Slashdot Mirror
NYT on Photo Storage Devices
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.)
Well, then you'd have something to ride. Apple, shockingly, wants you to buy their photo capable device and isn't going to give you a feature for free when they could make you pay extra for it.
Really made me want to run out and buy something (but then, I'm not a professional photographer.) It seems to me, though, that what a photographer might really want is a CAMERA with a nice big screen to see the pictures that have just been taken, and with a BUILT-IN hard drive to take lots of high-quality pictures. These products all seem like just boondoggles.
Going back to school for entry-level jobs?
The Belkin Media Reader works fine with a non photo iPod. You can't view the pics, even in grey scale, but it does list the number of pictures stored. I can confirm this since I own one and use it all the time. :-)
If Windows could put it in My Computer so you could drag & drop, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
as good as these kind of devices get, I can't help but wonder if a sub-notebook would be a better choice in terms of flexibility, I know for sure i'd rather take my ibook complete with it's software bundle rather than try to play with one of these kinds of devices and potentially lose photos.
Business Voyeur
From TFA: WHEN you really stop to think about it, memory cards are a pretty delicate storage format for something as important as your digital photos.
I couldn't find it on their website, but I recently read an article in (I think) Popular Photography 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.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
That's awesome. I'm a photographer of bells and whistles.
I've had an AV480 for about six months, and it's changed my life. Imagine all the great things that Tivo does for you, and then imagine that you can take your Tivo anywhere. My commute has disappeared thanks to being able to watch the previous night's Adult Swim. I'm not stuck watching crap movies on planes, and I don't have to make any excuses about why I didn't make productive use of my time (the main reason I didn't get a laptop...working on the way to work isn't my idea of a good time).
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
I have the Archos, and found it incredibly useful on a recent trip to Germany. A German friend had some video he had recorded, and I was able to dub it onto my Archos (PAL format).
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
...for porn on the go!
really now, before modding him as a Troll . . . first, someone point out how he isn't entirely correct? (Don't just mod down anyone who disparages Apple, think for a minute whether he has a point or not).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
My iRiver H40 has the feature to hook up to any USB mass storage device show a file manager and then you can copy the files/directories you want over to it. If its a digital camera and the pictures are jpg/bmp(which most cameras do save as) you can even view them. The hole player is shown as a USB mass storage so on Linux/Windows/Mac you can just copy files over and not go through some crappy software *caugh* iTunes *cough* If you upgrade the firmware to the international version you can even view avi movies. The new version H10 looks much better but is only at 5gigs(soon to be 6) and you lose view playing support.
I'd like to see someone make an interface between digital cameras and internet-capable cell phones so that one could simply transfer the image to the phone which in turn uploads it to a web server or sends the images as attachments via email. The only problem with this is some cell phone companies charge per megabyte and thus it could get expensive.
A major issue with Apples iPod accessory, as well as Belkin's is the transfer speed from card to iPod!
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.
If you don't care about a nice colour screen or the ability to play video consider an Archos Gmini 220 or 120. They can play MP3 and WMA files, record MP3 files and copy files from a CompactFlash card. If you want to read other flash formats you can get a fairly inexpensive adapter. The 220 can display JPEGs but the monochrome LCD sucks. The 220 is under $200 US and the 120 is even cheaper.
Spending $500 for one of these things seems a little out of my price range.
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.
Here is another comparison site that compares the usual things like speed, and screen (if there is one) as well as things that other promotional sites often forget to mention like battery life and autonomy. I found it really useful when I bought mine, but it hasn't been updated for a while, and doesn't have some of the more recent models.
Belkin isn't Apple, and Belkin doesn't care if you own an Apple iPod Basic, or an Apple iPod Gold Deluxe Steve Jobs Signature Edition. They just want to sell their add-on product.
It makes a real difference though when you print, laser printers are 300dpi your screen is only 75dpi also if you crop and resave having a larger picture to work from makes a better quality result, particularly when you reduce the resolution at the same time. Film is only about 9 Mega pixels so actually digital cameras will outclass them in a few years. Now if only the lenses on SLR versions would use all the glass in the lense that a 35mm would do. Many more specialist lenses really don't do quite what you expect, like a fish eye.
James
James
That's what I do when I'm away (although it's not a sub-notebook, just a normal laptop). Dump the cards on it, at night when you're at the hotel (or whatever), you got a nice and big screen to preview, sort, and anything you want. It also burns CDs (in case your laptop gets stolen, or it falls and the HD dies or whatever).
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 bound to happen well before their drive filled)... They usually lack some features some people would want like incremental backup of cards (just the new pics on it). The only nice thing about them was that they're smaller/lighter than a laptop, which might be useful to some (I wouldn't take a laptop hiking).
