Digital SLRs with Built-In Hard Drives?

[daaaveman]

I have noticed that I am seeing more and more low-end digital cameras with built-in memory. It makes me wonder how long it's going to be before we can buy a camera comparable to the 10d with a 30Gb built-in hard drive. It makes perfect sense to me. God knows it gets cumbersome carrying and changing CF cards all the time. Give me 30Gb or so and let me shoot without worrying about running out of storage.

Has anyone heard of any research/development in this area? What are your thoughts?

[DaveG]

daaaveman wrote:
I have noticed that I am seeing more and more low-end digital cameras with built-in memory. It makes me wonder how long it's going to be before we can buy a camera comparable to the 10d with a 30Gb built-in hard drive. It makes perfect sense to me. God knows it gets cumbersome carrying and changing CF cards all the time. Give me 30Gb or so and let me shoot without worrying about running out of storage.

Has anyone heard of any research/development in this area? What are your thoughts?

I don't want a storage device that has spinning things going on inside of it because it's GOING to fail. What if it chooses to fail right at the end of a wedding. All is gone. Too bad.

I like the idea of removable solid state cards that either work or don't work (mostly) so I can hedge my bets. Hey, in a few years you'll get 1 gig CF cards as prizes in your cornflakes.

[Belmondo]

How about NO storage device in the camera but a wireless transmitter to a remote storage device....blue tooth, maybe.

[CoolToolGuy]

But how would it know YOUR wireless storage device from the slob next to you? Nice idea, but it might need a little work.

Have Fun,
Rick

[clos]

belmondo wrote:
How about NO storage device in the camera but a wireless transmitter to a remote storage device....blue tooth, maybe.

Nope, technology is already there, similair to multiple laptops in airports (use of diferent digital signatures is all) or offices but I would use 802.11 not bluetooth. Bluetooth just doesnt have the range, hmm...on second thought maybe thats not such a bad thing.

On another note, I too would not want a hard drive in my camera. With the technical advances of flash memory I don't think you will find a hard drive in a camera any time soon. Cost is a factor also, flash is just easier/cheaper to manufacture. Hard drives seem barbaric really.

-Clos

[daaaveman]

Great points. I knew this would inspire some interesting conversation.

[CoolToolGuy]

Oh, I don't know about the cost issue - right now, comparing equivalent read/write speeds, I think the microdrive (spinning disk) is cheaper than a CF card.

Have Fun
Rick

[Andy_T]

Daaaveman,

if you look on ebay sometimes for the old Kodak DCS models, you'll find that the idea is not that novel, after all.

With the old 1.3 - 2 Megapixel models based on old Nikon 8008 or F90 (e.g. the AP 2000), the standard memory device was the PCMCIA hard drive of 150 MB to 1 GB. Could be removed, too, but as a rule transferred the data via a cable to the PC.

In my opinion, CF cards are an advance over that, since they give you the flexibility to take the card out of the camera and user an additional reader. That way, you can decouple taking pictures from transmitting them. While your CF card gets loaded to your Flashtrax or other, you continue with your second card.

Also, you have the flexibility to customize your camera yourself and determine how much memory and what kind of memory you prefer.

Regards,
Andy

[clos]

cooltoolguy wrote:
Oh, I don't know about the cost issue - right now, comparing equivalent read/write speeds, I think the microdrive (spinning disk) is cheaper than a CF card.

Have Fun
Rick

True, unless you incorporate the size requirements. Compare a microdrives (tiny harddrive) cost/megapixel to it's flash counterpart. I haven't shopped for either but bet you a dollar to a nickel that if flash is not less in cost now it will be 12 months from now. Flash is just easier to make, no moving parts. It is also faster and more relaible than a hardrive. I honestly think that you'll see hard drives go away altoghether in the next 10 years.

-Clos

[Jim_T]

I don't want a storage device that has spinning things going on inside of it because it's GOING to fail. What if it chooses to fail right at the end of a wedding. All is gone. Too bad.


