Best memory cards for the Nikon D850 DSLR camera (XQD, UHS-II and UHS-I)

Alik Griffin tested the most popular memory cards in the Nikon D850 DSLR camera: XQD, UHS-II and UHS-I SD. Here are the results:

Memory Cards USB 3 read USB 3 write Nikon D850
LEXAR 2933X 344 MB/s 202 MB/s 115.45 MB/s
SONY G 400MB/S 330 MB/s 188 MB/s 113.84 MB/s
SONY M 150MB/S 347 MB/s 111 MB/s 97.53 MB/s
SONY M 80MB/S 276 MB/s 30 MB/s 34.72 MB/s
SONY G 269.3 MB/s 234.5 MB/s 97.88 MB/s
DELKIN 250 271.4 MB/s 231.3 MB/s 96.48 MB/s
Sandisk Extreme PRO 300 273.9 MB/s 238.9 MB/s 96.30 MB/s
TOSHIBA Exceria PRO 258.8 MB/s 226.5 MB/s 92.69 MB/s
LEXAR 2000X 272.7 MB/s 244.5 MB/s 92.30 MB/s
TRANSCEND 290.2 MB/s 182.1 MB/s 91.21 MB/s
FUJIFILM Elite II 294.0 MB/s 181.6 MB/s 90.27 MB/s
Sandisk Extreme PRO 280 260.5 MB/s 214.8 MB/s 89.79 MB/s
HOODMAN Steel 2000X 268.7 MB/s 183.9 MB/s 88.05 MB/s
ADATA V90 256.5 MB/s 231.7 MB/s 81.50 MB/s
SONY M 253.2 MB/s 91.62 MB/s 68.34 MB/s
DELKIN 1900X 273.3 MB/s 97.3 MB/s 66.28 MB/s
LEXAR 1000X 153.4 MB/s 84.30 MB/s 55.25 MB/s
Sandisk Extreme PRO U3 98.6 MB/s 90.8 MB/s 65.29 MB/s
KINGSTON U3 98.1 MB/s 90.4 MB/s 64.75 MB/s
DELKIN 633X U3 98.3 MB/s 88.7 MB/s 62.39 MB/s
SONY U3 - old model 96.5 MB/s 84.5 MB/s 58.86 MB/s
SAMSUNG PRO+ U3 97.5 MB/s 87.3 MB/s 58.78 MB/s
TRANSCEND U3 96.7 MB/s 84.9 MB/s 56.11 MB/s
SAMSUNG PRO U1 96.3 MB/s 82.2 MB/s 56.03 MB/s
SAMSUNG PRO U3 97.7 MB/s 78.6 MB/s 53.78 MB/s
PNY Elite U3 96.5 MB/s 66.1 MB/s 49.94 MB/s
Sandisk Extreme Plus U3 99.0 MB/s 64.4 MB/s 49.61 MB/s
SONY U3 - new model 96.7 MB/s 56.2 MB/s 47.89 MB/s
PNY Elite U1 96.5 MB/s 66.5 MB/s 47.43 MB/s
LEXAR 633X U3 93.3 MB/s 67.3 MB/s 46.86 MB/s
Sandisk Extreme U3 72.43 MB/s 54.1 MB/s 42.69 MB/s
LEXAR 600X U1 95.4 MB/s 64.8 MB/s 42.04 MB/s
SANDISK Ultra U1 99.3 MB/s 36.1 MB/s 23.69 MB/s
SAMSUNG U1 Evo 47.7 MB/s 27.3 MB/s 20.23 MB/s

Related posts:

Best XQD memory card for the Nikon D5 (Sony and Lexar XQD cards tested/compared)

Best XQD/SD memory cards for the Nikon D500 (and the D5)

Lexar XQD, CF and SD memory cards performance test on the new Nikon D5/D500 cameras

This entry was posted in Nikon D850 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Vinnypimages

    I son’t suppose anyone has a UHSII 512Gb SD card in the pipeline? V90 would be nice.

    • Spy Black

      The UHS-II speeds aren’t really good either.

