Stores offer both micro SDXC and standard size SDXC cards. The micro cards come with standard size adapters.

If the specs are otherwise absolutely identical, e.g.:

  • SanDisk Extreme UHS-I/U3 Micro SDXC Memory Card, 64GB
  • SanDisk Extreme UHS-I/U3 SDXC Memory Card, 64GB

is there any reason to choose the larger SDXC card over the micro? The only negatives of the micro would appear to be physical vulnerability: easier to lose and more physically fragile.

But I believe that from the camera's perspective, they're identical -- and the micro is a bit more future proof as I can use it in a wider range of devices, correct? Can anyone come up with a reason why the standard SDXC would be preferable?

For example, do standard size SDXC use larger process NAND memory cells or have better/more wear leveling or error correction? Or are they identical from a chip perspective and it's only the package that is different?

  • I assume the answer would be the same as SD vs SDHC? photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19726/… photo.stackexchange.com/questions/40487/… – MikeW Feb 3 '15 at 3:32
  • 3
    No, SD and SDHC are very different standards. This is micro vs. standard SDXC. – RoboKaren Feb 3 '15 at 4:00
  • 2
    Yes, they are more fragile. And you have one more contact surface (between the card and microSD card and SD adapter) which add another point of failure – Romeo Ninov Feb 3 '15 at 6:10
  • 1
    If you are using it in an application that takes standard size cards (like my camera), you will probably put the micro card in the adapter and never take it out. In that case, you don't have two pieces to lose and the physical strength is basically that of the adapter. You do have one less set of contacts with the standard card. – Ross Millikan Jun 2 '15 at 15:05
  • I suspect fragility is actually a point in favour of the micro format. I have had a few of the standard size casings fail while even my eldest microSD device is still alive and well – James Snell Mar 22 '17 at 22:51

I've read that the performance is indeed comparable (at least from reputable vendors), so that makes the only real factors the form factor and the price.

I find using an adapter a mild inconvenience, since it's one more thing to worry about, but I don't think that's a big deal. I also don't think "future proofing" is a big deal either, since cards don't last forever anyway, and by the time you buy a device that only takes MicroSD, capacities will be much higher, and performance will be better, so you won't regret buying a new card. (Or, at least, cards of today's capacity and speed will cost peanuts.)

So, to me, that leaves price. Currently the prices for the cards you list are about $45 and $40, so, eh: five bucks / ten percent. Sooooo, I guess you could get the cheaper one plus a beer, or the more expensive one and call it a day; whichever suits your gut feeling better — and then feel secure that you didn't make a mistake either way.


Unless the micro SD cards are cheaper, I don't really see the point. Worth considering that not all SD adapters are the same, or will give you the rated performance. I have used Sandisk adapters which won't allow more than 20MB/s transfer speeds from an Extreme 90MB/s card. You haven't stated which camera/device you are using. If you are using microSD cards in other devices (GPS, crash cam, phone) then it is worth considering, otherwise it seems like added complication for no gain.

Your Answer