My camera will also shoot tethered to my laptop by firewire on location. It can also come in handy for other things like playing music on a trip, checking maps (with GPS tracking), running card recovery apps if one of yours ever gets corrupted (happens more often than dead cards), and a lot of other things...
///<sig
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 .
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:
I don't have any connections to the company, other than being a very satisfied user of their product, and customer service.
Hopefully one day you'll see the light. Film was nice in a way, but my DSLR takes VERY acceptable pictures, and have much less noise. Flexibility, not having to get scans done from film scanners or drum scanners, processing delays and problems, crappy labs to deal with, ... I don't miss any of it. Large Format still has significantly better results than digital, but it's not cheap, not as fun, not as simple, ...
The important part is the result, the picture itself - not it's resolution or the medium it's taken on. I'd take a good and interesting picture at 3MP over a crappy uninteresting snapshot of your dog taken on large format camera that can resolve 200MP. Today, real photogs have moved on.
The devices looked interesting until I saw the price. Most of them cost more than my camera, and the flash memory getting cheaper having a separate hard disk device just doesn't seem worth it. The screen on my camera may not be as nice, but at that price it is good enough.
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 or so on a roll of film), and the ease with which you can edit a digital photograh are all reasons to go with digital. If you REALLY do need resolution though, film will always be better than digital.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
There is some term I forget what it was but it allowed my girlfriend to plug her camera directly into her 40 gig mp3 player on our trip. This was obviously very useful as a backup medium.
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
Slower than hell, very short battery life, crashes often (usually taking the card with it) and tends to kill its hard drive.
Actually, if you ever want to PRINT your photos larger than crappy 8x10's, uh yeah you still need film. I shoot in 645 format and the limitation is my film scanner, but I still get better results than I would with a DSLR outfit in the same price range (I have about $8k into my Mamiya gear.) I also have bins of transparency film that I can always rescan at higher resolution. BTW, I'm a working professional photographer and have considered moving to digital. Maybe someday...
The FlashTrax in this review are awful. I brought one, It has apalling battery life, about enough for 5 or so 256 meg transfers.
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 order.
Their MP3 player only likes one type of format, it supports lots but all but 128bit MP#s have lots of hiss. This is an Alpha product that is being sold to the public. Oh and the screen is so awful that you might as well not bother. So as a review device it fails miserably.
On the plus side, I have used mine for several long trips, outback Australia, albeit with frequent recharging of the pathetic battery, and not having a laptop is a godsend, you get to concentrate on photographs rather than futsing with laptops.
He was obviously reffering to 35mm format. "If you REALLY do need resolution though, film will always be better than digital." Hardly. Film is at best going to be a 4th generation representation of the original scene. Digital cuts out an entire generation. scene > film > scanner > paper as opposed to scene > digital > paper. Also if you want to compair per mm unit then you also need to compair price per year. It is hardly pratical.
Simply becuase you are too dense to understand the process involved to achive a usable image means the tool is at fualt? 1. When they cam out they were well under 1MP 2. Salespeople arnt what you goto for unbias advice 3. Youre a fool that buaght a point anfd shoot to replace a film slr. 4. 8MP DSLR with good glass outpreform most every film SLR when the final image is on paper in terms of resolution. 5. Realize that one step in the process of getting getting your film to paper involves a DIGITAL CHIP SCANNING YOUR FILM. 6. 2 MP can be blown up to an 8x10. Its called interpolation. Look into it. Also realize your digital image will not degrade like even the best stored film. 7. People like darkrooms, I am one of them. Film is BEING surrpassed by digital chips. It will be another 5 - 8 years. It will surpass it in dynamic range (negs) and resolutuion per unit. You seem to know less than that salesman did. You sit there being ooed and awed with shiny things. Get real.
Transcend has a couple of products in this space that I find relatively compelling: The Digital Album, and the PhotoBank.
p ?ModNo=29 a l_album.html
p ?ModNo=11 b ank.html
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 since I'll have that with me anyway, but those solutions are way slow and battery hungry. Some other products either seemed unappealing or were expensive compared to what I ended up purchasing - Transcend's Digital Album.
http://www.transcendusa.com/products/ModDetail.as
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/digit
I paid $350 for the Digital Album (from target.com - via Amazon, actually). It is a small, battery-powered device (claims 4-5 hours battery life on the preinstalled but apparently-replaceable rechargeable battery) with a 20 GB drive and a color screen for reviewing the photos. Can feed a TV (NTSC or PAL) and play slideshows. Handles U.S., European and British power with a funky power plug that converts for the target outlet. USB2 for talking to the computer (shows up as an external drive on Mac OS X; I believe it does the same on Windows). Has ports that supposedly handle a whole slew of card types. I've used it with CompactFlash - if I remember correctly, it took about 2 minutes or so to copy 200 MB from a fairly fast card (SanDisk Ultra II 512 MB card).
