Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson P-2000 -What a great device!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 6:56:11 PM

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

I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!

I've been using a Flashtrax device that is similar in many respects...with a
large color screen, etc., but I've always been disppointed with the TERRIBLE
image rendition it produces. My original hope with the Flashtrax was that I
could check image quality/rendition without my laptop. This was NOT the
case. Flasstrax battery life stunk, and the interface was odd (though it
worked OK).

The screen on the Epson is nothing short of breathtaking.
Absolutely clear, high definition (for it's size, 640x480 looks just plain
stunning), quick and responsive, very intuitive interface (haven't looked at
the manual at all, but have used nearly all functions without confusion).

Plus, it has both CF and SD readers built in.
Battery life (from reports) sound far superior to my other device, though
I'll have to test this.

With the zoom ability and clarity of the screen, the question of whether to
drag my laptop along on trips is now moot.
Laptop is staying home for sure now.

$499 is not cheap, but I can now forego the thought of buying a 4GB CF card,
etc., since my 4 1GB cards will now be a snap to swap in/out of the Epson.

It also plays movies and mp3 files, but that's not something I need...

-Mark
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:08:01 PM

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

>Mark M writes ...
>
>With the zoom ability and clarity of the screen, the question of whether
>to drag my laptop along on trips is now moot.
>Laptop is staying home for sure now.

Do other users agree with this, that you can replace the laptop for
doing a basic image review? When working in the field I take a laptop
and a Nixvue 60 GB for duplicate back-up right now but the laptop is
too heavy and fragile for some places, like a camping trip to Alaska
scheduled for September, so I was thinking of getting the P-2000, but
I'm a bit put off by the 40 GB limit (two people shooting 8.2 fps
cameras can fill cards pretty fast).

What do other users think about this as a laptop replacement,
especially for remote areas?

Bill
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:54:03 PM

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

>Mark M wrote ...
>
>I find that when I'm on a trip, the main thing I want to be able to
>do is:
>1) Quickly verify that I have a solid copy
>2) Review shots at the end of the day

Yeah, pretty much the same.

>If 40GB is too small, then there you go... :( 

This would be for two people with a 1Ds and two 1D Mark II's, sometimes
for up to 3 weeks ... I would feel comfortable with 80 GB and even 60
would probably do but 40 sounds a bit light ... also I think if I
bought it now then at Photokina Epson would announce the 60 GB model
for $100 less and the 80 GB model for the same price as the old 40 GB
one, right?

>How many GB do you tend to shoot? Over 36GB?

Well, usually 1-3 GB in the AM and the same in the afternoon (double it
to include my wife, who has the same basic gear) but sometimes one gets
carried away, especially with birds-in-flight or once-in-a-lifetime
occurences ... I usually shoot 4 GB or so twice a day (early and late)
at this spot for example ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T4956.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T5220.jpg

I went thru almost 8 GB this day (George Lepp of "Outdoor Photographer"
was in the seat in front of me and I think he went thru 12 GB) but it's
the best day I had up there, after about a week of smoke from fires and
then snow and gloomly weather ... but you don't get wolves noshing on a
caribou kill by the road very often, nor blonde grizzlies cavorting in
the snow by the road for several hours, on the same day ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3882_wolf.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T9D4036_grizz.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/W1037_bear.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3961_grizz.jpg

And I went thru 7 GB trying out different techniques for flight shots
on speedy birds in about 3 hours on this trip, trying to wring out the
best AF performance from my then-new 1D Mark II ... on this trip you
shoot 3 hours after breakfast, 3-4 hours after lunch and 3-4 hours
after supper (Land of the Midnight Sun, not that we ever saw the sun on
this Bering Sea island). There was always plenty to shoot and even
with three days of rainy weather we almost filled the laptop HD.
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/kitti...

I'd feel more comfortable with 80 GB ... I'm pretty sure my next Canon
dSLR will have even more megapixels too.

Bill
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:26:02 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04...
>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!

Which camera are you using to produce the images you are viewing on the
P-2000 ? And have you tried RAW or other formats?
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:26:03 AM

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

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:_TYye.3289$p%3.20762@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04...
>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>
> Which camera are you using to produce the images you are viewing on the
> P-2000 ? And have you tried RAW or other formats?

Canon 10D.
Yes, it works with RAW, though there are limitations on zooming/rotating,
etc.
It uses the JPEG data stored in the header of RAW files for display.

With the first release of teh P-2000, there was an simage size limitation of
8.x megapixels.
They have changed/upgraded the firmware, and it now displays up to 17.8MP
(which should cover everybody--if not, they can change the firmware inthe
future).

