newest ipod

[blinking8s]

http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/

does it play raws? my eyes are killing me...i didnt see it in the txt

any anyone know of it having better battery life for file transfers?

[neo_xeno]

wow, that looks really cool, even though it's outta my price range.

[evilenglishman]

no it doesn't support raw:


Syncs iPod-viewable photos in JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF and PNG formats

[jeric777]

its useless....... its doesnt even have any card reader... how r u suppose to transfer file from your CF card??? u have to buy a third party card reader like belkins....

[Keyser Soze]

its useless....... its doesnt even have any card reader... how r u suppose to transfer file from your CF card??? u have to buy a third party card reader like belkins....

BUT IT WILL LOOK VERY TRENDY SITTING IN YOUR BAG DOING NOTHING!!!

[sGu]

You need to use iTune to transfer photos???

So ... let me get this straight, you'll need a PC/MAC before you can transfer images to iPod? What's the point of having one if you already have a laptop to do the job? ... Apart from looking cool ... of course

[MazerRakhm]

You need to use iTune to transfer photos???

You only need to use iTunes if you want to synch stuff between the computer and the iPod. Like all players/portable media it will pop up as a disk unit so you can still transfer files/songs without iTunes, it's just that they've worked hard to nicely integrate iTunes with the device so they want people to use thier method.

The main drawback that I see is that Belkin is charging $99.00 for the flash card reader, which puts the base model at $600.00 which is a bit steep, when there are other portable storage solutions out there. Granted, not all of them have a nice color display.


any anyone know of it having better battery life for file transfers?

The Belkin reader connects via firewire and boasts a 300kbps transfer rate and uses 4AAA batteries of it's own so it does not eat any additional battery from the iPod itself. People that I know with iPods continually say they get from 10-12 hours on a battery charge which for a portable device is fairly good.

[dschwartz69]

Maybe I'm just a little dense today, but I don't see the benefit of having a portable mass-storage device.

You are taking your photos off a solid-state storage device (CF Card) and moving it to a hard disk drive based storage system that is very expensive.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just purchase 2, 3 even 4 more additional CF cards.

I would be uncomfortable knowing my photos were on a hard drive out in the field versus a CF card - just less that could possibly go wrong.

Again, am I just being dense and not seeing the light here?

[MazerRakhm]

Maybe I'm just a little dense today, but I don't see the benefit of having a portable mass-storage device.

With the way CF cards are coming down in price I tend to agree with you. For image safety during a shoot I'd rather just leave the images on the card. If they can survive on a card after that amazing bridge explosion, I'm pretty sure they'll handle a drop/kick/smash a lot better than a spinning drive.

The main reason I can see having one is for the ease of a portable viewer that is not the camera. Maybe someone wants to "chimp" while still having the camera primed for a shot, I'm not really sure.

All that aside, if it wasn't so expensive I'd probably buy one. They're a pretty cool toy!

[Lame justifications]
1. I could listen to music while I shoot.
2. I can hook it up to a tv to easily share pictures.
3. "Chimping" won't take up camera battery.
[End lame justifications before it goes to far...] :roll:

[Jon]

It's more a concern for the cost of the storage. 20 GB for anything from $300 up (depending on whose you get - Apple's way at the high end of things) would start at 3-4 1 GB CF cards. Which would go further? And these aren't necessarily always carried around all day. They can be left back at the base and offloaded to in the evening. Personally, I dump things to my laptop's HDD, then burn them to CD before I'm reasonably content.

[Chazs]

Maybe I'm just a little dense today, but I don't see the benefit of having a portable mass-storage device.

I used my 20G music player as a storage device when traveling to Europe and on summer vacations. 600+ RAW images add up to several gig of storage, and I'm not going to dish out the money necessary to have that equivalent in CF storage. Plus to have my entire CD collection with me on trips is an added bonus.

The iPod's color screen looks neat, but is it practical? Reminds me of the Dick Tracy TV watch; a little small for real enjoyment, but cool to have.

[Persian-Rice]

dschwartz69, just to answer your question.

There are much more practical storage devices out there that make plenty of sence.

For example you can get a 20-30 Gb x-drive for around $130 that has a reader and whatnot built in.

Now going with two 512 oh............ultru IIs that is about 21-31 gb of space for about $220

Do you want me to calculate how much 30GB in cf card would cost? oh what the hell, around $3000. To save space you can get two 12gb pretec CF that sell for 10 grand a peice....................

