# Max CF Card size that can be used in the 5D2?



## Portpix (Nov 2, 2011)

Just wondering what the maximum size of CF card I can use in the 5D2 with the latest firmware? I've been told its 32GB, is this correct or can I use 64GB cards?


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 2, 2011)

I've used a SanDisk 32GB card, and have filled it up with ~24GB of data, so the 5Dmk2 can certainly use cards that large.

Don't know about 64GB cards.


----------



## Portpix (Nov 2, 2011)

I currently use 32GB cards and as you say they work fine, I'm just wondering if I can use 64GB cards?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't see any reason why 64GB wouldn't work. There is nothing on the specs sheet that has that has card size as a limiting factor.


----------



## Chewy734 (Nov 2, 2011)

The Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb CF card works fine on the 5D2.

http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3684/~/64gb-extreme-pro-compactflash-card-fails-on-a-nikon-d300-and-other-nikon-dslr


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 2, 2011)

on a similar theme, whats the best speed card to get for the canon 5D2. I dont mean the fastest in the world, i mean the fastest that does teh job properly, ie no pausing when firing off some rounds.

thanks


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Nov 2, 2011)

For continuous stills in RAW @ 3.9 fps, 100MBs write speed.

Video requires a lot less, like 6 MBs. 

I use 80 MBs cards, but I rarely shoot rapid fire.


----------



## Portpix (Nov 2, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> The Sandisk Extreme Pro 64gb CF card works fine on the 5D2.
> 
> http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3684/~/64gb-extreme-pro-compactflash-card-fails-on-a-nikon-d300-and-other-nikon-dslr



Thanks for that. I went looking but miss this article ... again thanks.


----------



## Portpix (Nov 2, 2011)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> For continuous stills in RAW @ 3.9 fps, 100MBs write speed.
> 
> Video requires a lot less, like 6 MBs.
> 
> I use 80 MBs cards, but I rarely shoot rapid fire.



I don't think you need to go to this extreme to get good performance out of your 5D2. Maybe if you were shooting sports/action .. but then a 5D2 is probably not the best for sports/action photography anyway. I think it depends on your usage and budget.

ATM Sandisk has a great sale on their pro range and now would be a good time to buy some 60MG/s or 90MB/s cards, either I'm sure will serve you well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2011)

Portpix said:


> Sandisk has a great sale on their pro range and now would be a good time to buy some 60MG/s or 90MB/s cards, either I'm sure will serve you well.



For the relatively small price difference between the 60 MB/s and the 90 MB/s versions of the Sandisk cards, it's probably worth is to get the faster one. The great sale at B&H got a little less great - last night, when you added a card to your cart there was an additional discount - $5 on the 16 GB cards, $10 on the 32 GB 60 MB/s, and $13 on the 32 GB 90 MB/s. This morning, that additional discount seems to be gone - cart price is the same as browsing price. Fortunately, I got my pair of 32 GB 90 MB/s cards last night.


----------



## NXT1000 (Nov 3, 2011)

Portpix said:


> Just wondering what the maximum size of CF card I can use in the 5D2 with the latest firmware? I've been told its 32GB, is this correct or can I use 64GB cards?



i think they use FAT32 right, so the max size is 8TB. I am sure the camera can use any CF card available. The question is, can you afford it?


----------



## Chewy734 (Nov 3, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> i think they use FAT32 right, so the max size is 8TB. I am sure the camera can use any CF card available. The question is, can you afford it?



You would think so... but apparently not all 32gb and 64gb CF cards work with all CF-compatible cameras. So, it's important to check. I think the Nikons have greater restrictions than the Canons do. I'm not sure why, but that's how it is.


----------



## PerfectSavage (Nov 3, 2011)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> For continuous stills in RAW @ 3.9 fps, 100MBs write speed.
> 
> Video requires a lot less, like 6 MBs.
> 
> I use 80 MBs cards, but I rarely shoot rapid fire.



I know the question is regarding size but since the speed was mentioned, just remember, your 5DMkII (and 7D etc) has a *built-in buffer* so you don't need these expensive high speed cards like the Extreme Pro (90 MB/S) or arguably for the 5DMKII at only 3.9FPS, not even the Extreme (60 MB/S). You can take a 7D shooting RAW at 8 FPS -15 RAW max consecutively (2x the 5DMkII, albeit slightly smaller files (18MP vs 21MP)) and fire off almost the limit (b/t 10-12 RAW shots consecutively) *with the slower 30 MB/S* cards due to the buffering. Now could you keep going and going without stopping? ...of course not...not with the 7D (let alone 1D) at least but probably can on the slower 5DII or close to it, haven't tested it that way. I have various SanDisk and Lexar mid-high cards including the Extreme Pro and now only buy the Extreme 60MB/S, not for the write speed as much as for the read speed when uploading images to LightRoom or other external disk. I also shoot outdoors a lot and in wet and sometimes very cold conditions and supposedly the Extreme is sealed a little better than the Ultra (or so they market it that way) The UDMA Cl.5/6 for read/upload is a value add, but in real-world scenarios with a 3.9 FPS camera (or a 10FPS camera for that matter), the write speed isn't required...save your money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2011)

PerfectSavage said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > For continuous stills in RAW @ 3.9 fps, 100MBs write speed.
> ...



