# Does SD card matter?



## Stamp (Dec 2, 2009)

Does it matter which SD card I get for a camera?  I see some that say 'high speed' and all that jazz, but when it comes down to it, does it really matter?  It's just the size of the card that you're paying for, isn't it?  What size/kind do ya'll recommend?


----------



## icassell (Dec 2, 2009)

It becomes important when you are shooting rapid-sequence.  The speed of the card may limit the speed at which your camera writes to the card and, therefore, limits how fast you can acquire images.  I'll look around -- somewhere I remember a site that makes card recommendations.


----------



## Stamp (Dec 2, 2009)

Thanks icassell.


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 2, 2009)

Few months ago, I was speaking with B&H guys regarding that. The guy said that in near future all manufacturers will be moving towards SD for the purposes of making cameras smaller size. I can't vouch for validity of that.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 3, 2009)

Yep because Nikon and Canon have really cared about the size of their SLRs. /sarcasm (btw The D3 has two CF slots). This makes a lot of sense for small cameras, but many people will buy an SLR because it is big. Every try holding a D40 with a 70-200mm f/2.8? It felt horridly retarded and made my fingers hurt. I would say that it is just sales guys being sales guys. 

Anyway what matters is transfer speed. When it matters is when you have a small buffer and like to shoot quickly. If you shoot sport events and your career depends on being able to photograph every single car without pause as it goes past then a faster card helps. In any other case (i.e. transferring files to a computer) there's always coffee breaks and excuses to get away from your desk for a minute or two


----------



## battletone (Dec 3, 2009)

Your Sony only looks to shoot at 2.5 fps.  So paying more for a faster SD card won't make a bit of difference for that.


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 3, 2009)

> Yep because Nikon and Canon have really cared about the size of their SLRs. /sarcasm (btw The D3 has two CF slots). This makes a lot of sense for small cameras, but many people will buy an SLR because it is big. Every try holding a D40 with a 70-200mm f/2.8? It felt horridly retarded and made my fingers hurt. I would say that it is just sales guys being sales guys.


_I didn't say I believed him, especially when both continued making bricks _


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Dec 3, 2009)

its for rapid shooting as mentioned!


----------



## NateWagner (Dec 3, 2009)

There are also variabilities with specific makers. As you look around some of them have a better reputation than others. 

IMO you can't really go wrong with SanDisk.


----------



## Stamp (Dec 3, 2009)

battletone said:


> Your Sony only looks to shoot at 2.5 fps.  So paying more for a faster SD card won't make a bit of difference for that.



That's what I was kind of thinking.  That being said, I just got back from Best Buy.  While I was there, I was playing with an $1800 Canon that shot 8 frames per second.......  All I could say was, "wow!".


----------



## Garbz (Dec 4, 2009)

IgsEMT said:


> _I didn't say I believed him, especially when both continued making bricks _



I know sorry man I had a tough day yesterday. I didn't mean to come across as cynical.


----------



## Stamp (Dec 5, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> There are also variabilities with specific makers. As you look around some of them have a better reputation than others.
> 
> IMO you can't really go wrong with SanDisk.



I know Sandisk is pretty reputable, and I sure as hell didn't want to get ripped off with a fake Sandisk, or any other fake card, so I stayed away from Ebay on this one.  I went to Newegg, and it came down to a 150x OCz 8gb, or a Transcend speed class 6 8gb, and the OCz was out of stock, so that made my choice easy...


----------



## sami.aziz (Dec 5, 2009)

I have a Canon Point and shoot camera with a regular 2gb SD card, and my sister has the same camera with a high-speed card. I can actually really tell the difference in time in between pictures, and when downloading the pictures on to my computer. Because of this, I think that it would be a good idea to put some money towards on a high-speed card, but not too much. A model like the Sandisk Ultra II is probably the way to go, the best combination of value and speed.


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2009)

In the camera, it only really matters if the *camera* is HC (high capacity) or UDMA (Ultra, Direct Memory Access) capable. As mentioned, the camera's buffer is usually the limiting factor, not the card.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 5, 2009)

Stamp said:


> I know Sandisk is pretty reputable, and I sure as hell didn't want to get ripped off with a fake Sandisk



You get what you payfor. With that basically the fake Sandisk cards are in no way a rip-off. I have a real and a fake one. Both work just fine. The fake is slower and was less than half the price of the real one.

Basically read the comments on ebay. Along with the price of the chip compared to other sales you usually know straight away what you're getting.


----------



## battletone (Dec 6, 2009)

sami.aziz said:


> I have a Canon Point and shoot camera with a regular 2gb SD card, and my sister has the same camera with a high-speed card. I can actually really tell the difference in time in between pictures, and when downloading the pictures on to my computer. Because of this, I think that it would be a good idea to put some money towards on a high-speed card, but not too much. A model like the Sandisk Ultra II is probably the way to go, the best combination of value and speed.


What do you consider "regular"?  I find this almost impossible, at least in terms of picture taking on a point and shoot.  You probably have a VERY old SD card that is not even considered normal at this point.  Anything they sell now should be beyond adequate for anything but extremely fast fps cameras and/or video.

What camera/card/card reader are you using?


----------

