How much does cutting-edge AF matter? Watch Nikon

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

I also easily shoot rhousands of photos per week when I use the
camera, but in the past 23 years I haven't had a memory card
failure.

Which is statistically irrelevant.

Do you have (real) statistics how often SD cards fail,

search for sd card failure statistics. among the results are stories of
people having 'never had a problem' and then having a card fail.

if
possible by camera brand?

it's not dependent on the camera brand.

however, if the camera is causing the card to fail, then the camera is
defective. either get it repaired, or better yet, don't take chances
and dispose of it.

On 2020-10-03 20:32, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 3 October 2020 at 01:13:38 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Oct 2, 2020, RichA wrote

2 slots is like an extended warranty; most experts in commerce will tell you
it's a waste of money, and the math proves it.
100% correct. Until you lose a wedding shoot, or something else, where
“shoot� becomes what the client does to you.

Do you cower in your house during a lightning storm too? Do you feel cheated if you don't win a lottery or if you chose numbers that were "so close?" They are all signs of the general public's inability to understand statistics and weigh risk. Boiled-down, it's gullibility and it is without doubt the most dangerous (to society) trait humans possess.

Bad comparisons are worse than not understanding the statistics and what
the consequence of failure will be v. the cost of that risk when a
failure occurs.

If you're under contract to deliver wedding photos and you fail to do so
over an equipment failure, it could be quite costly.

This is not at all the same as an extended warranty since the wedding
cannot be re-produced and a refund won't be satisfactory to the couple
nor the photographer's reputation.



--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2020-10-03 20:55, Bill W wrote:
On Oct 3, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 3 October 2020 at 01:13:38 UTC-4, Bill W wrote:
On Oct 2, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):
On Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 14:06:46 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In , Alfred
Molon wrote:

What is the second card slot needed for? My camera has two card
slots, but I've been using only one for the past years.

They can be configured in different ways. You can have double the
storage,
one
for RAW the other for JPEG or, as preferred by professionals, one will
be
a
backup of the other.

But is all that really needed, given that there are huge memory
cards (1TB) and the professional will backup the images on the
computer anyway?
the backup protects against card failure.

if you're writing to one card and it fails, you won't have any images
to back up on the computer.

with a second backup card, you will.

it's basically a raid-1.

2 slots is like an extended warranty; most experts in commerce will tell
you
it's a waste of money, and the math proves it.
100% correct. Until you lose a wedding shoot, or something else, where
“shoot� becomes what the client does to you.

Do you cower in your house during a lightning storm too? Do you feel cheated
if you don't win a lottery or if you chose numbers that were "so close?" They
are all signs of the general public's inability to understand statistics and
weigh risk. Boiled-down, it's gullibility and it is without doubt the most
dangerous (to society) trait humans possess.

I’m certain that I know much more about probability than you are assuming,
and you might know less than you think. The probability of something
happening is only one consideration. What is as important is the damage, or
cost, of the undesired outcome, along with what it takes to prevent that bad
outcome. Since that bad outcome can be very, very bad, and since all it takes
is a second card to seriously reduce the risk, you might want to rethink your
position.

+1


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2020-10-04 04:46, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2020-10-03 18:59, Alfred Molon wrote:
I also easily shoot rhousands of photos per week when I use the
camera, but in the past 23 years I haven't had a memory card
failure.

Which is statistically irrelevant.

Do you have (real) statistics how often SD cards fail, if
possible by camera brand?

I posted a link further up. It is not the best source (and the author
of it makes it clear).

And it's not the "camera brand" that fails, it's the memory cards.

What you're failing to understand is that just because you haven't had a
SD card fail to date it doesn't mean you won't have a fail at some time
in the future. For someone who claims to take thousands of photos per
week when using his camera, and IIRC, doing some amount of travel to do
so, that is a pretty silly risk profile even if you do backup to a
computer daily.

As an aside, back in the film days when National Geographic photogs
would shoot 20,000 - 30,000 frames per article, they would ship them
regularly home via 2 couriers, alternating the order of the film rolls.
(ie: all even numbered ones with UPS; all odd ones with FedEx) to cut
the risk of loss even though such losses were very, very rare.

Two card cameras are analogous to that.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

In article ,
says...

I posted a link further up. It is not the best source (and the author
of it makes it clear).

In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim.

And it's not the "camera brand" that fails, it's the memory cards.

If there was a failure, it could be a combination of both - the
device writing to the card or the card. Perhaps some camera
brands are more reliable.

What you're failing to understand is that just because you haven't had a
SD card fail to date it doesn't mean you won't have a fail at some time
in the future.

And somebody might steal your camera, you might be late for the
photo shoot, the flash might fail and so on. **** can happen.

For someone who claims to take thousands of photos per
week when using his camera, and IIRC, doing some amount of travel to do
so, that is a pretty silly risk profile even if you do backup to a
computer daily.

That's just silly in your mind.

If you are so concerned about memory card failures, why don't
PCs all come with two drives/SSDs in a RAID? That would protect
against hard drive/SSD failures.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Oct 4, 2020, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):


And somebody might steal your camera, you might be late for the
photo shoot, the flash might fail and so on. **** can happen.

