Do SD cards "wear out?"

wombat2go · 03-04-2017, 07:06 AM

https://app.box.com/s/twqxitabotuwg9dm2ylukoop1udkdazt

I usually use industrial grade.
The downside is high cost and smaller capacity.

The data sheets for these show about 10 times the transactions compared to consumer grades, before wearout.

At least one of the devices shown in this photo is rated for medical records, (I have not checked recently though).

E-man · 03-04-2017, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by DW58

More info. Thank you.

I still have a couple of tiny capacity (64mb, 256mb) cards sitting around that I used with an old 3 megapixel camera. They're more than 10 years old and too small to even use in the cameras I have today but they're still fully functional. I'm including my last 2GB card, again fully functional, with the Pentax K100D I have up for sale on eBay. It's perfectly fine for that 6 megapixel camera, but not so good with the ones I use regularly now. And yes, I did update the firmware on the K100D so it can use SDHC cards. Except for a couple of 8 GB cards, most of the cards I use now are either 16GB or 32GB, which is more appropriate for the cameras I have. To date, I have only had one card failure. It was an off-brand 16GB card that was defective right out of the package.

**csa** · 03-04-2017, 08:57 AM - **1 Like**

" It seems false economy to me to re-use a card when there is an easy alternative."

To me, filling a card once, then not using it again, is false economy. I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens, then it/they are replaced with new cards. My cards last me several years, before I replace them; no false economy there, real economy.

**ChrisPlatt** · 03-04-2017, 09:08 AM - **2 Likes**

In 30 years time you may have difficulty finding a device that will accept SD cards and be able to read the files.

BTW in order to retain stored data SD cards must be refreshed periodically, at least once every four years.

Chris

**RGlasel** · 03-04-2017, 09:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

BTW in order to retain stored data SD cards must be refreshed periodically, at least once every four years.

Very important point. SD cards are NOT permanent storage devices, so don't be tempted to archive your photos on them. Digital files don't fade gracefully, they turn into indecipherable garbage as soon as the information in them can't be reliably read. If you use the card in your camera, it frequently gets refreshed and you usually get a bit of warning that the bad sectors are taking over because it takes longer to write to the card. You get no warning of problems if the card is in a drawer.

**sibyrnes** · 03-04-2017, 10:13 AM

Do you think there is a relationship between capacity and reliability? In other words is a 64 gig card as reliable as a 16 gig card?

By the way, I never use SD cards for long term storage. I load my photos to my laptop, back up to an external hard drive and re- format the SD card.

**jlstrawman** · 03-04-2017, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by csa

" It seems false economy to me to re-use a card when there is an easy alternative."

To me, filling a card once, then not using it again, is false economy. I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens, then it/they are replaced with new cards. My cards last me several years, before I replace them; no false economy there, real economy.

+1. Wasteful, IMO, for no good reason. Being cheap, I am still using a 128MB thumb drive (yes, mega).

**RGlasel** · 03-04-2017, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by sibyrnes

In other words is a 64 gig card as reliable as a 16 gig card?

It appears that the answer is probably not, but not necessarily so. I found this recent study that looked at multi-cell NAND memory chips (which is what the high capacity SD cards use) and the good news is that raw bit error rates (RBER) don't go up exponentially as the card wears out, as has been assumed, the bad news is that RBER isn't the most important cause of final read failure (which is immune to error checking algorithms) and there wasn't a statistical valid difference in reliability between memory chip vendors.

Anecdotally, don't waste your money on cheap, mystery brand memory cards, if nothing else the odds of getting a dead on arrival card are lower with quality brand names and there is less chance of failure because of failed electrical connections. Read/write speeds also seem to be dependent on the quality of the card, which is especially important with 24 and 36 MP cameras operated in continuous shooting modes. Just don't count on the memory card for any length of time, frequently copy your images to another storage medium. And while a lifetime warranty can be a sign that the manufacturer is using better quality control than its competitors, the warranty only covers a replacement card and is no guarantee it won't fail. If the manufacturer knows that 5% of its cards will fail over a typical lifetime (how long purchasers can find their sales receipt) they can always increase the price to cover warranty costs and not bother to improve quality.

Fenwoodian · 03-04-2017, 11:10 AM

Here's another tip that I read somewhere...