How about buffer flush? Say you hold down the shutter until the buffer fills, then release the shutter. At that point, the camera reads BUSY and you can't take another shot until a sufficient amount of data in the buffer is written off to the card. So, in that scenario, a faster card may mean you can take another shot sooner, right?


----------



## PerfectSavage (Nov 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> PerfectSavage said:
> 
> 
> > HurtinMinorKey said:
> ...



Yep, exactly, that is what I meant by "could you keep going and going without stopping? ...of course not." If you want to hold the button down on a 5DMkII for 5 minutes and snap 1,000+ RAW pics almost continuously, you need a high speed card...no question...but who does that with a 3.9FPS camera? - which is why I used "real world scenarios" which I realize is a subjective term but assuming a 5DMKII shooter isn't shooting race cars or sports as a faster 7D/1D user might. My only point is to remember the buffer and that if you just want the ability to fire off 10-15 RAW consecutive pics from time to time, the buffer should handle it on a 30 MB/s card, that's all. ...especially with the 5DMkII at only 3.9 FPS. ...and 60MB/S is PLENTY though 30MB/S should cover 99% of scenarios with a 3.9 FPS camera....can't fathom what scenario you would need a 90+MB/S write on a 3.9 FPS camera with buffer unless you just want to take hundreds of RAW pics consecutively in which case you'd be using the wrong equipment with a 3.9 FPS camera (5DMkII) and be better off with a faster 7D or 1D. Again I'm only talking about write speed need, there is certainly value in the faster read (UDMA 5/6+) of the faster cards as well which is even more important to some shooters depending on assignment/timelines etc...I just don't notice any difference between the 60 MB/s and 90 MB/s cards used with either a 5DII or 7D in RAW and my (older) SanDisk Extreme III 30 MB/s, (newer) SanDisk Ultra 30 MB/s, and Lexar Plat.II (200x) cards work just as well in 99% of situations though the read time does take noticeably longer to upload to LR3/external drive than the UDMA 5/6 Extreme/Pro 60Mb/90Mb/s do if you're uploading an entire shoot, say 400-500 pics....but we're talking an extra 30-90 seconds or so depending on your PC/card reader...not 15-20 minutes etc... so again...what is that worth to you personally, your style of shooting, your post/edit requirements?... it may be nothing or it may be EVERYTHING (journalist with breaking news pics, etc). I'm just submitting the idea that for the vast majority of shooters in overwhelmingly majority of shooting situations, it's not remotely necessary to have a super high speed card.


----------



## Meh (Nov 3, 2011)

Many good points and all correct relative to specific circumstances. If price doesn't matter, it's good to have the faster cards for those situations when it will make a difference. Shooting at high fps is primarily dependent on the speed and size of the buffer. However, on my 7D, I get an extra 3-5 frames before the buffer fills using 400x cards compared to 200x cards. The reason is that in the time that has passed before the buffer is filled more images have been emptied from the buffer onto the CF card. And once full and I stop shooting, the buffer does empty much faster. 

Using 600x cards is not as big a difference compared to 400x cards.... it's only 1 maybe 2 extra frames before the buffer fills compared to 400x cards. In fact, there may not even be any difference and when I think it's an extra frame the file sizes were a little smaller in that sequence.

Biggest difference is in read speed copying files off the card to the computer. 400x cards are twice as fast as 200x cards. 600x cards are not faster than 400x if using a USB2.0 reader because USB2.0 is limited to 60Mb/s (480bits/s).

Nothing scientific about any of the above as I didn't try to do any controlled tests.


----------



## Meh (Nov 3, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> This morning, that additional discount seems to be gone - cart price is the same as browsing price. Fortunately, I got my pair of 32 GB 90 MB/s cards last night.



Yep, on Tuesday evening when the sale started the browsing price for the Extreme Pro 32Gb was shown as $99.99 and no additional discount in the cart. I also ordered two of them along with some other goodies... the shipping fees to Canada are not much more for many items compared to one so on that basis I can justify to myself adding more items to my cart


----------



## messus (Nov 3, 2011)

I have the SanDisk 128GB UDMA7 PRO card and it is working 100% on my 5D2, as well as my Wintec 64GB cards.

Write speed on the UDMA7 card is no faster than on the UDMA6 cards though, max 33MBps.


