12 and 16GB Sandisk CF cards

[Crypto]

you folks seen this? Sorry if its a repost
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp

[BradT0517]

Nope there is a 32 and 64 gig CF cards out

[TheSteveMadden]

Just saw it. That's almost 2000 raw XT images on one card... bye-bye shutter :)

Just saw the pricing: :shock:


SanDisk Extreme III 12GB: $779.99 available December
SanDisk Extreme III 16GB: $1049.99 available December

[BradT0517]

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/09/14/samsung-announces-32gb-and-64gb-compactflash-cards/

[Screamer]

I don't think they will be practical until we have 100MB RAW images. I would never put that many images on one card! Talk about a recipe for disaster!!

[amonline]

No way I'd take a chance loading that much up... I could imagine my blood pressure the first time one failed with about 800 images on it. :shock:

[peterdoomen]

Shouldn't Canon introduce RAID-1 in their pro bodies? 2x16GB or more and less risk than today...

P.
PS. Peter says...
112492

[Carzee]

I'm no good at maths, but if thousands of shooters keep on storing more and more of these megabytes and (a decade from now) terrabytes of photons... won't that contribute to global cooling? Are we making a big hole in the photon layers? Just how many photons are on this planet anyway?

:)

[Double Negative]

"SanDisk has today announced the 12GB and 16GB Extreme III CompactFlash cards. With a minimum read/write speed of 20MB/sec, the new high capacity cards are ideal for those shooting in RAW mode or high-res JPG files."

They sound slower than the lower capacity ones, but that's a lot of space. I still subscribe to having more lower capacity cards (don't put all your eggs in one basket).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp

[lakiluno]

when you start using a 22mpixel camera, 12GB CF cards won't seem so large :D

[Double Negative]

True... :D

[Big Mike]

I read that they are also introducing Extreme IV cards that are twice as fast as anything currently avaliable. Zoom Zoom.

Samsung has 32GB and 64GB CF cards...now that's big.

[Stavhp]

I read that they are also introducing Extreme IV cards that are twice as fast as anything currently avaliable. Zoom Zoom.

Samsung has 32GB and 64GB CF cards...now that's big.
you mean these??? :D:D
http://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Compact-Flash-Card-Extreme/dp/B000IBG77Q/sr=8-1/qid=1159286544/ref=sr_1_1/026-4954503-4290803?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

[Photo Gib]

"SanDisk has today announced the 12GB and 16GB Extreme III CompactFlash cards. With a minimum read/write speed of 20MB/sec, the new high capacity cards are ideal for those shooting in RAW mode or high-res JPG files."

They sound slower than the lower capacity ones, but that's a lot of space. I still subscribe to having more lower capacity cards (don't put all your eggs in one basket).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp

I'm with ya on multiple 4GB cards for safety reasons. And holy cow - it's not a bad price for what it is, but I never imagined dropping a grand for a memory card! LOL

Any of you remember the days when a 30MB hardrive in a 286 computer was considered huge? I remember my girlfriend at the time saying "Gib - you don't need something that big." That's 2 or 3 RAW files on my 5D! LOL

[Dante King]

when you start using a 22mpixel camera, 12GB CF cards won't seem so large :D

I kinda know this form my 17mp camera. BUT THE PRICES!!! OMG!!! I'll keep waiting. Actually I have in the works a card feed and eject system based on the 1m carbine clip system. :)

[ssim]

It just means there are more images to lose when a card craps out. It will happen.

I'm happy to stick to lower capacity cards. So what if you are only getting 75-100 images on a card, or even less depending on the camera. It is not rocket science to change a card and no matter how you slice it it is better than changing film where you got a max of 36 (you could get more if you customer strung your own cannisters off of bulk rolls).

[Double Negative]

Any of you remember the days when a 30MB hardrive in a 286 computer was considered huge?

