21st Hermit
Veteran Member
40 GB, Color Screen and no Flash Card Slot . . . Dah!!!
http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/
--
Lost in the Colorado Mountains!!!
http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/
--
Lost in the Colorado Mountains!!!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
iPod Photo, No Flash Card Slot :(
- Thread starter 21st Hermit
- Start date
BJN
Veteran Member
Apple created a machine for playing music and showing your photos to your hipster friends. They don't care about folks who want to do the data tank thing, and probably wisely so. Leave that to Delkin's kludge and they don't have to worry about trying to support all the image formats out there, especially the raw files that made you look for a tank in the first place.
I wish Apple was interested in the tank market too, but they're after the big market, not this relatively tiny niche.
--
BJN
I wish Apple was interested in the tank market too, but they're after the big market, not this relatively tiny niche.
--
BJN
P
Phil Askey
Guest
Uh huh...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04101203epson_p2000.asp
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04101203epson_p2000.asp
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
Jason Milliron
Leading Member
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
The Epson looks like an awesome machine for us, but I'm not sure an adaptation of the iPod for this purpose would work very well. As Phil pointed out, it probably doesn't have the horsepower for high res images. And putting card slots in it would necessarily increase the size. Apple couldn't just put in a CF slot, could they? They'd have to have the usual "9 card" array, and those readers are almost as big as an iPod by themselves.
A purpose-built device would be better, IMO.
The Epson looks awesome, and the price doesn't look as bad now. But for now, I continue with the iBook, which is paid for (and insured).
A purpose-built device would be better, IMO.
The Epson looks awesome, and the price doesn't look as bad now. But for now, I continue with the iBook, which is paid for (and insured).
kukitos
Active member
They could've gone for a different solution, like directly connecting the iPod to the camera, and transfer the files from there.
But that would involve a lot of firmware modifications, far more than the necessary to add photo support.
But that would involve a lot of firmware modifications, far more than the necessary to add photo support.
Daniel Stahlnecker II
Member
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 0
This would be the ideal solution but Belkin does make a CF card reader that plugs into the iPod.
Dan S
Dan S
kukitos
Active member
Though it does cost $100, and has no xD support (well, a converter is always possible, but it's more money you spend). And hardware-wise, the USB soution would only need a 'special' cable.
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
Plugging the camera directly in is very time consuming, wastes battery power, and doesn't allow you to keep shooting while the files are transferring.
Better to have a CF slot.
Daniel Stahlnecker II
Member
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 0
I read that the Belkin reader was very slow as well. I'll probably just get a laptop. $600 for the iPod + $100 for the reader...laptop makes more sense for me.
Roman Foxman
Well-known member
Roman Foxman
Well-known member
As others have discussed, it's not a "data tank" so no card slot is required. You can buy them as add-ons even for current ipods if you really want. The whole point of it is that it will sync seamlessly with your photo library and give you an easily accessible, fun to use, photo album you can view anywhere. If you don't want that fair enough, but remember that you can also use this as a music playing ipod with huge storage capacity and a colour screen, with photo capability if you want. The great thing is that if you use iPhoto you won't have to even think about how to get your photos on there, it will just happen.
Is it just me, or was Phil being uncharacteristically negative in his news item about the ipod photo? I don't know what it is about Apple products that really seems to get under some peoples' skin. If you don't feel it's for you, don't buy the flipping thing. If other people want to buy it, that's fine, they just have different requirements from yourself.
P
Phil Askey
Guest
Nope, I just feel that Apple with the Kudos and penetration of the iPod could have turned this into 'The Killer App' that I've been waiting for, a Photo Vault product which had a built-in card reader and could be used to archive and display images... Yes others have already done this but Apple could sell it.
PS. I'm entitled to my own opinion (there ain't no corporate arm up my back).
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
PS. I'm entitled to my own opinion (there ain't no corporate arm up my back).
--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com
BJN
Veteran Member
As your link suggests, Epson IS after the niche with an very nice (I hope) device. It's not going to be anyone's first choice as a music player and it won't be sold in anything like iPod Photo numbers. Apple was obviously driven by power, size, beancounting, and focus groups.
I personally am watching the handtop computer progress. The OQO is supposed to hit the streets soon. The FlipStart is still vaporware. Both will be relatively expensive, but to have one device that can store, surf, display, and compute I'd pay more.
http://www.flipstartpc.com/aboutproduct_features_sizeandpower.asp
--
BJN
The feature missing on the Epson for me is an A/V in to use as a supplemental LCD camera viewer on location.
Would rather carry a data tank with a nice screen than a potable DVD player for this.
The iPhoto pod is missing so many features I’m sure Apple is not trying to market it to people like us.
Still love my Power Book,
Kraig
Would rather carry a data tank with a nice screen than a potable DVD player for this.
The iPhoto pod is missing so many features I’m sure Apple is not trying to market it to people like us.
Still love my Power Book,
Kraig
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
I don't know about that. Apple has a pretty good track record of offering products we didn't yet know we needed. That said, the reason they probably didn't turn this into something we want is the form factor and their desire to keep the thing elegant and small. Building a card reader, especially a multiformat one, would severely compromise their ability to do this.
I can't imagine they'll sell enough of these at this price point to be profitable. Better get one soon.
Classic Man
Senior Member
Gosh what poor design.
How little thought has gone into the philosophy of the iPod photo.
Shame on you Apple!
Yet the mindless sheep will buy it in millions, I'm sure.
Go on, Rio (much better than the iPod) design the ultimate "killer-app"!
Does it really downsize the original images beofre transfering them? I have a 20gb iPod and have been considering buying the new one as a backup option for my photos, which are all jpeg's, but if the images stored on the iPod photo are downsized or changed in any way, then no way. crappy
Apple havent really been pushing their last few products hard enough when it comes to power and functionality, the g5 imac was a bit of a let down too. The G5 powerbook better make up for it
http://www.shamhead.com
Apple havent really been pushing their last few products hard enough when it comes to power and functionality, the g5 imac was a bit of a let down too. The G5 powerbook better make up for it
--
http://www.shamhead.com
Alex McKenna
Member
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Apple's desktop stalwarts, such as myself, work in print, mags, newspapers and the web, where we want to get our photos into the Mac for use in Quark, Photoshop, InDesign, etc.
The new IPlop is no use to us.
I prefer my music on 78s anyway.
Epson P-2000 here we come.
Alex Mac, Muscle News, Manchester, UK
The new IPlop is no use to us.
I prefer my music on 78s anyway.
Epson P-2000 here we come.
Alex Mac, Muscle News, Manchester, UK
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum