Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:56:43 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > >>> The SD standard says >33G should use exFAT, this is why many devices >>> state they only support cards up to 32G. The really mean they only >>> support FAT. My Dashcam is like this but it happily works with a 128G >>> card, once I reformatted it with FAT. >> Warning; that still does not change the fact that each individual file >> cannot exceed 4G in size on regular FAT. > That's right, but a device designed to work with only FAT should never > try to save larger files. Any such devices I have used tend to split > videos into chunks of 1GB or smaller. > >
So if I bought a 64GB card, I forced it to be formatted with FAT on say my Linux box here, it would work in my trail cameras anyway? It makes sense. It would seem it is more of a file system issue since accessing a device shouldn't be affected my its capacity, well, maybe some exceptions. My trail camera may only support FAT which is only found on 32GB and smaller. I can get that. To be honest, even tho I leave that thing out there sometimes for months without checking it, and it takes a ton of pics, I don't recall it even going over a couple GBs or so. Even the one that takes videos doesn't store a lot of data. I don't think I'd buy that expensive a card but still, interesting that it is a option. I'm thinking even my Canon camera can handle this. That's a lot of pics tho. I never thought about this this way. Dale :-) :-)
