# Canon EOS-1D X Mark II To Feature CFast & CF Slots [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

```
We’re told that the upcoming Canon EOS-1D X Mark II will feature one CFast slot and one CompactFlash slot. We had been told Canon was going back and forth on whether they would offer dual CFast slots or not. This will be a nice tradeoff for photographers, and they can upgrade to CFast on their own time, instead of having to go out and buy a bunch of new cards when the camera launches.</p>
<p>I’m hoping there is a good safety device that prevents CFast cards from being jammed into the CF card slot, or we may have a rash of bent pins in people’s cameras. I’m sure Canon developers have already thought of this though.</p>
<p>I probably would have preferred dual CFast slots, but I may be in the minority.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 16, 2016)

looking at current prices for CFast this seems reasonable.

However I would hope that given Canon has been deliberating, that the card reader PCB should be seperate and upgradable. That way if CFast becomes dirt cheap 1DXII owners could ask canon to upgrade their cameras to 2xCFast... for a small fee of course.


----------



## john1970 (Jan 16, 2016)

I would have preferred dual CFast slots personally. Nikon finally bit the bullet and did dual XQD cards on the D5; I would have expected Canon to do the same with 1D MKII with dual CFast slots. Even with only 1 CFast slot I will be upgrading to CFast because I am sure that one will be able to shoot a longer burst using the CFast slot instead of the CF slot.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 16, 2016)

I'm not sure that several hundred more dollars for same-style memory cards should have factored into the design decision for a $6000 camera. "Drop in the bucket" comes to mind.


----------



## et31 (Jan 16, 2016)

I really like how Nikon gave two options for professionals on the new D5:
Option A: Dual XQD cards or
Option B: Dual CF cards

Your choice, same price! 
Canon should have done the same with their CFast cards and traditional CF cards. 

The one CFast slot and CF combination should have been the new configuration on the 5D Mark IV.
No more slow SD card slot!


----------



## bgoyette (Jan 16, 2016)

This one doesn't really make much sense to me. I'd expect canon to put the new xf-avc codecs on this camera, and standard cf cards won't cut the mustard. So then we're looking at proxy mode or two sets of codecs in camera.. Seems like an odd approach , or an ominous sign that this won't be a 1dc-like replacement. Cfast is such a joy, offloads are lightning fast and would allow for much greater continuous raw shooting. You're not in the minority.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 16, 2016)

Dual CFast would be welcome, they are a lot faster than CF and XQD.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 16, 2016)

CFast is still ''new,'' so we are in a transition period. Canon is making a reasonable compromise. Especially if new body is ''only'' 22MP.

I am sorry, though, that there is a split between CFast and XQD, the latter seemingly faster and perhaps more universal in the long term.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 16, 2016)

I too would have preferred dual CFast, but will be quite happy with this arrangement. I already have a modest investment in very large and fast CF cards and readers. We'll have to see just which features, if any, other than 4k Vid will require the use of CFast. I'd like to add CFast cards and readers at my own pace and not at the time of purchase of the the 1Dx2.


----------



## whothafunk (Jan 16, 2016)

et31 said:


> No more slow SD card slot!


it's not as fast as QCD or CFast, but in what world is 280MB/s slow?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/sandisk/Ntt/Sandisk+extreme+pro+UHS-II+memory+card+GB/N/0


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > No more slow SD card slot!
> ...



The SD card slot in the 5D Mark III is not high speed (UHS), so the maximum transfer speed is 133x (around 20 MB/s I think).


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 16, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > No more slow SD card slot!
> ...



Current EOS cameras (including the M series) top out at 40MiB/s or slower for older models. The Lexar 2000x card I use is mainly for making the import into lightroom very, very fast.

See http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=dbunbm757n4ijdet0s6fkrd8b4&topic=6215.0 for more information.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 16, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > No more slow SD card slot!
> ...


there are very few cameras which support that UHS-II standard to fullest. Even most cameras which are marked as Uhs-I dont support full Uhs-I speed. Also 280Mb/s is read speed not write speeds, writes are lot slower than that.


----------



## Gcon (Jan 16, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Dual CFast would be welcome, they are a lot faster than CF and XQD.



CFast is faster than CF, but you're incorrect when it comes to XQD.

CFast is based on the legacy SATA 3.0 protocol. It is nominally 6Gbps but wastes 20% of it's bandwidth with the inefficient 8b/10b encoding scheme. Thus, the maximum transfer rate is only 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s).

XQD on the other hand is based on the newer PCI Express (PCIe) standard. PCIe 3.0 employs the very efficient 128b/130b encoding scheme (approx 1.54% overhead). A single PCIe 3.0 "lane" can transfer at 985 MB/s. That's already over 60% faster than SATA. Use 2x or 4x PCIe lanes, and you're leaving SATA in the dust (and before you ask - no - SATA cannot be bonded into multiple lanes like PCIe can).

Not only that but SATA employs the legacy AHCI (Advanced Host Controller Interface), which has a command set aimed at mechanical drives and not flash memory. A newer interface for flash media called "Non Volatile Memory Express" aka "NVMe" has been created which is fully optimized for flash with lower latencies with more command queues and greater command depths. PCIe supports it natively but SATA doesn't, and is unlikely to ever support it.

