Memory cards

[realdereal]

So I am quite confused by memory cards. I spent 100 dollars on a 32GB Promaster card and then was about to get a 64GB card for double that and then saw a 64GB Sandisk card for 60 dollars at our local variety store.

I expected to fit about 800+ RAW images on the 64GB card using slot 1 and my 32GB card in the second slot Jpeg as backup.
Problem was I popped in the card, formatted and the camera reads that it will only store about 600 images on the 64GB card.

Does this seem right to you? ?
I thought Sandisks were great and is what I always used before, and didn't even notice that the 32GB card was a different brand until getting it home from the local camera shop.

Now I'm thinking though that with only storing 600 images I may just go back and get that 64GB Promaster card for 200
: /

[Manfred M]

Something sounds wrong. I just checked my camera. I formated my memory card and found I can get about 800 14-bit uncompressed 36MB RAW images on a 64GB card with my D800. You should get a lot more than that

Something does not sound right, so either there is a problem with the card or with your camera settings. SanDisk (and Lexar) are premium cards that I have never had any issues with. Promaster, I've never heard of and $100 for a 32GB SD card sounds excessively expensive for an off-brand card.

I'd take them back to the store and get things checked out.

I buy virtually all my cards on line from B&H. You might want to look a their pricing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Me...54+4264330178/

[realdereal]

That's just what I thought. I will check the settings again.

[Shadowman]

I have two 32GB Sandisk cards:

SDHC-formatted holds 783 images.
Ultra SDHC-1-formatted holds 872 images.

[Shadowman]

I have two 32GB Sandisk cards:

SDHC-formatted holds 783 images.
Ultra SDHC-1-formatted holds 872 images.

[charzes44]

Kristen,
Are you saving your images as RAW + JPEG on the one card?

[RustBeltRaw]

Promaster does not have a reputation for sterling quality. Generally speaking, they're one notch above nameless eBay specials. I've had good luck with SanDisk so far, and at that price, I'm guessing you picked up one of their slow, but tough, Ultra II cards. Deep discounts on memory are reasonably common, so I wouldn't be too suspicious of the price.

Which camera are you using, and how large is its typical RAW file? My 60D, with 18MP at ISO3200 (higher ISOs add file size) averages about 29MB per file. On a 32GB Sandisk Extreme Pro, the on-camera counter estimates about 1,100 shots.

32GB = 32,000MB

32,000MB / 29MB = 1,103 shots

I would recommend avoiding Promaster's products. Watch B&H, Amazon, and other sites for discounts on Lexar and SanDisk memory. They happen reasonably often (maybe once every few months), but unpredictably. The good news is that having a dual-card camera means your risk is mitigated.

[Black Pearl]

I'm surprised at the different frame counts from identical capacities cards listed above when put in the same camera.

I have a handful of different 16GB Sandisk cards, some are CF and some are SDHC - there's a mix of Extreme, Extreme Pro and the odd UltraII but they all give the same shot count in my D300s.

I'd be interested in finding out which is more common.
Can more members post there experiences?

[benm]

I'm surprised at the different frame counts from identical capacities cards listed above when put in the same camera.

I have a handful of different 16GB Sandisk cards, some are CF and some are SDHC - there's a mix of Extreme, Extreme Pro and the odd UltraII but they all give the same shot count in my D300s.

I'd be interested in finding out which is more common.
Can more members post there experiences?

Identical capacity cards should give the same image count. If not, it may be that the card with the lower count is a fake and actually has less capacity than what is printed on the label.

Nikon cameras give extremely conservative image counts and you can typically put 50%-75% more images on the card compared to the original count.

[RustBeltRaw]

I'd be interested in finding out which is more common.
Can more members post there experiences?

My current cards include:

• 2x SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB CF
• 2x SanDisk Extreme Pro 32GB SD
• 2x SanDisk Extreme 16GB SD
• 1x SanDisk Ultra II 8GB SD
• 1x SanDisk Ultra II 32GB microSD

I immediately throw away cards which fail or corrupt data. I've thrown out three, including a PNY and two Kingstons. Don't remember the models, since it's been a while. The Ultra II 8GB and one of the Extreme 16GB cards came from my dad's gear (which he isn't using much these days), and are both about 8 years old. The Extreme Pros are younger, but much more heavily used. It's quite normal to put 25GB on them in an afternoon.

Note that if I didn't shoot action, all of my cards would be from SanDisk's Ultra II series. They're splash-resistant, and generally more rugged than the unsealed Extreme and Extreme Pro cards. 95% of my work is on the Extreme Pros, which are bloody quick.

EDIT: Robin correctly pointed out that Extreme Pro and Ultra cards are built to the same water and shock resistance standards. More details in posts 17 and 18 on this thread.

Nikon cameras give extremely conservative image counts and you can typically put 50%-75% more images on the card compared to the original count.

Good for them. I haven't paid much attention to counter accuracies on my Canons, other than occasionally glancing at them to check capacities. I generally swap cards when I get to less than 200 shots remaining, or if I'm feeling paranoid and I want shots spread onto multiple cards.

[Black Pearl]

Nikon cameras give extremely conservative image counts and you can typically put 50%-75% more images on the card compared to the original count.

