Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Portable Storage?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 2:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill a flash
card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols) that I wont be
near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody recommend a portable
storage device?

Thanks

Mike

More about : portable storage

Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 2:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike R wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
> a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols)
> that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
> recommend a portable storage device?

Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
well.

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 2:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

20G Archos Gmini 120 ($160) or 220 ($200) MP3 player with built-in CF
reader?


"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 76qbn$5um$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill a
> flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols) that I
> wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody recommend a
> portable storage device?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 2:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike R" <news@mikeread.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 76qbn$5um$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill a
> flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols) that I
> wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody recommend a
> portable storage device?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>

Just returned from Roatan (Honduras). Backed up each day's images to CDs. I
would have done better with a notebook computer. I would have been better
able to learn from each day's mistakes. The notebook would also allow backup
to CDs and would not take all that much more space in the luggage. Put Adobe
Photoshop CS2 on the notebook.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 8:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:

> Mike R wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>> a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols)
>> that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>> recommend a portable storage device?
>
> Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
> well.

For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
versatility.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 27, 2005 11:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 27 May 2005 02:46, Mike R wrote:

> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill a
> flash
> card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols) that I
> wont be
> near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody recommend a
> portable storage device?

How large a flash card are you using? If you're filling it "quickly,"
it's not large enough to begin with. I use 256MB cards for my little 3
meg D30.

But to your question: All the suggestions you've gotten will work; but
for what you'd pay for any one of them, you could buy a 4 or 5 year old
notebook computer in the 400 to 500 MHz range with a 6 to 12 GB hard
drive, maybe more, and have plenty of storage, plus a computer to use
at night when it's too dark to take pictures. ;-) I see on eBay that
IBM 570e Thinkpads in Excellent condition are going for $80 to $100 US.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
May 28, 2005 2:07:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have the
power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>Mike R wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>>>a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols)
>>>that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>>>recommend a portable storage device?
>>
>>Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
>>well.
>
>
> For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
> instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
> buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
> versatility.
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 2:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
> What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
> the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?

Huh? You can get a pretty wide choice for that amount, maybe not in
brand new machines, but there's certainly lots of serviceable old
laptops in the $200 range even. The trouble is they're much less
portable than those image tank or ipod-like devices.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 6:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It takes an
> hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old laptops are
> slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for "portable" storage. Plus
> 200 pics is 200mb or more.

Transfer is more dependant on speed of the reader device (yer camera or
card reader) and the CF card's transfer speed itself....and the bus
speed.

Some cards and readers are fast, some are slow.



If you transfer via yer camera into some client made for your camera,
some of those run dog slow compared to a simple mass storage device,
where it simply acts like another drive on your desktop.

put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will complete
in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.

Some new CF cards and readers are many times faster than older. And
they would be very effective even with $200 laptops. Transfer of
200MB in probably just a few minutes.
May 28, 2005 7:09:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It takes an
hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old laptops are
slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for "portable" storage. Plus
200 pics is 200mb or more.

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>
>
> Huh? You can get a pretty wide choice for that amount, maybe not in
> brand new machines, but there's certainly lots of serviceable old
> laptops in the $200 range even. The trouble is they're much less
> portable than those image tank or ipod-like devices.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 7:09:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
> I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It takes
> an hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old laptops are
> slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for "portable"
> storage. Plus 200 pics is 200mb or more.

Something is wrong then. It shouldn't take that long to download.
You should be able to download at several MB per sec if you're using
fast cards, 1 MB/sec or so with slow cards.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 10:55:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>>
>> Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
>> well.
>
> For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
> instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
> buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
> versatility.

One which reads SD and CF cards? One with the same size and weight? One
with a 640 x 480 display? One with 40GB of storage? One which boots as
quickly? Care to state model numers?

I do agree that you need to pay a little more for the Epson, but you get a
solution well tailored to the need.