LOL... Must be a young'un. I remember when just having a hard drive (of 5MB!) in a home computer was something phenomenal. :p

I have two 250GB drives in the home Mac and that's not even enough these days...

[rhys]

I'm with ya on multiple 4GB cards for safety reasons. And holy cow - it's not a bad price for what it is, but I never imagined dropping a grand for a memory card! LOL

Any of you remember the days when a 30MB hardrive in a 286 computer was considered huge? I remember my girlfriend at the time saying "Gib - you don't need something that big." That's 2 or 3 RAW files on my 5D! LOL

I remember when a 10mb hard drive was massive! That was back in the 1980s. Remember when Bill Gates said "640k is more than enough for anyone"? I remember when floppy disks rose from 120k to 720k to 1.44mb. Somebody did come out with a 2.88mb floppy drive too but I never saw and never used one. I even remember machines that had no hard drive. An IBM that booted from floppy and which had software that ran from floppy. I even have a 3.5" floppy disk somewhere that has the O/S and a wordprocessor and some WP documents on it!

I also remember the guy where I studied computing saying in 1990 that in 10 years a full-height 40mb 3.5" disk drive would be the size of a postage stamp and wouldn't have moving parts. Sounds like my old 64mb smart media cards to me!

[BoeingBonkers]

My god, Imagine if you trod on it. You'd jump out of a window! LOL

[Double Negative]

My bad - dupe post...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=220168

[tommykjensen]

Shouldn't Canon introduce RAID-1 in their pro bodies? 2x16GB or more and less risk than today...

P.
PS. Peter says...
112492

The 1 D mk IIN already has that. It can record the same images on both the cf-card and the sd-card.

[DavidW]

It's not RAID 1 in the 1D Mark II series (1D Mark II, 1D Mark IIN, 1Ds Mark II) - it's writing the same file to two different filesystems. I realise Tommy probably wasn't intending split hairs here, but the distinction can be important.

In many ways, two separate filesystems is more robust. If something is going to corrupt and cause problems, it's the filesystem in some way - the FAT or a directory on a FAT filesystem. Having the same file written to two separate filesystems (rather than one filesystem duplicated to two drives, which is what RAID 1 is) can be more robust against this sort of damage.



David

[BradT0517]

I kinda know this form my 17mp camera. BUT THE PRICES!!! OMG!!! I'll keep waiting. Actually I have in the works a card feed and eject system based on the 1m carbine clip system. :)

Sounds like fun

[rhys]

It just means there are more images to lose when a card craps out. It will happen.

I'm happy to stick to lower capacity cards. So what if you are only getting 75-100 images on a card, or even less depending on the camera. It is not rocket science to change a card and no matter how you slice it it is better than changing film where you got a max of 36 (you could get more if you customer strung your own cannisters off of bulk rolls).

Lol. The most I managed from a roll was I believe 47 exposures crammed into a 35mm cannister. The way to get a lot more would be to use a bulk back which would bring you up to maybe 200 shots. Now if you shot half frame you could get even more.

Generally, I find I'm happy if I get 150 shots per card. I reckon for a normal day's shooting, out and about, I take up to 150 shots. If I'm somewhere interesting then perhaps up to 200. Thus, if I shoot RAW +JPEG on my XT then I can reckon on around 200 times 11 megabytes or 2.2GB. That's half a CD. Of course most of the time I'm shooting casual photos with my 3mp compacts - for which a 128mb card is ample.

[Mathiau]

Shouldn't Canon introduce RAID-1 in their pro bodies? 2x16GB or more and less risk than today...

P.
PS. Peter says...
112492

for sure, raid 1 would be sweet in a camera.! or wireless off load capabilities to a computer.

[MDJAK]

Today I took delivery of an Extreme IV CF 4GB card and Extreme Firewire Card Reader made by Sandisk.

On my camera, I can get approx 200, give or take 20, raw shots on a 4gb card.

