[Fogel70]

Or if the camera was in an explosion, fell in to a void, burned in a fire etc etc.










Sigh...

Not you are silly. Water damage on cameras is not unheard of.
And with internal storage it will also be a higher risk of the storage to get damaged by not being removable, especially if it is a salt water damage which can be really harmful for electronics.

[stevebrot]

I require having removable media. Such requires no cable, provides multiple options for access. Highly portable.

Lack thereof on a camera is a deal breaker for me.

I should add that I almost NEVER use a wired connection to my camera to export files to my computer for PP.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Whats your point?

I think they are suggesting that there is little or no advantage to an in-camera SSD over a competent card reader.


Steve

[photoptimist]

Maybe...

Advantages of removable storage:
* base unit can be cheaper
* the user can upgrade the total storage at any time and as technology improves
* the user at take pictures & download data at the same time by swapping cards (the full card goes into a card reader)
* removable cards can be stored more securely against theft, loss, or damage
* dual cards and multiple smaller cards reduce the potential for losing crucial data

Disadvantages of removable storage:
* connectors/contacts, slots, and hatches add weight, reduce reliability, and compromise weather resistance

Overall, I'd think that more photographers would want the lower short-term costs and greater long-term flexibility that removable cards can offer.

Note: any decent camera will still need "buffer" RAM for best performance while the camera converts the buffered unprocessed sensor data into a RAW or JPEG file. (SSDs are more suited to storing and retrieving large blocks of data than they are at random access to individual bits of data.)

[Eric Auer]

Not you are silly. Water damage on cameras is not unheard of.
And with internal storage it will also be a higher risk of the storage to get damaged by not being removable, especially if it is a salt water damage which can be really harmful for electronics.

Speculations at best.

The SSD being non removable suggests it will be more weather proof than a CF/SD card.

[Eric Auer]

I require having removable media. Such requires no cable, provides multiple options for access. Highly portable.

Lack thereof on a camera is a deal breaker for me.

I should add that I almost NEVER use a wired connection to my camera to export files to my computer for PP.


Steve

Well Steve, I guess thats it then. No SSD's.

[Fogel70]

Speculations at best.

The SSD being non removable suggests it will be more weather proof than a CF/SD card.

Not really. As you can remove the CF/CF they can be dried up quickly, which is the best protection.
In case of salt water damage, it is critical you can dry up the storage as soon as possible before corrosion set in and make irreversable damage.

[Paul the Sunman]

If you're worried about write speed, you could just include a very small SSD, large enough to accommodate several long bursts, that can then write to an SD card at its leisure. Is that just a bigger buffer?

Sometimes new technology offers no advantage over old technology; it's just new.

[Bob 256]

I have a Mavic 2 Pro, the predecessor to the drone in question, and it uses a microSD card but also has the capability to download images to a microSD card in the controller (when the software works right) while still in flight. When this is working, I don't have to touch the drone after a shoot - just connect to the controller with a USB cable and get the shots in full resolution. I never had speed issues with the drone-located microSD card and it can be easily replaced if full or damaged. An SSD is a solution with good and bad points. It adds some weight, additional power requirements, & cost to the drone and as mentioned, if the drone is lost or undergoes a catastrophic crash, the shots go with it (all 1TB worth). Even functionally, I think if the drone electronics were incapacitated, the SSD would be unreadable unless it were removed, whereas, an SD card is intended to be removed so would circumvent this happening.

I think an SSD is more geared to video where the files can be pretty enormous in size. Shooting full resolution JPEGs with my drone, I've barely begun to use the memory in a 64GB SD card, but I can completely understand the need for an improvement for video shooting and that's where an SSD would have the advantage over an SD card (especially since the Mavic 3 shoots 4K video and video is becoming a predominate use for drones).

[AstroDave]

An SD card is basically a small SSD! You can buy an SD card now with 256 GB of storage.

There's no fundamental reason it can't be made to write as fast as an SSD, either.

So, I see no cost or speed advantage to building a large amount of storage into a camera.

[Not a Number]

Longevity should be about the same as SD cards since SSDs and SD cards are using the same NAND memory. Price, speed and P/E (program and erase cycles) from highest to lowest of the three main types used are SLC (Single Level Cell), MLC (Multi Level Cell) and TLC (Triple Level Cell). The price difference between TLC and SLC can be as much a 8-10× - consumer level vs enterprise level.

SSDs have more complex controller chips and that is mainly where the difference in speed between manufacturers/brands lie, given all other thnigs being equal (e.g. same memory chips).

I don't want to have to send my camera to Precision to have the SSD replaced when it wears out.

[jersey]

I require having removable media. Such requires no cable, provides multiple options for access. Highly portable.

Lack thereof on a camera is a deal breaker for me.

I should add that I almost NEVER use a wired connection to my camera to export files to my computer for PP.


Steve

I never remove SD card from a camera and use only cable transfer. I do not even have SD card reader. I suppose there are cons and pros for both approaches.

I could imagine SSD in K-3 Mk III instead of dual SSD, as for action camera with need of high FPS solid state drive would be great. But I doubt there will be much use outside of such fast action cameras. Plus while reliable, they are still relative easy to damage with heat or cold or even some breaks in write/read sequence. SD card simply dies, you get new one. With SSD this may be an issue. And I doubt there will be enough space for PCI slot in a camera to make removable SSD.

[leekil]

I never remove SD card from a camera and use only cable transfer. I do not even have SD card reader. I suppose there are cons and pros for both approaches.

I could imagine SSD in K-3 Mk III instead of dual SSD, as for action camera with need of high FPS solid state drive would be great. But I doubt there will be much use outside of such fast action cameras. Plus while reliable, they are still relative easy to damage with heat or cold or even some breaks in write/read sequence. SD card simply dies, you get new one. With SSD this may be an issue. And I doubt there will be enough space for PCI slot in a camera to make removable SSD.

I always use a card reader and never connect to the camera directly. My card reader is much faster than the camera, and I don't even have the fastest card reader. This might be more important if you take more photos, to reduce the transfer time significantly. I'd rather plug & unplug the card than the cord to my camera, as if the card wears out, it's easier to replace than if the port on my camera wears out.

If you want faster removable camera storage, the CFExpress someone mentioned above is the fastest removable card out there today.

[sbc]

Or if the camera was in an explosion, fell in to a void, burned in a fire etc etc.
Sigh...

If the camera exploded, fell into a void or burned, I very much doubt the SD can survive either.

[officiousbystander]

And then there's stories like this:
Photos Recovered from Camera That Spent Four Years in the Ocean | PetaPixel

I've upgraded an SSD in my laptop. If it was user serviceable in the camera then it would be the best of both worlds.