RAW formats it can read are:
..cr2
..crw
..erf
..mrw
..nef
..pef

These cover all the major cameras, and even some lesser ones.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:36:48 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120704842.976562.267510@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Mark M wrote ...
>>
>>I find that when I'm on a trip, the main thing I want to be able to
>>do is:
>>1) Quickly verify that I have a solid copy
>>2) Review shots at the end of the day
>
> Yeah, pretty much the same.
>
>>If 40GB is too small, then there you go... :( 
>
> This would be for two people with a 1Ds and two 1D Mark II's, sometimes
> for up to 3 weeks ... I would feel comfortable with 80 GB and even 60
> would probably do but 40 sounds a bit light ... also I think if I
> bought it now then at Photokina Epson would announce the 60 GB model
> for $100 less and the 80 GB model for the same price as the old 40 GB
> one, right?

For the amount of shooting you do and the equipment you have, if it were
me...I could definitely justify a 40GB unit, and if not a second unit...wait
for 60 or 80GB unit and have two on hand. This would mean that when you
DON'T need 80GB, you've always got redundancy capability. As soon as you
dump a card onto one device, dump it into a second unit.
See how these things go with me? :)  It's easy to rationalize... But
honestly, in your case, with...let's see...about $12,000 in bodies alone
(!!), and a lot more than that in your long L optics... -A couple of
measely $500 storage units are worth it, aren't they?

>>How many GB do you tend to shoot? Over 36GB?
>
> Well, usually 1-3 GB in the AM and the same in the afternoon (double it
> to include my wife, who has the same basic gear) but sometimes one gets
> carried away, especially with birds-in-flight or once-in-a-lifetime
> occurences ... I usually shoot 4 GB or so twice a day (early and late)
> at this spot for example ...

Sounds to me like you and your wife should both have a unit (or similar)
anyway. After all...I'm sur you're not always side bye side, right?

> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T4956.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T5220.jpg


> I went thru almost 8 GB this day (George Lepp of "Outdoor Photographer"
> was in the seat in front of me and I think he went thru 12 GB) but it's
> the best day I had up there, after about a week of smoke from fires and
> then snow and gloomly weather ... but you don't get wolves noshing on a
> caribou kill by the road very often, nor blonde grizzlies cavorting in
> the snow by the road for several hours, on the same day ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3882_wolf.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T9D4036_grizz.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/W1037_bear.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3961_grizz.jpg

You've got some fantastic captures here.
-Motivates me to talk my wife into a big expenditure on a 500mm f4 IS L, or
400...

I've been to Alaska three times in the last 6 years, but I am quite jealous
of your experiences and opportunities.
When I've been there, I've been on the move almost constantly, which meant I
didn't have a lot of time in any one place for waiting on good light,
weather, critters, etc....though if you've got sunlight in Alaska, it nearly
always seems to be low-angle, beautiful golden light. :)  OK... Now you're
making me want to run up there again this summer!

Maybe I'll just do that!

> And I went thru 7 GB trying out different techniques for flight shots
> on speedy birds in about 3 hours on this trip, trying to wring out the
> best AF performance from my then-new 1D Mark II ... on this trip you
> shoot 3 hours after breakfast, 3-4 hours after lunch and 3-4 hours
> after supper (Land of the Midnight Sun, not that we ever saw the sun on
> this Bering Sea island). There was always plenty to shoot and even
> with three days of rainy weather we almost filled the laptop HD.
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
> http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/kitti...
>
> I'd feel more comfortable with 80 GB ... I'm pretty sure my next Canon
> dSLR will have even more megapixels too.

Alright, that does it!
You've spent that much...what's another $1K?
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:20:25 AM

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

It looks like you will still have a very hard time finding one in stock. :( 
When I saw it available at B&H I snapped it up, and assumed that perhaps
Epson had caught up a bit with overwhelming demand. Apparently not, as
everyone is backordered again...

Worth waiting if you're considering it...

Possibly of interest to some... The video play-back requirements appear to
be hard to meet in that it's tough to find a conversion program that can
deal with file-type constraints. Not that this matters much to me...but
since I mentioned it in the initial post, I thought I'd note that I'm not
finding much info/help on that.


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04...
>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>
> I've been using a Flashtrax device that is similar in many respects...with
> a large color screen, etc., but I've always been disppointed with the
> TERRIBLE image rendition it produces. My original hope with the Flashtrax
> was that I could check image quality/rendition without my laptop. This was
> NOT the case. Flasstrax battery life stunk, and the interface was odd
> (though it worked OK).
>
> The screen on the Epson is nothing short of breathtaking.
> Absolutely clear, high definition (for it's size, 640x480 looks just plain
> stunning), quick and responsive, very intuitive interface (haven't looked
> at the manual at all, but have used nearly all functions without
> confusion).
>
> Plus, it has both CF and SD readers built in.
> Battery life (from reports) sound far superior to my other device, though
> I'll have to test this.
>
> With the zoom ability and clarity of the screen, the question of whether
> to drag my laptop along on trips is now moot.
> Laptop is staying home for sure now.
>
> $499 is not cheap, but I can now forego the thought of buying a 4GB CF
> card, etc., since my 4 1GB cards will now be a snap to swap in/out of the
> Epson.
>
> It also plays movies and mp3 files, but that's not something I need...
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:43:06 PM

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

Bill Hilton wrote:

> I'm a bit put off by the 40 GB limit (two people shooting 8.2 fps
> cameras can fill cards pretty fast).

