My very expensive DSLR only takes CF cards.
I don't see the point of your comment. . . .

Yes, we know.

You can get a 64gb SD card for the price.

Goodgrr, as a pro photographer could you recommend a dlsr for a total beginner (interested in landscape, birds, running photos) and/or websites I could do a proper research.?

I don't see the point of buying CF anymore. As mentioned before you can get 64gb for the same price or less and use them with SD/CF adapters.

@goodgrr are you really a 'pro photographer'? I've never heard anyone call themselves that before. :confused:

or this little bit slower card from amazon.co.uk for £22 :
''Lexar Professional 800x Speed (120 MB/s) UDMA 7 CompactFlash Memory Card - 32 GB''
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00HYRF606?keywords=lexar%20flash%20cards&qid=1450218837&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

Have you tried it with a SD/CF adapter and SD/microSD card? I was not sure it would work with my DSLRs till I tried it myself, but it did work.

​Probably not suitable for serious photography though. Doubt it could sustain a decent speed in burst mode, and as a pro (if I was one) I'd be worried about reliability and just loosing cards when swapping out.

Don't like this deal tbh though as I can't imagine 16gb being enough for most modern slrs. Especially with video.

You can also buy a pair of shoes for the price or a bottle of whiskey, no pro photographer is going to use a sd card instead of a cf card.

Might as wwell throw my pence in the debate. CF was the preference ws DSLR's, because they could reach speeds which SD could not touch. But SD has really caught up. One plus point back in the day was that the CF cards were easier to handle, esp in cold weather while wearing gloves.

There were some Canon models which supported both cards, but if you shoved an SD card the CF would slow down!

SD/CF adapters can have issues, i.e. you might not achieve the same performance with as an CF alone. Sometimes they say they support UDMA, but they don't!

It's really upto you. Do some research on your camera. Find out which speeds can you attain for a certain SD card. Get the latest Firmware. Not all SD cards are equal (and don't always believe in the marketing hype) and watch out for fake cards.

That said. It's not a bad price for the speed (that's if your camera can support these speeds in the first place). Not alot of room for shooting RAW, but some professionals prefer to keep more cards to avoid losing more due to a faulty card, esp for event's where you can't go back to.

I'm not convinced that is always the case. Replace the word "tend" with "can", and I would be more inclined to agree with the statement.

For example, in terms of mechanical durability as long as you keep the SD/microSD in it's adapter, the SD/microSD should never fail, although you might wear the adapter out. I'd count that as a clear advantage over CF. Also, by leaving the micro-SD in it's adapter you are not any more likely to loose it than a CF.

In terms of speed, how fast do you need? All the microSD cards I have (which are nothing special) will happily capture 1080p at the very least, and they are all much faster than the Sandisk Extreme III CF's which I have and which don't come close to maxing out when used in my (admittedly old) DSLRs when used for still bursts.

Granted a card like this CF may have a slight speed advantage over the cheaper SD/micro-SD cards which I suspect would make it more suitable for 4K footage capture (I have yet to venture above 1080p so no personal experience), but then (as my-planet pointed out) a 16gb card sounds like it would not be appropriate in terms of size for capturing 4K footage, especially at a pro-level.

In terms of read/write durability, micro-SD cards are commonly used with dashcams which are arguably the most heavy writing devices that are commonly used, and I'm sure the more durable SD/micro-SD cards will be on par with CF's depending on what type of flash memory they use.

I'd agree with you 100% on the video, however on photos the top end cameras don't always try to compete on the pixel count as it's not a great way to assess quality.

For example Nikon's top of the range pro camera the D4s is only 16.2 mega-pixels. I can happily shoot a whole day music festival on an 8GB card.

my pennies worth
I bought a Scandisk card a few years back from them it failed.
So with lifetime warranty I contacted Scandisk after sending pictures in to them they replied it a fake and not honour there agreement and as it was over 12 months old my memory just did not want to know SO BE CAREFULL incase anything goes wrong , keep all receipts buy it on credit card

Wow. How big is each RAW file?

dunno, its what the file size is shown as for the dpreview test scene on d4s!
guess a user would know better though :wink:

Thinking more about it, that's probably the uncompressed 14 bit file size. I read an article where there was no noticeable difference between 12/14 bit so only use that.

The D4 and D4s are very similar so this table is probably a good guide.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/06/05/nef-file-types-and-sizes-what-effect-do-bit-depth-and-compression-have-on-raw-files/

yeah just thought that looking at your table, does the lossless compressed give any speed penalty? loseless 14bit is only 50% more space than lossy 12bit which seems a bargain!

dont think there is a difference just looking at the images but when you pull shadows/highlights etc?

Not sure, I expect only a little (based on your card speed).

Can't remember where, but I read that the loss Vs lossless compression made no noticeable difference. For what I do speed is very important (for editing/storage etc) so if people who looked harder than I would said they saw no difference then that was good enough for me.