    • Allen_Wentz

      SD UHS-II cards tend to get much more expensive than XQD as the sizes go upwards of 128 GB.

      • Vinnypimages

        I know there are 2 manufacturers (Not the big players) who make 256Gb UHSII V90 cards but no one makes 512Gb. I was not expecting them to be cheap but I would like the option. Given V90 and 4K 8K video I am surprised not to see them yet.

    • akkual

      The bottleneck is most likely the resolution and the processing it will need from the camera. Reading sensor to the buffer is one thing, reading the buffer and creating a RAW from it to the memory card is another. I am more than sure that the camera actually writes the pictures faster on the card, but it just spends some time in between doing something else.

  • WoodyM

    wow only 20mb difference from the XQD and UHSII. Shot some birds over the weekend and did not see much difference having both cards in the D850. Lexar 2933x 128 and the Sony G 128

    • Spy Black

      You’d be surprised the noise some make on that. 😉

      • Aldo

        but but… the XQD ‘could’ survive MOUNT DOOM!

      • Allen_Wentz

        Sure we make noise, because the difference in camera performance is huge, _not_ what some of the tests above suggest. Go back and read Steve Perry’s review if you do not trust my observations.

    • Joe Russo

      If I recall correctly, and through some of my own testing, the buffer on the D850 defaults to the lowest speed card in the camera, regardless if it’s being used or not. So to realise the true buffer size of the XQD card, you need to remove the SD from the camera.

      • PhilK

        That too.

      • Jeffry De Meyer

        That is euh, pretty silly

        • Joe Russo

          It’s probably to mitigate any chance of the camera buffer outpacing the memory card. That could result in data loss or corruption, and that option is much much worse.

          • Adam Ottke

            If that’s the case, they really need a firmware update to change this behavior. They should have some way of running “at full speed” until it gets close to filling a particular card (unless it’s mirroring on both cards, of course). But if it’s overflow, I don’t know why that couldn’t be done…

            • James Titanium-Chef

              No one does a memory buss that way. They always move at the slowest memory speed. “Once it gets close to filling” is too late to adjust the buss speed. This is the safest and most reliable way to do it.

      • Only if you record to both cards. Set the second SD slot to overflow only, and the speed will be that of the card in the first XQD slot.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Thanks for that! I hate having to remove the tiny SD card and store it somewhere when I want to optimize camera performance. I never realized just changing the setting would pull the lame SD from the system for performance purposes.

          • Well, that has always been my understanding. But Ed Hassel, below, thinks otherwise. I don’t see why an unused card would impact speed of the other card.

        • Joe Russo

          This is incorrect.

          • You mean Ed is wrong about the D500, or I’m wrong about believing him?

            • Joe Russo

              As long as the SD card is in the camera, the buffer will be limited by the SD card speed, no matter if it’s set to overflow or not.

            • Interesting. What is the basis for your conclusion?

            • Joe Russo

              The fact that when I only have the Lexar XQD card in, the buffer goes to 50 plus photos, and when I put the SD card in the second slot, it drops to 20 something.

            • That’s what I thought, but how to do read the buffer capacity? The Nikon manual says 51 shots for RAW lossless compressed with XQD, but is there a way to read this on camera to see the difference with the SD card?

            • Joe Russo

              Format XQD card.
              Hold down shutter until continuous high speed shooting becomes 1 frame per second.
              Press playback button to see how many photos were taken.

              Format XQD card.
              Insert formatted SD Card.
              Hold down shutter until continuous high speed shooting becomes 1 frame per second.
              Press playback button to see how many photos were taken.

              Remove XQD card
              Hold down shutter until continuous high speed shooting becomes 1 frame per second.
              Press playback button to see how many photos were taken.

            • OK, I did the three tests.
              1) shooting never went down to 1 fps. After about 35 shots, the 7 fps started stuttering a bit – maybe down to 5 fps, but never stopped even after more than 100 shots.
              2) Same as above.
              3) After 21 shots, the frame rate went to 1 fps, and it took about a minute to write to the card.

