# 1DX II Poll: Dual CF vs Dual CFast vs Mix



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

With the CR3 rumour about Canon possibly putting one CFast slot together with one CF card slot in the new 1D X, I thought I would ask you, the potential buyers, what you would like to see in the new Canon flagship DSLR?

Personally, I would prefer two slots with the same card type CF or CFast, but not a mix.

We have to presume that if Canon puts CFast into the camera then there will be technological reasons for it, and the camera will be built to use those higher speeds in some way.

You have to vote to see the results.

Cheers.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 17, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> With the CR3 rumour about Canon possibly putting one CFast slot together with one CF card slot in the new 1D X, I thought I would ask you - the potential buyers what you would like to see in the new Canon flagship DSLR?
> 
> Personally, I would prefer two slots with the same card type CF or CFast but not a mix.
> 
> ...



The Rumor is a CR3, which means its happening. CR3 Rumors are basically FACT, there is no if about it. Any vote is meaningless, the cameras are in e production line and we will be able to buy them soon.

If you are planning on buying a camera, order a Cfast reader and card now before the good ones are out of stock.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Rumor is a CR3, which means its happening. CR3 Rumors are basically FACT, there is no if about it. Any vote is meaningless, the cameras are in e production line and we will be able to buy them soon.
> 
> If you are planning on buying a camera, order a Cfast reader and card now before the good ones are out of stock.



The poll is not meaningless at all as it would show what people voting actually want (or prefer), compared to what we are going to get.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2016)

I don't care what type they are but I would greatly prefer that they were two of the same type, if not I will end up treating the camera as I do with the mixed slot 1Ds MkIII SD/CF, a one slot CF card camera.

SD slows down SD/CF card mixes, CF will slow down CF/CFast mixes.

The $150 difference in CF to CFast card prices is a very small consideration when buying a $6,000 camera, I will happily buy whatever cards I need to get the max potential stills performance from he 1DX MkII.


----------



## rdalrt (Jan 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't care what type they are but I would greatly prefer that they were two of the same type, if not I will end up treating the camera as I do with the mixed slot 1Ds MkIII SD/CF, a one slot CF card camera.
> 
> SD slows down SD/CF card mixes, CF will slow down CF/CFast mixes.
> 
> The $150 difference in CF to CFast card prices is a very small consideration when buying a $6,000 camera, I will happily buy whatever cards I need to get the max potential stills performance from he 1DX MkII.



Agreed. I don't care what they are. But I much prefer they both be the same.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

Out of those who voted dual CFast, I wonder how many actually buys this for 4k video? Or did they vote it just because it's new cool format?

Another poll about shooting video with dslr, indicated those are minority.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Out of those who voted dual CFast, I wonder how many actually buys this for 4k video? Or did they vote it just because it's new cool format?
> 
> Another poll about shooting video with dslr, indicated those are minority.



Not sure it matters, does it? I mean, if you are shooting stills would you not prefer to know that your camera will perform at its absolute best performance no matter which card you are shooting to? Whether it be buffer or some other tech. Surely using the latest tech also future proofs the camera a bit more as who knows in 2 or three years perhaps Canon is able to do something with a firmware update which would benefit the faster cards.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Out of those who voted dual CFast, I wonder how many actually buys this for 4k video? Or did they vote it just because it's new cool format?



With the current 1D X, a faster CF card means the buffer clears faster after a burst of shots. CFast is faster than CF.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 17, 2016)

I voted for dual cfast, but that may be because I'm not invested in cf already


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> I voted for dual cfast, but that may be because I'm not invested in cf already



I really don't think it is as important as some are making out. I have a quite a few CF Cards, my main two, which are always in the camera, are two 64GB Lexar 1066X.

If you keep the 1DX then you'll still need your CF cards, if you sell the 1DX then you could sell the CF cards with or separately. Plus the price of CFast cards are only ever going to go in one direction, and that's down.

This poll is mainly to see how many of us want two of the same kind of slots, and who doesn't. The plus side is we can also see how many have a preference for CFast over CF.