----------



## Portpix (Nov 4, 2011)

Here is the official answer to my original questions;

_Thank you for your inquiry. We value you as a Canon customer and
appreciate the opportunity to assist you. I'm pleased to assist you
with your EOS 5D Mark II and the card capacity.

Due to the ever-increasing number of companies manufacturing and selling
CompactFlash cards, we cannot test and evaluate all the different
brands, sizes, and speeds of cards available in the retail market. Any
card with a capacity up to 64GB (and even larger) that adheres to the
Compact Flash card standard, and is formatted with a 16 bit file
addressing system, should work in your camera.

Unfortunately, because we have not tested the camera with all speeds,
sizes, and brands of CompactFlash cards, we are unable to speculate as
to the performance of the camera with a particular card installed, or to
recommend a specific type of card.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we can
be of any further assistance with your EOS 5D Mark II.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Tim
Technical Support Representative_

On the speed debate I only use the 90Mb/s cards as there is a tangible difference in the speed at which the buffer on the a camera is cleared to the card ... and I don't want to miss anything.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 4, 2011)

how many shots can you get on a 16gb card (jpg inc raw highest) on the 5Dmk2?

thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> how many shots can you get on a 16gb card (jpg inc raw highest) on the 5Dmk2?



I usually get about 600 shots, give or take, on a 16 GB Sandisk card, shooting RAW only. File size increases with increasing ISO.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 4, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> mreco99 said:
> 
> 
> > how many shots can you get on a 16gb card (jpg inc raw highest) on the 5Dmk2?
> ...



thanks neuro


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 5, 2011)

I can confirm, the 60mb (400x) cards stop working at full 3.9fps on a 5Dmk2 (highest jpg with hightest raw) after about 7 shots.
not great, and will do ok for me, but i might get a faster card incase needed, 90mps (600x)


----------



## Flake (Nov 6, 2011)

"How about buffer flush? Say you hold down the shutter until the buffer fills, then release the shutter. At that point, the camera reads BUSY and you can't take another shot until a sufficient amount of data in the buffer is written off to the card. So, in that scenario, a faster card may mean you can take another shot sooner, right?"

Unfortunately not and it's a common missconception, there might be a slight advantantage, but it is slight. This is because the bottleneck in the system is not the memory card, or the buffer, it's the image processor. The data from the sensor is written to the buffer, processed, written back to the buffer and then to the memory card, when the buffer fills up it isn't full of data waiting to be written to the memory card, it's full of data waiting for the image processor to catch up. A faster memory card can't make the image processor work any faster, all it can do is empty a single image from the buffer a little bit quicker, and if you still have the shutter pressed another shot can be taken.


----------



## mreco99 (Nov 6, 2011)

interesting.
i didnt realise 3.9fps only ment for 2 seconds. oh well saves me buying a faster card. thanks


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> This is because the bottleneck in the system is not the memory card, or the buffer, it's the image processor. The data from the sensor is written to the buffer, processed, written back to the buffer and then to the memory card, when the buffer fills up it isn't full of data waiting to be written to the memory card, it's full of data waiting for the image processor to catch up.



If that's the case, why does shooting RAW give significantly lower frame rates than JPG? I'm skeptical of your claim, do you have a reference?


----------



## Flake (Nov 6, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > This is because the bottleneck in the system is not the memory card, or the buffer, it's the image processor. The data from the sensor is written to the buffer, processed, written back to the buffer and then to the memory card, when the buffer fills up it isn't full of data waiting to be written to the memory card, it's full of data waiting for the image processor to catch up.
> ...



I did have but on this occasion I don't know where it is! Shooting RAW takes longer to process because of the amount of data, much of the data from a jpeg is dumped in processing.


----------



## Meh (Nov 6, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> interesting.
> i didnt realise 3.9fps only ment for 2 seconds. oh well saves me buying a faster card. thanks



2 seconds is fairly a long time I think... I'm not saying that say 3 seconds or maybe 4 might be useful in some situations but in most high-speed action sequences wouldn't the action be just about done in that amount of time or less? I'm not an expert sports shooter so I honestly don't know how many seconds would be optimal for a sequence and I hope I'm not starting a theoretical debate that ends up in someone pointing out that "if you could just hold down the shutter button for an hour you'd never miss anything" ;p


----------



## Meh (Nov 6, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> If that's the case, why does shooting RAW give significantly lower frame rates than JPG? I'm skeptical of your claim, do you have a reference?



By "frame rates" do you mean frames per second or total number of frames before the buffer fills? I don't believe the frames per second drops shooting JPG, RAW, or RAW+JPG at least not on my 7D but could be different for other bodies (7D has dual DIGIC4 processors).

Shooting jpg only many more shots can be taken before the buffer fills because once processed they take up less space in the buffer before being written to the memory card.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> I did have but on this occasion I don't know where it is! Shooting RAW takes longer to process because of the amount of data, much of the data from a jpeg is dumped in processing.