David
May 28, 2005 12:04:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, I'll try it.

mygooglenews@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Ken wrote:
>
>>I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It takes an
>>hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old laptops are
>>slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for "portable" storage. Plus
>>200 pics is 200mb or more.
>
>
> Transfer is more dependant on speed of the reader device (yer camera or
> card reader) and the CF card's transfer speed itself....and the bus
> speed.
>
> Some cards and readers are fast, some are slow.
>
>
>
> If you transfer via yer camera into some client made for your camera,
> some of those run dog slow compared to a simple mass storage device,
> where it simply acts like another drive on your desktop.
>
> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will complete
> in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>
> Some new CF cards and readers are many times faster than older. And
> they would be very effective even with $200 laptops. Transfer of
> 200MB in probably just a few minutes.
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 1:37:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mygooglenews@yahoo.com wrote:
[]
> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
> complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.

... and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a PC
Card slot isn't an option....

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 1:51:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:mZWle.41254$G8.10742@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> mygooglenews@yahoo.com wrote:
> []
>> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
>> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
>> complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>
> .. and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a PC
> Card slot isn't an option....
>
> David
>
Well, actually it is:

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10385232&loc=...

That said, the Epson P2000 is an outstanding solution and an older laptop is
not a replacement. The time to boot a laptop alone....

Tom, who loves his P2000
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 4:57:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:mZWle.41254$G8.10742@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> mygooglenews@yahoo.com wrote:
>> []
>>> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
>>> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
>>> complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>>
>> .. and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a
>> PC Card slot isn't an option....
>>
>> David
>>
> Well, actually it is:
>
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10385232&loc=...
>
> That said, the Epson P2000 is an outstanding solution and an older
> laptop is not a replacement. The time to boot a laptop alone....
>
> Tom, who loves his P2000

Thanks for that, Tom. I do agree with you completely - the Epson P2000 is
in a different class!

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 28, 2005 11:14:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:

> What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
> the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?

New? How about...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...

Or...

www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.

Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the job.
Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or 12 GB HD
in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.


> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike R wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>>>>a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks
>>>>hols)
>>>>that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>>>>recommend a portable storage device?
>>>
>>>Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
>>>well.
>>
>>
>> For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
>> instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
>> buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
>> versatility.
>>

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 1:48:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 27 May 2005 23:55, David J Taylor wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>>
>>> Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people
>>> as well.
>>
>> For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
>> instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
>> buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
>> versatility.
>
> One which reads SD and CF cards?

With a multi-card reader or PCMCIA adapter, yes.

> One with the same size and weight?

No.

> One with a 640 x 480 display?

More. And at least a 12" display instead of 3.8"

> One with 40GB of storage?

An optional extra. More, if you want it.

> One which boots as quickly?

No.

> Care to state model numers?


Can the P-2000 handle e-mail, surf the web, edit photos, keep a journal,
track expenses, etc?

> I do agree that you need to pay a little more for the Epson, but you
> get a solution well tailored to the need.

To each, his own... I prefer versatility over utility.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
May 29, 2005 4:26:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>
>
>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>
>
> New? How about...
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>
> Or...
>
> www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>
> Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the job.
> Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or 12 GB HD
> in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>
>
>
>>Stefan Patric wrote:
Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for what
is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage device.

>>
>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>>>>>a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks
>>>>>hols)
>>>>>that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>>>>>recommend a portable storage device?
>>>>
>>>>Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
>>>>well.
>>>
>>>
>>>For the cost of the P-2000, you could buy a new notebook computer
>>>instead, and have a lot more versatility. For a lot less, you could
>>>buy an older, used notebook computer, and still have a lot more
>>>versatility.
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 4:46:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:37:22 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
>> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
>> complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>
> .. and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a PC
> Card slot isn't an option....

Anything that will take a CF card should take an SD_to_CF adapter.

To read my xD cards, I put them in an xD_to_CF adapter, place the
CF adapter in a CF_to_PCMCIA adapter, and finally plug the PCMCIA
adapter into a SCSI PCMCIA card reader. And reading from, as well
as writing to the xD card is pretty quick. The PCMCIA adapter also
works in my laptop.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 10:34:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> mygooglenews@yahoo.com wrote:
> []
>
>>put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
>>300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
>>complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>
>
> .. and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a PC
> Card slot isn't an option....
>
> David
>
>
Aren't there SD to CF adapters?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 12:15:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:37:22 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>> put your CF card into a PCMCIA card reader...stick that into a PII
>>> 300mhz Thinkpad notebook and I bet transfer of the 200MB will
>>> complete in under 15 minutes....maybe well under 10.
>>
>> .. and if you are using SD cards instead of CF? Sticking it into a
>> PC Card slot isn't an option....
>
> Anything that will take a CF card should take an SD_to_CF adapter.
>
> To read my xD cards, I put them in an xD_to_CF adapter, place the
> CF adapter in a CF_to_PCMCIA adapter, and finally plug the PCMCIA
> adapter into a SCSI PCMCIA card reader. And reading from, as well
> as writing to the xD card is pretty quick. The PCMCIA adapter also
> works in my laptop.