Where do you store the pictures when you take them out of the camera ?

By chance, would it be on one of those spinning things that's GOING to fail ??

:)

[clos]

Jim_t wrote:

I don't want a storage device that has spinning things going on inside of it because it's GOING to fail. What if it chooses to fail right at the end of a wedding. All is gone. Too bad.


Where do you store the pictures when you take them out of the camera ?

By chance, would it be on one of those spinning things that's GOING to fail ??

:)



LOL, I sure do, then I transfer it to a DVD for preservation, which of course is read by a "spinning thing".

-Clos

[CoolToolGuy]

All of the technologies will advance over the next several years. There were pundits in the computer industry several years ago saying that spinning disk (DASD to us dinosaurs) would go away, and all storage would be solid state. But, lo and behold, there are still lots and lots of disks spinning in computers everywhere. There may be other reasons to keep them around in the IT world, but I wouldn't count disk out just yet. Microdrives are now up to 2.2 GB (maybe higher), and although I hear about problems with them at the moment, they will likely be sorted out.
However, I don't see the built-in hard drive as an option, since the amount of storage would be fixed. However it is used, the CF slot is a better solution right now. But I can't get out of my mind the Sony Mavicas of several years ago - they had a 3 1/2 inch floppy drive slot, and at the time it sounded real cool. Now, despite the Mavica not having the resolution, you couldn't get one RAW image from a Drebel on one. Sony is now doing the same thing with mini DVDs. Will they look as silly some day?
My biggest complaint about the CF slots in the cameras is the potential for damage of the door and/or the camera if you try to change them quickly or frequently. I think Canon needs to work on that.
Have Fun
Rick

[PacAce]

Hey, how about following Sony's lead in the camcorder area and use a 3" DVD-R for storage right on the camera. Then you can shoot a picture, have it stored in the DVD-R and, voila, you have instant backup to DVD. You just saved yourself two or three steps at the beginning of your workflow! :D

[DaveG]

Jim_t wrote:

I don't want a storage device that has spinning things going on inside of it because it's GOING to fail. What if it chooses to fail right at the end of a wedding. All is gone. Too bad.


Where do you store the pictures when you take them out of the camera ?

By chance, would it be on one of those spinning things that's GOING to fail ??

:)



If the disk fails inside the original camera you won't have a chance to make copies. After you make copies the whole problem is moot.

[iwatkins]

Bring back paper tape and punched cards is what I say. :)

Actually, I can see choice being the next big thing. I.e. either put in a standard CF card or put in a BlueTooth/Wifi CF card (same slot), choice is yours.

I can't see an internal hard disk being on the agenda. Too much to go wrong.

Cheers

Ian

[CoolToolGuy]

'Say, buddy, what's with the wire going from your camera to that belt with all the boxes on it?'
'Oh, that's my storage array. Cool, huh? Fully redundant with mirroring and tape backup.'

Have Fun
Rick Stecker

[CanonUser]

Obviously you've overlooked this camera...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/

Also, an interesting article regarding wireless technology...
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/6719986.htm

Cheers,
Alan

[robertwgross]

Alan, come now... an article from the San Jose Mercury News? Speaking as a denizen of Silicon Valley (a.k.a. the haven for left-brain individuals), I say there are two classes of people in Silicon Valley: those who do not read the Mercury News, and those who do read it.

The ones who do not read it are underinformed.

The ones who do read it are misinformed.

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

robertwgross wrote:
Alan, come now... an article from the San Jose Mercury News? Speaking as a denizen of Silicon Valley (a.k.a. the haven for left-brain individuals), I say there are two classes of people in Silicon Valley: those who do not read the Mercury News, and those who do read it.

The ones who do not read it are underinformed.

The ones who do read it are misinformed.

---Bob Gross---


Well, Bob, you've finally picked a fight that I can go toe to toe with you on.

