J. R. WEEMS Loc: Winchester, Virginia

Early on, I got to thinking larger cards, mostly CF cards, were the way to go. After finding out they took so long to down load all those RAW files, using Aperture I went with 8GB cards. I am now wondering if it wasn't Aperture that was the problem and now as I have LR, I have to wonder if I can go back to larger cards?? Anyone have experience with this?? Or a suggestion?? THANKS!! :)

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

The largest card I have is 32GB. My logic says that if my card goes bad, I don't want to lose 64 or 128 GB of images.

But, the size of the card has nothing to do with download speed, other than the obvious that a larger card could contain more images and thus take longer.

I can get right at 600 raw images on a 32GB card. I'd think 3 or 4 of them in my pocket would take me through any shoot I might do.

Just my thoughts.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Here's a recent article explaining speed and storage differences in SD and CF cards.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/fastest-memory-cards-money-can-buy

RJarvis Loc: Seattle, WA

I just bought a SanDisk 64GB CF card (for my D800) on eBay but haven't used it yet. What I discovered while browsing eBay is that you pay more for speed a well as capacity. SanDisk sells a "SanDisk Extreme" and an "Extreme PRO." Download time for the PRO is advertised as 160MB/s and for the non-PRO, 120 MB/s. The price difference is $30-40.

The D800 (and its siblings) has slots for both SD and CF cards. I had already bought a 32GB SD card and I set the camera to store both JPG and RAW files. Bad idea. When I went to take the card out of the camera (to insert into the computer) it was stuck. I finally got it out and discovered the plastic housing was melted near the contacts. I filed down the melted plastic and found, to my relief, that the files were still intact and the card still worked. And, then I quickly decided to use the second slot for a CF card, for the RAW files. My Dell laptop has slots for both card types so now, everything is cool (literally).

J. R. WEEMS Loc: Winchester, Virginia

MELTED?? Wow. now that would gather my interest as to cause etc????????

J. R. WEEMS Loc: Winchester, Virginia

[quote=brucewells]The largest card I have is 32GB. My logic says that if my card goes bad, I don't want to lose 64 or 128 GB of images.

But, the size of the card has nothing to do with download speed, other than the obvious that a larger card could contain more images and thus take longer.

I can get right at 600 raw images on a 32GB card. I'd think 3 or 4 of them in my pocket would take me through any shoot I might do.

Well, this is sort of my point-- larger card, more photos, of course--
Point being, download time-- Aperture became REALLY slow-- I mean S L O W -- would LR be faster??

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

[quote=J. R. WEEMS]

I think you need to look at where the bottle neck is... do you download by connecting a USB cable to your camera or plug the card into a card reader? Is your computer USB 1.1, 2.0 or 3.0? Is the card a FAST card, such as how quick is it's read/write speed?

Lots of variables here that will affect the speed at which the images will be read.

I doubt that Aperture or Lightroom is the culprit/bottleneck, assuming that there is no preset processing going on during the import.

JerseyJim Loc: New Jersey, USA

I agree, the 32 GB is the right size. I carry three and rarely run out of space. I use Sandisk Extreme Pro SDHC Class 10 (95 MB/s). I shoot RAW+JPEG and those cards keep up nicely, even when I burst at 5 fps.

RJarvis Loc: Seattle, WA

I assume it was because of the tremendous amount of energy pouring into the card as it tried to accommodate 20MB JPG and 80MB files with every click (sometimes, several exposures per second). And, the SD card I was using is very slow compared to what's available now.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I used to use 64 GB cards, but have switched to 32 GB cards myself. I agree with the logic here - no sense using 1 64 GB card when several 32 GB cards are cheaper and can be carried along as spares.


:thumbup:

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I have a number of cameras and have used a variety of memory cards. I like the CF cards because of size--my fingers have trouble handling the smaller cards. I have never noticed a difference in the download speed as a function of card size, but I've never tried to time that process.

Earworms Loc: Sacramento, California

Excellent article!

Did you know that SD Cards should be formatted/reformatted with the official SD Card formatter and not the formatting utility of your Mac or PC?

Noela

I never use a card bigger than 32 GB, loss concerns. The cards I use just need to be able to match my cameras record speed, and have capacity. So, I use mostly fast cards with 8-16 GB capacity, carrying a few 32 GB cards for possible larger shoots. Yes, you pay more for faster and larger cards, but I find it worth it. If I'm doing macro or product shots, I can use slower cards. I erase my cards, and format them to, with my cameras, never my computer. Knock on wood, I have never lost a card.

edhjr Loc: Needham, MA

Never experienced or heard of a similar problem. I shoot car racing, wildlife in motion etc with long continuous high speed jpeg plus raw bursts with a D4s, an 800 and an 810 and have never seen any physical damage to a card. Years of doing this with all sizes and quality of cards with no signs of any similar issues.

Was there any water/wetness in the card chamber that could have caused a short?

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

Too many variables to make a definitive answer for the bottleneck.
Sometimes, the HDD is the culprit for slowdowns when it's more than 70-80% full. The heads of the HDD need to search or hunt for space to store your new data or it needs to breakup the files to fit onto space remaining. There's also the possibility that you divided up the HDD into separate blocks or drives and the program halts or slows due to redirection during the download.
There's also the possibility that there's some other program running on your system at the same time and is stealing system attributes. Check to see what programs are running or in background. Antivirus programs are a common bottleneck when running in background.
Another possibility is that you need to update your USB drivers. Older readers were slower and you have stated you use the reader that came inside your laptop. You might try using a new USB 3.0 reader and drivers to download from camera to laptop and see if you experience the same bottleneck. Just be aware that if your computer only has USB 2.0 ports, using a USB 3.0 reader will not improve the download speeds.