Problem #0 is that the unit costs way too much (remember: you'll need
two if you don't bring a laptop).

Problem #1 is the small disk size.

Problem #2 is that if the disk fails you can't just replace it with
another one, as the _disk_ holds the firmware for the unit.

Problems #0 and #1 are more or less survivable for some. #2 -- the
lack of 'fungibility' re: disks -- make the unit very undesirable to
many people, no matter how nice the display may be. (Since the display
is useless if the disk is useless, and repair means shipment back to
Epson instead of just going to a random computer store and buying a new
disk.)

Now there are people who have "ghosted" the original drive, and even
replaced the 40 with an 80, but as far as I know, no one has trusted
this solution.

Overall, I recommend a PD70x and a laptop, or, if the laptop is not
necessary, a pair of PD70x's.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:56:32 PM

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

In article <1120704842.976562.267510@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> writes
>
>Well, usually 1-3 GB in the AM and the same in the afternoon (double it
>to include my wife, who has the same basic gear) but sometimes one gets
>carried away, especially with birds-in-flight or once-in-a-lifetime
>occurences ... I usually shoot 4 GB or so twice a day (early and late)
>at this spot for example ...
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T4956.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T5220.jpg
>
>I went thru almost 8 GB this day (George Lepp of "Outdoor Photographer"
>was in the seat in front of me and I think he went thru 12 GB) but it's
>the best day I had up there, after about a week of smoke from fires and
>then snow and gloomly weather ... but you don't get wolves noshing on a
>caribou kill by the road very often, nor blonde grizzlies cavorting in
>the snow by the road for several hours, on the same day ...
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3882_wolf.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T9D4036_grizz.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/W1037_bear.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3961_grizz.jpg
>
>And I went thru 7 GB trying out different techniques for flight shots
>on speedy birds in about 3 hours on this trip, trying to wring out the
>best AF performance from my then-new 1D Mark II ... on this trip you
>shoot 3 hours after breakfast, 3-4 hours after lunch and 3-4 hours
>after supper (Land of the Midnight Sun, not that we ever saw the sun on
>this Bering Sea island). There was always plenty to shoot and even
>with three days of rainy weather we almost filled the laptop HD.
>http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
>http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
>http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/puff_...
>http://members.aol.com/hiltonfotography/pribilofs/kitti...
>
>I'd feel more comfortable with 80 GB ... I'm pretty sure my next Canon
>dSLR will have even more megapixels too.
>
Amazing shots, Bill! Thanks for sharing. I actually like the fact that
the puff_feather picture shows some blur at the wing tips - it adds a
feeling of movement, which of course only works because the rest of the
picture is sharp.

Good job the grizzlies don't take part in NG discussions, I sure would
not want to argue with those guys....

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 9:01:34 PM

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

>John McWilliams writes ...
>
>Were the bear shots from the
>comfort, not to mention safety, of a vehicle?

The shots of the blonde grizzly in the snow were from a bus, a photo
tour from a lodge at the end of the 90 mile dirt road in Denali. (You
really appreciate Canon's IS when shooting 700 - 1,000 mm from a bus.)
These "interior" grizzlies are not aggressive in the sense they will
run you down and kill you, but they are a bit short tempered and edgy,
especially if followed or startled, so the rule in Denali is 400 yards
distance. I've been within 50-100 yards a few times when I came across
them near the road while I was on a mountain bike and they looked
intently at me but didn't press it as I slowly left without even trying
to set up and photograph. The main concern is that you not startle one
at close range ... a lady was mauled in May in Denali when she
apparently woke a grizz up at close range, so I always make noise when
in brush or when riding the bike where there's limited visibility.

>Almost makes me want to come face to
>face with a tiny well feed brown bear

The other shots I linked to (with Roger's page) were of coastal brown
bears. The "rule" here is 50 yards (instead of 400) from a single bear
and 100 yards from a female with cubs but often at Brooks River the
bears will come much closer before you are aware of them. These bears
are more used to humans because of all the fishermen on the river and
all the bear watchers on the platforms, plus they have plenty to eat
since the river is full of salmon, so you are a lot safer here with a
700 pound brown bear at 20 yards than in Denali with a 300 lb bear at
200 yards, I feel.