I lived in the San Jose area for a little over 30 years, and I read the San Jose Mercury News almost every day. I can say without hesitation that the San Jose Mercury has a very good crossword puzzle, and is also excellent for housebreaking a puppy.

Compared to the San Francisco papers, the Mercury wasn't all that bad. At least they had the Fry's ad from time to time.

Tom

[tony723]

cooltoolguy wrote:
But how would it know YOUR wireless storage device from the slob next to you? Nice idea, but it might need a little work.

Have Fun,
Rick
I heard that Nikon D2H has wireless LAN built in which can transfer photo image to other device or PC.

[CoolToolGuy]

My concern is security and identification. If those things are not properly addressed, the slob next to you might be getting your images or vice versa. And, another nefarious slob may be stealing your images from you right over the airwaves.
Not to say they haven't thought of that, but it is food for thought. It is well known that in the wireless LAN world you can pick up a connection by standing next to a building that uses it.
And if wireless proliferates, think of the radio confusion between the photogs at a big sporting event.

Have Fun,
Rick Stecker

[defordphoto]

tony723 wrote:
cooltoolguy wrote:
But how would it know YOUR wireless storage device from the slob next to you? Nice idea, but it might need a little work.

Have Fun,
Rick
I heard that Nikon D2H has wireless LAN built in which can transfer photo image to other device or PC.


It has capabilities with an add-on which is not yet available. It's the future for sure. We've yakked about this before in another thread and I like the idea!

[daaaveman]

Given the way the Nikon handles the Wifi, with an outboard device plugged in through the USB port, would it be safe to say that it is feasible that Canon could take the hint and develop something similar for the 10d?

[CanonUser]

Coming from the State that elected 2 actors for governors, from the valley that sparked the hi-tech revolution (IBM & Apple) but let the Pirate from Redmond cleaned the house, I guess the whole darned state deserved being called "misinformed".
Yeah! I shoulda bought tha Sigma9 to support Foveon, a Silicon Valley home boy. Whadda heck am I doin' with a Canon camera?... I'm drifting...

[imago57]

You all forget the many photographers who travel the world in search of their images. It is not easy when you are in the middle of the Amazon jungle to deal with wireless technology, and it would be unconceavable to use a camera with a fix amount of storage space. Last year I filled a 12 Gb Tripper on my 3 weeks stay in Brazil, this year I expect to fill a 40 Gb drive. My solution is 2 500 Mb or 2 1 Gb flash cards and 1 or 2 Trippers for download and backup. Although it is thrue that HDD fail just as much as CDs and DVDs, I believe HDD are more likely to let you retrieve data than a failed CDr.

[hmhm]

The two main issues, as I see them, are form factor and environmentals.

A 30GB hard drive, a la what's inside an iPod, is presumably significantly larger than a compactflash card, and room must be found inside the camera body to accomodate it. I suspect there's not a lot of empty space inside a typical DSLR (spaces that wouldn't entail blocking an optical path).

The other question pertains to the environmental requirements of the hard drive, e.g. temperature, air pressure, and shock. These are concerns with current compactflash micro-drives, and I'd assume that these are ruggedized relative to your typical mini hard drive.

A tertiary issue is that of cost. If I can completely eliminate compactflash, then its a cost win for me as a system (though note that my camera body will appear to me more expensive than a competitor's body that requires a flash card). But if anybody still required the use of compactflash as an "export" mechanism (why?), vs USB or firewire cable, then the body just added a few hundred dollars of expense without adding any value for the person with those requirements.

Personally, I'd strongly prefer an internal hard drive unless it required significant changes to the body's form factor (i.e. if it don't make my camera real fat).
-harry (iPod fan)

[CyberDyneSystems]

andythaler wrote:
Daaaveman,

if you look on ebay sometimes for the old Kodak DCS models, you'll find that the idea is not that novel, after all.

