Digital Picture Storage Devices

JPPLAY · Oct 5, 2004

I do all 35mm photography at the moment and I would like to get into digital photography. Know my question is what a quick and easy way in the field to transfer your pictures off your camera memory card and into someother storage device? I heard you can use ipods. I also heard you can get about 40 raw shots out of 512 mb stick so how do I go about taking 100s of high quality pictures without spending thousand plus dollars on memory sticks. If the Camera I use makes any difference I am thinking of getting the 20D.

green · Oct 6, 2004

there are lots of ways to transport. personally I prefer leaving things on the memory card until I bring them home, especially if I'm only going to be working for the day. The whole idea of loading them onto something and then wiping my card clean scares me. on a 1GB card, I can get between 150 and 200 RAW images. Laptops work, if you have the cash for them... and there are also storage device/viewers... like this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=303408&is=REG

I considered getting one, but the only way I would use it would be as a backup to my cards. I'm a photographer with a paranoia complex (2 copies of EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES!) :lol:

Ant · Oct 6, 2004

The way that current prices are CF cards are probably the cheapest and easiest way to store images in the field. Unless you're talking about taking an excessively large number of pics.

Corry · Oct 6, 2004

newegg.com has 1G and 2G compact flash cards for pretty good prices. I am soon to get a digital rebel and have been asking the same kinds of questions on here recently. A 2G CF card is $137 on Newegg.com. I'm can't remember the exact numbers, but a 2G and hold a lot of pics.

JPPLAY · Oct 6, 2004

I have a laptop but the problem that I have to haul it around plus you need to start it up and close it down everytime you want to transfer pictures. I will most likely be taking about 500 pictures an outing.

Algoessailing · Oct 6, 2004

I can get about 70 raw images on a 1 GB card with my *istD. I just bought a 20 GB flashtrax storage device for $400 (way cheaper than 20 GB worth of flash cards). I just got it today, so I haven't used it yet. I'll let you know my opinions after my vacation and wedding shoot this weekend. Seems to be a prety good way to store images, but we'll see.......................

DocFrankenstein · Oct 6, 2004

Vosonic X-Drive is an option for you.

You insert the card, it copies the files on the laptop size hd and later you dload it through usb.

They don't cost much. I got a used 20 gb one for 100 bucks.

new ones go for 70 bucks, but without the hard drive.

the vosonic one is cheap and effective, but basic.

There are some models that have a small screen (or not so small) for you to preview your pics, but their costs are comparable to that of a laptop.

Cheers

JPPLAY · Oct 6, 2004

DocFrankenstein said:
Vosonic X-Drive is an option for you.

They don't cost much. I got a used 20 gb one for 100 bucks.

new ones go for 70 bucks, but without the hard drive.

the vosonic one is cheap and effective, but basic.

That sounds like a good product I will most likely look into it. What kind of time does it take to transfer 70 raw pictures onto something like that and what amount of time does it take to say transfer them onto a computer?

DocFrankenstein · Oct 6, 2004

I don't know yet. I should get it in the mail any day now.

Ant · Oct 7, 2004

OK. I'm going to get stoned as a heretic for saying this on this board but here goes.... If you're shooting about 500 images on an outing why are you using RAW? You'd save a lot of space shooting JPGs. You'd easily get that amount of high quality JPGs on an 512MB card plus a 1GB card.

You say you're just going to get in to digital then how do you know you want to shoot RAW? The internet is full of people telling you to shoot RAW all the time and ignore JPG, but there genuinely are times when shooting JPG just makes more sense. It's probably a good idea to figure out for yourself if you genuinely do need 500 RAW files per outing or if JPG will be better for you.

I'll don my anti-flame suit now :wink:

.......

Digital Matt · Oct 7, 2004

If you want get the best pictures you can from your camera, I can't think of a reason not to shoot RAW. Memory is cheap.

Ant · Oct 7, 2004

Memory is fairly cheap but not that cheap. If you're talking about 500 RAW files that's starting to get pretty expensive. If it was that cheap then people wouldn't bother with portable HDDs they'd just buy lots of CF cards.The OP even started this thread about his worry of having to spend too much on memory.

The quality difference between RAW and low compression JPG isn't as great as some people make it out to be either. You can end up paying a high price for the relatively little quality gain that you might not even need. Also RAW files require post editing, even if it's just to turn them into a JPG or a TIFF. If you don't have the time, or the inclination, to post edit 500 files at a time then why shoot RAW?

There are very good reasons to shoot RAW and there are very good reasons to shoot JPG. People should make a reasoned choice about what's best for them, instead, all that seems to happen is that digital photo newbies get told to shoot RAW under all circumstances when this isn't the best advice.

DocFrankenstein · Oct 7, 2004

Ant said:
Memory is fairly cheap but not that cheap. If you're talking about 500 RAW files that's starting to get pretty expensive. If it was that cheap then people wouldn't bother with portable HDDs they'd just buy lots of CF cards.The OP even started this thread about his worry of having to spend too much on memory.

The quality difference between RAW and low compression JPG isn't as great as some people make it out to be either. You can end up paying a high price for the relatively little quality gain that you might not even need. Also RAW files require post editing, even if it's just to turn them into a JPG or a TIFF. If you don't have the time, or the inclination, to post edit 500 files at a time then why shoot RAW?

There are very good reasons to shoot RAW and there are very good reasons to shoot JPG. People should make a reasoned choice about what's best for them, instead, all that seems to happen is that digital photo newbies get told to shoot RAW under all circumstances when this isn't the best advice.

If you have a slightest inclination of printing 13*19, then you're better off shooting raw all the fn time. It's not THAT expensive.

All you need is:
A semi-decent computer
A portable HDD
[end of long list]

You then download the raw files. Batch convert them to Jpegs which takes a few keystrokes and some processing power.

But when you get that very good shot, you know you can go back and start from scratch, which gives you the best quality.

BTW: If you post process a JPEG, you'll notice gradient and other jpeg artifacts showing real fast. A 16 bit tiff gives you MUCH more flexibility.

Cheers

Ant · Oct 7, 2004

If you have a slightest inclination of printing 13*19, then you're better off shooting raw all the fn time. It's not THAT expensive.

But what if you don't have the inclination of printing 13X19? what if you just want to view on a PC screen?

That's my point. Shooting RAW isn't for everybody all the time, yet most of the advice I see on the internet seems to suggest that there's no realistic alternative.

bshearer · Oct 7, 2004

Personaly for my storage solution, I plan on buying an Ipod, Iriver, or one of the Dell Jukeboxes and buying one of the CF Readers / Transfer dongles for it. I know its slower than a dedicated unit, but I want the functionality of having the music plus being able to store my images, on the days I do fill up the cards (Curring I just have an 128mb and a 256MB CF cards) on my *istD they dont last long when shooting in RAW....

I personally have been looking at going with the smaller size (1* vs 3*) but keeping it RAW.