But you never know ... an interior grizz in the Arctic NWR attacked and
killed two campers a couple weeks ago, apparently a predatory attack
since they were in their tent with no food and he stayed around to eat
them. This is rare, but still you never know. And a large coastal
brown bear killed the famous Timothy Treadwell and his lady friend a
couple of summers ago near Katmai when Tim apparently tried to bully
the bear out of camp and the bear called his bluff (the killings were
captured on tape). Incidents like this keep me from getting
overconfident, I hope.

Bill
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:49:50 PM

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

In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>
>I've been using a Flashtrax device that is similar in many respects...with a
>large color screen, etc., but I've always been disppointed with the TERRIBLE
>image rendition it produces. My original hope with the Flashtrax was that I
>could check image quality/rendition without my laptop. This was NOT the
>case. Flasstrax battery life stunk, and the interface was odd (though it
>worked OK).
>
>The screen on the Epson is nothing short of breathtaking.
>Absolutely clear, high definition (for it's size, 640x480 looks just plain
>stunning), quick and responsive, very intuitive interface (haven't looked at
>the manual at all, but have used nearly all functions without confusion).
>
>Plus, it has both CF and SD readers built in.
>Battery life (from reports) sound far superior to my other device, though
>I'll have to test this.
>
>With the zoom ability and clarity of the screen, the question of whether to
>drag my laptop along on trips is now moot.
>Laptop is staying home for sure now.
>
>$499 is not cheap, but I can now forego the thought of buying a 4GB CF card,
>etc., since my 4 1GB cards will now be a snap to swap in/out of the Epson.
>
>It also plays movies and mp3 files, but that's not something I need...
>
>-Mark
>
Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
leave the laptop at home.

*I think it's still current on the shelves here - but I do find it
tedious and pretentious when publishers don't put a date on their
publications. Excellent magazine otherwise.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:49:51 PM

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

"David Littlewood" <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BoSKkKCOrszCFwI6@dlittlewood.co.uk...
> In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>
>>I've been using a Flashtrax device that is similar in many respects...with
>>a
>>large color screen, etc., but I've always been disppointed with the
>>TERRIBLE
>>image rendition it produces. My original hope with the Flashtrax was that
>>I
>>could check image quality/rendition without my laptop. This was NOT the
>>case. Flasstrax battery life stunk, and the interface was odd (though it
>>worked OK).
>>
>>The screen on the Epson is nothing short of breathtaking.
>>Absolutely clear, high definition (for it's size, 640x480 looks just plain
>>stunning), quick and responsive, very intuitive interface (haven't looked
>>at
>>the manual at all, but have used nearly all functions without confusion).
>>
>>Plus, it has both CF and SD readers built in.
>>Battery life (from reports) sound far superior to my other device, though
>>I'll have to test this.
>>
>>With the zoom ability and clarity of the screen, the question of whether
>>to
>>drag my laptop along on trips is now moot.
>>Laptop is staying home for sure now.
>>
>>$499 is not cheap, but I can now forego the thought of buying a 4GB CF
>>card,
>>etc., since my 4 1GB cards will now be a snap to swap in/out of the Epson.
>>
>>It also plays movies and mp3 files, but that's not something I need...
>>
>>-Mark
>>
> Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
> Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
> emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
> this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
> enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to leave
> the laptop at home.
>
> *I think it's still current on the shelves here - but I do find it tedious
> and pretentious when publishers don't put a date on their publications.
> Excellent magazine otherwise.

I've read numerous reviews of the device, and have yet to read one that
wasn't extremely positive.
The only significant negative remark had to do with an initial limitation of
8.9MP as a limit for what image file size it could handle. That has been
changed to 17.9MP with a firmware update.
-Mark
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 5:05:21 PM

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

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
<david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!

>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>leave the laptop at home.

Is this review available online? I could not find it.

Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
excuse to get one. :-)

kodak
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 6:16:02 PM

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

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>
>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>leave the laptop at home.
>
> Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>
> Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
> the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
> excuse to get one. :-)
>
> kodak

Google for "Epson P-2000 review" and you have all the reviews you can
handle.
You'll note, to, that positive without exception (except for the earlier
gripe about 8.9MP limitation, which has now been fixed.).
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 4:33:58 AM

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

In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>
>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>leave the laptop at home.
>
>Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>
>Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>excuse to get one. :-)
>
>kodak

The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and came
bottom by a country mile.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 1:14:32 PM

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

David Littlewood wrote:
> In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
> <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>
>>>> I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>
>>
>>> Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>> Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>> emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>> this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>> enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>> leave the laptop at home.
>>
>>
>> Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>>
>> Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>> the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>> excuse to get one. :-)
>>
>> kodak
>
>
> The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and came
> bottom by a country mile.

What tested where, by whom? Criteria?
Link?
--
John McWilliams

After three years of therapy my psychiatrist said something that brought
tears to my eyes. He said, "No hablo inglés, Señor."
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 6:32:23 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:33:58 +0100, David Littlewood
<david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>
>>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>>leave the laptop at home.
>>
>>Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>>
>>Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>>the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>>excuse to get one. :-)
>>
>>kodak
>
>The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and came
>bottom by a country mile.
>
>David

David,

"slated" = ??

Are you saying that of the six devices tested, it ranked bottom in
capabilities?

I'm considering an iPod because I'm seeking one device that can do
double-duty as an MP3 player and a photo storage unit. Did the UK
magazine review consider the music-playing capabilities of each
device? Without doing too much typing can someone post the list of the
devices in rank order and the key comments about each?

Pere Kodak
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 7:20:39 PM

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

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:ff43d1h0ajtu8hrb3sb0qbkrbs6emhp08k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:33:58 +0100, David Littlewood
> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
>><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>>><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>>
>>>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>>>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>>>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>>>leave the laptop at home.
>>>
>>>Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>>>
>>>Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>>>the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>>>excuse to get one. :-)
>>>
>>>kodak
>>
>>The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and came
>>bottom by a country mile.
>>
>>David
>
> David,
>
> "slated" = ??
>
> Are you saying that of the six devices tested, it ranked bottom in
> capabilities?
>
> I'm considering an iPod because I'm seeking one device that can do
> double-duty as an MP3 player and a photo storage unit. Did the UK
> magazine review consider the music-playing capabilities of each
> device? Without doing too much typing can someone post the list of the
> devices in rank order and the key comments about each?
>
> Pere Kodak

The iPod is really just an mp3 player...that can also store and display
photos...sort of.
What CAN'T it do??

It doesn't have built-in card-reading capabilities.
-Can't pan within images...
-Can't Zoom into images...
-Can only store photos from ONE computer...if you try it from a different
computer, it asks if you want to "replace all the photos."
-Must use iTunes for everything.
-Even though you can connect a card reader to it, you will NOT be able to
VIEW those images...until you feed them through i-tunes (!!).

Here's a review that covers some of these things:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1723666,00.asp

Here's a cut-to-the-chase review with pros and cons:
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/portable_av/0,39033456,390...

This UK review warns away from the iPod for photographers, and suggests the
Epson:
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029994,39186...

Personally, the whole line of iPods are FAR too proprietary in my view.
They are entirely dependant upon iTunes to work. I just got my wife a tiny
little mp3 player by Creative labs called a Muvo200. It competes with
iPod's "Shuffle" but it blowes the shuffle" away with a screen, options,
folder browsing, audio/voice recording, FM tuner, presets, myriad of
shuffling options...AND...it can play BOTH mp3 files and WMA files.
Plus...it is recognized as a hard drive by your computer, meaning you can
just dump folders onto it and it works. Apple has become SO intent on
forcing everyone to use iTunes that I've sworn off of anything in their
line.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:27:32 PM

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

> David Littlewood writes ...
>
>Opinions are theirs not mine ...
> Epson P2000 86% ... Sleek and sexy

"Sleek and sexy" ? Mark M didn't mention this ... in that case I guess
I want one after all :) 
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:35:07 PM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121038051.964235.169130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> David Littlewood writes ...
>>
>>Opinions are theirs not mine ...
>> Epson P2000 86% ... Sleek and sexy
>
> "Sleek and sexy" ? Mark M didn't mention this ... in that case I guess
> I want one after all :) 

It's been sitting on my desk for a while now, but so far it has utterly
failed to seduce me...
:) 
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 10:57:41 PM

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

In article <YOydnUa8nL701EzfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>David Littlewood wrote:
>> In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
>><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>>> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>>> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>
>>>>> I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>> Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>> emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>>> this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>>> enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>>> leave the laptop at home.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>>>
>>> Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>>> the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>>> excuse to get one. :-)
>>>
>>> kodak
>> The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and
>>came bottom by a country mile.
>
>What tested where, by whom? Criteria?
>Link?

I think the art of reading must have temporarily deserted you.... please
see above quote (my original post). AFAIK, the review is not available
on-line (why should a magazine publisher give away his wares?).

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:19:26 AM

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

In article <ff43d1h0ajtu8hrb3sb0qbkrbs6emhp08k@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:33:58 +0100, David Littlewood
><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
>><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>>><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>>
>>>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,
>>>>this does not of itself answer the other questions around whether it has
>>>>enough storage (none of the others had more) or whether it's safe to
>>>>leave the laptop at home.
>>>
>>>Is this review available online? I could not find it.
>>>
>>>Without having seen the actual review, was the Photo iPod included in
>>>the review? If the iPod rates even "decently well," then it's an
>>>excuse to get one. :-)
>>>
>>>kodak
>>
>>The Apple iPod Photo was one of the 6 tested. It was slated, and came
>>bottom by a country mile.
>>
>>David
>
>David,
>
>"slated" = ??

