didn't delete dud shots in camera after a days shooting I'd have so many more images to chimp later (plus added import time etc) it would double my processing time. I have NEVER had a card issue, use branded cards like Sandisk and have faith. The main risk is deleting an image you wanted, I only delete blatant OOF or poor images, the rest get sorted later on.

I know/knew many in broadcasting and other main stream photo/video industry do just the same, or we'd all be lugging and paying for dozens more memory cards, same goes for video.

What is important is the correct handling of cards, i.e ejecting cards mid data transfer or incorrect ejecting from your reading device, storage and transport of cards in correct containers to prevent static discharge or exposure to high magnetic or electromagnetic fields etc.
 
It's an old wives' tale. The basic process of using File Allocation Tables has been around for 40 years, and the camera manufacturers have been using them for around 20 years. To suggest that they might not know how to do the programming properly after all this time is just laughable.
 
I agree with the it's total tosh view.

Even though todays cards are high capacity I sometimes delete pictures in camera so I don't have to remember why I don't want them and don't end up processing them later.
 
Interesting to see quite a few people saying that they do this and have never had a card issue. I don't and average around one card failure a year although to be fair between the two of us we take around 500,000 images a year so perhaps that's the reason why. Interesting also to see that a few people have commented about not having issues because they use Sandisk cards were as for me they have proven to be the most unreliable. To be fair to Sandisk they always swop them out for a new card but its still a bit of a pain, have never had any issues with Lexar.
 
Last edited:
I would agree with the majority here who feel that deletion in camera is fine.

It does increase the risk of a corrupted card - because ANY write operation on a card carries a very small risk of something going wrong, but since the camera is doing a lot more writing each time you take a picture, if the deletion risk is a worry you'd better stick to 1 image per card...:D
 
Faldrax said:
I would agree with the majority here who feel that deletion in camera is fine.

It does increase the risk of a corrupted card - because ANY write operation on a card carries a very small risk of something going wrong, but since the camera is doing a lot more writing each time you take a picture, if the deletion risk is a worry you'd better stick to 1 image per card...:D
Click to expand...

Yeah this ^

Any action of writing to the card carries a small risk of corrupting the card. So in theory, deleting images 1 by 1, is less safe than formatting. But the risk is very low, decent flash memory has a very low failure rate.
 
Heres my 2p worth. In my experience deleting in camera does seem to add to the possibility of card issues. I don't delete in camera (I don't see the point) one of the photographers I work with does all the time. In the last few years he's having a few cards a year fail, I've had one in five years fail (same cards) Ok I'll admit thats not science as theres other variable factors, different card readers, different storage, ect ect, and lot of things "could" be affecting the cards, anything from electrical fields to rougher handling, to temperature diffrence (his house is always a lot warmer than mine) Who knows. Thing is you have to wonder is it worth the risk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top