SD card brand recommendations

[spacecadet]

My main Sandisk card having checked out suddenly after only 2 years, and being expected to send it to Czechia for a warranty replacement I'm obviously looking for a different brand.

Any thoughts? Leaning towards Hama. I'm biased against micro cards in an adapter for some reason, should I be?

Alarming, a few days earlier I would have lost 600-odd from France/Germany/Benelux.

Edited Thursday at 11:32 by spacecadet

[sooth]

Which SanDisk model sdcard were you using?

[MDM]

I’ve had numerous SanDisk SD cards and never had a failure so you are probably unlucky unless the quality is not what it used to be.  Other brands I use and would recommend are Sony, Delkin and Angelbird. I would definitely not recommend micro SD cards. They are way too flimsy. I have had a few of them fail in a GoPro (SanDisk actually). 

Edited Thursday at 13:22 by MDM

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, sooth said:

Which SanDisk model sdcard were you using?

Ultra 90MB

[wiskerke]

Hama=Sandisk.

 

wim

[Harry Harrison]

It's pretty difficult navigating across a particular range, the numbers and names are deceptive, and that's just Sandisk. I use Sandisk Extreme Pro, much faster than Ultra, but then my cameras are quite old I haven't looked at the verry latest, faster types.

Edited Thursday at 17:26 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

26 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

It's pretty difficult navigating across a particular range, the numbers and names are deceptive, and that's just Sandisk. I use Sandisk Extreme Pro, much faster than Ultra, but then my cameras are quite old I haven't looked at the very latest, faster types.

I don't feel the need...the need for speed.

[Marianne]

I've used Sony, Delkin and Kingston all without incident. SanDisk too for that matter. 

Kingston were on sale at B&H about a year ago - I had mislaid my card wallet and needed something until I found it and since my A7riv has two card slots I figured at least I'd have the jpegs for backup if something went wrong and the two I've bought have stayed in rotation in my camera since then. I hadn't heard of them before but they had good reviews. 

[Dave Richards]

SanDisk Extreme Pro and a Sony XQD are in my Nikon Z6ll and have been from the day I bought the camera.

No problems so far. The cards never leave the camera, I just plug the camera into the computer to download images then re-format the cards ready for the next trip out.

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I don't feel the need...the need for speed.

Well, all I can say is that I bought an Ultra because with a name like that it should be fast, and it's 90MB/s against 95 MB/s for my Expreme Pro. In reality it was much slower and made the camera feel sluggish. Same with a Lexar Professional that was rated even faster. I think there are some small print issues going on here, something about upload and download speeds etc. Obfuscation.

[sooth]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well, all I can say is that I bought an Ultra because with a name like that it should be fast, and it's 90MB/s against 95 MB/s for my Expreme Pro. In reality it was much slower and made the camera feel sluggish. Same with a Lexar Professional that was rated even faster. I think there are some small print issues going on here, something about upload and download speeds etc. Obfuscation.

that 90mb/s and 95mb/s is just a marketing trick. that's actually the READ speed of the card, i.e., how fast your computer can read the card, not how fast you can write to it.

 

the write speed of the sdcard is actually the bunch of cryptic symbols; the uhs class speed (number inside a bucket), the speed class (number enclosed in a half circle) , and the video speed class (v followed by a number)

[Harry Harrison]

7 hours ago, sooth said:

that 90mb/s and 95mb/s is just a marketing trick. that's actually the READ speed of the card, i.e., how fast your computer can read the card, not how fast you can write to it.

Thanks, good to have that clearly explained here.

 

[Ed Rooney]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks, good to have that clearly explained here.

 

 

Shooth's expertise can be very soothing, Harry. 🙂

[MDM]

 

6 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Shooth's expertise can be very soothing, Harry. 🙂

 

It’s good but not entirely correct. The read speed relates to how quickly your card can read the data coming from your camera - nothing to do with  your computer. The write speed relates to how quickly your camera buffer can write the data to the card so that it is stored in the card. The write speed is the important parameter. In fact the sustained write speed is what is really important. If the card can’t keep up with writing the data that is stored in the camera buffer, the camera temporarily locks up - an unpleasant experience if shooting something important. These write speeds only become important if shooting bursts or video. For single shot photography, any old card more or less will do as long as it doesn’t fail. Most modern cards but not all quote a read and write speed. 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:02 by MDM

[Ed Rooney]

 

I have those same 64 disks in three of my Sonys and 128s in two. The 128s were on sale. I've never needed that much storage space.  