Trashed, rubbished, given the wooden spoon.
>
>
>Are you saying that of the six devices tested, it ranked bottom in
>capabilities?

Yes.
>
>I'm considering an iPod because I'm seeking one device that can do
>double-duty as an MP3 player and a photo storage unit. Did the UK
>magazine review consider the music-playing capabilities of each
>device? Without doing too much typing can someone post the list of the
>devices in rank order and the key comments about each?
>
>Pere Kodak
>
Oh, well, I suppose I started it. Opinions are theirs not mine; I have
never handled any of the products.

In order:

1 Epson P2000 86% Plays music and movies, great screen, scroll function
creaky and images take time to load. Sleek and sexy; "We were very
impressed ... and think it would make a very useful companion in the
field."

2 Jobo Gigaview Pro 84% Bit plastic-y, bit slow, bit expensive but
plenty of functionality.

3 Innoplus Phototainer 83% Below par LCD screen, slowest on test, but
easy to use and reasonably priced.

4 Archos PMA400 81% Well made but fiddly controls, lacks photo-oriented
functionality. more of a PDA with some photo storage functions.

5 Nikon Coolwalker MSV-01 77% Well made and robust, but very slow, very
poor battery life, and only handles Nikon RAW files.

6 Apple iPod Photo 67% Up to Apple's immaculate design standards, but
all you can do is view photos in a slideshow. Can only see low-res
thumbnails on direct loading, to see high res pics you have to upload to
computer and then transfer back. "It's questionable whether
professionals could really find a use for this....unless they want to
swank around with it... but what's new about an iPod these days."

I can't add any more. It's an excellent mag, go find one.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:04:51 AM

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

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:20:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
>news:ff43d1h0ajtu8hrb3sb0qbkrbs6emhp08k@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:33:58 +0100, David Littlewood
>> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
>>><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>>>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>>>><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>>>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>>>
>>>>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of course,

>The iPod is really just an mp3 player...that can also store and display
>photos...sort of.

>What CAN'T it do??

Thanks to those who explained the issues with iPod for photographic
use. Not wishing to start a flame war here, what is interesting is
how Apple has completely dominated the portable music player market
with the iPods.

In the computer biz, for one, the iPod has become the "giveaway du
rigueur" at every trade show. I was at a show early this year where
they were giving away iPods at 10 different booths. These were prizes
for getting your business card pulled out of the glass jar.

P K
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:29:42 AM

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

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:an94d11dcvrtc3bgqspvmam8801mi6nrbt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:20:39 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
>>news:ff43d1h0ajtu8hrb3sb0qbkrbs6emhp08k@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:33:58 +0100, David Littlewood
>>> <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4cb0d19pd3rg6ahakrtbh9rhrg1krrs1tj@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
>>>><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes
>>>>>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:49:50 +0100, David Littlewood
>>>>><david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <_rYye.7629$Eo.3574@fed1read04>, Mark²
>>>>>><mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>>>>>>I just received my Epson P-2000 storage device, and WOW!
>>>>>
>>>>>>Interested parties may care to note that issue #34* of the UK magazine
>>>>>>Digital Photographer has a review of 6 "Image Tanks". The Epson P-2000
>>>>>>emerged as the clear winner, mostly for the reasons you cite. Of
>>>>>>course,
>
>>The iPod is really just an mp3 player...that can also store and display
>>photos...sort of.
>
>>What CAN'T it do??
>
> Thanks to those who explained the issues with iPod for photographic
> use. Not wishing to start a flame war here, what is interesting is
> how Apple has completely dominated the portable music player market
> with the iPods.
>
> In the computer biz, for one, the iPod has become the "giveaway du
> rigueur" at every trade show. I was at a show early this year where
> they were giving away iPods at 10 different booths. These were prizes
> for getting your business card pulled out of the glass jar.

What flame war?
Apple is facing more and more competition. Other companies are keying in on
the recognition that not everyone wants to be locked into Apple's idea of
marketing. Yes...Apple is THE dominant company by far right now, but I
predict that the trend is going to move farther toward other companies that
aren't so set on exclusive control of their users via software requirements.
One of my pet peeves is having ot use proprietary everything. Sony is the
other company that loves to pull that marketing ploy. Apple isn't dumb.
They know if they make you use iTunes...that you're likely to buy their
songs at 99 cents each. While it's great to be able to buy only songs that
you want, you can't play them on other devices until you've gone through
conversion headaches in another program that gets it into a format standard
devices/computers/CD-mp3 players can recognize.

