Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Epson P-2000 vs. Flashtrax XT

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
September 6, 2005 7:11:40 PM

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

Has anybody got either one?

I saw the Epson for the first time last week. Wow! Awesome screen, but
ugly price tag for very little functionality.

I am thinking of upgrading my 40GB Flaxtrax but apart from the screen I
really see no reason to get the Epson. I would really like the video
recording capability of the XT, but no stores around here have one I can
demo. What is the playback quality of the video when plugged into a
television? Anything like a VCR?

--
Look. See. Click. Share.

More about : epson 2000 flashtrax

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 6, 2005 7:11:41 PM

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

DD (Rox) wrote:
> Has anybody got either one?
>
> I saw the Epson for the first time last week. Wow! Awesome screen, but
> ugly price tag for very little functionality.

We have the Epson P-2000 and have been delighted with it. It's a bit
slower than one might wish, but it's very handy for showing "slide-shows"
to friends. We've used it as a backup device for memory cards while on
holiday as well.

David
September 7, 2005 11:37:50 AM

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

In article <S3hTe.103434$G8.68072@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
> DD (Rox) wrote:
> > Has anybody got either one?
> >
> > I saw the Epson for the first time last week. Wow! Awesome screen, but
> > ugly price tag for very little functionality.
>
> We have the Epson P-2000 and have been delighted with it. It's a bit
> slower than one might wish, but it's very handy for showing "slide-shows"
> to friends. We've used it as a backup device for memory cards while on
> holiday as well.

Yeah, this is my feeling - the P-2000 I checked out was pretty slow and
the only advantage I can see it having over the XT is that screen. I
suppose if you are using it to show pictures it would be impressive, but
I normally print the photos I want to share, or put them up on my
website.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 7, 2005 12:07:44 PM

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

DD (Rox) wrote:
[]
> Yeah, this is my feeling - the P-2000 I checked out was pretty slow
> and the only advantage I can see it having over the XT is that
> screen. I suppose if you are using it to show pictures it would be
> impressive, but I normally print the photos I want to share, or put
> them up on my website.

The P-2000 is only slightly slow, and even then only when first accessing
the picture. If you are out in the field and want to show your pictures
at the end of the day, making prints may not be an option. If you want to
show someone the images from a previous trip, it's a lot handier than
taking a stack of prints. It's also rather handy for checking if the
camera is working correctly compared to viewing results on the camera's
LCD. Of course, you could do all those things with a portable PC, but at
somewhat greater cost and inconvenience.

David
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 7, 2005 12:07:45 PM

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

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:07:44 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>The P-2000 is only slightly slow, and even then only when first accessing
>the picture. If you are out in the field and want to show your pictures
>at the end of the day, making prints may not be an option. If you want to
>show someone the images from a previous trip, it's a lot handier than
>taking a stack of prints. It's also rather handy for checking if the
>camera is working correctly compared to viewing results on the camera's
>LCD. Of course, you could do all those things with a portable PC, but at
>somewhat greater cost and inconvenience.


Here's what I use; the Delkin BurnAway. I like it because I burn my
CF cards to their gold archival CD-R's as soon as I get a free few
minutes. By doing this I immediately create an archival copy plus
clear my cards. I don't need main power or a computer and I can view
them on my hotel TV screen at night-or listen to CD's or watch DVD's
after I'm done viewing my images.
September 7, 2005 4:38:17 PM

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

In article <kdxTe.103934$G8.87619@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
> DD (Rox) wrote:
> []
> > Yeah, this is my feeling - the P-2000 I checked out was pretty slow
> > and the only advantage I can see it having over the XT is that
> > screen. I suppose if you are using it to show pictures it would be
> > impressive, but I normally print the photos I want to share, or put
> > them up on my website.
>
> The P-2000 is only slightly slow, and even then only when first accessing
> the picture. If you are out in the field and want to show your pictures
> at the end of the day, making prints may not be an option. If you want to
> show someone the images from a previous trip, it's a lot handier than
> taking a stack of prints. It's also rather handy for checking if the
> camera is working correctly compared to viewing results on the camera's
> LCD. Of course, you could do all those things with a portable PC, but at
> somewhat greater cost and inconvenience.

It's a nice little machine - I just wish they had bundled more
functionality with it, particularly on the video recording side.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 7, 2005 4:38:18 PM

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

DD (Rox) wrote:
[]
> It's a nice little machine - I just wish they had bundled more
> functionality with it, particularly on the video recording side.

An interesting suggestion. The Epson P-2000 can't record sound now (can
it?), so adding a video digitiser (is that what you are suggesting?) would
really be a completely new function. Personally, I would have no use for
such added function. What video source would you see yourself using in
the field?

David
September 7, 2005 6:57:53 PM

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

In article <tzzTe.104026$G8.28130@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, david-
taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
> DD (Rox) wrote:
> []
> > It's a nice little machine - I just wish they had bundled more
> > functionality with it, particularly on the video recording side.
>
> An interesting suggestion. The Epson P-2000 can't record sound now (can
> it?), so adding a video digitiser (is that what you are suggesting?) would
> really be a completely new function. Personally, I would have no use for
> such added function. What video source would you see yourself using in
> the field?

I don't use my FlashTrax as anything other than an Mp3 player in the
field. In fact I don't think I have ever filled up the 512MB card in my
D70!

I would like to use a device like this to record television shows and
movies that I could then replay on a TV set or watch portably.
Apparently the FlashTrax XT does this.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 8, 2005 12:17:03 AM

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

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> The P-2000 is only slightly slow, and even then only when first accessing
> the picture. If you are out in the field and want to show your pictures
> at the end of the day, making prints may not be an option. If you want to
> show someone the images from a previous trip, it's a lot handier than
> taking a stack of prints. It's also rather handy for checking if the
> camera is working correctly compared to viewing results on the camera's
> LCD. Of course, you could do all those things with a portable PC, but at
> somewhat greater cost and inconvenience.

I found it to be somewhat slow even after the picture was viewed once
and cached, but not intolerably slow. It doesn't work well for an
external slideshow generator because it sticks that annoying hourglass
icon smack in the middle of the display when it's switching images,
though. It works *really* well for passing along to people in the
back seat for a long drive, or viewing at a remote location where you
didn't bring a laptop, and it has a very good battery life, which was
a big factor in why I chose it.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
September 8, 2005 10:33:12 AM

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

Zed Pobre wrote:
[]
> I found it to be somewhat slow even after the picture was viewed once
> and cached, but not intolerably slow. It doesn't work well for an
> external slideshow generator because it sticks that annoying hourglass
> icon smack in the middle of the display when it's switching images,
> though. It works *really* well for passing along to people in the
> back seat for a long drive, or viewing at a remote location where you
> didn't bring a laptop, and it has a very good battery life, which was
> a big factor in why I chose it.

When running an automatic slideshow on the Epson P-2000, transition
effects are displayed between images and not an hourglass. The hourglass
appears briefly only if you change pictures manually.

Did you upgrade to the most recent firmware?

David
!