I was contemplating stepping up to an 8gb card, but I too wouldn't want to put all my eggs in one basket. I recently had a card with 200 shots after a half day shooting that became corrupted. I was able to recoup the shots with Rescue Pro software.

And I believe Tommy is correct. The only difference between the mark IIN and the mark II is the ability to write two different formats to the cards at the same time. In other words, the N can write raw to the cf card and jpeg to the sd card. That is a nice backup. My camera backs up, if I want it to, to whichever I designate as the second card, but only the same format, i.e., raw and raw, or raw-jpeg and raw-jpeg, or jpeg and jpeg. It is the equivalent of a Raid 1 array. If one card goes bad, the backup is separate and apart and still intact, unlike Raid 0 which I had fail on a Dell desktop.

[MDJAK]

http://i.pbase.com/o5/12/533712/1/67592555.42K4206A.extreme.jpg

[rhys]

It's not RAID 1 in the 1D Mark II series (1D Mark II, 1D Mark IIN, 1Ds Mark II) - it's writing the same file to two different filesystems. I realise Tommy probably wasn't intending split hairs here, but the distinction can be important.

In many ways, two separate filesystems is more robust. If something is going to corrupt and cause problems, it's the filesystem in some way - the FAT or a directory on a FAT filesystem. Having the same file written to two separate filesystems (rather than one filesystem duplicated to two drives, which is what RAID 1 is) can be more robust against this sort of damage.



David

Two different filesystems? Which file systems?

[peterdoomen]

It's not the file systems that bother me. Also I know the current pro bodies can write their JPG and RAW to different cards.

RAID-1 would offer full backup of both files, which is of course better. But maybe difficult to implement in a camera?

P.

[peterdoomen]

I kinda know this form my 17mp camera. BUT THE PRICES!!! OMG!!! I'll keep waiting. :)

When buying a new card, I always compare within a brand and type how much GB you get for your money. Then I take that one or the card one step smaller (which is usually not a lot more expensive).

Eventually, these 32 or 64 GB cards will become cheap. And you'll need the space when taking pics with your new high-megapixel toy, I'm afraid ;-)

P.

[tommykjensen]

It's not the file systems that bother me. Also I know the current pro bodies can write their JPG and RAW to different cards.

RAID-1 would offer full backup of both files, which is of course better. But maybe difficult to implement in a camera?

P.


I know it is not true raid-1 but the 1 series can write the same images on both cards not just raw on one and jpeg on the other. It can write raw on both or jpeg on both or both on both cards. The mode to set the card in is "backup mode" as far as I remember (don't have the manual at hand right now).

[Photo Gib]

I'd like to know if someone thinks I'm off the wall here - I'd like to see a dual CF port instead of the current sd/Cf combo. I'd find it easier to use and could carry only one type of media with me. That's what would make the difference for me.

[tommykjensen]

I'd like to know if someone thinks I'm off the wall here - I'd like to see a dual CF port instead of the current sd/Cf combo. I'd find it easier to use and could carry only one type of media with me. That's what would make the difference for me.

I agree. I would prefere 2 cf cards instead of 1 cfcard and 1 sdcard.

[peterdoomen]

Besides that, you can always buy an adapter for fitting SD into CF card slot, but the reverse would be difficult to make... and at least impractical to use.

Tommy: I did not know the 1 series was able to do that... makes it a very interesting camera if you need the safety of a backup.

P.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

I still subscribe to having more lower capacity cards (don't put all your eggs in one basket).
This is (to some extent) false security, because while it's true that if you have one large card and it fails you lose all your images, on the other hand having two smaller cards instead means that it's in fact twice as likely that one or the other of the two cards will fail, so you double the probability that you'll lose half your images.

I use two smaller cards because they're cheaper :)

[DavidW]

Two different filesystems? Which file systems?
Both cards in the 1 series use FAT.