With the old 1.3 - 2 Megapixel models based on old Nikon 8008 or F90 (e.g. the AP 2000), the standard memory device was the PCMCIA hard drive of 150 MB to 1 GB. Could be removed, too, but as a rule transferred the data via a cable to the PC.

In my opinion, CF cards are an advance over that, since they give you the flexibility to take the card out of the camera and user an additional reader. That way, you can decouple taking pictures from transmitting them. While your CF card gets loaded to your Flashtrax or other, you continue with your second card.

Also, you have the flexibility to customize your camera yourself and determine how much memory and what kind of memory you prefer.

Regards,
Andy

I can't figure out why the high end Cameras ever did away with the old PCMCIA slots.. they really aren't that much bigger than a CF card,.. but with todays technology (like microdrives) I can easily see an affordable 20 gig PCMCIA hard drive,. not to mention 4-8 gig solidstate flash memory cards...

Look at the size of the 1D series camera an tell me you couldn't easily fit a PCMCIA card in there?

If the camera had the true PCMCIA controller on board (easy enough) then the card could be a hard drive,. a solidstate flash memory card,.. or a wireless transmitter!

[robertwgross]

belmondo wrote:
Well, Bob, you've finally picked a fight that I can go toe to toe with you on.
...
Compared to the San Francisco papers, the Mercury wasn't all that bad. At least they had the Fry's ad from time to time.


That sounds like you pick your toes.

I began to lose faith in the Mercury News last January 1. A local hiking group had a Hangover Hike scheduled for January 1 at 7:45 a.m., and the Mercury News sent over a reporter and a photographer to cover the event. At least the reporter hiked the hike and gathered interviews. The photographer, sporting a Canon 1DS, never made it out of the parking lot. He shoot one frame almost directly into the sun, and then announced that he was heading back. He will never be a Galen Rowell.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another simple "I can't saee why they don't do this" addition to any high end camera is a fully functional,. addresable firewire port/controller.

Then it could be left up to us to decide if we want to attach a camera directly to a poratable hard drive,.

But none of the Cameras that I know of will wrtite directly to an attached firewire peripheral (you can't do this with USB... USB requires a PC and OS to function... Firewire controllers however will talk to eachother without a PC or OS, they are "peer to peer" in that sense))

[CanonUser]

There ARE IEEE1394 drives that can be connected directly to camcorders for direct-to-disk recording. Some are designed specifically for a model (Canon XL-S 1 or JVC pro model) or any generic miniDV camcorder. The miniDV standard has an output rate of ~3.5MB-per-second or about 13GB-per-hour. They use the 2.5" laptop drives, which have been proven over and again (there was this picture of a US embedded journalist sitting in the middle of the dessert by a humv, his gear spreaded out on the sand comprised of an electric generator, the camera, a laptop, and a small setellite disk for the link up, he was sending the latest pictures and reports back to his editor in the US). Yes, they can have mechanical malfunction, but with care they can stand up to higher stress, just like your camera.
The technology IS there. The question is, is there the demand and market for the manufacturer to include such features in to their products?

Regards,
Alan

[CyberDyneSystems]

I know! The drives exist,. any firewire drive will work,. it is up to the camera manufacturers to include the propoer controller that will allow the camera to write directly to the firewire drive from the read buffer.

I know there is a big connection between Camera manufactureres and shady deals with flash card standards/manufactures...

(otherwise we would not have the positively Idiotic situation of over 8 types of flash card media for cameras,.. when they got it right the second time with Compact flash,... htere is no reason for ANY camera memeory card made after compact flash.. which elliminates all but "smart media" )

...but I digress...

The only reason Canon WON'T put a fully functional firewire port on a camera is the same reason we have so many stupid flash cards... proprietary money to be made.

With a firewire port I could get 30 gigs 2.5" laptop storage in a firewire external box from computer geeks for $120.00

Now how would Canon make $$$ off of that option?,. let alone the CF consortium?

