Advice from XQD card users please.

[OurManInTangier]

I'm currently on the shortlist for a new Nikon D5 and have the choice to go with CF cards or the newer XQD cards.

Apart from current costs is there any reason to stick with CF cards rather than get on board with XQD?

From what I've read and heard from others (photographers and my repair guys at Fixation in London) it seems Nikon are very much pushing XQD as their future and I wonder if it isn't worth getting on board now. I have a deal to get a 64GB Lexar XQD card plus reader as part of my D5 deal and my business will soak up the costs so I'm looking at this rather than sticking with CF.

The work I do doesn't actually require super fast write speeds so in all honesty it's simply a case of 'future proofing' whilst I have a pot of cash I can designate to a switchover. Plus, things change as customer expectations change so future proofing (if that's what it actually is) seems wise.

Any advice or thoughts, pro or con, from those using or having used them would be greatly received.

 

[sevo]

Future proofing? If there is any current "standard" I'd expect to become extinct real soon now, it is XQD - it has been around for four years, and nobody apart from Nikon seems to have any intent to use it. Even Sony, among the original inventors, only tentatively support it as "secondary storage" on some of their lesser broadcast camcorders, and have never introduced any device that uses it as its main medium.

Now that Nikon offers either CF or XQD, on both slots, people will probably opt for the former, putting the final nail into XQD's coffin (on the D4 owning one XQD card was the inevitable backup).

 

[View Range]

There are several considerations. Apparently the majority of the first D5 cameras made will use XQD cards (Nikon Rumors). You may have to wait for a CF model. How much do you rely on speed and volume? If you want max data transfer from the camera, you'll want XQD. If you don't want max speed, why buy a D5 at all? Finally Nikon has said that the reader modules can be changed at Nikon service centers, minimizing the risk of card availability. Who knows what the D6 will use? The D5 is aimed at professionals who regularly upgrade their equipment. So other than initial cost of card / reader replacement, I don't see why one would order a CF model.

 

[newsgrunt]

All I know is that the most current XQD cards ingest faster than any CF card I know of. They take some time to buffer out as well if you shoot raw and jpg as I do in separate slots in the D4s.

 

[Luke_Miller]

Been using XQD cards in my D4 for a couple of years. No exposed contacts (like SD cards) and no potential for bent pins (like CF cards). That gives me maximum reliability. If I get a D5 it will be the XQD version.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Future proofing? If there is any current "standard" I'd expect to become extinct real soon now, it is XQD - it has been around for four years, and nobody apart from Nikon seems to have any intent to use it. Even Sony, among the original inventors, only tentatively support it as "secondary storage" on some of their lesser broadcast camcorders, and have never introduced any device that uses it as its main medium.

Now that Nikon offers either CF or XQD, on both slots, people will probably opt for the former, putting the final nail into XQD's coffin (on the D4 owning one XQD card was the inevitable backup).

Thanks for the info and opinion Sevo. I've so little knowledge of XQD as I continued using CF cards when I upgraded from D3 to D4 and didn't really keep up with new(er, introduced in 2011 I believe) card technology. As such I haven't really got a clue how well used QXD is - most of the photographers I know are still using CF but like me, its because they already had a plentiful supply.

There are several considerations. Apparently the majority of the first D5 cameras made will use XQD cards (Nikon Rumors). You may have to wait for a CF model. How much do you rely on speed and volume? If you want max data transfer from the camera, you'll want XQD. If you don't want max speed, why buy a D5 at all? Finally Nikon has said that the reader modules can be changed at Nikon service centers, minimizing the risk of card availability. Who knows what the D6 will use? The D5 is aimed at professionals who regularly upgrade their equipment. So other than initial cost of card / reader replacement, I don't see why one would order a CF model.

Part of the reason I'm asking is the extra wait for the CF version. Not that I mind waiting but I obviously need to let the supplier know which version I'd prefer. BTW - The increased and improved ISO is one of the big reasons for opting for a D5, I do quite a lot of conferences/speeches etc and having a big improvement, even on the lower end of the high ISO range would be an big help under the varying conditions I often work in.