I definitely want two slots with the same cards as I don't need any more things to think about, remember etc when I am shooting. And new tech with better speeds, will always get my vote.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Out of those who voted dual CFast, I wonder how many actually buys this for 4k video? Or did they vote it just because it's new cool format?
> 
> Another poll about shooting video with dslr, indicated those are minority.



I voted for CFast because I wish to shoot infinite bursts. I do not like it when I jump the gun and the buffer fills, dropping the frame rate, just when the action requires high fps.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Out of those who voted dual CFast, I wonder how many actually buys this for 4k video? Or did they vote it just because it's new cool format?
> ...



I'm using Lexar 1066x CF on 1DX, and basically never I hit the buffer when I'm shooting sports. In 30 seconds, I can take >170 pics. And if the buffer fills, it takes <3 seconds to clear it.

So it wasn't a problem with Mark1, I can't see it being a problem with Mark2. And especially since memory price has dropped plenty in 4 years, I expect Mark2 having more buffer than Mark1. D5 has 200 pic buffer, I assume Mark2 will be around same ball park.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 17, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > I voted for dual cfast, but that may be because I'm not invested in cf already
> ...



He voted for two CFast slots. He wants two of the same kind of slots. He prefers CFast. Isn't that what the poll is about?


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



Yes. Isn't that what I wrote? My reply to IglooEater (cool name) was about the CF card investment.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 17, 2016)

Transcend's CX600 series CFast 2.0 (from Amazon.de)

256GB: 264 Euro
32GB: 58 Euro


64GB: 74 CHF (Swiss listing, but not yet available-->coming soon)

That concludes the argument for me (and everyone else).


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> Transcend's CX600 series CFast 2.0 (from Amazon.de)
> 
> 256GB: 264 Euro
> 32GB: 58 Euro
> ...



Lexar CFast at Amazon.com

64GB: $190
128GB: $295
256GB: $800

Not going to get replacement for my current Lexars anytime soon. So for me the mix-config is downgrade, but I understand there's small minority who it'll cater for, and I can live with that. Much larger amount of people will benefit from the CF slot being there.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 17, 2016)

First of all, I am not in the market for a 1Dx II. As a hobbyist, the 5D3 was more than expensive enough and even though I salivate over the thought, a 1Dx-type camera is just too expensive for me (much like the 200-400/4L).

Without having pored into the very details of memory card technologies and potential speeds, my take on the memory cards is that we're basically coming to an infliction point in time, with a change in format (interface and physical format). For Canon 1Dx-series, it's not about if it's going to change, it's only a matter of when. And to what format.

So looking at it from a 1Dx perspective, it's either switching now, or in 2020, when a "1Dx 3" body would come out. My take that it's better that Canon switches now, instead of waiting another 4 years. Just imaging the screaming in 3-3½ years time, if they didn't switch now.

So I'd say 2 x CFast. But I don't have to pay for the memory cards.

For the 5D series, CF is likely to be fine for another generation.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

kaihp said:


> So looking at it from a 1Dx perspective, it's either switching now, or in 2020, when a "1Dx 3" body would come out. My take that it's better that Canon switches now, instead of waiting another 4 years. Just imaging the screaming in 3-3½ years time, if they didn't switch now.



So if the camera supports everything it has, how it wouldn't support everything in 3 years?


----------



## kaihp (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > So looking at it from a 1Dx perspective, it's either switching now, or in 2020, when a "1Dx 3" body would come out. My take that it's better that Canon switches now, instead of waiting another 4 years. Just imaging the screaming in 3-3½ years time, if they didn't switch now.
> ...



The screams of "you idjits, it's too slow"


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

kaihp said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



I still don't get it. With any decent amount of buffer, CF is more than enough for everything else than 4k.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > The screams of "you idjits, it's too slow"
> ...



There's nothing to get here. Just the observation that people WILL complain about it, in 3 years time. No matter how good it was at launch. ;D


----------



## Zv (Jan 17, 2016)

I voted split. I see advantages for both CF and CFast but dual not one each as it diminishes advantages of the fast card by having a slower card. 