It seems to work pretty well, with a few UI disappointments (for instance, choosing to delete something prompted me with an alert that made me a bit nervous it was going to delete the entire drive). It can also record 10-second audio annotations for images. Can play MP3s, but frankly the interface made it look like that would be painful. I really wish it had more than 20 GB - it's not so hard to fill that over any extended period if you're taking lots of photos at a high pixel count, especially if you shoot RAW. I shoot some RAW but mostly JPEG, so I expect this to suffice for my immediate trips. Since I can view the photos on it, I'll be able to go through and prune some if I need the space.
Transcend also has their PhotoBank device, with similar basic feature set except that it doesn't have the color screen for reviewing photos, doesn't feed a TV, and doesn't do stuff like play MP3s. But it's cheaper at $250, and there is a 40 GB version for $340.
http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.as
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/photo
I considered buying the PhotoBank, but decided I really liked the idea of being able to visually confirm that it had successfully copied the photos from my camera card, and I may want to show photos taken during the trip to people I visit while still on the trip, hence my decision to go with the Digital Album.
-andrew
What I do is use my older work laptop. It still has some life in it, and is used as my day to day "throw around" PC for commuting to/from work, and for photography trips.
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 I will typically take 3000-5000 shots in one day.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I went on a 3 week trip to Madagascar last fall with my 2 Nikon DSLR's and a Flashtrax 80Gb device. I took 6 512Mb CF Cards for the days shooting and at the end of the day I copied them to the Flashtrax device. Even in this very poor country main power was available in most places so the battry life was not really tested but I took a couple of spares for the two days we were in an area where there was no power. I also took an Ipod compatible Solar Panel. This trickle charged my various batteries during the day so I had no problems with batteries running out.
The screen on the Flashtrax allows us to review pictures in the evening to attempt to identify various species including my attempt at photographing the elusive Fossa(success!)
If you plan your trip successfully and think about spare batteries etc then any devices like these are worthwhile.
On a recent trip to North norfolk, there was another DSLR user with an Archos. The screen on them is far better tha the Flashtrax but this user was extreemly frusrtated with the Software on the Archos. It would not copy the whole CF card from his Canon EOS30D but had to copy individiual folders as Canon in their wisdom insist on creating new folders on the CF Card every 100 shots!
He was envious of my Nikon/Flashtrax combination which was far easier to use.
So, if you are considering on of these devices to go with your Digital Camera, try one out before buying or you could end up like my Canon user friend.
When buting one of these devices don't be a cheapskate and buy one of these with a small HDD. Get the 80Gb version. Then you will have plenty of space for your MP3 collection and the thousands of pictures you will take. I shot 10,000+ piccies in three weeks in Madagascar.
Also, with the ever increasing numbers on MegaPixels on Digital Cameras, the size of each picture will only ever get bigger as I have found out with my new D2X.
Finally, a checklist:-
- Ease of use when copying Digital Media
- Spare Batteries for Flashtrax/Archos etc
- Spare Batteries for digital camera & flashgun
- Spare Digital Media
- Solar panel for trickle charging batteries
- Digital Camera soft case(eg Lowepro) to put the Flashtrax/Archos/etc device in to protect it.
If you get yourself orgaqnised then these devices are brilliant.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
While subnotebooks and smal laptops are useful, they in no way come close to the usability of the dedicated photo storage devices.
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 or laptop while travelling, but keep a phtoo storage device about you at all times - and at the end of the day make sure both devices have the same data.
Basically there's nothing quite so handy as an external drive with a card reader.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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 ones I've seen are the Sony Photo Vault, which burns photos to 8cm (200MB) CDs; the Sony HDPSM1, which is way expensive for a 40GB screenless vault (and I think it is not available in the US); and the XS-Drive family, but their page has a warning about how you need to reformat your memory card after each time you use the device, which does not give me too much confidence in their product. Does anyone know of an inexpensive screenless photo vault available in the US?
Oh yeah, I have a Sony camera so I'm stuck with the stupid proprietary Memory Stick format, which of course makes this much harder.
Thanks!
Digital 35mm SLR's have surpassed film for image quality. If you want good image quality don't use film, don't use a stupid digital point and shoot, and stop using your old piece of crap camera. Get with the times...
It won't take 5-8 years. It's done now. Perhaps it may take that long to be affordable by most people.
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.
I travel with a laptop, but never take it out of the house (or hotel room) where I'm staying (I do have a security cable for it). As long as I unload the pix from my camera every evening, and recharge it for that matter, I've hardly ever filled up a card. I mean really, I can put about 60 shots on my camera, and while I'm out and about I like to live, rather than be continuously clicking away.
So is there really a serious need for a product like this? Wouldn't the cost be better spent on a larger card for the camera?