NYT on Photo Storage Devices 69
prostoalex writes "New York Times reviews hard-drive-based photo storage devices for digital photographers on the go: 'The photo vaults in this roundup - the Epson P-2000, Jobo GigaVu Pro, Archos AV420 and SmartDisk FlashTrax - present a wide range of choice in size, shape, bells and whistles.'" (Pogue also discusses Apple's and Belkin's devices to use an iPod for the same purpose; I only wish Apple's worked with the non-Photo version of the iPod.)
If wishes were horses timothy (Score:1, Funny)
Okay, I know he's an AC, but . . . (Score:1)
Re:If wishes were horses timothy (Score:2)
None of these... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:None of these... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
Medium Format Digital cams usually have a tethered HDD for storing gargantuan files (The Hasselblad Digital SLR at 22MP generates a 140MB file).
Re:None of these... (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea of a
Re:None of these... (Score:1)
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that merging all these things is a good idea. A hard core photographer is concerned about lense quality, sensor quality, available third party lenses and so on in the camera. Products that merge a lot of functionality and have a camera in th
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
these products are for you, or me, on a holiday
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
No. A big screen to make sure you got the shot right? A professional photographer knows how to use a light meter and/or the histogram. A big LCD is for morons. What a professional photographer would like (as a professional photographer) is a giant, big-honking viewfinder, because it's damned-near impossible to quickly and accurately focus manually with the
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
Ok, so you stick in a 4GB solid state memory card instead of a hard drive with moving parts. But who in the consumer market needs that much storage? No one. Who in the professionals would? Lots, but they don't want to store it in the camera. They want to take the card out, and immediatly start backing it up in a photo storage wallet like the one
Re:None of these... (Score:2)
Belkin Media reader (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Belkin Media reader (Score:1)
Re:Belkin Media reader (Score:1)
I wrote:
"I only wish Apple's worked with the non-Photo version of the iPod."
I bought an iPod last month (the last American without one, I think) with the hope, but not the certainty, that Apple's would work with it, but knowing that if it didn't I could buy the Belkin one instead. It's bigger, more expensive and apparently more power hungry, but for an upcoming trip I need more storage than I can afford in tiny, losable xD cards.
Turns out that Apple made their rea
Re:Belkin Media reader (Score:2)
Re:Belkin (Score:2)
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Definately (Score:2)
Last I checked, these were almost as much as a used laptop, their battery life was hardly better, and most didn't even come with an AC adapter in case the batteries were dead (which was b
No way (Score:2)
I have a NixVue Vista, and while it's a little bulky I can carry it pretty much anywhere I carry my DSLR. That's simply not true of even a subnotebook unless you want a backpack all the time - and I do not.
Also, lets you you take a subnotebook. How many hard drives do you have to keep pictuers on? One. That is not sufficient. So the best solution is to carry a subnotebook
Memory cards delicate? I don't think so. (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't find it on their website, but I recently read an article in (I think) Popular Photography [popphoto.com] where they did some "stress testing" of memory cards. The results? most of the cards withstood submersion in water, drops, baked, frozen, and being run over by cars. As long as they could still be connected to a reader, the data was usually OK.
Contrast this with a hard-drive-based storage solutions which are comparatively extremely fragile. Now, this isn't to say that I'm not going to purchase a HD-based device for a month-long trip this summer, but the cards are vastly more durable, just not as big or as cheap/GB.
Re:Memory cards delicate? I don't think so. (Score:2)
Memory cards are NOT fragile.
For proof, see how digital media preserves photos of last moments of tsunami victims [baheyeldin.com].
Re:Memory cards delicate? I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
you can buy at least 5 if not more 1GB CF cards (depending
on the speed you require). Even using a Canon 1DS which
makes 14MB raw files you can fit nearly 80 images a card.
A 20D would fit 128 each. And these are cameras meant for
pros. I can fit over 300 on a 1GB microdrive using my G2.
A handfull of CF cards takes up way less space and is a
lot less to go wrong than one of these hard drive devices.
And the ooh and ah of seeing the picture on the tv. I can
d
Re:Memory cards delicate? I don't think so. (Score:1)
Contrast this with a hard-drive-based storage solutions which are comparatively extremely fragile. Now, this isn't to say that I'm not going to purchase a HD-based device for a month-long trip this summer, but the cards are vastly more durable, just not as big or as cheap/GB.
If I were to go traveling without my laptop, I'd go for a standalone photo CD burner, say... (/Google: photo CD burner/)... the Apacer CP200 Combo Photo CD Burner [supermediastore.com] I'd make two copys of my photos, double check the burn and probabl
Re:Memory cards delicate? I don't think so. (Score:1)
Bells and whistles? (Score:3, Funny)
Archos AV (Score:5, Interesting)
As a photo vault, I haven't given it much of a workout. It certainly does everything it claims to do, but it's best for those who have cameras that use CF type I, as I think worrying about an adapter would be too much of a hassle.
-R
Re:Archos AV (Score:1)
Archos support both PAL & NTSC video (Score:5, Interesting)
When I got home to the US, I was able to view it in NTSC format, and have since put it onto a DVD.
I also used it to off-load 2 different cameras, watch a movie, and listen to music.
Oh, almost forgot, I also used it to record a concert via the microphone, and to record a couple of tracks from an LP via the line-in.