Now I think about it though - since the 1DX is already dual CF it kinda satisfied that need so really the 1DXII should be dual CFast.


----------



## RGF (Jan 17, 2016)

Surprised that anyone would want to have only dual CF and or only CFast cards when they can have a choice in cameras.

Even if you would like to have dual CFast cards, having the camera in dual CF format (or vice versa) would not hurt you and would provide advantage to others who would like the other format

Okay, done lecturing.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 17, 2016)

Can I choose option 5: absolutely don't care either way?

I like the dual SD-CF slot in the 5D3. But if I ever got a 1DxII (unlikely), I'd need new cards anyway, as my CFs are old and small. Might as well get CFast, but I wouldn't mind either way.

(Judging by the debate on here, whatever they do, they'll face a barrage of moaning).


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

RGF said:


> Surprised that anyone would want to have only dual CF and or only CFast cards when they can have a choice in cameras.
> 
> Even if you would like to have dual CFast cards, having the camera in dual CF format (or vice versa) would not hurt you and would provide advantage to others who would like the other format
> 
> Okay, done lecturing.



My Lexars are 64GB, and quite typical amount I shoot on a day is ~80-100GB. On 1DX no need to change cards. For 1DX2, I need to start looking when the first card comes full.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

RGF said:


> Surprised that anyone would want to have only dual CF and or only CFast cards when they can have a choice in cameras.
> 
> Even if you would like to have dual CFast cards, having the camera in dual CF format (or vice versa) would not hurt you and would provide advantage to others who would like the other format
> 
> Okay, done lecturing.



Not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean you do not understand why some people want two of the same card in the camera rather than a mix? You cannot use a CFast card in a CF card slot.

I have two 64GB Lexar 1066X cards in my camera now. I do not even need to think about what I am doing, nor which slot I am shooting to, as I know that when one fills it automatically switches to the other. 

At the moment we can only guess at the full specs of the 1DX II, perhaps Canon has found ways to make use of the faster read/write speeds of the CFast cards. Perhaps it will in a year, or two or three with a new firmware update.

The ironic thing about this thread is that if they do mix, most people are going to have to buy a CFast card anyway, and some will buy two in case that faster card fills. So nobody is going to be saving money by not buying new cards - unless of course they keep a dual CF card slot which does seem unlikely.

Maybe they should have also put in a MicroSD card slot so I can stick that in my phone to upload pictures from my camera without using Bluetooth (which nobody seems to be talking about) or buying Canon's US$ 6XX Wi-Fi gadget.


----------



## pwp (Jan 17, 2016)

This has all the hallmarks of a decision made by a committee. What a pity.

Having a negative response to mixed cards (CF & SD) in 1D MkIV, 5D MkIII & 7D MkII, it's disappointing that Canon hasn't had the guts to go with dual CFast. Busy professionals will always benefit from a powerful simplicity; like a best in class single card type. The 1DX with dual CF was a functional winner. 

Nikon's gutsy approach to offer the choice is a superior, imaginative one. Canon's lumbering indecisiveness has left us a little poorer. Still, the 1DX MkII's dual card type will be a minor irritation in what promises to be a solid release.

-pw


----------



## pwp (Jan 17, 2016)

Any bets on when a dual CFast 1Dx MkIIn might ship? Early 2017?
The 1D MkIIn was a _very _welcome mid-life release.

-pw


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 18, 2016)

CFast card prices are relative to their volume of use - the more cameras and CFast cards sold, the faster we can get to better pricing...

Kinda f***ed up how SATA SSDs are cheaper than CFast..


----------



## John (Jan 18, 2016)

there is no question in my mind that it is best to move forward with the latest technology in a top of the line camera. i want 2 CFast slots. no question about that.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

John said:


> there is no question in my mind that it is *best to move forward with the latest technology *in a top of the line camera. i want 2 CFast slots. no question about that.



Why? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just curious if there's a specific reason. From the discussions in the last few days, it's clear that a large buffer would eliminate the CF speed bottleneck for anything except 4K video. And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.