To the operating system, a RAID 1 appears as a single drive with a single filesystem. If FAT is in use, there's a single FAT and a single set of directories, though like all the data, there's a copy on each drive unless the pair is degraded. The RAID controller operates at a low level, keeping the two drives synchronised (or dealing with the situation where the array is unsynchronised - by noting which drive is 'dirty' and copying the contents of the 'clean' drive to the 'dirty' one).

The setup used in a 1 series has two separate 'drives' each with their own filesystem - if configured to do so, the camera writes the same image to both 'drives'.


The most bothersome sort of corruption on a flash card seems to be when something goes wrong with either the FAT or the directories. That doesn't just affect one image - at worst you can lose the entire contents of the card. Arguably, two separate drives is more robust against this sort of thing, as each drive has its own filesystem, independent of the other. If one corrupts, the other doesn't necessarily do so.

Like anything in computing to do with robustness, it's about eliminating single points of failure. RAID 1 eliminates the drive itself as a single point of failure, but still leaves the filesystem and the RAID controller as single points of failure. Two separate filesystems eliminates the filesystem as a SPOF, and possibly the controller as a SPOF (it depends on the hardware). However, two separate filesystems has a separate overhead of keeping the two drives up to date, if that's what you choose to do.


I'm not the biggest fan of RAID 1 for redundancy - its biggest advantage in my eyes is the speed (read speed is almost doubled because you only need read from one drive of the pair - how near you get to the theoretical doubling of read speed largely depends on the efficiency of the RAID controller). For data such as photos, I'd rather keep copies on two separate drives with periodic synchronisation.


The two separate drives setup leaves a window in which the drive that you initially write the data to is a SPOF, but it gets you round the "duh, I just deleted / over-wrote the wrong data" scenario, as you can recover it from the other drive before synchronisation. For photos, I don't wipe the memory cards until the data is on both drives. This also gives you the possibility of keeping the second drive offline, such as an external drive you carry with you or store off-site, or being some form of network drive.

This also gets you round the RAID controller being a SPOF. You can't necessarily hook up a drive previously from a RAID 1 directly to a disk controller and read the contents directly - you may need special software to access the RAID partitions, or, more likely, you may be scrabbling around to find a RAID controller compatible with the one that wrote the data. Sometimes you can hook up a drive from a RAID 1 directly to a disk controller and use it, but you can't guarantee it. With two separate drives, you can just hook up the drive to an appropriate controller and you're away.


I'm not saying RAID is necessarily a bad thing - it can be a great way of getting the appropriate performance, capacity and redundancy when designing storage. However, I think there's still an element of people using RAID on their PCs because they can, rather than it necessarily being the correct solution.

The biggest problem was with all the people that used to boast on overclocking or similar forums that they'd got a RAID 0 as their boot drive - when that was very much a case of because they could rather than it really helping performance (your boot / OS drive spends most of its time making lots of small operations all over the place - RAID 0 improves streaming throughput and can hurt random access throughput because of the extra overhead of the RAID controller). Two separate drives would allow the two drives to be getting on with two separate jobs. In particular, you'd probably get better performance by putting the OS and applications on one drive and the swap file on a second drive (if you haven't got your swap file on a different drive, try it - it can improve performance significantly on a Windows system). However, you can't then brag in your sig that you've got a RAID. RAID 0 hurts robustness - lose one drive and the data on the pair is lost. There are few applications for RAID 0 of individual drives these days, especially with drives getting ever faster. The main application for RAID 0 is for stacked RAID - RAID 0 of RAIDs or just possibly a RAID of RAID 0s.

RAID 1 is less "abused". It undoubtedly offers protection against failure of a single drive. However, there are other SPOFs that it doesn't protect against - RAID controller failure, any sort of filesystem damage and often the power supply is an SPOF too.