If you shoot jpeg or compressed NEF the count can be a little conservative but I've never seen anything near a 50-75% difference.
I shoot un-compressed NEF files and I get as near as makes no difference exactly what the camera tells me when I format the card....regardless of the make or speed.

[benm]

If you shoot jpeg or compressed NEF the count can be a little conservative but I've never seen anything near a 50-75% difference.
I shoot un-compressed NEF files and I get as near as makes no difference exactly what the camera tells me when I format the card....regardless of the make or speed.

I shoot lossless compressed so maybe that is why there is a difference. I would imagine that for lossless uncompressed every image is exactly the same size.

[realdereal]

Thank you guys. The thing is that I set up the card designations in the camera menu, however it wasn't registering for the settings. So I changed the settings on the outside controls (using I believe the quality button on my D7100) and I noticed right away a jump to 1.1K (yeah!)

Thank you everyone for the help!

[Manfred M]

I shoot lossless compressed so maybe that is why there is a difference. I would imagine that for lossless uncompressed every image is exactly the same size.

No, that is not the way compression algorithms work. They look for repeating patterns encode the image based on the reoccurance of patterns. Let me give you a simplified example; if for instance there are 20 black pixels in a row, rather than writting each pixel to memory it would record 20 x black, etc. This means each file would be a different size, depending on the quantity and distribution of patterns. In reality, compression algorithms are a bit more complex, but the result is the same.

Take a look at the jpeg files generated by your camera, and you will note that they are different sizes, even though the original images are all the same size. While jpegs (and other lossy compression algorithms) add the additional step of throwing out some data, thereby reducing the file size even more, the underlying principles of encoding patterns of information remains the same.

[Manfred M]

Thank you guys. The thing is that I set up the card designations in the camera menu, however it wasn't registering for the settings. So I changed the settings on the outside controls (using I believe the quality button on my D7100) and I noticed right away a jump to 1.1K (yeah!)

Thank you everyone for the help!

Kristen - The Quality setting only affects the jpegs, not your RAW files. From what I read on the D7100 specs, you have a choice of either 12-bit or 14-bit RAW and that can be saved as either lossless or lossy compression algorithms. I don't see an uncompressed option.

[GrahamS]

Note that if I didn't shoot action, all of my cards would be from SanDisk's Ultra II series. They're splash-resistant, and generally more rugged than the unsealed Extreme and Extreme Pro cards.

Lex, I was not aware of any difference in construction of the various card types. What do you mean by "unsealed"?

[Black Pearl]

Lex - Why on earth would they make their top end cards less well made than the cheaper ones - that makes no sense.

From their site:

Resistant to Water, Temperature Fluctuations, and More
SanDisk Ultra SDXC and SDHC Memory Cards are waterproof, temperature-proof, x-ray-proof, and shock-proof. Snap pictures by the pool or carry your memory card with you through the airport and rest assured that your treasured memories are secure.

Durable Design
SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC and SDXCUHS-I Cards are shockproof**, X-ray proof**, and waterproof** and ready to handle whatever life throws at them. You can capture memories in almost any climate--the card operates in temperatures ranging from -13 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Durable Design
SanDisk Extreme SDHC or SDXC UHS-I cards are dsigned and tested to withstand the toughest conditions, card capacities 16-64GB are waterproof**, shockproof**, and X-ray proof**. It can operate in temperatures ranging from -13 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit, so you can snap the perfect shot in almost any climate.

[RustBeltRaw]

Why on earth would they make their top end cards less well made than the cheaper ones - that makes no sense.

You're right, it doesn't, and I stand corrected. I was basing that statement on descriptions from B&H Photo, which include immersion and shock resistance specifications for the Ultra cards, but not the Extreme Pros. Obviously, SanDisk is the more reliable source, and digging a little deeper on their site reveals that the Extreme Pros are IPX7 rated ("Tested to withstand up to 72 hours in 1m salt or fresh water; IEC 529 IPX7; product must be clean and dry before use".) Original post edited.

Thank you for the correction. I wasted a fair amount of time picking cards based on that nonexistent durable-or-fast distinction.

[Manfred M]

I'm afraid some of those specs seem to have been written by the marketing, rather than engineering department.

Shock proof - duh, it's solid state. The worst you can do is crack the plastic shell.

X-ray proof - duh, it's not film. X-rays are not going to adversely affect electronic components.

Waterproof - Um, heat sealed (welded?) plastic packaging, I can see that. But only up to a meter; translation, weather proof. Add a bit of pressure and you can potentially cause the material or seal to crack. Appropriate material selection means that the contacts won't mind a bit of salt water, but make sure that you rinse the card before sticking into your camera.

-13F to 185F - that should tell you what the glass transition temperature for the material is (warning - take care when removing your memory card in extremely cold weather, the plastic may snap...). The high termperature side; probably a point where thermal expansion can cause damage to some of the components; it really is not all that high a temperature, so I find this limit a bit surprising. It is well below where I would expect any damage to the materials themselves.

Sorry; I hate these kinds of "specs"; technically correct but not totally useful. Drop or bang one of these cards and the water proof characteristics could be gone (hence the **?)

[Black Pearl]

True - mind you'd be staggered how many times I was asked about X-ray machines and memory cards when I worked for Jessops so putting it on their site is probably just to stop stupid emails.