 

[Martin L]

37 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

It’s good but not entirely correct. The read speed relates to how quickly your card can read the data coming from your camera - nothing to do with  your computer.

 

WHAT???? Why does a card need to read from a camera?

Sooth is correct, it is the speed a 'device' (camera or computer) reads data from the card

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Martin L said:

WHAT???? Why does a card need to read from a camera?

Sooth is correct, it is the speed a 'device' (camera or computer) reads data from the card

So you are saying when you take a shot it goes straight to the card. WHERE? Behind the lens. Better keep your cards clean. My understanding is that there is a sensor involved first of all which ultimately sends the data to the card through a complex bit of processing. The speed of that processing would be determined among other factors by the read speed of the card, as well as the readout speed of the sensor and the processor in the camera. The card then has to write the data into a permanent state, the speed of which is determined among other factors by the write speed of the card. Computers don’t even enter the equation apart from the speed of the micro-computer inside the camera. 

Edited yesterday at 11:06 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

The read speed relates to how quickly your card can read the data coming from your camera - nothing to do with  your computer.

That doesn't sound right to me. Surely it's the speed at which the card can provide data to whatever is reading from it which could be a computer or the camera during image review.

 

Mark

[MDM]

Ok you’re right Mark. I always say I’ll admit when I’m wrong and I was wrong about read speeds.  I’m always more concerned with write speeds which are internal to the camera and much more important in terms of the stuff I do. Write speeds determine how fast data can be written from the camera to the card. 
 

Time for long break I think. Been spending far too much time on here lately. 

Edited yesterday at 12:42 by MDM

[Martin L]

23 minutes ago, MDM said:

Ok you’re right Mark. I always say I’ll admit when I’m wrong and I was wrong about read speeds.  I’m always more concerned with write speeds which are internal to the camera and much more important in terms of the stuff I do. Write speeds determine how fast data can be written from the camera to the card

Should that be ok you're right Mark, Sooth and Martin?

[MDM]

6 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Should that be ok you're right Mark, Sooth and Martin?

For Sooth yes, apologies. To you no because you were wrong in claiming that cards don’t read from cameras. Of course they do. How else would the data get onto the card. I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong. Are you?

[Martin L]

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

For Sooth yes, apologies. To you no because you were wrong in claiming that cards don’t read from cameras. Of course they do. How else would the data get onto the card. I’m man enough to admit when I’m wrong. Are you?

Apology accepted

And no, cards do not read from cameras. Cards are 'written to' or 'read from'

[MDM]

 

17 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Apology accepted

And no, cards do not read from cameras. Cards are 'written to' or 'read from'

That’s ridiculous. If they are written to then they read from. You are just squirming out of making an apology by twisting words. 

[M.Chapman]

43 minutes ago, MDM said:

To you no because you were wrong in claiming that cards don’t read from cameras. Of course they do.

It's all semantics but I believe an SD  card is a relatively passive "slave" device to which data is pushed to by the camera or computer (by a write request) or pulled from the card by the camera or computer (by a read request). In order to write data into SD card the card does have to receive the data from the camera or computer, but it's not what would normally be called "reading" it's more like "accepting" data.

 

Mark

Edited yesterday at 13:38 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

It's all semantics but I believe an SD  card is a relatively passive "slave" device to which data is pushed to by the camera or computer (write request) or pulled from the card by the camera or computer (read request). In order to write data into SD card the card does have to receive the data from the camera or computer, but it's not what would normally be called "reading ".

 

Mark

It’s called reading and writing in computer terminology. That’ll do me. The essential point is that the camera transfers data to the card, whatever you want to call that process. I got the read speed thing wrong by breaking one of the basic tenets by which I live: check my facts before I commit to writing. But I am correct in the rest and Martin was wrong saying a card doesn’t read from a camera.  Now enough really is enough. Have a good day.