What, specifically, do you get by having only CFast slots? There's only one advantage I can think of, and that's the convenience of not having to manage two stacks of different kinds of cards. That seems a fairly minor inconvenience.


----------



## scottgoh (Jan 18, 2016)

don't need to throw old cards away and slowly upgrade to CFast. one slot each is nice


----------



## Zv (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> John said:
> 
> 
> > there is no question in my mind that it is *best to move forward with the latest technology *in a top of the line camera. i want 2 CFast slots. no question about that.
> ...



The only thing I can think of is to speed up post production workflow. Having all your cards CFast means not having to wait as long to transfer the data to your computer as it would otherwise. With the amount of images a typical pro might take it could be significant. 

Camera functionality wise I don't see any reason that the CF cards slot would slow you down unless the buffer fills up. We can assume the buffer will be bigger than before thus it should be able to handle 14fps for quite some time before slowing down. I wonder if the high ISO files might make that happen sooner. And then there is RAW + JPEG continuous burst capability. 

I guess with dual CFast no matter what you did the camera wouldn't slow down at all? Or only once it burst into flames from prolonged use! So, maybe it's a safety feature!


----------



## Zv (Jan 18, 2016)

Surely at some point you'll need to swap out the card as you can't shoot until infinity. Even with a 128GB card it wouldn't take long before it filled up if you shoot 14fps non stop (about 6 minutes by my rubbish calculations so let's just say 10 conservatively)

My point being - changing the card mid shoot will be slowing you down more than the card slot itself even if they were both CFast.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 18, 2016)

Both CFast. Speed advantage pure & simple.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Both CFast. Speed advantage pure & simple.



Speed advantage for what operation? So far, I've yet to see any argument that the speed might possibly be noticed in any operation other than copying to your computer afterwards. For example, let's say you took 10,000 photos at 35MB per image, and wanted to transfer them to your computer. With CFast it would take about 11 minutes, with CF it would take 36minutes. OK, I guess 25 minutes is significant, but not huge. And compared to the time you'll spend working on those images...

In what circumstance can you imagine that the speed will make a noticeable difference?


----------



## ecka (Jan 18, 2016)

John said:


> there is no question in my mind that it is best to move forward with the latest technology in a top of the line camera. i want 2 CFast slots. no question about that.



Sure, I'll just wait for the 3d-xpoint built-in memory.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.



Always makes me smile when I read something like this. I do a lot of stills and a lot of video. Whether you think I am a serious videographer or not does not bother me one way or the other, but I think the idea that serious videographers record to an external device is quite antiquated.

But you do not need to take my word for it. Watch Matt Granger in his YouTube video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqTeahNF1w talk about 4K on the Nikon D5, and also look at some of the comments as there are quite a few famous names commenting too.

Frankly, it is nice to be able to record internally as you do not always have the time, nor option to do external etc.


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > Transcend's CX600 series CFast 2.0 (from Amazon.de)
> ...


+1 Also the argument of who pays for a 1DxII and does not want to pay for CFAST cards can be changed a little.
Who gets a 1DxII to put Transcend cards inside ? ? ?????????????


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

tron said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > AndreeOnline said:
> ...



I guess same people who buy 1DX2 to shoot video.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > And, per CR Guy, most serious videographers would use an external recording device.
> ...


I have no personal knowledge of this, my only assumption is that an internal memory card would get quite warm with an extended single recording, but I know many videos are assembled from multiple clips of a few minutes.

Nevertheless, a single CFast card will handle a lot of video. Is 160MB/s enough for 4K? If so, CF will handle that too.


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...


I was talking about reliability but I think I get what you mean: Mostly Amateurs who want 4K no matter what! 

On the opposite side If I had this camera I would have to get one of these to backup my 150mb/sec sandisks for the most important photos...


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



The Lexar 1066x can write ~95MB/s (giveortake) sustained. I doubt many CFs can go beyond that, at least not by much.


