corrupt memory card (again) (camera's fault?)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/30/2009 09:04:20 PM · #2

That stinks!

I'm not sure if a camera can corrupt it. Do you ever format your card, or just erase the photos?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

08/30/2009 09:07:46 PM · #3

I usually "cut" the files from the card and paste them into a folder on my harddrive.

I also format every couple of weeks in camera.

jeger

Canon EOS-5D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/30/2009 09:10:32 PM · #4

Sounds like you probably just have some bad luck. I recently had a card that became corrupt. It was more than 3 years old.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

08/30/2009 09:29:24 PM · #5

Originally posted by karmat:

I seemingly have ANOTHER corrupt memory card. Either I have really bad luck, or my camera is doing something funky.

Can a camera (in this case the 30D) corrupt a card.

:( :( :( :(

My D70s had started to eat cards.......my most predominant reason for moving on to the D200.

It gets really weird and slashes up some images, drops some entirely, and some that look like they're okay, won't open in PS.

After it ate three cards, I pretty much figured that it was time to get a new(er) camera.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/31/2009 08:29:26 AM · #6

Karmat - what brand of card? Cheapies or a `decent` make? I was thinking of this only this morning and wondered if its worth me replacing all my cards once a year (obviously bearing in mind I shoot a lot of weddings) selling on the old ones as used but working, or just keep using them indefinitely - I cant see it being a problem with your camera.

Does it happen with both JPG and RAW or does it seem to happen with only one file type?

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/31/2009 08:33:25 AM · #7

Oh, and you should reformat EVERY time you re-use a card - never ever settle for "Delete all".. And dont use the PC to format, only use your camera.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/31/2009 10:45:04 AM · #8

So far, it has happened with a kingston pro and a dane-elec.

it has happened in both RAW and jpeg.

and i don't think i've ever deleted anything in camera (Or on my harddrive, much to my hubby's chagrin), but i do need to start formatting more often.

My husband was able to recover at his work 'puter this morning. There was a TIF image on there, so I don't know if I accidentally did something to screw up the buffer.

I shoot primarily little league sports, so it isn't quite as stressful if I lose some images (except for my son -- his game was among those lost), but it is still very annoying.

All of my cards are "old," so I may just invest in 4 or 5 new ones to use.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/31/2009 10:53:29 AM · #9

Originally posted by Simms:

Oh, and you should reformat EVERY time you re-use a card - never ever settle for "Delete all".. And dont use the PC to format, only use your camera.

Interestingly, I never reformat the cards, and only delete the photos using the computer/card-reader. I have a couple of SmartMedia cards I've been using (in my Olympus) since 2000, and 4 SD cards for the Canon I've had for quite a while.

The only card I've had fail was a 2GB SD card which (I think) crashed when the camera's batteries died during a write procedure, and file recovery software retrieved most of those.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/31/2009 12:29:28 PM · #10

Personally I always format rather than delete. But then again, I find formatting on the camera to be more or less instantaneous whereas I've always found deleting to be incredibly slow

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/31/2009 12:35:57 PM · #11

While deleting all images on a card (as opposed to re-formatting each time) won't hurt anything, formatting will give better performance.

The reason being is that formatting will ensure that the images captured will be saved on the card using contiguous sectors/blocks. If all you ever do is delete, then the files are really deleted and the new ones will take the place of the old ones and, if the file sizes differ (which they probably do), then you get into a fragmented state with the files on the card.

So, saving images on a fragmented card will take longer since the file is split up across non-contiguous sectors. Reading from a fragmented card also takes longer, as the the images have to be "assembled" from multiple, non-contiguous sectors before displaying them.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/31/2009 01:51:52 PM · #12

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

So, saving images on a fragmented card will take longer since the file is split up across non-contiguous sectors. Reading from a fragmented card also takes longer, as the the images have to be "assembled" from multiple, non-contiguous sectors before displaying them.

I think this might be true, but it is more true for hard drives, where the heads have to physically seek around different parts of the disk to find the file fragments -- it should be far less of an issue with the solid-state (flash) memory used in cards, which are more closely related to your RAM chips. I think all the cameras I have are so slow that the difference is not noticable.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

08/31/2009 02:01:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by AperturePriority:
So, saving images on a fragmented card will take longer since the file is split up across non-contiguous sectors. Reading from a fragmented card also takes longer, as the the images have to be "assembled" from multiple, non-contiguous sectors before displaying them.

I think this might be true, but it is more true for hard drives, where the heads have to physically seek around different parts of the disk to find the file fragments -- it should be far less of an issue with the solid-state (flash) memory used in cards, which are more closely related to your RAM chips. I think all the cameras I have are so slow that the difference is not noticable.

You are correct in that there is no physical "head" moving around (seeking) for the fragmented pieces of a file, but there is seeking, nevertheless, and this can not possibly be a fast as a contiguous file. Is it noticable? Probably not.

Having said that, formatting is my recommendation instead of deleting all images on a card.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

08/31/2009 02:04:14 PM · #14

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by AperturePriority:
So, saving images on a fragmented card will take longer since the file is split up across non-contiguous sectors. Reading from a fragmented card also takes longer, as the the images have to be "assembled" from multiple, non-contiguous sectors before displaying them.

I think this might be true, but it is more true for hard drives, where the heads have to physically seek around different parts of the disk to find the file fragments -- it should be far less of an issue with the solid-state (flash) memory used in cards, which are more closely related to your RAM chips. I think all the cameras I have are so slow that the difference is not noticable.

You are correct in that there is no physical "head" moving around (seeking) for the fragmented pieces of a file, but there is seeking, nevertheless, and this can not possibly be a fast as a contiguous file. Is it noticable? Probably not.

Having said that, formatting is my recommendation instead of deleting all images on a card.

Also, if files are fragmented, fewer files will fit on the card as info regarding the fragments needs to be stored to allow a file to be put back together when it is read. The more fragmented a card gets, the fewer files get stored. May not be an issue, just something to be aware of.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/31/2009 03:02:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I think you are correct that fewer files will fit on a card, but for a slightly different reason: every storage device (except I think under UNIX/Linux) divides the space into "blocks" of some given size, based on the overall space available. Any data written to a block "takes up" the whole block, even if there is only a single byte stored in it, so a fragmented file can use up more blocks than if written contiguously.

The directory area (which keeps track of what's in each block) of the device is fixed (which is what determines the block allocation size), and is why there's never as much storage space for files as stated as the device size once it is formatted.

08/31/2009 04:42:16 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

...The directory area (which keeps track of what's in each block) of the device is fixed (which is what determines the block allocation size), and is why there's never as much storage space for files as stated as the device size once it is formatted.

That, and the fact that some blocks are rendered inaccessible by the factory for reasons such as not passing quality assurance testing. Each memory card is allowed a certain number/percentage of bad blocks before it is deemed a reject (the same goes for hard disks).

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/31/2009 04:55:34 PM · #17

Originally posted by karmat:

All of my cards are "old," so I may just invest in 4 or 5 new ones to use.

FYI- you can still get three 4GB SanDisk Extreme III cards for $35 shipped.

08/31/2009 05:13:44 PM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by karmat:
All of my cards are "old," so I may just invest in 4 or 5 new ones to use.

FYI- you can still get three 4GB SanDisk Extreme III cards for $35 shipped.

That "deal" is from "Abe's of Maine". Aren't they swindlers? Won't they tell you that they are out-of-stock, but the three-pack of memory cards also come bundled with a new camera, which they do have in stock?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III