Yes, but layering adapter onto adapter just gives you more items to forget
or loose, not to mention connection relaibility issues. Useful to know
about, so thanks, but I'm sticking with the simple Epson P2000 with it's
built-in SD slot.

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 12:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
[]
> Can the P-2000 handle e-mail, surf the web, edit photos, keep a
> journal, track expenses, etc?
>
>> I do agree that you need to pay a little more for the Epson, but you
>> get a solution well tailored to the need.
>
> To each, his own... I prefer versatility over utility.

Of course, if I need all those functions, I will take a portable PC,
although not the limited $500 model you mentioned earlier - and it would
cost more, weigh more, and be less portable than the Epson P2000. For a
storage and display device, the Epson P2000 is probably the best device
available right now, and you can pass it round just like a 6 x 4 inch
photo.

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 29, 2005 1:48:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 27 May 2005 16:07:03 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Stefan Patric
<writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>On Friday 27 May 2005 03:16, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Mike R wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>>> a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols)
>>> that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>>> recommend a portable storage device?
>>
>> Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
>> well.

I've lived with a first gen 10GB Nixvue Digital Album for several years and
recently looked at the P-2000. I don't need a viewer so I opted for the
Archos Gmini 220 instead. About half the size and lighter for those that
don't need the viewer.

Epson P-2000:
Dimensions: 5.8" x 3.3" x 1.2" in. (W x H x D)
Weight: 1lb with battery

Archos Gmini 220:
Dimensions: 2.66"x3.07"x0.9" - 67,5 x 78 x 23 mm
Weight: 6 oz - 170 g

It is 20GB vs 40 GB for the Epson.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 2:05:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:21, David J Taylor wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
> []
>> Can the P-2000 handle e-mail, surf the web, edit photos, keep a
>> journal, track expenses, etc?
>>
>>> I do agree that you need to pay a little more for the Epson, but you
>>> get a solution well tailored to the need.
>>
>> To each, his own... I prefer versatility over utility.
>
> Of course, if I need all those functions, I will take a portable PC,
> although not the limited $500 model you mentioned earlier - and it
> would
> cost more, weigh more, and be less portable than the Epson P2000. For
> a storage and display device, the Epson P2000 is probably the best
> device available right now, and you can pass it round just like a 6 x
> 4 inch photo.

I usually need "...all those functions." Because if I've been in the
field long enough to NEED a dedicated mass storage device, it usually
means I've been out of town for a week or more. And why carry two
storage devices?

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 2:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>
>>
>> New? How about...
>>
>>
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>
>> Or...
>>
>> www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>
>> Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>> job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>> 12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
> Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
> what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
> device.

How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.

Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.


--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
May 30, 2005 10:54:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town software
is loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory won't run
any software. You need probably 1gig memory for running Adobe Photoshop
(why load pics to laptop if you can't work with them?). You will then
need backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at best).

Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for
your "under $500" computer.

So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
computer is naive.

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>
>
>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>
>>>
>>>New? How about...
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>
>>>Or...
>>>
>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>
>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>device.
>
>
> How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
> 1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
> pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
> of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
> images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
> device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>
> Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
> Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
> lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
> shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 11:12:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My new Toshiba A70 was $1300 CAN. You can do the math to convert that to
Yankee Dollars. Pentium, 512 meg, 60 gig, Wi-Fi- Cd burner etc etc ... nice
wide screen.

Add Photoshop CS2.

How do you get to $2000?

"Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_rGdnUeMY8NWbQffRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town software is
> loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory won't run any
> software. You need probably 1gig memory for running Adobe Photoshop (why
> load pics to laptop if you can't work with them?). You will then need
> backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at best).
>
> Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for your
> "under $500" computer.
>
> So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
> computer is naive.
>
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>New? How about...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>
>>>>Or...
>>>>
>>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>>
>>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>>device.
>>
>>
>> How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
>> 1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
>> pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
>> of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
>> images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
>> device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>>
>> Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
>> Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
>> lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
>> shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.
>>
May 30, 2005 12:12:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I get $2000 after adding software costs. Adobe Photoshop is something
like $700 US. Some kind of useable office suite (remember, I'm not going
to have TWO computers when I can have one) another $500 or more. Of
course, if you paid $1100 US just to have a storage device, I guess
that's okay too.

Rudy Benner wrote:
> My new Toshiba A70 was $1300 CAN. You can do the math to convert that to
> Yankee Dollars. Pentium, 512 meg, 60 gig, Wi-Fi- Cd burner etc etc ... nice
> wide screen.
>
> Add Photoshop CS2.
>
> How do you get to $2000?
>
> "Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:_rGdnUeMY8NWbQffRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>
>>The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town software is
>>loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory won't run any
>>software. You need probably 1gig memory for running Adobe Photoshop (why
>>load pics to laptop if you can't work with them?). You will then need
>>backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at best).
>>
>>Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for your
>>"under $500" computer.
>>
>>So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
>>computer is naive.
>>
>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>New? How about...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Or...
>>>>>
>>>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>>>
>>>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>>>device.
>>>
>>>
>>>How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
>>>1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
>>>pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
>>>of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
>>>images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
>>>device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>>>
>>>Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
>>>Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
>>>lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
>>>shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 3:03:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, you have a point there. Photoshop CS2 has a feature where the
authorization can be moved to a different computer. But you are right, its
expensive.

"Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EbGdnRm2pYCWngbfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I get $2000 after adding software costs. Adobe Photoshop is something like
>$700 US. Some kind of useable office suite (remember, I'm not going to have
>TWO computers when I can have one) another $500 or more. Of course, if you
>paid $1100 US just to have a storage device, I guess that's okay too.
>
> Rudy Benner wrote:
>> My new Toshiba A70 was $1300 CAN. You can do the math to convert that to
>> Yankee Dollars. Pentium, 512 meg, 60 gig, Wi-Fi- Cd burner etc etc ...
>> nice wide screen.
>>
>> Add Photoshop CS2.
>>
>> How do you get to $2000?
>>
>> "Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:_rGdnUeMY8NWbQffRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>>
>>>The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town software
>>>is loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory won't run any
>>>software. You need probably 1gig memory for running Adobe Photoshop (why
>>>load pics to laptop if you can't work with them?). You will then need
>>>backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at best).
>>>
>>>Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for your
>>>"under $500" computer.
>>>
>>>So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
>>>computer is naive.
>>>
>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>New? How about...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>>>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>>>>device.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
>>>>1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
>>>>pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
>>>>of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
>>>>images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
>>>>device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>>>>
>>>>Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
>>>>Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
>>>>lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
>>>>shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.
>>>>
>>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 6:07:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have 5 computers of varies ages - even a IBM thinkpad thats 4 years old --
not as suitable for photo type software and work as my newest desktop from a
year ago

I have taken it on vaction to download my images in the evening

but I gotta have the p-2000 -- probably will be a christmas gift for
myself -- it's to cool -- will fit in my bag of camera and lens toys

if I had this device the laptop would stay home and I would bring images
back on the p-2000 and store the images on the network server for use by
whatever computer I was playing with

toys - gotta have em

LOL


"Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EbGdnRm2pYCWngbfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>I get $2000 after adding software costs. Adobe Photoshop is something like
>$700 US. Some kind of useable office suite (remember, I'm not going to have
>TWO computers when I can have one) another $500 or more. Of course, if you
>paid $1100 US just to have a storage device, I guess that's okay too.
>
> Rudy Benner wrote:
>> My new Toshiba A70 was $1300 CAN. You can do the math to convert that to
>> Yankee Dollars. Pentium, 512 meg, 60 gig, Wi-Fi- Cd burner etc etc ...
>> nice wide screen.
>>
>> Add Photoshop CS2.
>>
>> How do you get to $2000?
>>
>> "Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:_rGdnUeMY8NWbQffRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>>
>>>The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town software
>>>is loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory won't run any
>>>software. You need probably 1gig memory for running Adobe Photoshop (why
>>>load pics to laptop if you can't work with them?). You will then need
>>>backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at best).
>>>
>>>Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for your
>>>"under $500" computer.
>>>
>>>So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
>>>computer is naive.
>>>
>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>New? How about...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>>>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>>>>device.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
>>>>1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
>>>>pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole point
>>>>of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than store
>>>>images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable storage
>>>>device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>>>>
>>>>Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage device?
>>>>Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
>>>>lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
>>>>shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.
>>>>
>>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 30, 2005 10:20:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> Anyone else see these problems?
>
> Finally, it is still pretty slow to display and zoom an image.
> They need to include canon's digic II processor ;-).
>
> Roger