When Chimping, don't delete any individual photos while in the field. Doing so may corrupt the entire card. Only delete (or format) the entire card all at once after you've downloaded your images off of it.

promacjoe · 03-04-2017, 12:23 PM - **1 Like**

First of all, SD cards do have a limited read/write cycle. Although it is high they do give problems over time. And there is 1 moving part within a SD card , The right protects which. It is a physical switch. SD cards are extremely cheap compared to film. It is very economical to fill one to capacity, and then stored away. Depending on the camera, a 32 GB SD card can hold 800 to 1000 pictures, Your count may very significantly. You can compare the current cost of film and processing to the current price of one SD card. However, It is a very good idea to Backup your data. unfortunately any media that you use to back it up on, has a limited practical use value. Each storage device will get replaced eventually with a new medium, That requires new hardware. The older mediums may or may not be usable. You can call it designed obsolescent. By the time a SD card starts to lose its digital integrity, it may not be usable anyway due to this designed obsolescence. So it is a good idea to backup your data each time you change to a new type backup storage device.

Whether you use the card once and then retire it as a backup, or reformatted each time you use it is irrelevant. Always backup your data. And make sure you retire your old cards before they start giving trouble. Maybe keep count of how many times you reformat it, and retire it after so many reformats.

Just my thoughts.

Joe.

Not a Number · 03-04-2017, 01:33 PM

http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Articles/Entries/2012/3/6_Why_Flash_Wears...st_Longer.html

Quote:

Write and Erase Processes Cause Wear

When written to and erased during the normal course of use, the oxide layer separating the floating gate from the substrate degrades, reducing its ability to hold a charge for an extended period of time. Each solid-state storage device can sustain a finite amount of degradation before it becomes unreliable, meaning it may still function but not consistently. The number of writes and erasures (P/E cycles) a NAND device can sustain while still maintaining a consistent, predictable output, defines its endurance.

In the analog recording world, the concept of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is used to describe the quality or condition of a recording. This refers to the strength of the signal which carries the information when compared to the random artifacts (or noise) that is generated by the recording media and the electronic components in the system. The SNR of a recording must be at a certain level in order for it to be replayed with any degree of quality. When a recording degrades, as happens when the metal oxide layer of a magnetic tape gets old, its SNR decreases. There are analog filters that can be applied in order to ‘clean up’ a noisy recording, but at some point the SNR gets low enough for the recording to be unusable.

35mmfilmfan · 03-04-2017, 01:56 PM

See, told you, flak's flying !

OK, I am not using the cards as permanent storage - that is on several HDDs, and each of these is backed up to DVD at least twice a year. One 32GB card probably lasts me six months or so (not a heavy user), so I'm out the cost of a kebab every six months - I think the pension can cope with that. CSA stated ' I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens' - so far, using my method (which suits me - YMMD) no problems have happened. Thanks, too, for your comments, Joe.

Lot of talk about what will supersede SD cards - NMP, I'll have snuffed it by then.

**BigMackCam** · 03-04-2017, 03:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 35mmfilmfan

See, told you, flak's flying ! .

The thing is, film was designed to be used once, whereas SD cards were designed to be re-used many, many times. They're just a packaged form of re-writable static memory module, like the hard disk or SSD in your computer. Do you ever delete data on that? Then download or create new files on it? (actually, whether you do or not, your computer's operating system does that anyway - when it defragments and optimises the data, or installs updates

). Erasing and re-using SD cards is no different, and is what they were designed for at the outset. As such, it's not really a false economy to use something in a way it was designed for

leekil · 03-04-2017, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Marcel K

The write protection lock of one of my sd cards got broken off (mechanically) after a few years. Could still read but not write anymore. I tried to put sticky tape (like the old cassette tapes&#128540, but that didnt fix it. Probably a one off...

I've had this problem a couple times before, but it just seemed to happen -- I don't really use the write-protect much on my cards. I fixed it by taking the card apart and replacing the shell with one from an obsolete or dirt-cheap lower-capacity card. Metallic tape is useful to reassemble the card with, as it is very thin, but strong.

E-man · 03-04-2017, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

The thing is, film was designed to be used once, whereas SD cards were designed to be re-used many, many times. They're just a packaged form of re-writable static memory module, like the hard disk or SSD in your computer. Do you ever delete data on that? Then download or create new files on it? (actually, whether you do or not, your computer's operating system does that anyway - when it defragments and optimises the data, or installs updates

). Erasing and re-using SD cards is no different, and is what they were designed for at the outset. As such, it's not really a false economy to use something in a way it was designed for

A more accurate comparison might be a USB flash drive. The technology is quite similar. to an SD card and I certainly read, write and delete files from those with great regularity. And like SD cards, I've found them to be very reliable with only one failure coming from a no-name flash drive.

03-04-2017, 10:13 AM	#21
sibyrnes Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 447	Do you think there is a relationship between capacity and reliability? In other words is a 64 gig card as reliable as a 16 gig card? By the way, I never use SD cards for long term storage. I load my photos to my laptop, back up to an external hard drive and re- format the SD card. Last edited by sibyrnes; 03-04-2017 at 10:21 AM.