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


Good Question! Sandisk says YES: Copying from:

https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/compact-flash/extremepro-compactflash

This industry-leading memory card is optimized for professional-grade video capture, with a minimum sustained write speed of 65MB/s for rich 4K and Full HD video.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



150MB/s: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0UP-003X-00015&cm_re=compactlfash-_-0UP-003X-00015-_-Product

It's hard to know if this can be sustained, but it shows that it's feasible.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

tron said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Yea, that bugs me too. Occasionally I have shoot where I must have backup, so if I end up buying 1DX2, I'll probably buy 64GB or 128GB CFast for those occasions. But those Lexars and Sandisks are not cheap... Amazon has currently 2 Sandisks for sale, 64GB for $220 and 128GB for $370.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Yea, that's why it says "* Up to* 150 MB/s"

Real life is always less than marketing people make you believe. Have you ever bought Chinese batteries?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



I've had some cards that were within a whisker of their rated speed. You have to use fast components all the way, though. I'll give you 10%, but you'll have to show benchmarks if you want me to believe it can't sustain 135MB/s.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25

_I've got my Lexar 1066x 64GB. It's the fastest card I've tried, faster than SanDisk 160mb/s 128GB, I rented for my SD trip.

I consistently get 120.8-120.9 MB/S writing and 153.8MB/S (yes, exactly this number) reading. Faster than any of 128GB cards I tried before: 2xKB, 4xTranscend. My USB3 says it can do 138MB/s write._

Another post there:

_Write speed with 5D3 with Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb 160mb/s @ 92.7MB/s_

Another post result in picture, <110MB/s (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.msg159239#msg159239 )

_
7D on SanDisk Extreme PRO 64GB (1067X, 160MB/S)_ 

So your turn to find any test showing 135MB/s sustained.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 18, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



No. He just commented on why he voted like he did.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I've had some cards that were within a whisker of their rated speed. You have to use fast components all the way, though. I'll give you 10%, but you'll have to show benchmarks if you want me to believe it can't sustain 135MB/s.
> ...



I've noticed two fatal flaws with those tests.

1. They seem to have been done with SD, not CF. It's my understanding that the CF interface has some advantages. I'd like to see good tests with CF cards.

2. They were done in-camera, so the camera's interface could be the bottleneck.

I appreciate the effort to look for tests, but I guess we're still inconclusive.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.

And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.

So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.
> 
> And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.
> 
> So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.



I thought I did, I even skimmed the web pages. All I saw were SD. I'll look again...


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Did you even read what I wrote? Those were CF, and one of them had also usb3 reader.
> 
> And why would camera 4k recording care how fast is the card on PC? Your 4k video don't record any faster on the camera even if the card puts out 1000MB/s on PC.
> 
> So again, your turn to prove me wrong. You have nice claims without evidence.



OK, just re-read the whole thing, and still don't see what you claim. Could you please post a screen-grab?

From your previous post, I'll put comments *{in-line}* with specific pieces *bolded* for reference.



tpatana said:


> Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:
> 
> http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12630.25
> 
> ...



The only reference I see to CF in a USB adapter the tester says 138MB/s.

If you think I've overlooked something please post a screen grab with the salient information highlighted, because I don't see what you're referring to.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 19, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Not too many do those tests, the one I know is Magic Lantern. Here's the thread where they test different cards:
> ...



At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.

So to help you read those above:

1***: He says the Lexar CF is faster than Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card. The lexar gets 120MB/s on camera, 138MB/s on USB, although it doesn't say if that's peak or sustained. No comment on actual speed on Sandisk, just saying it's slower than Lexar.

2***: He says the Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card gets 92MB/s on camera.

3***: He gets <110MB/s on camera with Sandisk Extreme Pro CF 160MB/s -card

So again, I haven't seen proof that any CF can go higher than those on actual sustained. Marketing people should ask engineers to put super tiny bit of super-fast buffer memory on the input line for memory cards so then they could claim 1000MB/s on the packaging, even when actual sustained would be fraction of that.

And regardless, I still consider both of those cards (Lexar, Sandisk) to be more then fast enough for any sports pro shooting pictures at any frame rate given from current bodies, so the extra speed helps only flush out the buffer faster.

