Olsen Posted January 14, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just bought two new memory cards for my M9; SanDisk Extreme SDHC 32 GB. Then I read in the M9 manual that it is supposed to be Extreme III that works best with M9. Anyone here with M9-experience with the card mentioned here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Hi Olsen, Take a look here M9 and SanDisk Extreme 32 GB . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andreuagusti Posted January 14, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 14, 2011 1 year of use. No problem at all, so far... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpattison Posted January 14, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 14, 2011 Olsen, I think that when they produced the larger capacity card, they dropped the iii part of the name. Best of luck filling a 32GB card!! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted January 14, 2011 Sounds excellent! Thanks, guys. Olsen -------------------------------------------- 1) Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, - bare dårlige klær. 2) Jobber du med sigd og hjå, holder du med LSK Drikker'ru øl og du er gla', holder du med Vå'lenga. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 14, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 14, 2011 I have just bought two new memory cards for my M9; SanDisk Extreme SDHC 32 GB. Then I read in the M9 manual that it is supposed to be Extreme III that works best with M9. Anyone here with M9—experience with the card mentioned here? The current SDHC card SanDisk Extreme 32 GB works just fine in the M9. However it's not as fast as it is supposed to be. According to the specs it should be faster than the older SanDisk Extreme III but in the M9 it actually is slower. The fastest cards for use in the M9 seem to be the old SanDisk Ultra II (not to be confused with SanDisk Ultra which is the newer card ) and the SanDisk Extreme III. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 17, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 17, 2011 Look, right off the bat I will admit to knowing NOTHING about SD cards. But, I tend to think the latest, greatest or biggest is not always the best workable fit. But, again, all I can talk about is what works for me. I have a San Disk 16 gb Extreme stuck in my M-9 and have had no problems at all. That's all I can say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 17, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have four of the SanDisk Ulta 16GB cards and a 'pocket full' of smaller Ultra 11 2 & 4 GB cards. They all work fine, but.... once I had a problem reading one of the (full) 16GB cards from a trip. I thought I had lost a significant part of my travel pics. I later recovered them using another card reader. The lesson I learned was to limit my card size and thereby limit the potential image loss in the event of any trouble. The only time I now use those 16GB cards is when I am shooting a show where I have little or no time to change cards during a performance. I balance the risk of loss against convenience then. I don't think I would be tempted to buy large SD cards again. Changing an SD card is a whole lot easier than loading a fresh film, which I still clearly remember. I see urgency demands as the only need for large cards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share #8 Posted January 17, 2011 I already have a heap of old 2GB cards that I have been using with my M8 and 1Ds III, but they are too small with today's demands. One of them made my PC freeze up when sticking it back into the SD slot in my (Toshiba) PC. I just gave it up and threw it in the dust bin. I don't know what the cause was. I had switched it between my M8 and m9 several times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 17, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 17, 2011 There you have the cause - switching cards between camera types without formatting is always a bad idea. Btw, I find 8 Gb (when shooting compressed) and 16 Gb (when shooting uncompressed) ideal sizes for the M9 - even if a bit on the large side. 32 makes me nervous.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 17, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 17, 2011 Let's face it, 800-900 compressed pics on a 16GB card. Hell who wants to shoot that lot too often and then edit, PP the lot? I did it yesterday. Well, 450 pics to be precise. Three hours shooting followed by nearly six hours editing and PP. To lose all that on one card would make me sick. Rather spread the shoot over several cards assuming the situation permits. Still gotta do the PP though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_brittenson Posted January 17, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 17, 2011 Let's face it, 800-900 compressed pics on a 16GB card. Hell who wants to shoot that lot too often and then edit, PP the lot? Why would you PP every shot? That's a fool's errand. I shot about 5000 images over three weeks. While I offloaded them to my laptop, I wasn't going to reformat the cards until I had a second copy. So images stayed on their cards until I got home and could properly archive them. Shooting a mix of compressed and uncompressed I mostly filled up a wallet of eight 16GB cards. You think your images are safer on a hard drive than on an SD card? I don't think so! On the laptop each evening I'd sort through what I'd shot that day, keywording, and adding shooting notes. Also doing this often gives me ideas for improvements and I'll revisit the same subject the next day. After sorting through the files I'll clean the camera and lenses and check the sensor for spots and potentially clean it as well. (I always throw Pec pads and Eclipse E2 in my luggage for this purpose. Plus a more general purpose optical cleaner for other optical parts.