              So I’m just going to leave the SD card in there.

            • Joe Russo

              Wow very nice! What SD card do you have?

            • The SD card is a crappy old 16 GB Panasonic SD HC. The XQD Card is a new Sony G 128 GB 400 MB/s card.

    • PhilK

      I don’t know what their test methodology is, but just looking at the chart posted here, It looks to me like the bottleneck in this case is the D850’s read/write performance, which is not taking advantage of the speed of XQD very well as it is topping-out at a transfer rate less than 1/3 of what the card is capable of. (In the case of the 2933x Lexar XQD card)

      • akkual

        The read/write speed most likely is far more than recorded in the test – most likely topping with the card write speed. The test has just revealed that moving around those massive 46mpix information lumps will take its toll on internal processing – so the bottleneck is the processing, not the write/read.

        • PhilK

          I would have to review the test methodology to know better.

          But the fact that the differential between SD and XQD is pretty small tells me that something here is clearly not optimized well for write performance on higher-performance media. Either the hardware or test methodology or both.

          • akkual

            The blog post itself says that it is most likely the processing, as (I guess) the testing prodcedure was to shoot buffer full and measure the time it takes to clear it and divide that with the file sizes. I would assume that the camera might check that the writing succeeded, which would mean first a write cycle and then a read cycle, this would effectively about half the announced speed of the card with that measuring setup. And surprisingly, that is what the result pretty much show.

  • Allen_Wentz

    These tests do not jive with my real world tests on the D500 and with other folks’ real-world D500 usage reports. Not that I doubt them in the least, but rather that the test protocols are not real-world representative on D500 – and of course this is a D850 article, with which I have no experience.

    However some observations:

    1) The tests were done using uncompressed RAW. That is something I personally would never shoot, preferring lossless compressed. Choosing uncompressed is not a test choice I would make; I want to approximate real shooting as closely as possible.

    2) These tests show a few cases where UHS-II is approaches XQD performance.
    a) That does not real-world happen on D500, ever. Is D850 that different?
    b) Specified performance for XQD vs. UHS-II performance are not that close either.
    c) Lexar’s published tests above are in line with my experience but not with the tests above by Alik.
    d) I have to suspect the testing by Alik Griffin somehow is skewing results as regards to how close XQD and UHS-II can sometimes be.

    3) My guess is that the comparisons among cards by Alik are pretty solid.

    I certainly respect and appreciate the effort Alik put in to doing the tests and sharing them with us.

    • Spy Black

      2) Neither are as fast as they should be.
      a) Duh!
      d) Get over it.

      That said, they’re just not that good. Either one.

      • Allen_Wentz

        As to 2a, of course they are different. My query “Is D850 that different?” was as regards “does the D850 itself somehow make XQD and SD UHS-II performance closer?”

        My expectation as well as reports by users is that D850 real-world has a large performance benefit when using best-XQD versus best-SD, larger than shown in Alik’s tests.

        Card/camera performance evaluation is inseparable from frame rate and buffer operation. Looking at Steve Perry’s and others’ tests I think that overall, D850 performance on lossless compressed files with the XQD card only is very good for a 45 MP DSLR at 7 fps.

        I agree with you that card/buffer performance is not as good at 9 fps, not as fast as I would wish it to be. The number of seconds of continuous shooting at 7 fps is much more respectable than the number of seconds of continuous shooting at 9 fps. But if I get the D850 (rather than a version of D5) it will not be to add an expensive heavy grip just to go from 7 to 9 fps anyway. Only the 7 fps D850 performance matters to me personally.

        Either way, buffer recycle time and operation while the buffer is full seem to be excellent.

    • When I tested the Nikon D500 last year it was in fact faster. So I’m not really sure why the D850 is slower when I use the same setup for all the cameras I test. It could have something to do with the files being close to 100MB. The Nikon D500 files are 45MB in comparison. So it’s possible these huge files just need more time in the oven before being offloaded from the buffer to the memory card. I choose to shoot uncompressed with these test because I would think it would be less work on the processor. Maybe that’s not the case.

