Data on CF B needs recovering. Attempt to recover?

[Jim Martin]

We were shooting today and every 3-8 minutes, this would pop up. The manual mentions this as a recovery tool when a card has been ejected while recording or if power cuts out while recording, but neither was the case. We would say yes, just to be sure, but then it would "recover" and then stop the filming. It's very odd. Anyone else have this problem?

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

[Doug Jensen]

Sounds like a sub-standard card.
What was it?
I had a SanDisk Extreme Pro give me that error during overcranking and now I will only use Hoodman cards.

FYI. whenever you are fprced to let the camera try and recover the card, you risk losing EVERYTHING on the card.
I

[Brett Delmage]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Sounds like a sub-standard card.
What was it?
I had a SanDisk Extreme Pro give me that error during overcranking and now I will only use Hoodman cards.

FYI. whenever you are forced to let the camera try and recover the card, you risk losing EVERYTHING on the card.
I

Doug: a "SanDisk Extreme Pro" is NOT a "sub-standard card."

A reasonable starting point for card selection is the list of cards

Canon Professional Network - CF card compatibility for XF305 and XF300 pro camcorders

Google for "canon xf300 approved cf card" if this URL does not come through.

I do NOT see "Hoodman" in the "Canon XF305 and XF300 camcorders: CF card compatibility " list. But I do read "Canon cannot guarantee operation of third party CF cards in all circumstances." So by Canon's word, your "Hoodman" card is "sub-standard" even if it works for you; a SanDisk Extreme Pro" has been tested by Canon and "Works with all recording modes". Please stop spreading FUD.

Anyway, Hoodman does not manufacture CF cards, and there are known to only be a few CF card controller chip-makers. Hoodman could be a rebranded Sandisk for all you know :-)

Brett

[Doug Jensen]

Brett,

Obviously if the SanDisk card failed during overcranking then it is a sub-standard card. Period. There's no arguing with that. I was not doing anything unusual with it, pushing the limits, or anything out of the ordinary. The fact is, it failed and I even captured the failure on my NanoFlash if you'd care to see it fail.

I don't care if Canon, SanDisk, B&H, Consumer Reports, or anyone else puts their stamp of approval on it. 3rd party recommendations mean nothing when compared to my actual experience.

And are we going to take Canon's word for it? They couldn't even get the XF Utility software written without major bugs, and it is going to take months to release an update. Is this who you want to take advice from on cards? Canon[s recommendations are just a starting point anyway, and even Canon would not say it covers all the cards that are compatible. Why doesn't Canon produce their own brand of cards that they can get behind 100%? Panasonic has their own cards. Sony has their own cards. Why doesn't Canon produce their own cards, even if CF cards are widely available technology from many sources? The card itself is such a critical link in the whole recording system that you'd think they want to have a little more control over it.

I've been shooting on XDCAM since 2006 and have never had a single failure of any kind in all those years. Yet, on the XF305, I experienced a failure within the first 6 weeks. I want that same reliability out of the Canon that I've had with my XDCAMs. Is that so much to ask for?

I've shot tons of overcranked footage on the Hoodman cards and they have never failed. They also import 20% faster than the SanDisk card. In my book, that makes the SanDisk a substandard card. If you have a problem with the term "substandard" then let's call it "inferior" instead.

Getting back to Jim's problem, he didn't say what kind of card he was using, so I stand by my initial assessment that he's using a substandard card -- and I'll hold to that opinion even if it turns out he's using a card that Canon recommends. A card that results in frequent error messages is a SUBSTANDARD card.

I don't know or care how Hoodman manufactures their cards. They say they are built to higher specifications and with better components than other cards, and from what I have seen, that is true. Until I have a Hoodman failure, they have my full confidence.

[Jim Martin]

Hey thanks for the responses.....it is a Delkin 16gb 450x card.....we're trying to figure out if we have a bad card or a bad camera. We'll do a test with a Hoodman 675x card and I'll report back later.