In the PC word, PCI Express (PCIe) is supplanting SATA slowly but surely. SATA 3.2 brings in "SATA Express" which kludges together two older SATA3.0 with 2x PCIe lanes. The PC world has largely ignored SATAe, in favour of smaller and more efficient PCIe-only buses that employ 4x PCIe lanes like the M.2 and U.2 formats. M.2 screws onto the motherboard, and U.2 is a plug for a stand-alone drive.

Over time you'll see CPUs with more PCIe lanes and less SATA ports, until SATA dies out completely, just like Parallel ports before it.

In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.

Here's some info on SATA and PCIe http://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/ and you can find info on CFast and XQD on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#CFast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQD_card


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 16, 2016)

[CR0] This just in: The sucessor to the 1D-X will be called the "1D-Why?" :'(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2016)

Mixed card types would be disappointing. Far better to use a single type, so the same high speed is available for simultaneously writing to both. 

So far, I'm not seeing much worth upgrading from my 1D X – 4 extra MP, higher available ISO (not necessarily much higher _usable_ ISO), 1-2 more FPS, and now a step backward for card slots. 

1D Y, indeed. 

Now if I was using a 5DIII, this would be very tempting – lots of improvements and no MP decrease.


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 16, 2016)

Gcon said:


> In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.


Change "Canon" to "Sandisk" and I agree with your post 100%.

I hate it that both Lexar and Sandisk didn't adopt XQD.


----------



## tron (Jan 16, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > et31 said:
> ...


So what? The controller can be upgraded. Even now 7D2 has a much faster SD controller than 5D3.

http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/canon-7d-mark-ii/fastest-sd-cf-card-comparison/


----------



## Wizardly (Jan 16, 2016)

Gcon said:


> In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.



What do you suppose Nikon and Sony would charge Canon for licensing XQD?

Let's also note that theoretical speed and current speed vary by a wide margin. Today the CFast cards and XQD cards have comparable R/W speeds.

Next Olympics cycle we'll see what Canon does with memory. By then maybe the limit of SATA3 capabilities will be reached.

The mixture of CF and CFast makes perfect sense - CF is alive and well for stills and there's a huge number of them out there. Forced-upgrades at great cost would only alienate the user base.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mixed card types would be disappointing. Far better to use a single type, so the same high speed is available for simultaneously writing to both.
> 
> So far, I'm not seeing much worth upgrading from my 1D X – 4 extra MP, higher available ISO (not necessarily much higher _usable_ ISO), 1-2 more FPS, and now a step backward for card slots.
> 
> ...



I don't think there's going to be an issue of simultaneously writing to both CF and CFast for stills in the real world, especially if the camera has a massive buffer, which it likely will.

CFast is going to have its advantages for 4K video, but anyone doing any serious cinematography is likely going to be using an external recorder.

There's going to be a minor inconvenience to having two card types, but I think the inconvenience of making anyone that buys this camera dump all their CompactFlash cards would be greater.

Perhaps Canon will offer a CF to CFast slot "upgrade" like Nikon is going to do for CF to XQD.


----------



## Zv (Jan 16, 2016)

It makes sense to have the best of both rather than making the potential buyer choose one and stick to it. Maybe some people could get by with CF just fine but might want to dabble in a little 4K so they could borrow a CFast or something without having to rent a completely different camera. With the Nikon D5 you have to commit to one.

What they could do is have two versions, one with dual CFast and one mixed CF and CFast. Or is that a stupid idea? Can't see that happening. 

Looking at what's available now, the Sandisk CFast 2.0 cards look pretty decent, about the same as the Sony XQD G series, maybe a tad faster? I have to admit though the XQDs look like the smarter choice in the long run, especially when you consider the product life cycle of ~ 5 years.


----------



## Zv (Jan 16, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.
> ...



Umm are you sure about that? 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082429-REG/lexar_lxqd64gcrbna1333_64gb_xqd_memory_card.html


----------



## unfocused (Jan 16, 2016)

GIven that XQD is a Nikon-Sony technology, it makes sense that Canon would not want to rely on a competitor's technology for their flagship camera. 

Since Canon uses CFast for video it makes sense they would want to keep the storage medium consistent across lines. 

Whether or not it is best technology really is irrelevant. The shoulders of the technology highway are littered with "better" technology abandoned because other technologies were good enough.


----------



## dolina (Jan 16, 2016)

I think Nikon's implementation makes more sense.

Those with a sizeable CF card investment opt for dual CF cards while those who want faster than 1067x memory card go dual CFast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2016)

Zv said:


> I have to admit though the XQDs look like the smarter choice in the long run, especially when you consider the product life cycle of ~ 5 years.



Considering a product life cycle of 5 years, I'd think storage media format would become mostly irrelevant. After 5 years, I'd expect to need to update storage media along with camera. Even if the media format was the same, faster data rates and higher capacities would generally be needed. 




dolina said:


> I think Nikon's implementation makes more sense.



Agreed - Canon got this right with the 1D X, and Nikon got it right with the D5.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 16, 2016)

Gcon said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Dual CFast would be welcome, they are a lot faster than CF and XQD.
> ...



