# CF CARDS



## sanj (Jun 11, 2014)

Are CF cards really on their way out? Can smaller, flimsier SD take their place? Why do I keep hearing people talk like this?

Pls advice. I am heavily invested in CF cards. Will they all be obsolete in coming years?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 11, 2014)

If Canon stays with EOS then the 1 series bodies probably won't shrink much and if there is no new pressure to save internal volume then as long as CF cards get faster and more capacious I don't see them going away soon. More permanent internal solutions might happen once tethering by LAN isn't terrible though.

In the meantime they work, and I expect my lenses and my cards to be good for my next two bodies at least.

Jim


----------



## Dkocher (Jun 11, 2014)

I see them being replaced with CFast cards to support RAW video at high resolutions. Don't think CF cards will get any faster than now (1066x).


----------



## sanj (Jun 11, 2014)

Thank you much for the reassurance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 11, 2014)

I do expect that the Cards are going to be upgraded to CFAST. These will not be compatible. Cinema cameras are starting to use them already, but prices need to come down, and general availability is a huge issue. CF cards are safe for a few more years on pro level cameras. SD cards have their points, but speed is not one of them.


----------



## dolina (Jun 11, 2014)

UDMA CF cards are limited to 167MB/s (1140x) & 144PB so it is expected of Canon to adopt CFast cards for bodies that require more bandwidth like for say uncompressed 2K and 4K.

In preparation for this change I am selling all my 13 CF cards and putting the proceeds towards four 64GB Lexar cards. Keeping track of all 13 was a hassle and to be honest utility of the misplaced cards is very bad. I would've preferred to get 128GB cards but they still sell more than $100, my budget for cards since 2004.

Putting "all eggs in 1 basket" argument is applicable a decade ago but now CF are so reliable that national elections use them in the voting process.

Cards like the SDXC are limited to 2TB per SD 2.0 specs. SD 4.0 specs allows for speeds up to 312MB/s (2130x).


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 11, 2014)

An anecdote.

I went to a personal event, so I just took my camera and not my bag. When I got there, I realized the CF card was still in my computer at home. I was in the middle of "shopping central" so I decided to run across the street to the mall and just buy one.

Well, I went to four electronics stores, two department stores and a grocery store. All seven had SD cards, not one had a CF card for me to buy.

I used to hate SD cards, mostly for the handling. Several things changed my mind including the above anecdote.

1) I handled microSD cards. Compared to those, SD cards are positively enormous and easy to handle.
2) UHS - they aren't slow anymore.
3) Cost - they aren't expensive anymore.

So, at this point, I wouldn't mind if CF cards disappeared.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 11, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> including the above anecdote.
> 
> 
> 2) UHS - they aren't slow anymore.


 

If you believe that, I've got a bridge you might want to buy  

Those specs are only for new or blank cards. Once a SD card has had images written to it, then the card must be erased one block at a time, and that's a very slow process. You basically go back to 10-20MB/Sec, not the high speeds you see advertised. Its a sucker bet.

You can do a card erase or low level format to restore them to new status and get that speed back, but few are willing to spend the time to do that, it seems to take forever for a low level format of a 64GB SD card..


----------



## dolina (Jun 12, 2014)

I noticed that cameras with SDXC or smaller cards tend to be found in small devices. But your experience is right Lee. A lot more shops would carry these cards than CF cards.

Almost all my CF cards are bought from a shop 12 time zones away from me because local pricing is effectively 2-3x more here.

sanj, perhaps it is time to do what I am doing and unload all your older cards and just have a few cards that were marketed this year.


----------



## Zv (Jun 12, 2014)

CF cards have been hard to come by of late. The prices in local retailers is astronomical and online is just a gamble (had a fake last year). I'm holding on to my 32Gigs and might sell the smaller ones and update to newest 160mb/s ones, though they seem tough as nails and just as reliable. With the exception of the fake and one cheap crappy Transcend CF that my card reader wont recognize I've never experienced any failures. But then SD has treated me just as kindly. Still prefer CF for their solidness. 

What are the current CFast speeds? 

Update - I looked up Sandisk 120Gb Cfast, it's 450 mb/s (read). Lexar boasts 500.


