D850

WestEndFoto

The discussion and blog posts have me thinking about the replacement for the D810 and my next upgrade, the D820 (likely as this seems to fit with Nikon's numbering system).

The latest blog, the rumour regarding two XQD cards, caught my attention. It makes me wonder if my investment in SD cards is going to be useful - are XQD readers able to read and write to SD cards? Even though I plan to upgrade to a D820, not a D5, I believe that Nikon "may" adopt the same card reading technology for the D820.

paulr

Is that what's called future planning.

PB_PM

Outside of pro sports still cameras I doubt XQD will make much headway, since it is way more expensive than SD or CF/CF Fast per GB. That cost per GB will be a big factor for anyone considering a high resolution camera like the D810 successor (most likely the D900 if it gains a higher resolution sensor).

Also keep in mind, other than a few Sony video cameras (which I think are all going SSD in the next generation anyway) and the D4/D4s there aren't any other cameras even using XQD cards. The technology is good, but like many high end standards before it, use of XQD will likely flatten and drop in the next few years.

WestEndFoto

You might be right PB_PM, but imagine the possibilities. With this card, the buffer size becomes almost irrelevant.

PB_PM

No disagreement there. I suspect everyone would be better off if XQD replaced SD and CF standards outright.

WestEndFoto

That might increase volume enough to keep the price down. However, the price of this stuff is always dropping. Regardless of price, is there a standard currently on the market that is better than XQD and is suitable for a DSLR?

PS:
I just noticed that my old signature just popped up on my previous post, though does not appear on this post. I wonder what is going on here? Gods mods?

PB_PM

...is there a standard currently on the market that is better than XQD and is suitable for a DSLR?

In terms of compact removable storage that is cost effective? Not really. M.2 SSD's are close, but still to big for use in a DSLR sized body. XQD uses a PCI-E interface (10GBs version IIRC)), which means it is potentially much faster than the old IDE ATA standard that SD and CF cards work on. Even CF Fast and SD cards based on the UHI-2 standard, which uses SATA (3.0GBs), cannot match in terms of theoretical speed.

In the consumer space I can see micro SDHC and micro SDXC taking the place of SDHC/SDXC in the next few years. That standard is the most logical as our gadgets get smaller and smaller. For higher end cameras though, a successor to SDHC/SDXC will likely come around at some point, to allow for less space to be used, while keeping the amount of storage viable for the ever higher resolution sensors.

WestEndFoto

That is interesting food for thought.

haroldp

I would simply like 2 identical card slots, CF, SD, or XQD.
Having 2 different types (SD and CF as in D810, or XQD and CF as in D4) complicates logistics in the field, and in backup mode is no faster than the slowest card anyway.

Another case of clever engineers ho do not actually use product or talk to those who do.

.... H

snakebunk

I have spent a small fortune on CF cards, so I hope Nikon continue with those on the D820. At the same time I kind of agree with haroldp that it would be best if Nikon goes with one kind of card for both slots. Two CF slots would be best for me, but I am worried that there will be at least one XQD slot and maybe no CF.

Rx4Photo

I tend to agree with PB_PM's first comments regarding SD cards at least for the D8xx or D9xx series. Unless XD cards become much more and rapidly mainstream across multiple camera manufacturer's platforms I'd think that Nikon would wish to keep this camera extremely marketable, especially to entheusiasts. Changing to XD would definitely hinder sales - even for a little while.

I also think that if the D800/810 is due for a significant upgrade that they'd most likely move ahead to name it D900.

(After that then it's on to high MP mirrorless full-frame with new naming) - pure speculation!

WestEndFoto

My guess is that they are saving D900 for something special, perhaps not a firm plan at the moment.

WestEndFoto

My other guess is that since, according to PB_PM's research, XQD is the best card that is suitable for DSLR's, Nikon may bite the bullet and bring it in on the D820. I acknowledge it is a long shot and there are certain risks that Rx4Photo has validly pointed out.

haroldp

Given it's current adaptation, XQD is almost a proprietary Nikon card, at which Sony, Olympus, and Fuji have had spectacular market failures and orphan (read unhappy) customers.

High res video needs may save the XQD format, but the 3GB/S sata limit for CF fast and UHS II SD is probably fast enough that no working photog will notice the difference (If Nikon actually implements CF fast and UHS II). These formats offer good backwards compatibility so that folks who need the fastest can buy it and those who don't, can use slower cheaper cards they already have.