      • Ed Hassell

        A simple test might be switching the D850 to DX mode and timing a few of the cards again. You could also test a few cards with lossless 14-bit compression in both FX and DX modes. The results could be very interesting.

      • Vinnypimages

        I also don’t shoot uncompressed. What I do know is that I can see 4-5 FPS with a full buffer, on XQD which falls significantly with UHSII SD cards. Without any other bottleneck that still seems like the XQD card is writing way faster than 115 MBs?

      • RC Jenkins

        There’s an irony in that uncompressed is not always faster–it depends on a the bottleneck.

        If the bottleneck is the process of compression, then uncompressed is faster.

        If the bottleneck is in the process of transporting / bandwidth, including the process of reading & writing, then compressed is faster.

        I suspect that the bandwidth is the bottleneck. Processors themselves are very fast and purpose-built for this type of work. Just a wild guess, but I’d think that compressed would end up being faster.

        • PhilK

          Not only those things, but there are a plethora of ways the electronics can be optimized, and Nikon could certainly have optimized their data-processing/transfer path for eg lossless compressed.

          The other very real possibility is that Nikon simply chose to make tradeoffs in performance in areas they didn’t feel were that critical, to gain performance in other areas. (eg, physical size/cost of the electronics necessary to increase system bandwidth, battery life, heat generation, image processing, competing for CPU cycles for any other concurrent operation including autofocus, metering, viewfinder displays, etc etc etc.)

      • PhilK

        It’s possible that the data pipeline was not optimized for uncompressed, yes.

        For example the silicon they are using may have built-in hardware compression algorithms that work faster than doing compression in firmware, and depending on where in the pipeline the compression is done can make big differences in overall system performance.

        Also see my reply below to RC Jenkins.

    • My experience with D850 is similar to yours on D500.

  • Scott M.

    Lexar XQD price doubled from a few months ago. 64g used to be $89 now the 32g is.

    • ITN

      Lexar wasn’t making enough money from the memory cards to sustain operations under the original owner. So of course prices have to be adjusted for profit to be made.

      However, currently there is a shortage of Lexar cards until the new owner’s labeling can be attached to the cards and opportunistic resellers may be temporarily increasing prices because there is a shortage.

    • Eric Bowles

      These are not Lexar authorized dealers. The authorized dealers can’t get Lexar cards at all right now. They are reported to be restocking in January. Just wait a month on your XQD cards and use a fast UHS-II SD card.

      Adorama is taking orders for the 64 GB Lexar 2933x XQD card. They report it as backordered and won’t charge you until it’s available. It’s $93. That’s not good if you need one now, but if you can wait, it’s a good option.

  • Ed Hassell

    Can’t comment on performance with the D850 directly as I don’t have one yet. However, as the module controlling card access is identical for both the D500 and the D850 (although buffering RAM size is different), I would expect very similar write speeds for the various memory cards. Lexar XQD aced everyone on the D500, and, even the fastest SD II cards slowed things down considerably.

  • Johnnie Mo

    Are U saying Nikon writing speed is only 115mb/s?

  • if only Lexar XQD were back in stock…. despite Longsys promises – still not the case.

    • Scott M.

      They are. Amazon. B&H is not the center of the photo universe.

      • marymig

        As is becoming clearer with their noticeable lag on the D850.

      • if you want to pay $300 for 128GB card. I don’t – will wait for Adorama to have it back in stock. 🙂

      • whisky

        Amazon. B&H. Ebay. et al have made it so easy to be lazy consumers again. 🙂

      • It isn’t?! Maybe just earth revolves around B&H?

  • Fred

    Just by reading the comments I wonder if these seemingly discordant results ( such slow speeds for the XQD ) are due to the settings used for storage?
    The article does not provide the settings, e.g. write to both cards simultaneously versus write to the other only if the first is full.
    Would these kind of choices have any effect on the write speed chosen by the camera?
    I confess I haven’t had a look at the tester’s website to see the setup.