So yes most image tanks do make sence.

Cheers.

[RoB_m]

for those of us that don't print images at home, this could be a nice device. i take my photos, then put them on my computer and edit them. but i need to take the images to the lab to print and all i have are some zip and jumpdrive disks. i'd much rather have a firewire hard drive and music player all-in-one to store my files and transport them. it looks like a killer storage deal compared to an equally priced amount of flash cards or jump drives.

[roanjohn]

The Belkin reader connects via firewire and boasts a 300kbps transfer rate and uses 4AAA batteries of it's own so it does not eat any additional battery from the iPod itself. People that I know with iPods continually say they get from 10-12 hours on a battery charge which for a portable device is fairly good.

.......hmmm........the belkin card reader transfers those photos soo slow!!!

It's not even worth it having something like this on the field.

Ro1

[Steven M. Anthony]

yes--the belkin reader is slow. But not as slow as the battery indicator on the iPod suggest! That is, while it takes between 15 - 20 minutes to download a 512MB card, the iPod will keep going after its battery indicator shows "empty." Now if the batteries in the Belkin card reader go, then you got problems... (actually, you just have to put in fresh batteries and download again--no data are lost).

[KennyG]

Maybe I'm just a little dense today, but I don't see the benefit of having a portable mass-storage device.

For some of us, 1,500 RAW images from an 8mp 1D MK-II for a day's shooting is the norm. At 98 images per 1GB card, that is a lot of CF's (16). A FlashTrax or similar works out a lot less expensive, and you have only one device to download from at the end of the day.

The iPod is an expensive Mac fraternity must-have plaything. The new Epson device, FlashTrax, Image Tank, etc. are far better at the job of storing images on the move.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yeah--the iPod isn't really designed (even the iPod Photo) as an in-field download device. It's really a "look at these pix" kinda thing.

[MazerRakhm]

Yeah--the iPod isn't really designed (even the iPod Photo) as an in-field download device. It's really a "look at these pix" kinda thing.

It's a cool toy that plays music, solitare, and shows pictures.

But in a stretch it can sub for a field unit. I think most of these really just come down to personal preference.

[Steven M. Anthony]

yeah--i used my regular iPod that way this summer. The frustrating thing is you can't view the pix--and I didnt bring my laptop!

I've been waiting for the new epson to come out.

[shiningstardv]

Yeah this device was really designed for the point-and-shoot consumer. You guys are all looking at it as pros.

And this iPod Photo isn't anything new in terms of iPod-on-the-go-photo-storage. Any of the older iPods could do exactly the same thing, you just couldn't view the photos on the device (and you still can't without a computer first).

Hell, if your gonna buy an iPod Photo and a Belkin reader for photo storage on the move, spend the extra $400, and get an iBook with USB 2.0 CF reader. 12 inch color screen, blazing fast transfers, up to 80 GB storage, slide shows, photo editing, and oh yeah...a computer!

[Aylwin]

Hell, if your gonna buy an iPod Photo and a Belkin reader for photo storage on the move, spend the extra $400, and get an iBook with USB 2.0 CF reader. 12 inch color screen, blazing fast transfers, up to 80 GB storage, slide shows, photo editing, and oh yeah...a computer!

Or... not spend extra $400 and buy a FlashTrax instead. It all boils down to priorities. For someone who loves MP3 players (especially the I-Pod), the new Photo I-Pod is great because it has even more features. For someone like me, who wants a portable storage device for transferring photos in the field then it doesn't even come close to my FlashTrax.

Essentially, both are pretty much the same. They're portable USB harddisks with additional features. Only the additional features are slightly different. My FlashTrax can do everything the I-Pod can do and more except manage MP3 playlists effectively. The I-Pod can (be made to) do everything the FlashTrax can do and a bit more except conveniently transfer files from a memory card and view RAW files (or more accurately, the embedded JPEG in RAW files).

For my use, the advantages of the FlashTrax over the I-Pod outweigh the disadvantages.

[shiningstardv]

I just enjoy being able to transfer photos, view and edit them, organize them, and then print them, publish them, or burn them to a CD right on the spot. My laptop lets me do all this. But I can definately see where if you were shooting on the go (hiking, let's say, or at a wedding) you would want something small, easy to access, and with minimal effort on your part. Thats exactly what a HD photo storage device does I guess...