On 1DX and the Lexars (I don't have Sandisk so can't test those), it takes ~3 seconds to empty the buffer even when it's full.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.


Neither, I'm deeply anti-troll, it's a waste of everyone's time, including the troll.

I've gone back through the ML posts, and I'm still not clear which are in-camera and which USB. However, it doesn't really matter because I found this, the clearest benchmark I've seen. It appears to show sustained throughput of 147MB/s.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/cf-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-32gb-cf-card/

Regards,

O


----------



## tpatana (Jan 19, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just intentionally reading all those wrong.
> ...



And again the people actually using cameras to take pictures, not to benchmark their stuff on PC, care more about the other table which you conveniently skipped:

SanDisk Extreme Pro 160MB/s 32GB
Tested in Camera	Write Speed (MB/s)
Canon 7D Mark II	101.2
Canon 5Ds	99.8
Nikon D810	96.0
Canon 1D X	94.8
Nikon D800	70.5


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 19, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



OK, I see where the confusion is. I'm looking at the 1DXII, not previous models. My assertion is that, for the 1DXII, CF would be fine for 4K video. I'm not asking about previous models, so those were irrelevant to me. We now know that CF, of itself, is capable of supporting 4K, so long as the 1DXII's interface is properly engineered.

Regards,

O


----------



## tpatana (Jan 19, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I agree on almost all those. The only item where CF might be bottleneck is if there's some low compression codec which requires >100MB/s speeds. RAW would be for sure, but they are not supporting RAW for sure either.

Given what we so far know about 1DX2, I would have voted for dual-CF.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 24, 2016)

I am amazed that so many, though not even a third, said they wanted both.

I think the results would have been different had I asked for serial numbers of their 1DX.


----------



## Click (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> What if Canon release the 1DXII and say "12fps with CF, 15fps with CFast"?
> 
> CF cards made sense 10 years ago. Today with CFast, they no longer make sense.



I totally agree. 

So 2 CFast or Two different versions of 1DX II so buyers can choose between Dual CF and Dual CFast cameras


----------



## scyrene (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Well some people (not me) have put forward arguments for CF/mixed. But sure, go ahead and label everyone who disagrees with you as conservative rather than engaging with their points.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 24, 2016)

I think that both Cfast and CF will go by the wayside in a generation or two. How long before they just add a m.2 ssd slot for video camera and larger DSLR and go SD for the rest. Put it in some kind of hot swap chassis and make it field swappable.


----------



## awair (Jan 24, 2016)

Having used the 7D2, and recently acquired the 1Dx, I believe that having two different slots is a huge mistake. I appreciate the 2nd slot in the 7D, but avoid using it for the inconvenience of dissimilar card sizes and readers.

My workflow is not typical, and I probably use less cards than someone working full time. However, my investment in CF still goes back to my original 20D, then 7D and 7D2.

I will most likely never move to the Mark II, but if I did, I would trust it to to have two identical slots (providing redundancy, and eliminating the opportunity for error). I would expect it to have the fastest capability of its generation, rather than supporting a legacy standard.

While a CR3 may be 'set in stone', I would imagine that, even if it were not truly modular, the opportunity to switch the card modules during manufacturing would not prove insurmountable. This poll provides the necessary impetus for an informed manufacturer to think again...


----------



## pwp (Jan 24, 2016)

Dual CFast all the way. Mixed cards are an anachronistic nuisance. Weak call canon!

Frankly it's amazing that CF has lasted as long as it has. It's roots and design principles go back to the dreaded PCMCIA Card from 1990 which was never intended to be mounted and dismounted the way CF cards are. The interface just isn't built for it. Fast forward a few years into a CF-free future and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

-pw


----------



## tron (Jan 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Very insightful. It will happen some time in the future for sure. Whether we will live by then is a totally different matter I guess. Given that fast CF is about 5000 times faster than floppy disk feel free to guess when camera media will be written with speeds close to 1TBytes/sec ;D ;D ;D


----------



## iaind (Jan 25, 2016)

I voted dual CFast because when machine gunning the buffer will empty faster.


----------