[Jesper]

The first thing that fails in a computer is the hard drive, because of the moving parts etc. so it wouldn't be good to have something like that built-in into your camera. Also, hard drives are still not extremely resistant to shocks and movement, especially when data is being written.

It would be nice to have a DSLR with a built-in, but removable hard drive. I guess even the smallest hard drives (except for micro drives the size of a CF card) is too large and heavy to build into a camera.

Sometime in the future a new technology for computer memory will be developed which will allow us to store unimaginable amounts of data in a very small value. Maybe then there will be cameras with enough built-in memory to store thousands of photos.

[daaaveman]

Nikon is connecting to the D2H with the USB port and an outboard device that looks like a Big Ed through the USB port for WiFi. Why can't we do that fairly easily? There may not be room in the camera but there is room below it for a device. I love the 802.11b idea. Not relevant for all situations but it would sometimes be invaluable.

From dpreview:

As you can see from the image above the WT-1 attaches to the bottom of the camera via a tripod screw, there are power connectors on the base of the camera, the WT-1 uses the camera's battery for power. Digital connection is made by a short cable to the camera's USB 2.0 port (I was surprised by this, I would have thought it neater and relatively straightforward to include the USB 2.0 connection with the power connectors on the camera base). On this diagram a standard 'button' aerial is screwed into the WT-1's aerial socket but you can also use an extended range aerial which can be clipped to a backpack or jacket.

[tony723]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I know! The drives exist,. any firewire drive will work,. it is up to the camera manufacturers to include the propoer controller that will allow the camera to write directly to the firewire drive from the read buffer.

I know there is a big connection between Camera manufactureres and shady deals with flash card standards/manufactures...

(otherwise we would not have the positively Idiotic situation of over 8 types of flash card media for cameras,.. when they got it right the second time with Compact flash,... htere is no reason for ANY camera memeory card made after compact flash.. which elliminates all but "smart media" )

...but I digress...

The only reason Canon WON'T put a fully functional firewire port on a camera is the same reason we have so many stupid flash cards... proprietary money to be made.

With a firewire port I could get 30 gigs 2.5" laptop storage in a firewire external box from computer geeks for $120.00

Now how would Canon make $$$ off of that option?,. let alone the CF consortium?


Yes, I agree that to support more open standards is purely a commercial consideration rather than technical issues. Just like my new Canon 300D still only have USB 1.1. which is a outdated technology.

However I do expect more and more new DC will have 1394/USB 2.0 support and maybe they will utimately support you to download your gigabyte photos into external hard drive. To separate the storage and the DC maybe a better choice to integrate them together.
But a enhanced internal memory buffer inside DC e.g. 64M or 128M do benefits to have burst mode improved (just like 1ds can take 21 continuous photos and maybe it will become standard function for new DC in coming 5 years)

[Tom W]

tony723 wrote:
Yes, I agree that to support more open standards is purely a commercial consideration rather than technical issues. Just like my new Canon 300D still only have USB 1.1. which is a outdated technology.

However I do expect more and more new DC will have 1394/USB 2.0 support and maybe they will utimately support you to download your gigabyte photos into external hard drive. To separate the storage and the DC maybe a better choice to integrate them together.
But a enhanced internal memory buffer inside DC e.g. 64M or 128M do benefits to have burst mode improved (just like 1ds can take 21 continuous photos and maybe it will become standard function for new DC in coming 5 years)


If its any consolation, my S-400 also is crippled by USB 1.1. However, my CF card reader (less than $20 US) is USB 2.0 compliant and it moves pictures like greased lightning. Well, maybe not that fast, but pretty doggone fast.

I like the idea of 1394 and USB 2.o support on the camera. I would not even think of having an operating hard drive hanging from my neck. There's enough bounce there to destroy even the most rugged laptop hard drive. But having the ability to use the storage device that one may deem appropriate seems to be a good idea.

CF cards work for me so far - that may change in the future (I remember when 640K was plenty of memory :) ).

