Memory cards reliable enough?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:01:00 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

Uh oh...

On 11/07/2015 21:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

Maybe, if you're taking a good backup every day. Personally I used 3 x
16 GB cards rather than 1 x 64 GB. Cheaper too!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction.

there has never been an issue with name brand cards to where they could
not be trusted.

there was an issue with noname cards and counterfeit cards in
particular, however, but that's what you get when buying crap.

nothing is perfect and there's always a risk anything might fail, just
as there's a risk the camera itself might fail or that you'll be mugged
and someone might steal the camera with whatever card is in it.
however, in normal use (and avoiding the seedier parts of town), that
risk is very low.

But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

you could, but there's still only one copy. if someone steals the
camera, it doesn't matter how good the card you had was.

consider getting a portable storage device to offload the images,
assuming you don't want to bring a laptop.

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Personally I used 3 x
16 GB cards rather than 1 x 64 GB. Cheaper too!

3*16 = 48. you have less capacity than a 64 gig card.

it's no surprise it's cheaper.

On 2015-07-11 16:08:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction.

there has never been an issue with name brand cards to where they could
not be trusted.

I use Sandisk and Lexar CF and SDHC cards in a variety of sizes, (a
whole bunch of low capacities), 8, 16, and 32 GB and as of posting this
response I haven't had a card failure in about 12 years.

there was an issue with noname cards and counterfeit cards in
particular, however, but that's what you get when buying crap.

I just avoid bargain basement cards. B&H, Adorama, and Amazon regularly
have special sales on quality cards.

nothing is perfect and there's always a risk anything might fail, just
as there's a risk the camera itself might fail or that you'll be mugged
and someone might steal the camera with whatever card is in it.
however, in normal use (and avoiding the seedier parts of town), that
risk is very low.

But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

you could, but there's still only one copy. if someone steals the
camera, it doesn't matter how good the card you had was.

consider getting a portable storage device to offload the images,
assuming you don't want to bring a laptop.

That is why part of my travel kit is a HyperDrive ColorSpace UDMA. They
have updated it since I bought mine, but it still does what is needed.
I upgraded my old 250GB unit with a new 500 GB drive and a fresh
battery.
Their current version.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:36:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-11 16:08:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction.

there has never been an issue with name brand cards to where they could
not be trusted.

I use Sandisk and Lexar CF and SDHC cards in a variety of sizes, (a
whole bunch of low capacities), 8, 16, and 32 GB and as of posting this
response I haven't had a card failure in about 12 years.

there was an issue with noname cards and counterfeit cards in
particular, however, but that's what you get when buying crap.

I just avoid bargain basement cards. B&H, Adorama, and Amazon regularly
have special sales on quality cards.

nothing is perfect and there's always a risk anything might fail, just
as there's a risk the camera itself might fail or that you'll be mugged
and someone might steal the camera with whatever card is in it.
however, in normal use (and avoiding the seedier parts of town), that
risk is very low.

But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

you could, but there's still only one copy. if someone steals the
camera, it doesn't matter how good the card you had was.

consider getting a portable storage device to offload the images,
assuming you don't want to bring a laptop.

That is why part of my travel kit is a HyperDrive ColorSpace UDMA. They
have updated it since I bought mine, but it still does what is needed.
I upgraded my old 250GB unit with a new 500 GB drive and a fresh
battery.
Their current version.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

It almost looks as though you could use a smartphone to backup from a
wifi enabled camera to the hyper.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-11 22:47:12 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:36:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-11 16:08:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction.

there has never been an issue with name brand cards to where they could
not be trusted.

I use Sandisk and Lexar CF and SDHC cards in a variety of sizes, (a
whole bunch of low capacities), 8, 16, and 32 GB and as of posting this
response I haven't had a card failure in about 12 years.

there was an issue with noname cards and counterfeit cards in
particular, however, but that's what you get when buying crap.

I just avoid bargain basement cards. B&H, Adorama, and Amazon regularly
have special sales on quality cards.

nothing is perfect and there's always a risk anything might fail, just
as there's a risk the camera itself might fail or that you'll be mugged
and someone might steal the camera with whatever card is in it.
however, in normal use (and avoiding the seedier parts of town), that
risk is very low.

But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?

you could, but there's still only one copy. if someone steals the
camera, it doesn't matter how good the card you had was.

consider getting a portable storage device to offload the images,
assuming you don't want to bring a laptop.

That is why part of my travel kit is a HyperDrive ColorSpace UDMA. They
have updated it since I bought mine, but it still does what is needed.
I upgraded my old 250GB unit with a new 500 GB drive and a fresh
battery.
Their current version.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/HDU2-000.html

It almost looks as though you could use a smartphone to backup from a
wifi enabled camera to the hyper.

My antique edition the UDMA rather than the UDMA2 does not have that
ability. However, mine reads several different card types, and provides
viewing of many RAW file types including current, but not limited to
NEF, CR2, RAF, and DNG.

I believe the Wi-Fi access to iOS or Android device is to provide a
means for the social media addicted to play.

My X-E2 gives me quite interesting Wi-Fi features when paired with an
iOS or Android device. I can transfer files from the camera to the
mobile device. I can use my iPad or iPhone as a remote control which
includes a remote through the lens, or should I say, off the sensor
view, and control of all exposure and focus functions. Then I can
browse the contents of the camera on the iOS/Android device. Finally
the iPhone or iPad acts as a GPS tracker and will sync to the camera to
GEO-tag the image files.
This is the remote view:
https://db.tt/kLCyps14

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 07/11/2015 03:01 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?




I have a 32gig card in one camera and a 64gig in the other and can shoot
for months on a card.

Never had a problem with one but I copy the images to several different
computers on a regular basis

On 2015-07-11 16:01, Alfred Molon wrote:
In the past it used to be so that you could not trust memory cards, so
you would not use too large sizes, to avoid losing all images in case of
a malfunction. But I get the impression that nowadays memory cards are
very reliable, so you could in principle put a 256GB memory card into
the camera, and only use that for an entire trip. Any thoughts about
this?


I don't recall them being considered unreliable. Indeed we all cried
the chorus of better to get solid state memory than the small spinning
mass disks that were cheaper (and far as I can tell no longer marketed).

There are all sorts of stories of lost cameras found years later with
all the data intact. Indeed a recent camera was fished out of a lake 6
years after it was lost and all the photos were retrieved and the owner
eventually located.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...ipeg-1.3136501

That said, any electronics can fail. I bring a laptop and offload
images to the laptop as I go. There are other solutions as well that
include data tanks and uploading images to a "cloud" account on the fly.

You can even operate your own 'cloud' drive at home and send the images
there.

The trouble of course, on the road, is getting sufficiently high
bandwidth connections to the net. In some places it's hard to get
something that can reliably and quickly take off the 5 - 10 GB+ of
images one can easily shoot in a day.