All I know is that the most current XQD cards ingest faster than any CF card I know of. They take some time to buffer out well if you shoot raw and jpg as I do in separate slots in the D4s.

I tend to shoot only RAW but at times I still have a need to 'let rip' so extra time before the buffer fills out is always good to have. I'm guessing it makes a significant difference if you've switched...assuming you did switch when moving up to the D4 from a D3/D2 etc.

Been using XQD cards in my D4 for a couple of years. No exposed contacts (like SD cards) and no potential for bent pins (like CF cards). That gives me maximum reliability. If I get a D5 it will be the XQD version.

This is one of the few things I did know about the XQD cards, although I may have been lucky as I've never, as yet, had an issue with either SD or CF card damage.

I could really do with finding out whether XQD is, as Sevo suggests, not as popular as Nikon would like. Whilst I could send the body away for a conversion and even if that were free ( unless you know differently I'd suggest its unlikely ) it still means being a body down for a period of time. Thanks for the input, I'll keep searching for more information...and more advice, user reports or info is appreciated.

Thanks

 

[View Range]

If I were shooting conferences or speeches, I would use flash. High ISO is improved, but it is still looks like High ISO.

Canon uses CFast in its latest flagship camera. They are not ubiquitous either.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm not real thrilled by the XQD slot in my D4, would much rather have two CF slots.

Decades ago I got burned by Sony with the whole Betamax thing and then the whole Mini-Disc thing. Sony comes up with really cool devices that other companies just don't adopt. If you do adopt, you can end up with a lot of equipment that is no longer compatible. I would stick with the CF cards if I was buying a new D5.

 

[newsgrunt]

I tend to shoot only RAW but at times I still have a need to 'let rip' so extra time before the buffer fills out is always good to have. I'm guessing it makes a significant difference if you've switched...assuming you did switch when moving up to the D4 from a D3/D2 etc.

The D4 cameras are dual slot CF and XQD. During the Toronto Pan Am games, Nikon loaned out the newest XQD cards and they were almost always gone. I shoot NEFS onto the XQD and jpgs on the CF and use whichever file I need at the time (deadline pressure vs awful lighting that needs help).

I think companies are just resistant to moving beyond CF cards and I've been told, a few years ago mind you, that CF is a limited growth card and that it's only a matter of time before it's surpassed by SD. The latter of which has issues with durability of the plastic shell imo.

 

[willie_901]

One unique advantage of DSLRs' is their speed... especially sophisticated AF operation between individual frames in lighting-fast bursts.

Why anyone would want to diminish their speed advantage by using slower cards puzzles me

If you really don't need speed then why even get a DSLR?

(Answer: one owns a well-currated collection of lenses, one has assistants to lug the kit around, hearing the mirror flop is reassuring,conquering extraordinarily complicated menu systems is a reward in itself, EVFs are rubbish even for static scenes, clients expect a huge, serious-looking kit and ... what would one do with all their Nikon/Canon branded clothing items, coffee mugs, etc.)

 

[OurManInTangier]

One unique advantage of DSLRs' is their speed... especially sophisticated AF operation between individual frames in lighting-fast bursts.

Why anyone would want to diminish their speed advantage by using slower cards puzzles me

If you really don't need speed then why even get a DSLR?

(Answer: one owns a well-currated collection of lenses, one has assistants to lug the kit around, hearing the mirror flop is reassuring,conquering extraordinarily complicated menu systems is a reward in itself, EVFs are rubbish even for static scenes, clients expect a huge, serious-looking kit and ... what would one do with all their Nikon/Canon branded clothing items, coffee mugs, etc.)

Therein lies most of the answer....that and a) I've already got several (to go with all the lenses) and b) the general flexibility of the SLR system to allow you to undertake so many different types of work.

If I were shooting conferences or speeches, I would use flash. High ISO is improved, but it is still looks like High ISO.

I do. However, at most conferences the client has employed a lighting/sound/AV company to arrange big screen presentations, stage and podium lighting etc. Sometimes its best not to try and mix the lighting sources, at other times the client or speaker may get annoyed/put off by constant flash firing - using both methods gives me the best results.