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted January 17, 2011 Jan, I fully agree with you. I have lost more info by crashing HDs than cards. Ideally, one should try to double up the pictures as soon as possible. When on short business trips I only carry a camera and (from now on) one 32 GB card. On longer holiday trips I carry a Epson P5000 HD with a 3,8" screen. I also have a P2000. I regularly load the pictures over to the Epson, goes through them and delete the bad ones. Looking up old files, I see that a three weeks holiday at Tioman Island, Malaysia with a lot of bird photography I have kept between 17 to 20 GB of pictures. So, a 32 GB card would be enough for a whole summer. But I won't risk storing all that data in one go. I will still use my P5000 as a backup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 17, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 17, 2011 Jan and Olsen, I think we are discussing different aspects of maybe the same problem. Jan, first of all I do PP every image and don't feel a fool for it. In the first place I get paid for it (sometimes!). But primarily, I learned years ago that I am selling from the proofsheet (film days) or nowadays from the initial CD or email images. It is almost more important for an image to look good in proof form than finished form because the average punter is not experienced at assessing how well an image will improve in PP. No I do not think images are safer on a HD than an SD. Where did you get that idea? For that very reason, and others, I do not travel with a laptop but rather use a pocket ful of SD cards. Far more compact and lighter as well. I have no need to review images at the end of the day like some insist. My experince over many years with film taught me to trust my reflexes and instinct as to when I have the shot. Mostly reshooting is not possible anyway! I do trust external HD's for backup in multiple combination's back at the desktop. It's a trade-off with convenience and filing. They do fail, but usually not all at once, touch wood! Future purchase's will probably see me opt for 8GB as a compromise between convenience, capacity and security. Of course, each to their own as we all have differing priorities. It's great that we do have such choices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 18, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 18, 2011 Awww Heck, to each their own Me I tend to go through the batch of the day and delete what I don't like. I always back up into an external RAID system for security. Fortunately, to date, I have never had a card fail. (Given my luck- it will happen tomorrow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramosa Posted January 18, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 18, 2011 I use extreme iii, but no larger than 16. No problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 18, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 18, 2011 Me I tend to go through the batch of the day and delete what I don't like. Bad idea. Well ... to be precise, in-camera deletion of single files usually is not the problem. Problems may arise when you add more files to a card where some files have been deleted before—especially when the deleted files were not the most recent. You are really trying your luck when you do that. In theory, it should work (and often does) ... but real life always has a few quirks extra. I always back up into an external RAID system for security. Even worse idea. RAID systems are fault-tolerant but not secure. So they are good for high-availablity server applications but not for back-up purposes. If your RAID controller fails then it will be anything between very hard and impossible to restore your data. For long-term back-up, manually mirror your data on two (or three) external hard-disks which are completely independent from each other. Stay away from RAID. Fortunately, to date, I have never had a card fail. (Given my luck, it will happen tomorrow) Well ... given how you're defying your luck ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 18, 2011 Even worse idea. RAID systems are fault-tolerant but not secure. So they are good for high-availablity server applications but not for back-up purposes. If your RAID controller fails then it will be anything between very hard and impossible to restore your data. For long-term back-up, manually mirror your data on two (or three) external hard-disks which are completely independent from each other. Stay away from RAID. Not my experience. I use a software-based RAID array (mirror) for data storage on my professional computer ( and a daily on-line backup of course) I had a disk crash -twice - the only thing I noticed was a warning message that one disk had failed. I could use the other to set up a new disk. And keep working for the few hours that it took to send somebody shopping. It may well be that hardware-based RAID systems react differently. At any rate I use a software RAID mirror for data for my photocomputer, with regular backups to two external disks manually, and hope never to test that out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 18, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 18, 2011 Hmmm! Makes me think about my films. In XS of 30000 films filed and never backed up! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.