CD-R

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

bob luhrs said:

I think the safety of permanent media is great. At least you know you
have that image. And if a drive or camera dies, your image is still
there, even if magnets or other threats exist. It's rugged, but the
lack of caching to media or internal RAM buffers makes it inefficient to
a point of pain.

If you shot 10,000 shots and it cost you $50 worth of media, I bet that
well over four fifths of that will be shots you don't want..so it's down
to $10-- not bad for a permanent, one step archived photo solution.

On a commercial shoot, where things are paid for, you'd better save
every one of them. Most of the decisions are in the hands of editors,
and believe me they know better than you do what they want. I was never
able to select which ones they wanted from what I shot, and would have
tossed almost all the good ones in favor of those I liked!

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

buggles said:

Troll or not I agree with him... as do others. I don't think Jeff
Keller at http://www.dcresource.com would be considered a troll but about the
CD1000 he said the following:

"Time to step onto the soapbox for a second: $1300 seems like a lot of
moolah for a 2 megapixel camera. While I can see the appeal of the CD-R,
there's a few issues that stand out in my mind: First, it only holds 160
photos. The IBM Microdrive easily beats this. Second, doesn't having a
media that is write-only defeat the purpose of a digital camera? You
can't delete a photo off the camera after it's taken, thus wasting
space. Suppose you're on a long trip in Turkey and you're down to your
last CD-R disc (I'd imagine that 3" CD-Rs will be hard to find). You've
got one photo left and you take a picture of some ruins, when someone
walks right through your picture. On every other camera, you'd just
remove that photo, and take it again. Not so on the CD1000. Food for
thought."

http://www.dcresource.com/news_archives/jun00.html

Click to expand...

buggles said:

Second, doesn't having a
media that is write-only defeat the purpose of a digital camera

Click to expand...

dino said:

buggles said:

Second, doesn't having a
media that is write-only defeat the purpose of a digital camera

Click to expand...

minor side note, it's not write only, it's write once!

There are write only devices. ('D' type latches (logic gates)). Write
Only Memory (WOM) was the subject of an artical about 20 years in Byte
in an Apirl issue. It was hailed as the newest security device.

Click to expand...

bob luhrs said:

I think the safety of permanent media is great. At least you know you
have that image. And if a drive or camera dies, your image is still
there, even if magnets or other threats exist. It's rugged, but the
lack of caching to media or internal RAM buffers makes it inefficient to
a point of pain.

If you shot 10,000 shots and it cost you $50 worth of media, I bet that
well over four fifths of that will be shots you don't want..so it's down
to $10-- not bad for a permanent, one step archived photo solution.

On a commercial shoot, where things are paid for, you'd better save
every one of them. Most of the decisions are in the hands of editors,
and believe me they know better than you do what they want. I was never
able to select which ones they wanted from what I shot, and would have
tossed almost all the good ones in favor of those I liked!

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

James said:

bob luhrs said:

I think the safety of permanent media is great. At least you know you
have that image. And if a drive or camera dies, your image is still
there, even if magnets or other threats exist. It's rugged, but the
lack of caching to media or internal RAM buffers makes it inefficient to
a point of pain.

If you shot 10,000 shots and it cost you $50 worth of media, I bet that
well over four fifths of that will be shots you don't want..so it's down
to $10-- not bad for a permanent, one step archived photo solution.

On a commercial shoot, where things are paid for, you'd better save
every one of them. Most of the decisions are in the hands of editors,
and believe me they know better than you do what they want. I was never
able to select which ones they wanted from what I shot, and would have
tossed almost all the good ones in favor of those I liked!

James said:

What a stupid idea! One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is
having a reusable medium for storing images. Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US)
per picture is cheaper than film @ $.10 (US) per picture. But, if you
take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash, Smartmedia are free.
And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions. Floppies do not
have enough space. You could argue that they were a useful step in the
acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept using the medium after it
was obviously obsolete. Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary
flash memory. Better results could have been achieved with Smartmedia
which has much broader industry support. Now, Sony goes with a bulky,
throwaway medium. They would have been better using film -- at least I
can buy that at every corner market.

Sony, get a clue.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rodger Carter said:

Answering two posts for the price of one – what a deal!

JAMES: What a stupid idea!

ANS: Yes, Sony is known for stupid ideas, that’s why their
products are such poor sellers. Look at their digicams for instance,
only 32% of the market so far this year – what bunch of losers!

JAMES: One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is having a
reusable medium for storing images.

ANS: Hmmmmmm, I thought the purpose of digital cameras was to take
digital pictures, didn’t know about that reusable medium thing.
I’ve been using Mavicas all along and have never reused a disk
– keep them all as backups, and now I find out that I should have
been erasing them and using them over. Oh well, live and learn.

JAMES: Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US) per picture is cheaper than film @
$.10 (US) per picture.

ANS: Right! And we all know what a big flop film was. (Incidentally, a
half-cent per image might be closer to what most people are paying)

JAMES: But, if you take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash,
Smartmedia are free. And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

ANS: Gee, I guess that ad I saw for a CF card at $800 plus must have
been a mirage, but I am wondering where you store your photos –
hard drive, CD, or what? Are those things free also?