My hosting provider, in common with many hosting providers, uses various RAID setups. Customer data is typically on RAID 5 and some other data is on RAID 1 to improve read performance. Even when using quality RAID controllers with quality drives (typically enterprise grade 10krpm SCSI drives) with hot spares, using quality rack mount enclosures with redundant power supplies and redundant UPS protected power feeds in a climate controlled data centre (which eliminates more SPOFs and vulnerabilities than you can in a PC), there have been a number of outages over the years caused by RAID controller snafus.

One or two of these failures have been unfortunate - two drives going bad in short order before the controller had had time to recover robustness from the first failure using a hot spare. Two hot spares is not a panacea - if you only have single drive loss redundancy, as with RAID 1 or RAID 5, you need to have finished rebuilding the array with the hot spare before the second failure, otherwise two consecutive failures results in loss of data on the array. With RAID 6 it wouldn't be a problem, as you have two drive loss redundancy.

Other failures have definitely been down to the RAID controller - one was a driver or firmware bug that kept corrupting the array, another was down to some unknown hardware failure (possibly failure of the cache memory on the RAID controller).


Coming back to the 1 series scenario, I believe that two separate filesystems definitely makes sense. This way, you have the flexibility to change either card independently of the other, use cards of different sizes and so on. It's not RAID (and it's not even a synchronised or mirrored pair operating at a level some way above the level just above the physical layer of RAID - it's the same files being written to two separate 'drives', independently of each other), but when you understand the true pros and cons of RAID 1 I'm not sure that you'd want it to be anything else.



David

[peterdoomen]

Thanks for your lengthy and clear explanation!

My computer has RAID-0 for the OS and programs, and two times RAID-1 for data. One of these also serves for the swap file. And I regularly take backups of critical data. And I will even more, after reading your post.

P.

[Servo'd]

you folks seen this? Sorry if its a repost
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092603_sandiskextremelll.asp

Unless you've got a 39 megapixel camera i can't imagine getting a 64gb card. Just a few years ago it was normal for someone to be using a 64mb card. Or at least that was the backup card for my g2.

Now i have a 32mb 64mb and 256mb as backups. What the hell am I supose to do with 32mb? :)

[Double Negative]

I'd like to know if someone thinks I'm off the wall here - I'd like to see a dual CF port instead of the current sd/Cf combo. I'd find it easier to use and could carry only one type of media with me. That's what would make the difference for me.

I agree - I have no use for an SD slot and I'm not about to buy into that format as well.

What I might do is just pick up one SD card to leave in the camera as extra space since it's is there already... Might as well use it.

[tommykjensen]

What I might do is just pick up one SD card to leave in the camera as extra space since it's is there already... Might as well use it.

I use the CF card as the main card but have a SD card in the camera too. Because I can just imagine shooting some action and the CF card runs out just at the wrong time then it is handy to be able to quickly switch to the SD card and contiue. (haven't had a use for it yet but am sure it will happen some day).

[MDJAK]

Unless you've got a 39 megapixel camera i can't imagine getting a 64gb card. :)

Didn't you tell me you were taking delivery of a Phase One 45mp back this week?

mark

[Double Negative]

One thing that's good about these huge cards is you can pack a pocketful and be sure when you go on vacation you won't run out of room - and won't need to bring along a laptop (or Hyperdrive, etc.) to offload the pix.

I really wish the iPod could be made more useful... The two current adapters (Apple and Belkin) just seem so... Horrible.

[Coco-Puffs]

im sure those people using the digital pack thingy on their medium sized cameras are happier.

[Mathiau]

Thanks for your lengthy and clear explanation!

My computer has RAID-0 for the OS and programs, and two times RAID-1 for data. One of these also serves for the swap file. And I regularly take backups of critical data. And I will even more, after reading your post.

P.


a swap would run better on a raid 0 then 1, raid 1 has slower writes, but if the controller supports it, it can have faster reads as it can read data from both drives. So since a swap file is often being written to, you would likely get faster performance putting it on a single drive. (but it likely wouldnt be something you would significatly notice)