    • Ed Hassell

      From extensive experience with my D500 bodies, just having a card in the SD slot — even with the very fastest SD UHS-II cards and regardless of your settings not writing to it — slows down the writing process to the XQD slot to the slower speed of that SD card. By itself, the Lexar 2933X XQD card is the fastest card currently [un]available.

      • How did (or could) you test this? How to get exactly 20 shots at 7 fps to time the difference? I’d like to check this on the D850.

        • Never mind. I did. The slow SD card had no impact on XQD write speeds when on overflow on the D850

    • ITN

      It must be a bottleneck elsewhere than the camera or the card, perhaps a file type which the camera doesn’t efficiently handle has been selected.

  • Nick

    um..who really needs these ultrafast read/write speeds? and if you answer, please come up with a resonable answer. My take as a pro is unless you engage in very specialized applications such as high-speed sports and you constantly shoot at 6-10 fps or you are a heavy DSLR video shooter, i have never needed it. Ever.

    • ITN

      These are very slow write speeds actually, one would expect 280MB/s from XQD as other Nikon cameras give. What is it required for? It’s nice never to have to wait for the camera to be ready to shoot. It’s nice never to have to wait for a card contents to be transferred to computer, you can just keep working.

    • Vinnypimages

      I would regularly hit the buffer at events or occasionally wildlife (Not a sports shooter) on the D810s.I know spray and pray, but if something is only happening once I would rather spend a few extra minutes in photo mechanic. No client ever said you have given me too many to chose from. I have hit the buffer once or twice on the D850 with the grip but not without and I think that could be down to the cards and means I need to carry the D5s far less often.

    • bonem

      Good for you and never needing it. Everyone is not you and gets to purchase what they want regardless of anything. I could buy two to brush my teeth with if I wanted to. Or use as paper weights. Or dog toys. I did actually buy the two fastest. Very glad I did too. I don’t like having less than the best.

    • Ed Hassell

      I shot summer league college baseball this past summer. I caught one sequence of a foul ball from just off the field near 3rd base of the ball about 10 inches in front of the bat, in contact with the bat, about 30 inches off the bat, two shots of the ball in mid air with the batter still in the background, and then I lost it — just as it slammed into my thigh. A very painful way to get an incredible sequence. D500 & 70-200 f/2.8E, 10-frame high speed burst, 1/1000th second, f/2.8, ISO 4000, zooming to frame the action and letting the AF system work its magic, the 1st a miss, then the 5 perfect shots, then 4 of nothing as I doubled over in pain.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Buffer performance is mostly what matters to me, and that is facilitated by fast cards.

      We agree that most jobs do not push up against buffer limitations even with slower SD cards. But some shoots can run up to buffer limitations with SD, and there are enough such shoots that in sum total they no longer qualify as “very specialized applications.”
      – Most sports, not just high speed sports. Baseball for instance is slow as hell, except when it is not.
      – All kids.
      – Most wildlife, including all birds in flight.
      – Music events.
      – Rodeo.
      – Car racing.
      – Air shows.
      – Horse and dog racing.
      – Dog performance events.

  • caffeinedrink

    It’s been a few months and I wonder if there are any firmware issues with the D850. I haven’t read about anything yet.

    • Connor

      I’ve had mine since launch and I’ve yet to run into any bugs or camera lock up

    • Nothing major – I’ve read about some isolated incidents, but nothing worth reporting.

    • bonem

      I found a bug. Auto focus setting, a2 – AF-S works as “Release” for both settings. The shutter activated on press even in “Focus” setting. Should only activate if something comes into focus. So “Focus” isn’t working correctly.
      This is what I use for focus trap method of getting a shot. For when a squirrel or something comes into the spot I want in focus. Used it to catch someone snooping in my mailbox once too. lol.
      Can anyone confirm this too?

  • Radu

    Are these SHOOTING speeds or COPY speeds from card to computer?