I didn't miss having a laptop at all, though I do have a PDA to do laptop-like stuff.
-- Andyvan
iRiver (Score:2, Insightful)
What about internet-enabled cell phones? (Score:1)
Re:What about internet-enabled cell phones? (Score:1)
You'd be better off with a wifi hotspot and one of these [archos.com].
Sure, it's expensive, but you could store a load of photos on it whilst in the field, then upload them over rsync to a machine back home when you reach the nearest wifi hotspot.
Re:Real photographers use film! (Score:2)
Re:Real photographers use film! (Score:2)
Right... ever hear of a large format camera? Try 1 gigapixel, and the limiting factor there isn't the film, it's the lense, and scanning methods. Film will ALWAYS have a higher resolution per unit area, and you can increase that area a lot easier than you can with a CCD or other digital device. That said, resolution is just about the last thing you should care about. The cost per shot of digital (~$0), the sheer number of photos you can store on a memory chip (vs 30
Re:Real photographers use film! (Score:2)
A Canon 1Ds2 far outresolves 35mm film, is full frame, provides 10 stops of dynamic range and overall better image quality. If you had $8K for the body you could have had one for quite a while now.
Re:Real photographers use film! (Score:2)
Problem with Apple & Belkin devices (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes about 4-5 minutes to transfer roughly 110 MB of information (iPod device - a bit faster with belkin..) While this may not be an issue with casual users of digital cameras (who only have a 128 or 256 card), people who use higher end dSLR cameras with 1GB cards will find they have to wait 45minutes for a transfer!!
Even worse is the battery drain caused by using these devices! That little iPod harddrive was not meant to be spinning for 45 minutes straight!
So for professionals, definitely stick with the dedicated media wallets. Much faster transfers. Larger LCD screens (for certain models), and you won't be killing your iPod battery charge which means more music when your on your shoots.
Archos Gmini 220 (Score:1)
I'm a cheapskate... (Score:3, Interesting)
A few weeks ago, I ran across cheap enclosure for $20 that's battery operated, holds a 2.5 inch drive and also has a compact flash slot. I tossed an old 10GB laptop drive in it and that was it. I'm not sure who makes it, but I found it through Yahoo shopping.
Sure, it's the opposite end of the spectrum from the Epson and Archos, and it's pretty low tech (doesn't show the photos, copies the *entire* CF card to the drive, not just the pictures) Still, it works good for my purposes and my wallet is much, much fatter.
Another comparison site (Score:2, Informative)
Kanguru Media X-Change 2.0 (Score:1, Informative)
If you are looking for a portable device only for Photo Storage, and can do without "bells & whistles" like a viewing screen, then check out the:
Kanguru Media X-Change 2.0 [kanguru.com].
I've been using one for several years now, and it's enabled me to get, what some refer to as "the money shot", on several occasions.
Supports Compact Flash, Smart Media, Secure Digital, Multimedia Card, IBM Microdrive, Sony Memory Stick
Available is several sizes, and reasonably priced as well:
Too expensive, not needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Usb ready (Score:2)
Increadibly she could naviage in the file system of the mp3 player from her phone and inside the phone from her mp3 player. So she could play mp3's on her camera.
Camera olympus z-4040.
Mp3 player is iriver h-340
Skip the Flashtrax (Score:2)
FlashTrax are really sub-par (Score:2, Interesting)
The units are highly unreliable. Mine has the habbit of inverting its screen so it looks like a cheap 1980s VGA screen. This requires a reboot.
They periodically stop during transfers resulting in a broken directory that can't be deleted. They have a fragile and thouroughly unreliable USB connection. I have destroyed my desktop by not shutting the machine down in the correct or
Transcend's Digital Album and PhotoBank products (Score:1)
I'm about to spend a few weeks in Britain, carrying a digital SLR and a few lenses. I'd love to take my iBook, but it's hard to justify the weight and space for a sightseeing trip where I'll be walking and taking the train a lot - given the weight and space I'm devoting to camera, I just couldn't see taking the laptop. I looked into a lot of devices - I really wanted to go the iPod route
I use a laptop (Score:2)
Advantages: Cost me nothing (was already a sunk cost), Large screen for editing as well as viewing. USB2 transfers. Decent though not generous battery life.
Disadvantages: Not as portable as a little photo tank, and you do have to wait for it to resume from standby.
I've found this particularly useful for zoo photography. My girlfriend and
Flashtrax gets my vote! (Score:2, Interesting)
Screenless photo vault? (Score:1)
I'm in the market for a device like this for an upcoming trip to Europe. The problem is that I don't want a screen; I'd much prefer just an LCD display for status messages. I'd much rather have a smaller, cheaper (especially cheaper!) device with improved battery life, and if I want to review the pictures, I can always do it on my camera before archiving the photos to the device.
The review only mentions portable devices that have a screen, and I haven't come across many screenless options. The only one
Do you really fill a card in a day? (Score:2)
So is there really a serious need for a product like this? Wouldn't the cost be better spent on a larger card fo
Re:Do you really fill a card in a day? (Score:2)
If I think I'm going to need more space, I have a PocketPC with a CF slot and an SD/MMC slot. I've got a 512MB SD card and another 512MB MMC. Given the relatively low res of my Kodak DC260, I could probably take 1,600 photos before I ran out of space. It's a bit slow, so taking that many photos would probably take a full day.
Given that the DC260