----------



## dolina (Jun 12, 2014)

CFast is based on Serial ATA rather than CF's Parallel ATA so speeds peaks at 600MB/s for CFast based on Serial ATA III specs.

When ever CFast becomes standard it would be easier for me to unload 4 cards marketed this year than 13 cards collected over 10 years.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > including the above anecdote.
> ...



That's true for CF cards, too. Yes, ostensibly, CF supports the TRIM command, but I doubt very much that any cameras do. And even if they did, there's equivalent functionality in recent SD card specs, so if a camera supports TRIM on CF and not DISCARD on SD, that's just laziness.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 17, 2014)

dolina said:


> CFast is based on Serial ATA rather than CF's Parallel ATA so speeds peaks at 600MB/s for CFast based on Serial ATA III specs.



Of course, that's still slow compared with XQD's 1 GB/s. SATA makes sense for external storage, where the signal has to travel several feet down a cable. It's brain damaged for flash cards, where the signal only needs to travel a fraction of an inch. All SATA does is impose unnecessary and artificial limitations on the maximum data rate. There's a reason the entire computer industry is dumping SATA for their internal storage and moving to direct PCIe-attached storage. CFast just needs to go away, IMO.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 17, 2014)

This is all good info.

I personally prefer CF because I've always found it to be more reliable and stable. (More grounding, etc makes the signal more reliable too.) In general, I've rarely (if ever) had trouble with CF data but I've had several problems with SD data or images being corrupted, if only slightly.

CF is usually faster overall than most comparable SD cards regardless of the written specs.

CF is easier to handle, manipulate, write on, etc.

I totally understand the argument for SD. SD has a lot of benefits and it is an extremely versatile format. I'm not trying to slam SD, I just want to show my support and preference for CF.

I also understand some folks' problem with the CF pin design. That is a weakness of CF but I have to admit I've never seen a problem myself.

It will be interesting to see what format(s) emerge/survive over the next 2-3 years.

Personally, I haven't had a problem buying CF cards yet but I can see where it might be possible for CF to be hard to find in some areas based on market demand.

Rusty


----------



## dolina (Jun 18, 2014)

Unless you're using a Sony or a Nikon then it doesn't really matter how awesome XQD is. Last I checked Canon & Phase One are backing CFast.

http://www.cnet.com/news/cfast-2-0-splits-high-end-flash-card-market/

So happy I got this already. Time to unload the rest of my old CF cards.  

http://instagram.com/p/pUNahkgXDc/



dgatwood said:


> Of course, that's still slow compared with XQD's 1 GB/s. SATA makes sense for external storage, where the signal has to travel several feet down a cable. It's brain damaged for flash cards, where the signal only needs to travel a fraction of an inch. All SATA does is impose unnecessary and artificial limitations on the maximum data rate. There's a reason the entire computer industry is dumping SATA for their internal storage and moving to direct PCIe-attached storage. CFast just needs to go away, IMO.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 26, 2014)

I think cf has another ten years of life... but smaller with universal support is big.

The day is coming, but I wouldn't sweat it now.


----------



## dolina (Jun 26, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I think cf has another ten years of life... but smaller with universal support is big.
> 
> The day is coming, but I wouldn't sweat it now.


No one's saying CF cards will disappear overnight but it will lose relevance to newer cameras once a CFast-based Canon body starts shipping. Whatever sales CF cards has within the decade will be for legacy hardware.

CF5.0 spec allows for 116,415TB data storage but at 167MB/s it would take more than 23 years to transfer all the data.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 2, 2014)

dolina said:


> Unless you're using a Sony or a Nikon then it doesn't really matter how awesome XQD is. Last I checked Canon & Phase One are backing CFast.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/cfast-2-0-splits-high-end-flash-card-market/



I'm aware of that. IMO, Canon is backing the wrong horse—a dead horse, give or take a bit of postmortem twitching. When it comes to communicating with flash cards, the SATA protocol has been globally abandoned by the entire tech industry except for a handful of holdouts like Canon and SanDisk who are afraid of progress. It simply can't keep up with PCIe in the long term, and the difference in performance will become more and more obvious as the technology improves....


----------