  • The XQD numbers have to be wrong. I’ve been using a pair of Sony G 256 GB XQD cards with my D850’s to shoot timelapse at 5 fps on continuous low and it has never drained the buffer. And this is shooting 4000-5000 frames at a time, each frame is full 8K resolution in compressed lossless raw. At 50-57MB per photo, 5 photos per second, my camera is writing at least 250MB/s to the cards and still not breaking a sweat.

    • ITN

      I agree, the camera should be writing at 250-280MB/s on contemporary XQD cards. Something has to be wrong in the camera settings of the tester to experience such low write speeds.

  • David Gottlieb

    Honestly, I don’t really care about the incremental speed of the card. I care if it works, and if I can take photographs with ease. I am very happy with how my D850 performs with the new and with the old cards I have!!!!!

    • Allen_Wentz

      The reason that I rant “why use a slower card” about the card speed is because of “the ability to take photographs with ease” that you reference. Obviously JPEG-only or for landscape, dumb cat pix and other relatively static captures card speed is irrelevant.

      However with many captures of moving subjects it is a huge benefit to have the ability to not overfill the buffer, and card speed directly impacts that. Imagine shooting BIF pix of an eagle, and just as it dives on prey the buffer fills. Or shooting a car race, and just as a car flips the buffer fills. Or shooting a rodeo rider, and the horse and rider flip – but the buffer fills. I have that rodeo shot, the whole sequence; no filled buffer because it was 35mm film on a fresh roll :~).

      • David Gottlieb

        I understand all that. Since we are unable to manufacture our own cards, we are limited to the cards that are available on the market. So there is absolutely nothing I can do to improve the cards and increase the buffer. So just go out and shoot with what is offered.
        Are people ever satisfied?

        • Ed Hassell

          Actually, my buffers could be changed from 24 or 36 to either 250 or 750 exposures: I still have three F2 bodies and one each of the two bulk film backs. They work and work well; but, bejeebers are they awkward and heavy.

          • David Gottlieb

            I had one of those bulk film backs. With a Motor Drive and a bulk film back, the camera was heavy and not well balanced. I gave up on the bulk film backs.

        • Allen_Wentz

          The point is that we CAN improve card buffer performance by A LOT simply by buying the best XQD and keeping the SD in overflow-only mode when we need top performance.

          P.S. an F2 with motor drive and a fresh 36 roll of 35mm was capable of about a 9-second 4 fps burst IIRC. That was pretty good. At 7 fps a D850 will not go that long, but it goes long enough for me IF and only if the lame SD card is out of the process.

          • David Gottlieb

            That’s my whole point. Buy the best,as you say, but I have found that my older XQD cards work fine on the D850….

      • TurtleCat

        I think it also depends on shooting style. I can respect those who want to shoot 200 fast frames in a row in that situation. However, for all the action/wildlife that I do I wouldn’t do a burst that long in any case. My bursts tend to be 10-15 at most. So in that sense there’s no material advantage in the buffer clearing out 20% faster or even 50% faster on my D500. Plus there is another factor: are you being paid? If not then it matters even less.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Some folks want to make up some “shooting style” but that it is not it at all, unless by shooting style you mean including moving subjects in one’s photography.

          It is not about some shooting style of “needing 200 fast frames in a row.” It is about being able to shoot multiple repetitive bursts when necessary. I gave examples above but will add another easy one: a ski racer going through a gate is a pretty good burst, and if the racer then crashes that can immediately be a very long second burst.

          And how does being paid make buffer competence no longer matter? E.g. if I am shooting and selling ski race pix a good card/buffer gives one confidence and more saleable captures.

          • TurtleCat

            How does being paid make a difference? I would think it obvious. If there is no money involved then the pressure and desire to do so many consecutive bursts is greatly reduced.

            I would also think shooting style is obvious. It is about how long and how frequent you choose to burst plus the subject matter. And, with the other point, how important it is to (theoretically) improve your chances to get the shot.

            Look, we all know your opinions about XQD but that doesn’t magically devalue or invalidate other people’s opinions. Your opinion is a preference and not the definitive way of using the camera.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Sorry but I shoot the same way and have the same opinions about using the most competent cards available whether I am being paid or not. Paid or unpaid I always want to get the best shot the gear and my skillset allows.

