For example, I had a $500 camera that used CF and it had two sockets. You won't find anything below $1K that has that with SD Cards today, even if it is cheaper and smaller than ever. It is a really odd backslide.
This is speculation but it may have been that back when you bought your $500 camera, a single CF card wasn't been able to hold many photos, so you could insert two cards and start filling the second when the first was full. It could also have been that CF was relatively unreliable.
Today, regular consumers can fit thousands of photos on a single SD card, which from a reputable brand will be pretty reliable (I've never had a Sandisk, Sony or Samsung SD card die on me while shooting). The only people who need extra reliability are professionals who lose a great deal of money in that 1 in 1000 case where an SD card dies.
And they're all $1200+ cameras (with no lenses). That's a substantial price for a feature that has become cheaper to add over the years. An SD-Card bay is under $2, the plastic bespoke door that covers both bays likely costs more than adding the second bay would.
Strikes of artificial price segregation, the whole "prosumer" tier didn't even exist back in the mid to early 2000s.
> The only people who need extra reliability are professionals who lose a great deal of money in that 1 in 1000 case where an SD card dies.
Almost all photos are once in a lifetime. That wedding, birth, or even vacation likely won't happen again (and if it did it would be different anyway). Arguing that nobody "needs" reliability until profits are on the line isn't a particularly compelling argument in my opinion.
I think you're underestimating the cost quite a lot. It's not just a piece of plastic and a few bits of wire, you also need a high performance I/O controller to go with it. Assuming SD card readers aren't massively overpriced, you're looking at closer to $5-$10.
Then there's the space considerations. If you've seen a teardown of a modern camera, especially mirrorless, you've seen that they're quite densely packed. It's not necessarily trivial to find the space for an SD card slot.
I agree that if it were essentially free that more cameras should have them but I'm not so sure that it's as trivial to add them as you make it out to be.
> Arguing that nobody "needs" reliability until profits are on the line isn't a particularly compelling argument in my opinion.
My argument isn't so much that nobody "needs" reliability as due to modern reliability, few people would use it if they had it. It's very rare to hear about a dying SD card so it's not something an average person considers when buying a camera. Even if cameras had dual slots, I doubt your average family going on vacation to Disney would think to buy a second SD card for it.
Since few people want it and there is a cost for it, it makes sense to get rid of it.
[happened to me on day two of a three-day destination wedding... ahh, my stomach still remembers my reaction when I see "Err" on camera... :O]
“prosumer cameras” are weather sealed and fast and have high clean ISO for low light performance
And all around light years ahead of “high end professional” gear from not even 10 years ago
Its just arbitrary gatekeeping
Use what achieves your use case.
I was very happy when the Canon 5D Mark III (released 2012) added a 2nd memory card slot, even though it was "only" SD (much slower at the time), because I could shoot to two cards once. And that was $3500!
Seeing a commercially-available 1Tb SD card amazes me in the same manner.
...well, this is kinda neat.
Years later, I worked for Imprimis (since bought by Seagate), and I worked closely with the manufacturing engineer responsible for the Wren VII line of hard drives. Those were the first consumer-grade SCSI hard drives that had 1GB of raw storage.
I've still got some of the magnet fragments taken from some of the early drives that came off the line. Those damn things can't be removed from your refrigerator just by pulling on them -- they're too strong. You can only slide them, or tip them, and hope you don't get your fingers caught.
We've come a long way.
Also, new spec sets the ceiling at 128TB. 128TB!
I'm guessing there will be another format before we ever reach 128TB, but still. What an amazing time we live in.
Btw, 400GB one is $53 on amazon.
Misery loves company. This has happened more times than people will want to admit.
If only [DSLR] cameras supported encrypted memory cards. [Edit: With smartphone cameras improving so rapidly, perhaps this will become a moot point.]
At least a lot of DSLR or mirrorless ILCs still use full size compactflash or SD cards which are easier to handle and not drop.
It can "move 100 petabytes of data in as little as a few weeks, plus transport time. That same transfer could take more than 20 years to accomplish over a direct connect line with a 1Gbps connection."
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. —Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (1989). Computer Networks. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. p. 57. ISBN 0-13-166836-6.
I would propose making your postcard out of a 9x9 grid of 1TB microSDs and tape to give you an 81TB postcard that can be delivered overnight at the minimum price while providing 11.25 Gbps given the numbers you used.
But amazing to think how far technology has advanced.
That would be pretty freaking amazing.
That's 3 hours.