03-04-2017, 03:20 PM - 1 Like	#28
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by 35mmfilmfan See, told you, flak's flying ! . The thing is, film was designed to be used once, whereas SD cards were designed to be re-used many, many times. They're just a packaged form of re-writable static memory module, like the hard disk or SSD in your computer. Do you ever delete data on that? Then download or create new files on it? (actually, whether you do or not, your computer's operating system does that anyway - when it defragments and optimises the data, or installs updates ). Erasing and re-using SD cards is no different, and is what they were designed for at the outset. As such, it's not really a false economy to use something in a way it was designed for Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-04-2017 at 03:28 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So who makes the "best" SD cards?	Qwntm	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	20	12-18-2015 09:28 AM
Why no "lens correction" but I do have "GPS"?	Fred C	Pentax K-r	10	09-26-2015 12:50 PM
Lens mystery: Why is "Asahi" and "Takumar" blacked out?	Edgar_in_Indy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	08-01-2014 05:15 AM
Beauty Shoot for "Citizen K" Magazine "How Did I Do It?"	benjikan	Photographic Technique	25	12-05-2009 05:33 AM
"Fast" SD cards - speed for downloading only?	Glen_S	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	3	02-14-2008 05:15 PM

03-04-2017, 07:06 AM	#16
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	https://app.box.com/s/twqxitabotuwg9dm2ylukoop1udkdazt I usually use industrial grade. The downside is high cost and smaller capacity. The data sheets for these show about 10 times the transactions compared to consumer grades, before wearout. At least one of the devices shown in this photo is rated for medical records, (I have not checked recently though).

03-04-2017, 08:39 AM	#17
E-man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 678	Originally posted by DW58 More info. Thank you. I still have a couple of tiny capacity (64mb, 256mb) cards sitting around that I used with an old 3 megapixel camera. They're more than 10 years old and too small to even use in the cameras I have today but they're still fully functional. I'm including my last 2GB card, again fully functional, with the Pentax K100D I have up for sale on eBay. It's perfectly fine for that 6 megapixel camera, but not so good with the ones I use regularly now. And yes, I did update the firmware on the K100D so it can use SDHC cards. Except for a couple of 8 GB cards, most of the cards I use now are either 16GB or 32GB, which is more appropriate for the cameras I have. To date, I have only had one card failure. It was an off-brand 16GB card that was defective right out of the package.

03-04-2017, 08:57 AM - 1 Like	#18
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	" It seems false economy to me to re-use a card when there is an easy alternative." To me, filling a card once, then not using it again, is false economy. I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens, then it/they are replaced with new cards. My cards last me several years, before I replace them; no false economy there, real economy.

03-04-2017, 09:08 AM - 2 Likes	#19
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	In 30 years time you may have difficulty finding a device that will accept SD cards and be able to read the files. BTW in order to retain stored data SD cards must be refreshed periodically, at least once every four years. Chris

03-04-2017, 09:28 AM - 1 Like	#20
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt BTW in order to retain stored data SD cards must be refreshed periodically, at least once every four years. Very important point. SD cards are NOT permanent storage devices, so don't be tempted to archive your photos on them. Digital files don't fade gracefully, they turn into indecipherable garbage as soon as the information in them can't be reliably read. If you use the card in your camera, it frequently gets refreshed and you usually get a bit of warning that the bad sectors are taking over because it takes longer to write to the card. You get no warning of problems if the card is in a drawer.

03-04-2017, 10:18 AM	#22
jlstrawman Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Midwest US Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,058	Originally posted by csa " It seems false economy to me to re-use a card when there is an easy alternative." To me, filling a card once, then not using it again, is false economy. I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens, then it/they are replaced with new cards. My cards last me several years, before I replace them; no false economy there, real economy. +1. Wasteful, IMO, for no good reason. Being cheap, I am still using a 128MB thumb drive (yes, mega).

03-04-2017, 10:51 AM	#23
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by sibyrnes In other words is a 64 gig card as reliable as a 16 gig card? It appears that the answer is probably not, but not necessarily so. I found this recent study that looked at multi-cell NAND memory chips (which is what the high capacity SD cards use) and the good news is that raw bit error rates (RBER) don't go up exponentially as the card wears out, as has been assumed, the bad news is that RBER isn't the most important cause of final read failure (which is immune to error checking algorithms) and there wasn't a statistical valid difference in reliability between memory chip vendors. Anecdotally, don't waste your money on cheap, mystery brand memory cards, if nothing else the odds of getting a dead on arrival card are lower with quality brand names and there is less chance of failure because of failed electrical connections. Read/write speeds also seem to be dependent on the quality of the card, which is especially important with 24 and 36 MP cameras operated in continuous shooting modes. Just don't count on the memory card for any length of time, frequently copy your images to another storage medium. And while a lifetime warranty can be a sign that the manufacturer is using better quality control than its competitors, the warranty only covers a replacement card and is no guarantee it won't fail. If the manufacturer knows that 5% of its cards will fail over a typical lifetime (how long purchasers can find their sales receipt) they can always increase the price to cover warranty costs and not bother to improve quality.

03-04-2017, 11:10 AM	#24
Fenwoodian Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,874	Here's another tip that I read somewhere... When Chimping, don't delete any individual photos while in the field. Doing so may corrupt the entire card. Only delete (or format) the entire card all at once after you've downloaded your images off of it.

03-04-2017, 12:23 PM - 1 Like	#25
promacjoe Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 340	First of all, SD cards do have a limited read/write cycle. Although it is high they do give problems over time. And there is 1 moving part within a SD card , The right protects which. It is a physical switch. SD cards are extremely cheap compared to film. It is very economical to fill one to capacity, and then stored away. Depending on the camera, a 32 GB SD card can hold 800 to 1000 pictures, Your count may very significantly. You can compare the current cost of film and processing to the current price of one SD card. However, It is a very good idea to Backup your data. unfortunately any media that you use to back it up on, has a limited practical use value. Each storage device will get replaced eventually with a new medium, That requires new hardware. The older mediums may or may not be usable. You can call it designed obsolescent. By the time a SD card starts to lose its digital integrity, it may not be usable anyway due to this designed obsolescence. So it is a good idea to backup your data each time you change to a new type backup storage device. Whether you use the card once and then retire it as a backup, or reformatted each time you use it is irrelevant. Always backup your data. And make sure you retire your old cards before they start giving trouble. Maybe keep count of how many times you reformat it, and retire it after so many reformats. Just my thoughts. Joe.

03-04-2017, 01:33 PM	#26
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Articles/Entries/2012/3/6_Why_Flash_Wears...st_Longer.html Quote: Write and Erase Processes Cause Wear When written to and erased during the normal course of use, the oxide layer separating the floating gate from the substrate degrades, reducing its ability to hold a charge for an extended period of time. Each solid-state storage device can sustain a finite amount of degradation before it becomes unreliable, meaning it may still function but not consistently. The number of writes and erasures (P/E cycles) a NAND device can sustain while still maintaining a consistent, predictable output, defines its endurance. In the analog recording world, the concept of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is used to describe the quality or condition of a recording. This refers to the strength of the signal which carries the information when compared to the random artifacts (or noise) that is generated by the recording media and the electronic components in the system. The SNR of a recording must be at a certain level in order for it to be replayed with any degree of quality. When a recording degrades, as happens when the metal oxide layer of a magnetic tape gets old, its SNR decreases. There are analog filters that can be applied in order to ‘clean up’ a noisy recording, but at some point the SNR gets low enough for the recording to be unusable.

03-04-2017, 01:56 PM	#27
35mmfilmfan Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 4,329	See, told you, flak's flying ! OK, I am not using the cards as permanent storage - that is on several HDDs, and each of these is backed up to DVD at least twice a year. One 32GB card probably lasts me six months or so (not a heavy user), so I'm out the cost of a kebab every six months - I think the pension can cope with that. CSA stated ' I format & reuse my cards until a problem happens' - so far, using my method (which suits me - YMMD) no problems have happened. Thanks, too, for your comments, Joe. Lot of talk about what will supersede SD cards - NMP, I'll have snuffed it by then.

03-04-2017, 03:26 PM	#29
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Originally posted by Marcel K The write protection lock of one of my sd cards got broken off (mechanically) after a few years. Could still read but not write anymore. I tried to put sticky tape (like the old cassette tapes&#128540, but that didnt fix it. Probably a one off... I've had this problem a couple times before, but it just seemed to happen -- I don't really use the write-protect much on my cards. I fixed it by taking the card apart and replacing the shell with one from an obsolete or dirt-cheap lower-capacity card. Metallic tape is useful to reassemble the card with, as it is very thin, but strong.

03-04-2017, 04:16 PM	#30
E-man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 678	Originally posted by BigMackCam The thing is, film was designed to be used once, whereas SD cards were designed to be re-used many, many times. They're just a packaged form of re-writable static memory module, like the hard disk or SSD in your computer. Do you ever delete data on that? Then download or create new files on it? (actually, whether you do or not, your computer's operating system does that anyway - when it defragments and optimises the data, or installs updates ). Erasing and re-using SD cards is no different, and is what they were designed for at the outset. As such, it's not really a false economy to use something in a way it was designed for A more accurate comparison might be a USB flash drive. The technology is quite similar. to an SD card and I certainly read, write and delete files from those with great regularity. And like SD cards, I've found them to be very reliable with only one failure coming from a no-name flash drive.