[clos]

cooltoolguy wrote:
My concern is security and identification. If those things are not properly addressed, the slob next to you might be getting your images or vice versa. And, another nefarious slob may be stealing your images from you right over the airwaves.
Not to say they haven't thought of that, but it is food for thought. It is well known that in the wireless LAN world you can pick up a connection by standing next to a building that uses it.
And if wireless proliferates, think of the radio confusion between the photogs at a big sporting event.

Have Fun,
Rick Stecker

Keep in mind that the security vulnerabilities you are referring too comes from the problems with the original WEP (Wireless equivelency protocol) security measures of the 802.11 standard. Many of these vulnerablities have since been addressed and can be resolved by various diferent solution sets but you are correct, they do need to be addressed.

The security for this technology is here and can be incorporated into the camera without too much of a problem. Identity can easily be done with digital signitures.

As you mentioned, the real concern is radio interference from other users. You can only have so many frequencies being used at one time before you start interfering with one another.

Bluetooth is another story all together.

-Clos

[intensesupernova]

I'd never get a camera with built in memory. You're screwed if your memory goes on the fritz during a shoot. I have 2 512's and I have a 40GB Image Tank I keep with me, the image tank rocks, I just pop my CF card in, it downloads everything with the touch of one button, and I'm ready to take more photos. :).

[Longwatcher]

One thing nobody has mentioned about hard drives - the move, thus they vibrate - bad for pictures.

On solid state versus hard drive technology.
SS is currently doubling every 12 months, HD tech is doubling at 18 month intervals. SS should pass HD around 2008 to 2010 timeframe in terms of cost per MB.

If there is internal storage on cameras (which technically there already is in the form of the buffer - although it is useless) It would be best if it is SS.

As to wireless, I don't want my pictures leaking out to anybody with a little bit of computer skill and is in range of the camera. On the otherhand, it would come in real handy in a modile studio environment. So I would like it as an optional device I can add to the camera via the CF card slot. (after all what do I need a CF card for if I can send it direct to the computer).

Just my opinions,

[CoolToolGuy]

Longwatcher wrote:
One thing nobody has mentioned about hard drives - the move, thus they vibrate - bad for pictures.

As to wireless, I don't want my pictures leaking out to anybody with a little bit of computer skill and is in range of the camera. On the otherhand, it would come in real handy in a modile studio environment. So I would like it as an optional device I can add to the camera via the CF card slot. (after all what do I need a CF card for if I can send it direct to the computer).

Just my opinions,

The microdrive is a spinning disk - are there any concerns with vibration from it? At that form factor, I'm sure any potential vibration could be damped.

I'm not a fan of wireless for the same reasons as you, but the engineer in me says that if the wireless speed times the image size results in a transmission time that is significant, the CF card could serve as the buffer during transmission.

Have Fun
Rick

[CyberDyneSystems]

intensesupernova wrote:
I'd never get a camera with built in memory. You're screwed if your memory goes on the fritz during a shoot. I have 2 512's and I have a 40GB Image Tank I keep with me, the image tank rocks, I just pop my CF card in, it downloads everything with the touch of one button, and I'm ready to take more photos. :).

Well,. most Digitals if not all have built in memory. It is called the buffer,. without it I am sure your camera will not work. So the argumaent that you wouldn't buy a camera with built in memory because it wouldn't function if the memory died is moot,. as that pretty much descibes all of them.

I agree that a "Built in" hard drive is a little unlikely,. but I still like the Idea of a PCMCIA slot for removabke hard drives larger and cheaper and more rugged than "Microdirives"

And a functional firewire port for when you CAN be tethered... which could work in many sitiuations.

Studios shooting for one,.

but even if you were set up,. say at a Surf competition with a 600mm f/4 on a monster gitzo with a Wimberly.. I mean,. you aren't going to be running around much.. but you may be taking a boatload of pics. You caould have a laptop sized hard drive and a big beefy battery attached to your tripod in that situation.