I do know the differences between the PCI-e and SATA along with advantages of NVME vs AHCI. I have a workstation with NVME drive installed which takes care of virtualization for my office. But the price is the biggest roadblock that will reduce the adoption rate of NVME drives. Sata drives are cheap and thats the reason why they will be kicking for quite sometime in future. I was referring to current generation XQD 2.0 and CFast 2.0 cards that you can actually purchase, CFast cards faster(recently I had to purchase one for the industrial system on which the software was deployed) compared to XQDs in terms of reads. Also compared to XQD adoption of CFast is much higher in the industry so I dont think its a wrong decision from Canon to adopt Cfast over XQD.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 16, 2016)

Zv said:


> It makes sense to have the best of both rather than making the potential buyer choose one and stick to it. Maybe some people could get by with CF just fine but might want to dabble in a little 4K so they could borrow a CFast or something without having to rent a completely different camera. With the Nikon D5 you have to commit to one



The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera. And CF should still more than adequte to snag 14fps at 22mb. 

Again, I dont see why a CFast slot is needed. I think an upgrade to CFast later is an option they could out on the table like Nikon, but Dual CF slots, please, Canon


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 16, 2016)

The only thing I can say for sure is the memory card market is a bigger mess now than ever before.

Heck, they should just have a gaping hole and a USB-C plug, that would support write speeds about as fast as you can imagine (and USB memory is always universally adopted as a consumer level product).


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 16, 2016)

Disappointing.

The price of CFast is already a non-issue, and it'll only get better.

The people how would have voted against CFast is exactly the ones you shouldn't ask beforehand.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 16, 2016)

Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 16, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera.



As a 1Dc owner, I'm certainly hoping that it will. The 1Dc is already great but I'm hoping for video capabilities (codec wise) roughly the same as the XC10. Of course, the XC10 uses Digic DV5 (same as C300 mkII), but maybe Canon has been able to beef up Digic 7+. Or they might even have a DV chip in there some how—not that I'm counting on it.

I'd also really like the XC10 time-lapse function that don't use shutter actuations.

The times where you could dismiss a top tier DSLR as "only a still camera" are long gone. There's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 16, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.



CFast 2.0 for sure.

Transcend's 128GB card is about $235. As a 1Dx mkII customer, surely you're not breaking a sweat over that?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 16, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> There's going to be a minor inconvenience to having two card types, but I think the inconvenience of making anyone that buys this camera dump all their CompactFlash cards would be greater.


I think this is a nod to the amateur segment of the market. Pros would buy whatever tools they need when they need them.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 16, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera.
> ...



DX2 is a stills camera. Pro ohoto journalists and high volume pro shooters. Canon is most likely not going to cram a lot if video in here, but it will be more than the D5. There's no chance of a DV chip but the Digic 7 may be built as a potent hybrid of sorts than can bang out stills like a champ and still have enough to spare for very good video.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 16, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.
> ...



1 card? No. 10 cards? Maybe. BTW, I won't be a customer for the 1DXII for quite some time, if ever.


----------



## clicstudio (Jan 16, 2016)

This is really dumb. Why have the fastest camera and use old technology?

It's like having a BMW M4 and using it in Eco mode to save gas.

Whoever gets this camera, needs to experience the full power and speed. Why would u get it anyway?
If u can afford $6K u can afford to get new cards.
Besides the difference in speed between CFast and CF is HUUUUUGEEEE.
I can already see the haters saying the camera sucks because they were too cheap to get CFast.

As soon as I get the new 1DX2 I will sell my 1DX and all the CF cards I have for it.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 16, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.
> ...



It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require... 

By the way, that's nearly $500 for TWO cards. Yes, that's a lot of money even for a $6000 camera to spend on something that isnt likely necessary (specs still to come, so this is academic of course).


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 16, 2016)

If true this is a good thing.

The only limiting factor I can think of other than the price of the cards would be the buffer clear time in camera, I'd prefer dual Cfast and Cfast + UHSii in the 5D4. Which with some irony would make the buffer clear time of the 5D4 faster than the 1DX2.

One of the things that you want to do quickly at the end of a shoot is empty the cards and go to bed. If I can hit the sack 20 minutes earlier at the end of a wedding I'd be very happy.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 16, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require...



I going to go out on a limb and assume that those of us wanting CFast 2.0 want the added functionality that could come a long with it.

Are you seriously considering Canon putting in CFast without using them? It would have been cheaper for everyone, Canon included, to use CF.

It's a given that one confirmed CFast now means that at least one function of the camera requires that kind of speed.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require...
> ...


You can justify a need for CFast cards with the 1DX specs.....

25MByte RAW files times 12FPS equals 300MB/s transfer rate.... and for that you need CFast cards to keep up....

Unless the 1DXII is slower than the 1DX, it needs them.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AndreeOnline said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Unlimited burst would be sweet!


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 16, 2016)

The DX2 is IN production so whatever they've done... Is done. And yes, CFast 2 is fine so long as there really is some new feature that truly warrants the need for that speed. I just dont want CFast 2 just for the sake of "well it's the newest thing".


----------



## tpatana (Jan 16, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> I'm not sure that several hundred more dollars for same-style memory cards should have factored into the design decision for a $6000 camera. "Drop in the bucket" comes to mind.