With the improved buffer capacity of the D810 (over the D800), and with Lexar 1066X CF and Sandisk 95mbs SDXC cards, I have not yet been stopped shooting BIF, so the 'good enough' standard has been reached (for me, for now). I would still like 2 of the same.

... H

retread

I am hoping to make my move to FX with the successor to the D810 if it is what it is rumored to be. I have nothing invested in CF cards and since XQD is superior I would rather go that rout. Two of the same is nice.

I read a article from B&H that said CF has reached its max anyway so they are as good as they will get.

I wonder how two UHS II SD cards would work for high end DX? They are backwards compatible with UHS I just run at the slower speed.

Of course if XQD worked in everything it would be only one card to inventory and never have the wrong card in the bag.

WestEndFoto

With XQD it sounds like you will not need much of a buffer. Are the other cards you mentioned fast enough for that?

haroldp

The 3GB/S sata limit for CF fast and UHS II SD is currently over 10 times the speed of the fastest cards available, with potential bckwards compatibility. The XQD limit of 10 GB/S is only 3 times that, a real standards increase is usually at least 10X.

USB 2 - 300 MB/s
USB 3 - 5 GB/S

snakebunk

3 Gb/s sounds like around 10 images per second if the resolution and bit depth stays the same. Right?
Also, why would it not be possible to make a faster CF standard if needed?

haroldp

As long as the pinout remains the same, backward compatibility can be achieved.

After that, the actual protocol becomes irrelevant.

The UHS I v UHS II is a good example where contacts were added (above the SD contacts) to support UHS II but the UHS I pins are supported so that UHS I card work in UHS II cameras (Fuji X-T1) and UHS II card work in UHS I cameras (current Nikons) at UHS I speed limits.

Someone clearly thought this through.

Ironheart

They did, called CFast, and it was an abject failure in the marketplace.
There was a second attempt at a next gen, but it also didn't even make it as a standard since it was a) not backward compatible with either CF or CFast and b) SD was taking over the world, and c) XQD became the "official" follow-on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash

"In 2008, a variant of CompactFlash, CFast was announced. CFast (also known as CompactFast) is based on the Serial ATA interface rather than the Parallel ATA interface used by the original CompactFlash cards.

In November 2010, Sandisk, Sony, and Nikon presented a next generation card format to the CompactFlash Association. The new format has a similar form factor to CF/CFast but is based on the PCI Express interface instead of Parallel ATA or Serial ATA.[10][11] With potential read and write speeds of 1 Gbit/s (125 MByte/s) and storage capabilities beyond 2 TiB the new format is aimed at high-definition camcorders and high-resolution digital cameras, but the new cards are not backward compatible with either CompactFlash or CFast. The XQD card format was officially announced by the CompactFlash Association in December 2011.[12]"

haroldp

As always, the market will decide.

The developers of UHS II SD clearly thought backward compatibility is important as did the device makers.

We will see how XQD adaptation develops.

In technology businesses, a lack of backward compatibility is called a 'discontinuity' because it reduces the relative pain of ones customer base in switching brands.

Stories of companies destroying themselves this way are legion, DEC being the business school example.

Wishing a great year to all members of this forum .... Harold

Ironheart

Well said @haroldp I used to work for DEC back in the day. Their "stealth marketing" didn't help their cause either

WestEndFoto

The wealth of knowledge on this forum is impressive. Does anybody care to speculate what this means for the D820 and which card slots it will have?

Ironheart

I would bet it will be whatever the new D5 has. Sounds like 2 x XQD. A 50megapixel sensor will generate more than a 100MB RAW file, 10 of those a sec is 1000MB/sec or 1GB/sec.

haroldp

@Ironheart

Because DEC failed to provide any compatibility or adequate utilities in moving from PDP-11 - RSTS / RSX to VAX - VM/S, many of their customers decided it was an opportunity to switch to IBM's then new 4300 CMOS computers and MVS.

I did well helping them to do so (for a modest fee).

Regards .... H

donaldejose

I will speculate that the D810 replacement will have a sensor which is more than 50 mp, the same Expeed processor as in the D5, the same new focusing system as in the D5, the same two memory cards as in the D5 and will be announced late this year.