Please look, because that statement makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying jpg processing is faster because data are discarded during processing, but that would mean bits are tossed without being processed, e.g. take every other pixel and just ignore it. It can't work that way - the data have to be analyzed during processing, before elimination. Write would be faster, with less data to write. Processing would be the same. It's write speed and quantity of data that determine overall throughput - I don't think the processor is a significant bottleneck. That's why frame rate and buffer capacity take a bit hit going from JPG to RAW, and another small hit from RAW to RAW+JPG. There's no difference in the processing required for those three modes - all involve processing the full sensor RAW image to a JPG, including applying the in-camera settings (Picture Style, ALO, PIC, etc.), the only difference is the amount of data that need to be written to the card.


----------



## Meh (Nov 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> Unfortunately not and it's a common missconception, there might be a slight advantantage, but it is slight. This is because the bottleneck in the system is not the memory card, or the buffer, it's the image processor. The data from the sensor is written to the buffer, processed, written back to the buffer and then to the memory card, when the buffer fills up it isn't full of data waiting to be written to the memory card, it's full of data waiting for the image processor to catch up. A faster memory card can't make the image processor work any faster, all it can do is empty a single image from the buffer a little bit quicker, and if you still have the shutter pressed another shot can be taken.



That is the correct order of the processing but I'm not sure the image processor is the bottleneck as you suggest at least not with current generation processors and files sizes. The following quote from a Canon website http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/capturing_the_image/digic_processing.do confirms the order of processing but implies the image processor is not the bottleneck.

"To overcome limitations with processor speed and capacity, manufacturers can install large and expensive buffers as a temporary store for unprocessed data, or compromise image quality by â€˜dumbing downâ€™ image processing, or both. DIGIC II is designed to avoid these compromises. The processor is so fast it can read, process, compress and write JPEG image data back to the buffer between exposures."


----------



## Meh (Nov 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > I did have but on this occasion I don't know where it is! Shooting RAW takes longer to process because of the amount of data, much of the data from a jpeg is dumped in processing.
> ...



I agree with neuro... RAW files have to be processed first then converted to jpg (which is done even if you shoot in RAW only because a small jpg is needed to display the image on the LCD). If you shoot in jpg only then after processing only the jpg is written back to the buffer saving a lot of space and reducing the write time to the memory card.

Edit: Actually, even in jpg only mode, the processed RAW file also may be written back to the buffer first and then deleted if the user selected JPG only. Discarding the RAW file is not likely built in to the processor as that would be an unnecessary function since it can be done after the fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2011)

I ran some tests this evening, and in a day or two I'll tabulate and post the results. But preliminarily, a 90 MB/s cards does result in a slight performance boost on the 5DII compared to 60 MB/s cards (roughly, shaves a second off the write speed following a 3 second burst, and allows a few more frames during 20 s of continuous shooting).


----------



## Meh (Nov 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I ran some tests this evening, and in a day or two I'll tabulate and post the results. But preliminarily, a 90 MB/s cards does result in a slight performance boost on the 5DII compared to 60 MB/s cards (roughly, shaves a second off the write speed following a 3 second burst, and allows a few more frames during 20 s of continuous shooting).



Consistent with my anecdotal observations with my 7D that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Do you have a 200x card available to measure the jump in performance compared to 400x cards?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2011)

Meh said:


> Consistent with my anecdotal observations with my 7D that I mentioned earlier in this thread. Do you have a 200x card available to measure the jump in performance compared to 400x cards?



I tested 4 cards (all SanDisk, 2 GB 20 MB/s, 8 GB 60 MB/s, 16 GB 60 MB/s, and 32 MB 90 MB/s) on a 5DII and a 7D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2011)

Here are the results of my testing. All shots were with the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS pointed at a fluorescent ceiling fixture (i.e. a featureless white subject filling the frame), M mode, f/5.6, 1/100 s, ISO 100, manual focus, all 'modifiers' off (e.g. ALO, PIC, HTP, etc.). Shutter time refers to the duration of continuous shutter press, write time was measured from the start of the shutter press until the red 'busy' light went out. All values represent the average of four tests. 

Tests with old firmware are shown, but grayed out. Notice that while previous verisons of firmware don't affect cards rated at 60 MB/s or slower, the old firmware really throttles the faster 90 MB/s card. Also, that 90 MB/s Extreme Pro is UDMA6, and while Canon's firmware updates state, "_Improves writing/reading speeds when using UDMA 7-compatible CF cards_," clearly they also improve performance with fast UDMA6 cards.

It's interesting that a faster card gives a slight benefit to even the 'slow' 5DII, with one second shaved off the recovery time from a 3-second burst, and 6 more shots obtained in a 20-second burst.


----------