That's not how it works. I already vested ~$600 on CF during past 2 years, I'd hate to do that again. I hate when people say "well this costs already XX dollars, so what's $500 more." It's exactly $500 more, and that $500 is gone from something else I can buy, like hookers and cocaine.

So if they really wanted CFast, I think this is ok compromise.


----------



## gunship01 (Jan 16, 2016)

The piecemeal technique of releasing info on this camera makes me chuckle a bit (seems to be one new feature every other week), but I imagine it gives everyone points to debate and keeps all engaged until the day the camera is released. 

If it is 4K then the CFast slots are mandatory I would think. But the old slot also is a selling point for those on the edge (the 5D3/4 crowd) of upgrading their system.


----------



## CG photography (Jan 16, 2016)

Not a troll, Canon fan here, but,
I think Nikon has the better strategy on this one. Not only can you choose the tech you want, but the card module is exchangeable, so if you want to start with the CF module and then switch to QXD when the prices drop (or vice versa if you start with QXD and the format fails) you can.

Also, hopefully the canon will not have the same totally inane screw up the 5d3 had where the slower card (sd in 5d3) actually limits the write speed to the faster card.


----------



## bellorusso (Jan 16, 2016)

Bad and expensive idea that will make us buy two different kind of cards for another bunch of many years... Damn you, Canon!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2016)

sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....

You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover.....

and look at this from the other direction.... a heck of a lot more people would be complaining if there was no CFast slot at all.....


----------



## zim (Jan 16, 2016)

From a paying customer point of view I'd like to think that a pro using this camera would have a backup card in so buying cfast would be manditory


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....
> 
> You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover.....
> 
> and look at this from the other direction.... a heck of a lot more people would be complaining if there was no CFast slot at all.....


+1

I will never buy a 1DXII but if Canon put only CFast slots there would be a bunch of grumbling. This seems like a good Engineering option although a swappable card reader module with optional configurations would have been better.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 16, 2016)

zim said:


> From a paying customer point of view I'd like to think that a pro using this camera would have a backup card in so buying cfast would be manditory



Yes but if there were two cfast slots buying two cfast cards would be mandatory.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....
> ...


There are adaptors to put a SD card into a CF slot.....and a micro SD into a SD slot..... so I suppose this means I could take a card out of a GoPro and use it in a 1DXII


----------



## tron (Jan 16, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> Disappointing.
> 
> The price of CFast is already a non-issue, and it'll only get better.
> 
> The people how would have voted against CFast is exactly the ones you shouldn't ask beforehand.


http://www.amazon.de/SanDisk%C2%A0Extreme-PRO-64GB-CFast-Speicherkarte/dp/B0107RKTLA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452976847&sr=8-1&keywords=sandisk+cfast+64

http://www.amazon.de/SanDisk-Extreme-CompactFlash-Speicherkarte-160MB/dp/B00ECEVFFO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452976911&sr=8-1&keywords=sandisk+compact+flash+64

259 Euros vs 88 Euros for 64GB cards (3 to 1 price ratio) does not seem like non-issue...

(Both cards compared were Sandisk Extreme Pro)


----------



## tron (Jan 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Jan 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....
> 
> You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover.....
> 
> and look at this from the other direction.... a heck of a lot more people would be complaining if there was no CFast slot at all.....


I guess CFast is better for 4K video but for 160(150 for writting) MB/sec CF cards are fast enough especially of combined with a really big buffer. By the way do we have information about buffer size?


----------



## Peer (Jan 16, 2016)

I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media. 

-- peer


----------



## tpatana (Jan 16, 2016)

Peer said:


> I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media.
> 
> -- peer



98% of people will use this for pictures, so 98% of people don't see absolutely any benefit from CFast. 

Fast CF is more than enough for pictures.

So now we're catering to picture shooters, while making small compromise to the small minority who'll buy this for 4k.


----------



## drphilgandini (Jan 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ...
> You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover...


Can a CF card be read/written in a CFast slot? I understand the CFast card won't fit in the CF slot, but what about the other way round?


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 16, 2016)

I think they should have three slots.
Two CF slots and one Cfast.

As-is any capabilities added by Cfast can't be redundant anyway, so just give people 100% backward compatibility with their current workflow, but add some future-proofing.
But really, if they can have three slots they can probably have four.
(there should be a slot for CF, Cfast, XQD, and SD  )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....
> ...



There will be grumbling either way. No doubt Canon knows which grumblers are in the minority. 

Consider that the 1D X shoots 12 fps RAW and 14 fps restricted to JPG, which suggests a bottleneck in card writing, and that's with 18 MP images. Consider the amount of grumbling with the 5DIII's SD slot throttling RAW frame rate with dual-card writing. If using the CF card from your 1D X in the 1D X II means you can't achieve the full output, e.g. 22 MP RAW at 14 fps, that forces a choice between full speed and instant backup, not both. 

The engineering option to swap means a service center and would likely not be cheap.


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 16, 2016)

drphilgandini said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



No they are not compatible. Cfast is based on SATA and CF is based on Parallel ATA. They are not pin compatible. While it could be possible to create a parallel to serial adapter you could not get the card and adapter in the camera with with the card slot closed.