I agree that faster operation would be better - and it would be nice if
when you wanted to get back to full display from zoomed in, you didn't
have to do it a zoom step at a time. With large numbers of images I agree
it slows down.

David
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 31, 2005 12:40:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Monday 30 May 2005 03:54, Ken wrote:

> The capacity of a 40gb hard drive, after necessary out of town
> software is loaded, is probably about 25gb, or less. 128mb of memory
> won't run any software. You need probably 1gig memory for running
> Adobe Photoshop (why load pics to laptop if you can't work with
> them?). You will then need backup media (CD r/w at least, to DVD at
> best).

If all his shots were in RAW at about 7.5 MB each, a 20 GB of hard drive
space would store about 2500 images. That's a LOT of shots. The
equivalent of 75 rolls of 36 exposure film. At "best" quality JPEG at
around 2.5 MB each, he could store 7500 images!

Photoshop wouldn't be needed. You're not image processing the images,
just storing them. Backup media and the related burner wouldn't be
needed either for the same reason. All you'd need is an image
viewer/file utility to view, sort, delete, etc., and that's included
with the OS. No extra charge.

> Do all this (including cost of software) and you are up to $2000 for
> your "under $500" computer.

ibid.

> So, all I am saying is that the suggestion that all you need is a $500
> computer is naive.

Perhaps, you need to go back and re-read the thread. You've
misconstrued or misunderstood my initial reply.

The OP was looking for an in-the-field mass storage solution for his
Canon 350D, since he filled up his flash card (cards?) rather quickly,
and was going on a trip for a few weeks. Most replies suggested
portable hard drives. One suggested the Epson P-2000. I said, for
what a P-2000 costs or less, you could get a notebook computer that
would store the images just as well and have the added benefit of a
computer -- E-mail, web, games, etc. -- to use while away. I was in
no way suggesting that this computer was to be a replacement or a
substitute for the one he normally used to do his image processing.
(An at home desktop, I assumed.) It was to be just for interim
storage, viewing, file sorting and/or deletion. Nothing more.


> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Saturday 28 May 2005 21:26, Ken wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday 27 May 2005 19:07, Ken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have
>>>>>the power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>New? How about...
>>
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=4070&pat...
>>
>>>>Or...
>>>>
>>>>www.pricewatch.com list quite a few for under $500.
>>>>
>>>>Used? Well, there's a plethora of them on eBay that would do the
>>>>job. Case in point: IBM 570e Thinkpad, 450MHz PIII, 128MB RAM, 6 or
>>>>12 GB HD in Excellent condition routinely sells for $80 to $125 US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry, but none of those have the power, memory, or disk space for
>>>what is needed... and way too big to use just as a portable storage
>>>device.
>>
>>
>> How much power/memory/hd do you need? The $498 Walmart computer is a
>> 1.1 GHz machine with 128MB of RAM, a 40 GB hard drive, and weighs 6
>> pounds. It's expandable and has optional drives. And the whole
>> point of using a notebook for storage is that it will do MORE than
>> store
>> images. So, it's bigger and heavier than a dedicated portable
>> storage
>> device. Keep it in the car or your hotel room.
>>
>> Or are you writing images while shooting directly to the storage
>> device?
>> Not the best way. You should carry enough flash media (smaller and
>> lighter than ANY portable storage device) to hold a day's worth of
>> shooting anyway. Do your transfers at day's end.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
May 31, 2005 11:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> I find the P-2000 response time slows down as you scroll deeper
> into a directory of images. I use 4GByte cards with my canon
> 1D mark II. In jpeg mode, 4 GB cards hold about 1200 images,
> and about 400 raw+jpeg. In a directory full of one card's
> worth of images, (raw or jpeg), scrolling response slows down
> after the first twelve images, and gets slower and slower
> the further in to the directory. After a few screen fulls of
> thumbnails, response to the next screen slows to 30 seconds,
> then 1 minute, and longer. Basically the second half of a
> directory with 400 images in it I've never had the patience
> to wait and look at. This is a major problem with the unit
> I have never seen described. Second problem is that
> if you hit the zoom out button one too many times, it zooms
> you right out of the directory to some higher level menu.
> If you were deep into a directory of images, it can take a
> long time to get back.
>
> Anyone else see these problems?