Just for one simple example, do you leave the camera in your unlocked car,
windows open, in plain sight? Or do you take some simple precautions, like
putting it in the trunk, and locking the car? If you do take precautions, why
bother? Someone might still steal it, or steal the whole car. What’s the
point in trying? **** happens, right?

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

I posted a link further up. It is not the best source (and the author
of it makes it clear).

In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim.

do a search yourself. there's ample data and numerous real world
stories of people who lost photos. some were able to recover them,
while others had a total loss.

And it's not the "camera brand" that fails, it's the memory cards.

If there was a failure, it could be a combination of both - the
device writing to the card or the card. Perhaps some camera
brands are more reliable.

card failures have nothing to do with camera failures.

either can fail, which is why pro photographers use dual cards and
carry backup cameras and numerous fully charged batteries.

What you're failing to understand is that just because you haven't had a
SD card fail to date it doesn't mean you won't have a fail at some time
in the future.

And somebody might steal your camera, you might be late for the
photo shoot, the flash might fail and so on. **** can happen.

the point is to minimize the risk as much as possible.

For someone who claims to take thousands of photos per
week when using his camera, and IIRC, doing some amount of travel to do
so, that is a pretty silly risk profile even if you do backup to a
computer daily.

That's just silly in your mind.

not at all.

If you are so concerned about memory card failures, why don't
PCs all come with two drives/SSDs in a RAID? That would protect
against hard drive/SSD failures.

some do.

users in mission critical situations have multiple redundancies so that
there is no single point of failure.

what do you think would happen if you went to the hospital and they
said 'our hard drives crashed and we lost your medical records' ?

On 2020-10-04 13:36, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...

I posted a link further up. It is not the best source (and the author
of it makes it clear).

In other words, you have nothing to back up your claim.

No. That's not what I said. I said it is not the best source. But it
is a source.

And as stated in that linked video where they sample many thousands of
users there is a clear correlation:

Shoot more photos : More chance of memory card failures.

And it's not the "camera brand" that fails, it's the memory cards.

If there was a failure, it could be a combination of both - the
device writing to the card or the card. Perhaps some camera
brands are more reliable.

Most people who have memory card failures replace them with a new card
and keep going, it's mostly cards, not the cameras. And if the camera
fails, that card will likely work in another camera.

And again: it's not the camera brand that causes card failures.


What you're failing to understand is that just because you haven't had a
SD card fail to date it doesn't mean you won't have a fail at some time
in the future.

And somebody might steal your camera, you might be late for the
photo shoot, the flash might fail and so on. **** can happen.

Indeed. So pros mitigate that by using dual card systems so that single
point of failure is removed. They also typically have 3 or more cameras
with them (depending on the event) and protect against theft.
Professionals strive to not be late.

IOW: there are many things you can control and that includes choosing
dual card cameras.


For someone who claims to take thousands of photos per
week when using his camera, and IIRC, doing some amount of travel to do
so, that is a pretty silly risk profile even if you do backup to a
computer daily.

That's just silly in your mind.

Not at all. You're just peddling to justify your opinion.


If you are so concerned about memory card failures, why don't
PCs all come with two drives/SSDs in a RAID? That would protect
against hard drive/SSD failures.

But it wouldn't protect against theft or fire.

That's why I do backups of various kinds and at various times with data
stored offline onsite and offsite.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

In article l-
september.org, says...

Just for one simple example, do you leave the camera in your unlocked car,
windows open, in plain sight? Or do you take some simple precautions, like
putting it in the trunk, and locking the car? If you do take precautions, why
bother? Someone might still steal it, or steal the whole car. What?s the
point in trying? **** happens, right?

Of course I take precautions. That was just an example to
highlight that things can go wrong for a number of reasons.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article ,
says...

No. That's not what I said. I said it is not the best source. But it
is a source.

That's just a clickbait video which the author made to gather
some hits. The information content is minimal, it's like saying
"things fail, and the more you use them, the more likely you are
to experience a failure". That kind of statement can be made
about everything.

And as stated in that linked video where they sample many thousands of
users there is a clear correlation:

Shoot more photos : More chance of memory card failures.

And how big exactly is that risk?

Most people who have memory card failures replace them with a
new card
and keep going, it's mostly cards, not the cameras. And if the camera
fails, that card will likely work in another camera.

And again: it's not the camera brand that causes card failures.

How do you know what causes failures? What for instance if the
camera behaves in some unexpected way during the write process?

Indeed. So pros mitigate that by using dual card systems so that single
point of failure is removed. They also typically have 3 or more cameras
with them (depending on the event) and protect against theft.
Professionals strive to not be late.

IOW: there are many things you can control and that includes choosing
dual card cameras.

Yes, but you focus on things which might actually happen. You
don't walk around with a helmet to protect yourself against
meteorites.

Not at all. You're just peddling to justify your opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean with "peddle" - never heard this word
before.

Anyway, to summarise it, in your opinion memory card failure is
a significant risk, so significant that you need a camera with
two slots.
Personally, I choose a camera based on the features /
specification I need, dual memory card slot not being one of
them.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site