Huh?
"-hh" wrote in message
news:1173958351.825327.95850@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> "Proveniebam" wrote:
>> "Madx" wrote:
>>
>> > Without having to take a laptop computer with you? I have a camcorder
>> > I
>> > plan to use. Do I just buy a lot of cartridges for it? Normally I
>> > would
>> > transfer what I take to the hard drive but don't want to lug a laptop
>> > with
>> > me on a mediterranean cruise.
>>
>> With 512Mb SD Cards at $10 a pop I have a handful of them.
>>
>> Or
>> consider:http://www.smartdisk.com/eWeb/smartdiskus/www/staticpages/FlashtraxXT...
>
> The above is one brand of a class of products known as a "digital
> wallet".
>
> The one I have is the "Hyperdrive HD80"; here's a review:
>
>
> And here's the manufacturer's website, which suggests that the HD80
> has since been superceded by a newer model:
>
>
>
> In simplest terms, you only have 3 basic options with digital imaging
> equipment for the number of shots you can take before you get back
> home to your PC:
>
> 1) Take fewer (and/or smaller) images
>
> 2) Use more memory cards (cassettes)
>
> 3) Offload your memory cards onto some other media so that you can
> then use your memory cards again.
>
>
> Option #2 has been mentioned here under the rationale that Flash
> Memory (FM) has gotten cheap. It has indeed come way down in price,
> and while that's a good thing - - plus its also the lightest,
> smallest, and least power hungry - - it may not necessarily be the
> cheapest way to go.
>
> For example, with a digital SLR, these can store photos in what's
> called "RAW" format in addition to JPEG, and using this on an 8MP
> camera, the result is that each time you take a photo, you consume
> around 15MB of storage, so you only would get 35 images per $10 512MB
> card. As such, for a photographer who's shooting 300 images per day
> (yes, we exist) with this dSLR, the math works out to roughly 10 of
> the above sized CF cards per day, or a consumption rate of roughly
> $100/day in CF cards. Multiply by the length of the vacation and it
> can easily exceed $1000 that you "need" to spend in CF cards to solve
> your storage problem in this fashion.
>
> Granted, you can save some storage by culling your images each night,
> but I generally find that there's usually more interesting or
> important things to do while on the actual trip than that sort of
> maintenance; YMMV.
>
> In general, its probably safe to say that the more photos you're
> likely to be carrying home, the less likely you are to rely on just CF
> cards to do it.
>
>
> This brings us to Option (3), of offloading the cards onto something.
> Because 1GB of HD storage is under 5 cents, you can achieve economy of
> scale, which can make it a cheaper option...if you have enough
> "scale".
>
> The hardware options here fall into several broad categories:
>
> a) Your home PC.
>
> This is ultimately where all your stuff ends up, and is mentioned to
> be complete and pointing out of the obvious: if the photo series is
> short enough, you'll simply span it with CF cards and not need any
> backup alternative.
>
> b) A Laptop PC
>
> This has the advantage of being able to go on the road with you,
> although at usually around a 7-10lb baggage handicap.
>
> c) A portable CD/DVD burner (or commercial kiosk station)
>
> These are smaller still. They exist both in AC-only and battery
> powered models. Note that a CD burner probably won't do you a great
> deal of good if your CF card is larger than 512MB, because CD's store
> less than 1GB. Also be aware that because you probably won't have any
> way of independently verifying that the disk burn was successful (just
> that the device claimed that it was), you may be at risk of losing
> your data during this backup stage.
>
> d) A portable Hard Drive
>
> These are about the same size as the CD/DVD burners. They exist both
> in AC-only and battery powered models, as well as battery powered
> models that don't have adequate power to do the job (bad!). Examples
> include the two previously mentioned, the Wolverine and one made by
> Epson. Some models have good data-checking which reduces the "backup
> didn't take" risk; others have a color LCD screen (Epson) that lets
> you see the image, thereby confirming that it transferred
> successfully . BTW, there's also a few multiuse devices such as some
> of the Apple iPod models (native or with a 3rd Party adaptor) - as of
> last year, the iPod had an extremely low data transfer rate that makes
> backups take forever ... and can exceed the device's battery life.
>
>
> Overall, this should give most people a pretty good idea as to what
> the best choice is for them, based on their needs. In general, if you
> need tons (30+GB) of storage capacity, the IMO only way to go is with
> a Hard Drive based Digital Wallet. Similarly, if you really value
> your photos, you'll want to buy 2 of whichever devices, so as to
> maintain data redundency in your backup system. Yes, this costs even
> more, but depending on the trip, it can be cheap insurance. For
> example, we did a 2 week long Tanzania Safari last year and I came
> home with around 4200 digital images (4500 total); which consumed
> roughly 38GB of storage space on my HD80's, and the incremental cost
> of the second one was only $250 (60GB), which was less than 10% of the
> cost of the camera system I was carrying.
>
>
>
> -hh
>
|