Yes. It's slow. And apparently doesn't cache the thumbnails it calculates.

> Finally, it is still pretty slow to display and zoom an image.
> They need to include canon's digic II processor ;-).

Yep. Until they speed it up, it's just a storage device with a nice screen.

The nice thing about it, though, is that the screen is good enough to show
people your images. Put a slide show of pics in a high-level directory, and
you can just hand it to someone with a brief explanation of the left and
right buttons.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
June 1, 2005 1:43:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:07:18 -0400, Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote:

>What kind of notebook computer can you buy for $500 that would have the
>power and storage for downloading pictures from the card?

I bought a used Dell Latitude C610 for $550 a few months back. I've
been extremely happy with it.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
June 1, 2005 1:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 28 May 2005 01:38:30 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
>> I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It takes
>> an hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old laptops are
>> slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for "portable"
>> storage. Plus 200 pics is 200mb or more.
>
>Something is wrong then. It shouldn't take that long to download.
>You should be able to download at several MB per sec if you're using
>fast cards, 1 MB/sec or so with slow cards.

Not if he's running USB 1.1
I bought a cheap PC card from Belkin so I have USB 2 with my old Dell.
Works great although I have to use the power plug to provide my card
reader with enough juice on the USB bus.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
a b G Storage
June 1, 2005 10:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tuesday 31 May 2005 18:44, Drifter wrote:

> On 28 May 2005 01:38:30 -0700, Paul Rubin
> <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
>>Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
>>> I have a 950mhz desktop with 60gig storage and 768mb memory. It
>>> takes an hour or more to downloade 200 pics from a CF card. Old
>>> laptops are slower than that. Not what i'd call useable for
>>> "portable" storage. Plus 200 pics is 200mb or more.
>>
>>Something is wrong then. It shouldn't take that long to download.
>>You should be able to download at several MB per sec if you're using
>>fast cards, 1 MB/sec or so with slow cards.
>
> Not if he's running USB 1.1
> I bought a cheap PC card from Belkin so I have USB 2 with my old Dell.
> Works great although I have to use the power plug to provide my card
> reader with enough juice on the USB bus.

I did a quick test with MY desktop system -- 900MHZ Duron, 80 GB HD,
256MB RAM, USB 1.1 -- using a 4X 256MB Lexar CF card containing 24
image files totaling 44.1 MB. Copy time: 35 seconds. Or about 1.25MB
per second which is pretty typical of USB 1.1 rates. So, 5 times that
or about 220MB should take 175 seconds or 2 minutes 55 seconds.
Certainly not anywhere near an hour.

Of course, I'm running Linux (Fedora Core 3) instead of some version of
Windows, and that should make for a faster, more efficient system, but
not THAT much faster. No, there's something definitely wrong with
Ken's system. And NO, I didn't use a terminal to do the copy. I used
the standard, stock, GUI file manager included with the GUI environment
(GNOME) I'm using.

Actually, the GUI file manager did it faster. It took 45 seconds using
a terminal window. Now, that's strange. I would have bet a terminal
copy would have been faster. And I did several tests. Results were
the consistent.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
a b G Storage
June 5, 2005 10:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:o rCle.40725$G8.26158@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Mike R wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that I have my 350d (very pleased with it), I noticed I can fill
>> a flash card quite quickly!. There will be times (like 2 weeks hols)
>> that I wont be near a PC to download the images on to. Can anybody
>> recommend a portable storage device?
>
> Epson P-2000. Good screen for showing your photos to other people as
> well.
>
> David
>

Thanks, after a lot of research I finally purchased one of these today. The
quality of the images are amazing - shame about my ability to take good
pictures :-(
!