I think Apple really blew it with their iPod photo, because it COULD have
been an absolutely killer piece of hardware for photographers, but they made
sure it wasn't usable without iTunes. What a shame.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:52:58 PM

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

Mark² wrote:

> It looks like you will still have a very hard time finding one in stock. :( 
> When I saw it available at B&H I snapped it up, and assumed that perhaps
> Epson had caught up a bit with overwhelming demand. Apparently not, as
> everyone is backordered again...
>
> Worth waiting if you're considering it...

but epson was not backordered,
same price, second day shipment.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:59:19 PM

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

<crownfield@rcn.com> wrote in message news:XNudnUBa_Ys39k_fRVn-ow@rcn.net...
>
>
> Mark² wrote:
>
>> It looks like you will still have a very hard time finding one in stock.
>> :( 
>> When I saw it available at B&H I snapped it up, and assumed that perhaps
>> Epson had caught up a bit with overwhelming demand. Apparently not, as
>> everyone is backordered again...
>>
>> Worth waiting if you're considering it...
>
> but epson was not backordered,
> same price, second day shipment.

Epson USA store shows it's out of stock...
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 7:51:59 PM

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

Murphy shows 4 for sale on a "Buy Now" basis:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...


On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:59:19 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
><crownfield@rcn.com> wrote in message news:XNudnUBa_Ys39k_fRVn-ow@rcn.net...
>>
>>
>> Mark² wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like you will still have a very hard time finding one in stock.
>>> :( 
>>> When I saw it available at B&H I snapped it up, and assumed that perhaps
>>> Epson had caught up a bit with overwhelming demand. Apparently not, as
>>> everyone is backordered again...
>>>
>>> Worth waiting if you're considering it...
>>
>> but epson was not backordered,
>> same price, second day shipment.
>
>Epson USA store shows it's out of stock...
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:26:32 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:29:42 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>What flame war?

The flame wars that I have seen, for example, on a Nikon Users mailing
list when someone asked a question about _upgrading_ his current PC to
be able run say Photoshop or another digital workflow application.

All kinds of arguments ensued about PC vs. Mac as the best workflow
solution, despite the fact that a few sharp readers pointed out that
the OP was asking about an _upgrade_, not a new system.

Or the Nikon vs. Canon flame wars.


>
>I think Apple really blew it with their iPod photo, because it COULD have
>been an absolutely killer piece of hardware for photographers, but they made
>sure it wasn't usable without iTunes. What a shame.

Lemme see here. If I understand this statement, you can't simply
connect your digital camera directly to an iPod and download your
images???? (Maybe through a card reader?) You have to use a PC as a
transfer device??

If that's true, then geez, I can't possibly use an iPod as a data tank
when I'm out and about. The whole idea was to NOT need my laptop as a
data tank. Ok, then Apple is dumb, real dumb. They may not care
about serving photographers on travel, but either way, they are off MY
list. I was hoping to get one device that was both an mp3 player and
a photo image data tank, and about the size of an iPod.

Abba Kodak.

>
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 3:29:12 AM

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

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:mqaed1l7u1sjfmou0anlee4k684m1nfo5p@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:29:42 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What flame war?
>
> The flame wars that I have seen, for example, on a Nikon Users mailing
> list when someone asked a question about _upgrading_ his current PC to
> be able run say Photoshop or another digital workflow application.
>
> All kinds of arguments ensued about PC vs. Mac as the best workflow
> solution, despite the fact that a few sharp readers pointed out that
> the OP was asking about an _upgrade_, not a new system.
>
> Or the Nikon vs. Canon flame wars.
>
>
>>
>>I think Apple really blew it with their iPod photo, because it COULD have
>>been an absolutely killer piece of hardware for photographers, but they
>>made
>>sure it wasn't usable without iTunes. What a shame.
>
> Lemme see here. If I understand this statement, you can't simply
> connect your digital camera directly to an iPod and download your
> images???? (Maybe through a card reader?) You have to use a PC as a
> transfer device??

Well...sort of. You can buy a third party adapter for the ipod that will
allow you to copy cards to it.
The catch: You can't even look at/see those images until you have 1) Copied
them onto your computer and into iTunes...and then...2) Copied them BACK to
your iPhoto!! So what this means is that you would hav no way of reviewing
what you shot in the field at all. What a joke! Really a bummer, since I
think Apple really could have snagged a lot of photog customers with their
device. :( 
Oh well. I guess it works both ways. Epson similarly isn't the greatest as
an Mp3 player...though at least it will work in the field as one.