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

ps- We were recording our seminar on the new Cube wireless transmitter so we can put them up on the web for everyone.

[Jim Martin]

Well..........we put in the Hoodman 8gb 675x for 20 mins and......no problem. Looks like we are going to be safe and spend the money for the Hoodman cards.

Jim Martin
FilmTools.com

[Mark Moreve]

For my 10 cents worth on this conversation.I'm yet to have a sandisk problem but I have heard that the Hoodman cards are meant to be great. As in more reliable and faster write and read speeds.

[Jeff Anselmo]

Hi Jim,

Sorry to hear about your CF problems.

I agree about using the "best" possible media with your camera. And I really appreciate the work and tests of other XF users regarding cards. Real world applications can't be beat (that's why I ended up buying 2 16G Hoodman CF cards as Doug recommended).

But I am still curious what other brands work with the XF cams. Hhmm. Wonder if the Delkin Combat CF cards (rated at 91MB/s and 625x) would work?

[Brett Delmage]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Brett,

Obviously if the SanDisk card failed during overcranking then it is a sub-standard card. Period. There's no arguing with that.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe you mean "defective", unless you can cite the timing specs that the card is failing to meet. I think you then overgeneralize that specific failure to all cards by that manufacturer without basis.

I don't care if Canon, SanDisk, B&H, Consumer Reports, or anyone else puts their stamp of approval on it. 3rd party recommendations mean nothing when compared to my actual experience.

It is your clients and your work so you get to pick your tools. Nobody is arguing with that. We also welcome hearing about your experience.

I could say, just as strongly that your recommendations mean nothing when compared to my actual experience - years of experience using Sandisk and Lexar cards without a single failure.

And are we going to take Canon's word for it?

So far, I've seen you complain based on one single failure. Have I got that right? I am not denying that failure is not real, but statistically it means nothing.

They couldn't even get the XF Utility software written without major bugs,

Now this is a red herring. Sorry, this is a meaningless statement when referring to the CF card situation.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that people developing software for a PC application had anything to do with the camera development. I say that as a software developer who worked for 25 years in companies that developed both firmware-based hardware, and software-based products. In one case, I worked on a firmware-based product, with another employee who worked on the associated PC software. His software and its bugs in no way affected my firmware reliability. (Coincidently, I wrote software to use, erase and write Flash memory in that device, 15 or so years ago.)

Is this who you want to take advice from on cards?

Actually, yes. In my opinion Canon has likely spent a lot more hours using, testing and qualifying CF cards than you.

Please show me where Hoodman states that their cards have been tested on the XF-30x cameras and are standing behind that use?

Canon has posted their list on the web. Their reputation and sales stand to suffer if the cards they recommend do not work reliably in their camera.

even Canon would not say it covers all the cards that are compatible.

We can agree on that. I'm sure they wouldn't know all the existing and future small-scale manufacturers of storage, and they would want to test and recommend cards that are widely available.

Why doesn't Canon produce their own brand of cards that they can get behind 100%? Panasonic has their own cards. Sony has their own cards. Why doesn't Canon produce their own cards, even if CF cards are widely available technology from many sources? The card itself is such a critical link in the whole recording system that you'd think they want to have a little more control over it.

You've touched on a key point: the card IS critical. Now, if I remember correctly, the Panasonic cards are NOT CF, they are a completely different storage architecture. Unless I am mixing them up with the Sony, their cards are actually internally redundant - effectively a RAID 1 storage system - which, as far as I know is way beyond anyone else. As is the cost!

I think many have already spoken in this and other forums about the cost effectiveness and convenience of being able to use mass-market CF or SD cards for camera storage. I think that is the answer to your "why". Users may value high reliability but there is also a limit to our budgets.

I've been shooting on XDCAM since 2006 and have never had a single failure of any kind in all those years. Yet, on the XF305, I experienced a failure within the first 6 weeks. I want that same reliability out of the Canon that I've had with my XDCAMs. Is that so much to ask for?

I do not believe anyone here wants to risk losing unrepeatable footage because of a media failure. I'm sure that would be a nightmare to all of us.

Please remind me again of the cost of your Sony media (at time of purchase), and the cost of your failed Sandisk CD card?

Have you received any consideration or discount from Hoodman, or are you just a happy user? You mention them frequently in a forum where marketing is supposed to be prohibited; it makes me uncertain.

I'm just a user. No discounts, deals or consideration from any supplier. I wish though! :-) I spent a grand on CF cards in August and I sure hope they are not too sub-standard ;-) Or defective. I have allegiance to no manufacturer except the 'best' one.

cheers,

Brett

[Josh Dahlberg]

I have several Sandisk Extreme cards but I'm paranoid about losing footage so I ordered a Hoodman 32gb just to be sure. Though rare, some users report Sandisks failing: I've never read of a Hoodman card failing. To be fair though, there are so many more Sandisk cards in circulation sheer volume could be a factor.

A word of caution on the Hoodman 32gb CFs: on Hoodman's site they are listed as Type I. However, I purchased one from B&H that turned out to be the thicker Type II - it won't fit in the XF.

This is really annoying - B&H don't specify in the listing that it's Type II, there's no mention of Type II either on the packaging or on Hoodman's site. I'll have to return it but I've already paid shipping and import duties. So just be doubly sure you're getting a type I card if you order Hoodman.

[Steev Dinkins]

This thread is quickly getting messy, so sorry if this is redundant, but in my testing, there are perfectly working high quality cards that simply just won't work for long recording times with this camcorder. It's unfortunate but true. I've seen faster cards fail while drastically slower cards were totally reliable. It's not necessarily about good or bad cards. I suspect something else going on with the structure of the card and how the Canon writes to it. Bummer. The trick is getting cards that work reliably.

Lastly, I've found that when you see the recovery attempt warning, it means that it couldn't write to the card anymore and if you see that message early on, you won't have lost much. Bottom line is when it chokes, that message comes up. If you didn't realize it till say 5 minutes after the fact, you're screwed - that 5 minutes is gone. So, best to keep your eye on the camera - which is usually the case. But lastly, again, establish through long recording testing that the card is reliable.

My troubleshooting with incompatible cards has been confirming a specific time length that would consistently fail to record past.

-steev

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

This thread is quickly getting messy, so sorry if this is redundant, but in my testing, there are perfectly working high quality cards that simply just won't work for long recording times with this camcorder. It's unfortunate but true. I've seen faster cards fail while drastically slower cards were totally reliable. It's not necessarily about good or bad cards. I suspect something else going on with the structure of the card and how the Canon writes to it. Bummer. The trick is getting cards that work reliably.

Steev, are any of your cards that don't work on Canon's approved list?

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Steev, are any of your cards that don't work on Canon's approved list?

Nigel, no, none of the non-working cards are on the list. That is to say, I have not found Canon's list to be in error. But I am surprised that the camcorder is so picky. It's not a data rate issue, it's something else.

All cards tested have passed a lot of other tests with other tools. And work fine in other devices.

-steev

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

Nigel, no, none of the non-working cards are on the list. That is to say, I have not found Canon's list to be in error. But I am surprised that the camcorder is so picky. It's not a data rate issue, it's something else.

All cards tested have passed a lot of other tests with other tools. And work fine in other devices.

-steev

At least it's reassuring to know that whatever the reasons one can at least rely on Canon's list of blessed cards or at least know not to rely on any card that is not on the list.

[James Redmond]

I have 2 cards:
ScanDisk Extreme Pro 64 gb
Adata 533x 32 gb

I do long recordings. I do not overcrank.
Luckily I have not had any errors on either one.

All the best, James

Canon FX-305