----------



## tphillips63 (Jan 16, 2016)

Not that Canon cares about my opinion but I would prefer dual CFast. I don't mind getting a new format besides even though I have never bent a Compact Flash pin many people have and that is eliminated with CFast.


----------



## davidmurray (Jan 16, 2016)

john1970 said:


> I would have preferred dual CFast slots personally. Nikon finally bit the bullet and did dual XQD cards on the D5; I would have expected Canon to do the same with 1D MKII with dual CFast slots. Even with only 1 CFast slot I will be upgrading to CFast because I am sure that one will be able to shoot a longer burst using the CFast slot instead of the CF slot.



XQD cards are starting to appear in lots of devices. For example, Some Sony 4K cameras use a video codec that has a max data rate of 600. Can Cfast match that?
I'm looking at buying a good Sony 4K video camera as well as a 5D mk4, and really would have preferred both to have XQD.

It would have made more long term sense for both slots to be the same card type unless Canon has a workaround for only shooting at the slowest card speed.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



However, buffer memory is much cheaper than 4 years ago when mark I came out. Most people don't shoot 1000 pics in row at 14fps. So with enough buffer even the CF is plenty for photographers. 4k video is different, so the CFast is same as confirming they have 4k at decent bit rate.


----------



## AndreeOnline (Jan 16, 2016)

tron said:


> 259 Euros vs 88 Euros for 64GB cards (3 to 1 price ratio) does not seem like non-issue...



I look at it from a video perspective. My only interest in the 1Dx mkII is if they maximise the potential of the new sensor on the video side too—and that pretty much demands CFast (might also allow for better high fps performance).

I picked up my 128GB CFast 2.0 before christmas for around 230 Euro. When I bought my 128GB CF card for my 1Dc (when it was just released) I paid around 319 Euro.

Looking at some listings now for a 128GB at around 420 Euro—that stings…to the point of being prohibitive. But the Transcend is still listed at basically half that and other brands are bound to follow sooner rather than later. At the time of release I wouldn't be surprised if the 128GB dips below 200 Euro.

Of course normal CF cards are cheap! I would however guess that most of us wouldn't need to buy more of those... we already have enough!


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 16, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> john1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I would have preferred dual CFast slots personally. Nikon finally bit the bullet and did dual XQD cards on the D5; I would have expected Canon to do the same with 1D MKII with dual CFast slots. Even with only 1 CFast slot I will be upgrading to CFast because I am sure that one will be able to shoot a longer burst using the CFast slot instead of the CF slot.
> ...



Yeah but Betamax, Minidisc and Pro Duo. Like we want to get screwed again.


----------



## DavidA (Jan 16, 2016)

I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.

The one thing that might derail my 1dxII purchase is if Canon doesn't step up on sensor tech to match the D5. My focus at this time is wildlife and I want cleaner / useable high ISO with more DR (Shadows). I am honestly considering a move to Nikon if we get a rehash of the same old sensor with marginal improvement. The problem is that I HATE the Nikon interface and believe Canon has a better lens selection and ergonomics for my interest. I do like the Nikon D5/D500 combination for wildlife if tests and samples hold up. The win for me would be a leap in sensor tech for Canon and a new matched 1dx II and 7dIII. I have been a Canon user since the 10d/1ds and would hate to make the switch. I rent big white glass as needed, so my primary investment would be zooms in 16-400 range since I would sell current bodies whether D5 or1dxII.

I have a major trip in July and hope to have this sorted in time to buy the equipment and run through a couple of test cycles.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 16, 2016)

I thinks this is a mistake. My Ideal is to have two cards of the same type. So often, I'll shoot to two cards.. one for me one for the client. Both cards should be the same format. Why make me carry two types of cards? I like when one is filled the camera switches to the next and my workflow is working with one type of card all the time. I keep hearing about video... I'm a sports photographer, I shoot stills. If I want a video camera I use a dedicated video camera. I hope this is just a rumor.... as someone who shoots 5-10K shots each session, PLEASE keep my cards the same. My camera is a tool I need not some experiment for a product manger who can't relate to what sports photographers do every day!!!



Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that the upcoming Canon EOS-1D X Mark II will feature one CFast slot and one CompactFlash slot. We had been told Canon was going back and forth on whether they would offer dual CFast slots or not. This will be a nice tradeoff for photographers, and they can upgrade to CFast on their own time, instead of having to go out and buy a bunch of new cards when the camera launches.</p>
> <p>I’m hoping there is a good safety device that prevents CFast cards from being jammed into the CF card slot, or we may have a rash of bent pins in people’s cameras. I’m sure Canon developers have already thought of this though.</p>
> <p>I probably would have preferred dual CFast slots, but I may be in the minority.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


----------



## zim (Jan 16, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > From a paying customer point of view I'd like to think that a pro using this camera would have a backup card in so buying cfast would be manditory
> ...



Correct. But it seems like there won't be so Canon have considered the cost to the end user.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 16, 2016)

Was mentioned way earlier but didn't seem to register much attention. XQD would have to be licensed from Sony, right? - not something Canon would ever do I'm sure and that format is not an automatic winner or Nikon wouldn't offer both. From my reading XQD would be the worst choice.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 17, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.