> If that's true, then geez, I can't possibly use an iPod as a data tank
> when I'm out and about. The whole idea was to NOT need my laptop as a
> data tank. Ok, then Apple is dumb, real dumb. They may not care
> about serving photographers on travel, but either way, they are off MY
> list. I was hoping to get one device that was both an mp3 player and
> a photo image data tank, and about the size of an iPod.
>
> Abba Kodak.

For clarity...it CAN "store" photos from a memory card with an attachment...
You just can't view them on the device until you manipulate them on the
computer. But what's the point of that for a photog?? For me this is
critical, since you then have no way to check and make sure you got a
good/non-corrupt copy (by confirming pictures visually).

Here's another pug for the Epson: The Epson has a full VGA (640x480 pixel),
beautifully detailed and rendered 3.8" screen. The iPod Photo's screen has
a measly 220x176 pixel count, and dinky 2"x2" size. -That's SQUARE, by the
way. How many SQUARE photos have you shot lately? :) 
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:59:13 PM

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

I don't know about some others here, but I can take images directly (both
jpeg and RAW) from my EOS-1 Ds MII and store them on the 60GB iPod Photo.
They can be later transferred to my Mac from there and the card in the
camera is free to be overwritten. All that is needed is a >$30 USB adapter.

I would suggest that you contact Apple if you have any other concerns. There
are people here who have such distain for anything Macintosh that it clouds
their thinking.

That being said, I still am on the lookout for the P-2000 because:
1. The LCD screen on the iPod is no better than the camera and cannot zoom
in as the camera.
2. It is a s-l-o-o-o-o-w process. Most likely NOT USB 2, I assume.
3. Enormous battery drain on the 1Pod Photo.

So, if you are looking for a cheaper alternative to the P-2000 and don't
want to haul around a laptop, I can see no reason why not to get the iPod
Photo just because some folks here are so biased.

My .02

On 7/14/05 10:26 PM, in article mqaed1l7u1sjfmou0anlee4k684m1nfo5p@4ax.com,
"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:29:42 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>> What flame war?
>
> The flame wars that I have seen, for example, on a Nikon Users mailing
> list when someone asked a question about _upgrading_ his current PC to
> be able run say Photoshop or another digital workflow application.
>
> All kinds of arguments ensued about PC vs. Mac as the best workflow
> solution, despite the fact that a few sharp readers pointed out that
> the OP was asking about an _upgrade_, not a new system.
>
> Or the Nikon vs. Canon flame wars.
>
>
>>
>> I think Apple really blew it with their iPod photo, because it COULD have
>> been an absolutely killer piece of hardware for photographers, but they made
>> sure it wasn't usable without iTunes. What a shame.
>
> Lemme see here. If I understand this statement, you can't simply
> connect your digital camera directly to an iPod and download your
> images???? (Maybe through a card reader?) You have to use a PC as a
> transfer device??
>
> If that's true, then geez, I can't possibly use an iPod as a data tank
> when I'm out and about. The whole idea was to NOT need my laptop as a
> data tank. Ok, then Apple is dumb, real dumb. They may not care
> about serving photographers on travel, but either way, they are off MY
> list. I was hoping to get one device that was both an mp3 player and
> a photo image data tank, and about the size of an iPod.
>
> Abba Kodak.
>
>>
>>
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:59:14 PM

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

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BEFD2B5C.2248A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>I don't know about some others here, but I can take images directly (both
> jpeg and RAW) from my EOS-1 Ds MII and store them on the 60GB iPod Photo.
> They can be later transferred to my Mac from there and the card in the
> camera is free to be overwritten. All that is needed is a >$30 USB
> adapter.
>
> I would suggest that you contact Apple if you have any other concerns.
> There
> are people here who have such distain for anything Macintosh that it
> clouds
> their thinking.

If you are referring to me... I have no disdain for Apple whatsoever. I am
very impressed with their other technology.
It's just that they blew it in this particular case with no card reader, no
zooming, no panning, and no viewing without computer manipulation.

> That being said, I still am on the lookout for the P-2000 because:
> 1. The LCD screen on the iPod is no better than the camera and cannot zoom
> in as the camera.
> 2. It is a s-l-o-o-o-o-w process. Most likely NOT USB 2, I assume.
> 3. Enormous battery drain on the 1Pod Photo.
>
> So, if you are looking for a cheaper alternative to the P-2000 and don't
> want to haul around a laptop, I can see no reason why not to get the iPod
> Photo just because some folks here are so biased.

Again... Bias is not an issue in this particular case. I could be very
happy with an Apple computer.
But the iPod photo is perhaps the worst choice for photographers for the
fact that it is extremely unfriendly to the needs of photogs. It's great if
you want to show your friends 2 inch pictures all the time (why?), but for
checking images in the field...forget it.
!