            • TurtleCat

              And that’s perfectly valid but it’s also perfectly valid that XQD isn’t a requirement to enjoy the camera. 🙂

            • Allen_Wentz

              I fully agree that XQD isn’t a requirement to enjoy the camera. XQD is, however, a requirement for the camera to max out its performance. That is why I continue to encourage Nikon to include whatever tech necessary (including XQD or whatever faster card storage comes next) to allow highest performance.

              Although my personal preference is for two identical dual fastest-available cards (currently XQD), discussions here have shown me how some photogs do take advantage of also having a slower old format (SD) card in the camera. When Nikon gave us XQD+SD in the D500 I adapted my workflow accordingly. As long as at least one fastest-available card slot is in a body Allen is happy (not that anyone cares…).

            • TurtleCat

              Lol, fair enough! I agree that XQD is needed to max out shutter/buffer performance. And I’d like to see the camera companies press on with giving us more although I probably won’t use more in that area. Having matched storage does make more sense, though.

        • I am not getting paid. It is for me, so it really matters.

          • TurtleCat

            Fair enough. I’m not getting paid and it really doesn’t matter. So it’s still an opinion either way 🙂

      • Scott M.
  • Pk Bullock

    I’ve decided I don’t like having to use two different types of memory. It seemed cool when I got my D300s as my return to photography. Now, it seems like wasted engineering.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I too do not like two card types, but XQD is unequivocally necessary for max performance, and some photogs do not care about performance but like old slow SD cards for their own reasons. Ergo Nikon services both sides of their market with the XQD/SD compromise.

  • DSP~

    F* Nikon and Sony for putting in different slots in the first place.
    I need to waste my money on XQD cards, just to waste most of the performance when shooting to both slots? I will never get over this, honestly. I am in rage every time this topic comes up.
    Having to buy new cards is fair play, but having to buy new cards just to combine them with other slow as f* cards is just mind boggling.
    Two UHS-II slots with minimal overhead would have done a better job than a mediocre XQD slot and a horribly slow UHS-II slot.

    *blahblah* Just use one XQD card when you need to shoot fast sequences
    *blahblah* The buffer is large enough
    *blahblah* You dont need to shoot redundant
    *blahblah* It works fine in practice, why do you even bother
    *blahblah* Look at Sony, they have even worse card slots

    NO! If I buy a frickin expensive camera as a workhorse, it should perform at its best. Every feature should have its purpose and should be well engineered.
    But no, lets do a clever marketing trick and force everyone to buy expensive XQD cards “because they are so faaaaast” and butcher all the performance with a useless second card slot.

    Thanks for nothing, Nikon!
    I’ll wait for the next iteration of the D7XX series for my next upgrade in the hopes that it will have two identical slots. No matter how bad they are.

    • bonem

      This is one of my favorite rants I’ve ever read on here. Thank you! I’m laughing at the blah blahs! It’s true I was thinking those exact things as solutions.

    • David Gottlieb

      All good points except….
      1 – You won’t shoot with the D850, which is an incredible camera and a game changer in the DSLR world. But since you are looking for perfection (which you will never find) you will miss the joy of shooting with this great camera….
      2 – The D850 does perform incredibly well. It performs at its best. Just as the Nikon D1 performed at its best. The next iteration of the D850 will probably perform better, but that will also perform at its very best, but it probably won’t be good enough for you.
      3 – Every feature does have its purpose and performs as intended. Unfortunately, this isn’t good enough for you.
      ——-So, while those of us who now shoot with a D850 are making beautiful photos, you are busy whining. Good luck in finding your perfect camera.

  • Ric of The LBC

    The best card is the one you have with you.
    Isn’t that how the saying goes?

  • WoodyM

    last night I received an email from Adorama saying Don’t Miss Out This deal won’t last forever. Lexar XQD 128GB. They are on backorder on there site, @$156.95 they will let put a order. Any one else get this?

  • Back to top