> 
> The one thing that might derail my 1dxII purchase is if Canon doesn't step up on sensor tech to match the D5. My focus at this time is wildlife and I want cleaner / useable high ISO with more DR (Shadows). I am honestly considering a move to Nikon if we get a rehash of the same old sensor with marginal improvement. The problem is that I HATE the Nikon interface and believe Canon has a better lens selection and ergonomics for my interest. I do like the Nikon D5/D500 combination for wildlife if tests and samples hold up. The win for me would be a leap in sensor tech for Canon and a new matched 1dx II and 7dIII. I have been a Canon user since the 10d/1ds and would hate to make the switch. I rent big white glass as needed, so my primary investment would be zooms in 16-400 range since I would sell current bodies whether D5 or1dxII.
> 
> I have a major trip in July and hope to have this sorted in time to buy the equipment and run through a couple of test cycles.



You need to do better research before succumbing to the hyperbole and bullS___.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Nikon-D4s-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1062_945_753 go to the measurements link then the dynamic range tab, even DXO, who are extremely anti Canon biased, can't find a measurable difference.

At anything over 800iso there's zero difference in DR between a Nikon or Canon sensor, stop buying into the bullS___ and actually look at stuff.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 17, 2016)

Frankly I would be shocked if Canon does this. 

If they put one CFast in the camera then there has to be some technology which will make use of the higher read/write speeds so I want that capability in both slots.

As photographers and videographers, we already have enough to think about without having to worry about which slot we are shooting to, and what happens when the CFast is full but we still want to keep shooting at the higher speeds, do we have to take the CFast card out and put a new one in?! What happens if we are mid-shoot? Or in the middle of an interview or whatever?!

That means the argument of not having to buy new cards is moot, as I would still need to buy two Cfast cards, one as a back up to the first one in case it fills etc.

If Canon does something like this, I might just keep using the 1DX Mark I as it works very well.


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 17, 2016)

Zv said:


> Umm are you sure about that?
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082429-REG/lexar_lxqd64gcrbna1333_64gb_xqd_memory_card.html


Quite.

http://www.cnet.com/news/sandisk-on-new-xqd-memory-card-format-meh/

You can't have a successful media format without Sandisk on board.


----------



## rdalrt (Jan 17, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> I thinks this is a mistake. My Ideal is to have two cards of the same type. So often, I'll shoot to two cards.. one for me one for the client. Both cards should be the same format. Why make me carry two types of cards? I like when one is filled the camera switches to the next and my workflow is working with one type of card all the time. I keep hearing about video... I'm a sports photographer, I shoot stills. If I want a video camera I use a dedicated video camera. I hope this is just a rumor.... as someone who shoots 5-10K shots each session, PLEASE keep my cards the same. My camera is a tool I need not some experiment for a product manger who can't relate to what sports photographers do every day!!!



+1


----------



## Zv (Jan 17, 2016)

mclaren777 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Umm are you sure about that?
> ...



Seems successful enough so far. So Sandisk said they aren't interested right now but they could change their mind in the future and cash in, especially now with the D5 coming out. 

This article is old. It mentions Lexar but I already showed a link to Lexar XQD cards so they changed their minds. Sandisk could too.


----------



## tron (Jan 17, 2016)

AndreeOnline said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > 259 Euros vs 88 Euros for 64GB cards (3 to 1 price ratio) does not seem like non-issue...
> ...


OK my thoughts about it.

160MB/sec Extreme Pro are very reasonably priced. And they can be used in many cameras (1Dx, 5D3, 7D2, etc) too. 

For the moment I have 2 5D3s and a 7D2. Previously I had a 5D2 and before that a 40D. Even then I used Sandisk Extreme. I wouldn't trust a Transcend. I am not saying it is a bad vendor but since my Sandisk cards have never failed I will continue using only these. 

1DxII seems more sport and low light stills camera to me rather than a video one. There are video oriented Canon cameras. Video on 1Dx does does not seem a primary function otherwise there wouldn't be the Cinema version of 1 series... I would like to stress that I do not oppose to the use of video I am just saying that video is not 1DxII's primary purpose.

When I upgraded to 5D3 (from 5D2) I got SD cards to ensure I will have redundancy (by writing to both cards) for the most important photos. Now, by putting a CFast and a CF slot they will similarly make (at least some users) to buy a CFAST card for redundancy purposes. By getting a 128GB Sandisk Extreme Pro CFAST card (or 2 64GB cards) you just spend almost the mentioned 500$ advantage (mentioned price 6000 instead of 6500).

I agree however that if bent pins were a problem for some people (I do not have a bad experience) and CFAST cards have not this issue that is a clear advantage.

Some other thoughts. If they followed Nikon's example and we could change between 2 CF and 2 CFast cards that could probably be (among others) a cheap method to correct for a bent pin!

EDIT: I just saw that the speed of 64GB CFAST SANDISK EXTREME PRO is 240MB/sec and only the 128GB version has speed 440MB/sec.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2016)

tron said:


> If they followed Nikon's example and we could change between 2 CF and 2 CFast cards that could probably be (among others) a cheap method to correct for a bent bin!



I doubt that sending the camera to the service center to swap out the card module will be cheap.


----------



## douglaurent (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Peer said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media.
> ...



Wrong. People will buy this because of video as well. If only for photos, the old 1DX would do it. Many photographers do need video nowadays (4K and not the 2008 style 1080p), and many Canon filmmakers do need 4K video that doesn't cost the ridiculous price of the C300II or has the limitations of the XC10.


----------



## DavidA (Jan 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> DavidA said:
> 
> 
> > I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.
> ...



I have done the research AND shot both Canon and Nikon in the field. I agree that there is very little difference in image quality at ISO 800 when you have good _quality_ of light. In heavy twilight or overcast, I believe the Nikon sensors provides more details in shadows, I have never seen this type of measurement in lab results and it can make a big difference when shooting animals in predawn or twilight conditions. I would also not make additional investments in Canon or make a move without looking at the current offerings from both vendors. The reality is that even though I am a Canon user of 17 years, I am open minded. I have been a loyal Canon customer upgrading through their cycle of incremental and substantial upgrades. I have been provided oversight to companies that are maximizing their investment and so have no problem with companies delaying investments in infrastructure and technology to maximize profits. For me, I have reached the point that I plan to evaluate the alternatives before I invest another $18k-$20k (1dxII plus 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4 TC) in their product. I believe Canon has the technology and ability to release a product superior to the completion and significant step up in capability for the customer. This will involve the commitment of marketing and investment in fabrication (or relationship with foundry) and taking some technology off the shelf. They have done incredible things improving there product on dated fabrication facilities and architecture. Can you imagine what they can accomplish if they are allowed to move to new fabrication process and include technology like on chip ADC. I am not bashing Canon, just want them to win my business with innovative product. The reality is that I want a killer 1dxII which will push me to buy the 200-400 to add to my kit. My concern is that they are too driven by conservatism (CFast _ CF decision), marketing and pushing the limits of investment return. 

I should know better than to get into one of these discussion on a Canon forum. Open your mind folks, questioning your faith doesn't' mean you are an atheist or that that the other guy is an idiot and doesn't know what they are saying. 

David


----------



## tpatana (Jan 17, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Peer said:
> ...



At this point we can only guess, but I doubt not too many will buy this for video. There's tons of better options, especially non-Canon options.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 17, 2016)

tpatana said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...


*
I AGREE 6000%*


----------



## fentiger (Jan 17, 2016)

Canon could use their corporate muscle and purchase c-fast in bulk, then ship each new camera with a card,
they do cash back promotions when you buy 5D3's with a battery pack so it can be done!!!


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 17, 2016)

fentiger said:


> Canon could use their corporate muscle and purchase c-fast in bulk, then ship each new camera with a card,
> they do cash back promotions when you buy 5D3's with a battery pack so it can be done!!!


Like they are giving a 64GB CFast card for free with their XC10.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 17, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> DavidA said:
> 
> 
> > I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.
> ...



+1000 thank you


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....
> 
> You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover.....
> 
> and look at this from the other direction.... a heck of a lot more people would be complaining if there was no CFast slot at all.....



Your are missing the point here, a while back there was a long thread about professionals having to use two cards at the same time. If you are not shooting with both cards at the same time you are not a pro, and you are not using a pro camera, that is not acceptable to anybody who buys a 1D class camera. How could they lord over the peons with a single slot camera.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 18, 2016)

Quite funny that the most argued feature on 1DX2 is the one that has *zero percent (0%) impact* on anyone who buys the camera to shoot pictures.

Only single marginal group of photographers who might benefit from CFast are people who some reason don't have any (decent) CF cards but have CFast cards. I would guess that's small group of people.

So now everyone is going ape shit that they don't have dual-CFast, even when it only impacts 4k video people. And like said before, there's tons of better and cheaper options for 4k video people than buying 1DX2.

I just don't get it. 

I'm usually the one who buys latest shit and gadgets, even when I don't need them. But dual-CFast just wouldn't make sense unless the camera is some 50MPix/12fps monster. Which it isn't. And even then, it could be worked around by enough buffer. And Canon hasn't released the buffer size yet, and still people are crying that leaving one CF slot is the beginning of downfall for Canon.


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Quite funny that the most argued feature on 1DX2 is the one that has *zero percent (0%) impact* on anyone who buys the camera to shoot pictures.
> 
> Only single marginal group of photographers who might benefit from CFast are people who some reason don't have any (decent) CF cards but have CFast cards. I would guess that's small group of people.
> 
> ...


+1000


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 18, 2016)

tpatana said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



there is?

and how do you know that?

I'm talking ILC's not cini cameras.

assuming the spec is certainly 4K 60fps, and obviously a bit rate to match (200-300Mbps).

just what exactly would be the tons better options?


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


I do not know (or care) about video. But I can try to discuss the bit rate:

Let's say worst case the maximum you mentioned: 300Mbps = 300 Million bits per second.
This is 300/8 = 37.5 M Bytes /sec. Now fast CF cards can handle max 150 MB/sec write and they guarantee 65Mb/sec for video (I remember seeing this in latest/fastest sandisk extreme pro). So it seems a doable task for the fastest CF cards. Granted, If you are talking raw video it is not enough but somehow I doubt that Canon will support writing raw 4K video to cards....

EDIT: I confirmed in Sandisk site 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.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 18, 2016)

No matter what, as a sports shooter, this is not a good thing. I'm not dealing with it so I am definitely not upgrading to the 1Dx2.


----------



## MrToes (Jan 18, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> No matter what, as a sports shooter, this is not a good thing. I'm not dealing with it so I am definitely not upgrading to the 1Dx2.


*
We'll upgrade if sensor shows a significant improvement! *


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 18, 2016)

tron said:


> 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.



The problem is that rate is only good for the higher compression 4K codecs. Forget RAW. ProRes HQ needs a lot more than 65. Even some of the lower tier ProRes. I don't think Canon will have ProRes, but they may have a much nicer codec included that needs 100MB/sec. Again, we have a rumor floating about 4K RAW video for frame capture on this new camera. IF that's true, then 65MB/sec is also not likely enough.

I'm fine with a CFast slot so long as the product really needs it. We just dont know enough yet.


----------



## tron (Jan 19, 2016)

PureClassA said:


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


I agree with you for RAW 4K. But I do NOT believe Canon will provide it. I guess we will know soon...


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 19, 2016)

I think it's entirely possible and not altogether improbable. If the rumors bear out about this feature, I don't think they do 24fps+ 4K RAW ... but something like 20FPS 4k RAW isn't out of the question. It's not enough to use for RAW video/cinema but it's great for stills. Set your shutter speed to whatever you like and voila. 



tron said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 19, 2016)

tron said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



they won't almost guaranteed. they don't even have to.

heck no consumer sony goes above a 100mpbs bitrate.


----------



## tron (Jan 20, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I think it's entirely possible and not altogether improbable. If the rumors bear out about this feature, I don't think they do 24fps+ 4K RAW ... but something like 20FPS 4k RAW isn't out of the question. It's not enough to use for RAW video/cinema but it's great for stills. Set your shutter speed to whatever you like and voila.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From a previous post by Dilbert I saw that a 64GB card would hold about 5min 4K RAW video. So what's point of using the internal cards for that? An external recorder with a big ssd disk would be more practical.


----------



## zim (Jan 20, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> The problem is that rate is only good for the higher compression 4K codecs. Forget RAW. ProRes HQ needs a lot more than 65. Even some of the lower tier ProRes. I don't think Canon will have ProRes, but they may have a much nicer codec included that needs 100MB/sec. Again, we have a rumor floating about 4K RAW video for frame capture on this new camera. IF that's true, then 65MB/sec is also not likely enough.
> 
> I'm fine with a CFast slot so long as the product really needs it. *We just dont know enough yet.*



That's exactly it, nobody really knows, but.......... If I were to make a guess Canon may allow very short raw video burst, just to enough sell those micro expression/moments as a feature to stills photographers. After all fps is (maybe already has) reached it's limits.

The paperartsy and red tops will have a ball


----------



## DudeInTheSky (Jan 21, 2016)

Lots of misinformation in this thread! And some good info too. Some points about CFast 2.0 and XQD and CF.

1. CFast 2.0 is here and now and it works. So is XQD 2.0. (I own CFast 2.0 cards and use XQD cards too...) CFast 2.0 cards and XQD 2.0 cards are right now pretty much on par performance & price wise. Just above 400Mbytes/s write. CF is much slower. I barely get 100Mbytes/s write out of my 1066x CF cards.

2. CFast 2.0 is based on SATA 6Gbit/s. SATA is EOL'ed, so once faster memory cards are desired it will be a new type. So the CFast 2.0 cards you buy right now are pretty much as fast as they will ever get. My guess is 3-5 years until this standard hits the wall, but could be sooner.

3. XQD 2.0 has two lanes of PCI-Express 2.0, so should be upgradeable to PCI-Express 3.0 and then to PCI-Express 4.0. And possibly add more PCI-E lanes if needed. So XQD 2.0 has 1000MBytes/s interface speed now. 4000MBytes/s (or even faster with more lanes) later, with backwards compatibility very likely. In other words: Your memory cards will last a long time if the XQD standard is maintained. My guess is 10 years, maybe 15 for this standard.

4. CFast 2.0 is much more reliable than CF (Yes, that's my opinion based on theory and my real life experience, but just the frail mechanical 50pin design of the old CF should speak for itself... it sucks!) CFast 2.0 is still missing a write protect switch, which is not good.

5. Right now only CFast 2.0 Sandisk 64GB and 128GB work in Canon C300mk2. They are also the only two memory cards approved by Canon for this camera. My colleagues who bought Lexar CFast 2.0 cards have reported write errors and lost footage. Both the discontinued 3400x and the new Lexar 3500x. It's very possible that we will only have one brand and two capacity options of CFast 2.0 cards available in the beginning for this new Canon 1D stills camera! (Hopefully more cards will work!!!!)

6. Neither CFast 2.0 nor XQD 2.0 are proprietary formats. They are both open formats. Right now there's limited availability of cards that actually work in various cameras for both standards. With Canon C300mk2 being the most limited with only Sandisk CFast 2.0 64GB & 128GB working.

7. Currently both memory card standards are limited by flash memory heat generation. This gives a small advantage to CFast 2.0 since those cards are a bit physically bigger so more space to dissipate heat. This year (2016) will see the release of products with new memory technology (Intel/Micron 3DxPoint). If we are to believe the specs, we are soon to get memory cards limited only by the interface speed. Hence, XQD could end up with a significant speed advantage 10 months from now. This, of course, remains to be seen.


Hope that helps a little.


----------