JAMES: I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions.

ANS: Yeah, and I know the execs at Sony are really crushed by that,
they can hardly crack a smile on the way to the bank.

JAMES: Floppies do not have enough space. You could argue that they
were a useful step in the acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept
using the medium after it was obviously obsolete.

ANS: Sony probably thought they had the space situation pretty well
covered by having the owner institute their highly technical and
difficult to perform solution – put in another disk. Obsolete is
right, there can’t be more than2-3 billion PCs that still use
floppies. What can Sony be thinking of? (Of course, they did add the
Memory Stick capability to the Mavicas, and the CD-R CD1000 into the
line, and of course, the Cybershot. Come to think of it, what other
company gives you a choice of three different storage media, including
two in one camera?)

JAMES: Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary flash memory. Better
results could have been achieved with Smartmedia which has much broader
industry support.

ANS: Except of course for that fact that MS is superior to SM and CF in
virtually all respects. Not really proprietary either, since Lexar is
producing them also. Did you get stuck with one of those niche digicams
that uses SM? Too bad, but maybe you can find a sucker to take it off
your hands so you can get the Sony of your choice.

JAMES: Now, Sony goes with a bulky, throwaway medium. They would have
been better using film -- at least I can buy that at every corner market.

ANS: Bulky? Throwaway? I guess you also consider the CDs that you
store your images on to be bulky also? And you throw them away after
recording the images on them? Something appears to be wrong with this
picture. You aren’t trying to BS us are you my friend? And how
many corner markets carry SM cards? Not too many I’d say. Maybe
you ought to do what every other photographer in the world does and make
sure you have enough media BEFORE you start your picture-taking
expedition.

JAMES: Sony, get a clue.

ANS: I think they’ve got the clue, and what it tells them is that
you are a loser that bought a loser camera and are now playing dog in
the manger. Envy is such a destructive emotion.

One more thing—go back to rpd where you belong, troll.

Keller: "Time to step onto the soapbox for a second: $1300 seems like a
lot of moolah for a 2 megapixel camera.

ANS: Sausage may be sold by the pound, but only a fool would buy a
digicam based on the number of pixels. One of the most highly rated
digicams on the market (by its owners) is the Sony 770, a 1.5MP digicam.
As to the CD1000, it has a 10X zoom and image stabilization. Last I
looked, Canon was charging $13,000 for a similar focal length IS lens,
and it doesn’t even have zoom capability! Then there’s the
CD-R burner in the CD1000. What did you pay for the last one you
bought? If memory serves me correct, about a dozen years or so ago
simple digicams with 640 X 480 pixels, no zoom and no IS were going for
about ten grand, and people were happy to get them for that. I’m
sorry Mr. Keller, I have to consider the price of the CD1000 as one of
the all-time bargains of the past couple of centuries. Of course, if
you can produce as good a camera at a lesser price I will certainly give
it a look.

Keller: While I can see the appeal of the CD-R, there are a few issues
that stand out in my mind: First, it only holds 160 photos.

ANS: Only!!! Better rewrite the dictionary. Right now,
“only” has the implication of being just a few, or something
similar. 160 (actually, up to about 200) photos of 1200 X 1600 pixels
is more than the hard drive of top line computer could have held a few
years back, and you now refer to a three-inch disk with that capacity as
being “only?” I guess you would say the U.S. is
“only” five trillion dollars in debt, or there are
“only” 200 billion stars in our galaxy, etc.

Keller; The IBM Microdrive easily beats this.

ANS: So? Is taking a few seconds to change the CD-R after 150-200
shots too much of an inconvenience for you? I’ve been using
Mavicas up until now and have never felt inconvenienced by changing
floppies after 5-10 shots. Incidentally, there have been a number of
reports of early failures with the microdrive. What do one of those
babies cost anyway? You can get a three-inch CD-R for as little as 79
cents.

Keller: Second, doesn't having a media that is write-only defeat the
purpose of a digital camera?

ANS: Didn’t know the purpose of a digital camera was to have an
erasable media, thought it was to take digital pictures. Thanks for
enlightening me.

Keller: You can't delete a photo off the camera after it's taken, thus
wasting space.

ANS: Yeah, right. 79 cents for 150-200 images and you’re worried
about wasted space? Just for your edification, we Mavica owners seldom
erase photos from our floppies:
1. The time and trouble is not worth it because floppies, like CD-Rs,
are dirt cheap in terms of cost per image.
2. The original images are kept as a backup
3. The image you thought you didn’t want may turn out to be one
you want.

Keller: Suppose you're on a long trip in Turkey and you're down to your
last CD-R disc (I'd imagine that 3" CD-Rs will be hard to find). You've
got one photo left and you take a picture of some ruins, when someone
walks right through your picture. On every other camera, you'd just
remove that photo, and take it again. Not so on the Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.. Food for thought."

ANS: Give me a break! At 150-200 images per disk, a handful will hold
all the Turkey pictures anyone can stand to look at and more besides.
If in doubt, take an extra disk and you will be able to make up for
150-200 ruined photos, not just one.

Not food for thought, just silly gibberish with no logic behind it.

Rodger

Click to expand...

Rodger Carter said:

Answering two posts for the price of one – what a deal!

JAMES: What a stupid idea!

ANS: Yes, Sony is known for stupid ideas, that’s why their
products are such poor sellers. Look at their digicams for instance,
only 32% of the market so far this year – what bunch of losers!

JAMES: One of the chief benefits of digital cameras is having a
reusable medium for storing images.

ANS: Hmmmmmm, I thought the purpose of digital cameras was to take
digital pictures, didn’t know about that reusable medium thing.
I’ve been using Mavicas all along and have never reused a disk
– keep them all as backups, and now I find out that I should have
been erasing them and using them over. Oh well, live and learn.

JAMES: Sure, the CD-R @ $.02 (US) per picture is cheaper than film @
$.10 (US) per picture.

ANS: Right! And we all know what a big flop film was. (Incidentally, a
half-cent per image might be closer to what most people are paying)

JAMES: But, if you take a lot of pictures, Microdrive, Compact Flash,
Smartmedia are free. And you don't need to keep ordering more "film".

ANS: Gee, I guess that ad I saw for a CF card at $800 plus must have
been a mirage, but I am wondering where you store your photos –
hard drive, CD, or what? Are those things free also?

JAMES: I've never been a big fan of Sony's storage decisions.

ANS: Yeah, and I know the execs at Sony are really crushed by that,
they can hardly crack a smile on the way to the bank.

JAMES: Floppies do not have enough space. You could argue that they
were a useful step in the acceptance of digital cameras, but Sony kept
using the medium after it was obviously obsolete.

ANS: Sony probably thought they had the space situation pretty well
covered by having the owner institute their highly technical and
difficult to perform solution – put in another disk. Obsolete is
right, there can’t be more than2-3 billion PCs that still use
floppies. What can Sony be thinking of? (Of course, they did add the
Memory Stick capability to the Mavicas, and the CD-R CD1000 into the
line, and of course, the Cybershot. Come to think of it, what other
company gives you a choice of three different storage media, including
two in one camera?)

JAMES: Memory Sticks seem to be just a proprietary flash memory. Better
results could have been achieved with Smartmedia which has much broader
industry support.

ANS: Except of course for that fact that MS is superior to SM and CF in
virtually all respects. Not really proprietary either, since Lexar is
producing them also. Did you get stuck with one of those niche digicams
that uses SM? Too bad, but maybe you can find a sucker to take it off
your hands so you can get the Sony of your choice.

JAMES: Now, Sony goes with a bulky, throwaway medium. They would have
been better using film -- at least I can buy that at every corner market.

ANS: Bulky? Throwaway? I guess you also consider the CDs that you
store your images on to be bulky also? And you throw them away after
recording the images on them? Something appears to be wrong with this
picture. You aren’t trying to BS us are you my friend? And how
many corner markets carry SM cards? Not too many I’d say. Maybe
you ought to do what every other photographer in the world does and make
sure you have enough media BEFORE you start your picture-taking
expedition.

JAMES: Sony, get a clue.

ANS: I think they’ve got the clue, and what it tells them is that
you are a loser that bought a loser camera and are now playing dog in
the manger. Envy is such a destructive emotion.

One more thing—go back to rpd where you belong, troll.

Keller: "Time to step onto the soapbox for a second: $1300 seems like a
lot of moolah for a 2 megapixel camera.

ANS: Sausage may be sold by the pound, but only a fool would buy a
digicam based on the number of pixels. One of the most highly rated
digicams on the market (by its owners) is the Sony 770, a 1.5MP digicam.
As to the CD1000, it has a 10X zoom and image stabilization. Last I
looked, Canon was charging $13,000 for a similar focal length IS lens,
and it doesn’t even have zoom capability! Then there’s the
CD-R burner in the CD1000. What did you pay for the last one you
bought? If memory serves me correct, about a dozen years or so ago
simple digicams with 640 X 480 pixels, no zoom and no IS were going for
about ten grand, and people were happy to get them for that. I’m
sorry Mr. Keller, I have to consider the price of the CD1000 as one of
the all-time bargains of the past couple of centuries. Of course, if
you can produce as good a camera at a lesser price I will certainly give
it a look.

Keller: While I can see the appeal of the CD-R, there are a few issues
that stand out in my mind: First, it only holds 160 photos.

ANS: Only!!! Better rewrite the dictionary. Right now,
“only” has the implication of being just a few, or something
similar. 160 (actually, up to about 200) photos of 1200 X 1600 pixels
is more than the hard drive of top line computer could have held a few
years back, and you now refer to a three-inch disk with that capacity as
being “only?” I guess you would say the U.S. is
“only” five trillion dollars in debt, or there are
“only” 200 billion stars in our galaxy, etc.

Keller; The IBM Microdrive easily beats this.

ANS: So? Is taking a few seconds to change the CD-R after 150-200
shots too much of an inconvenience for you? I’ve been using
Mavicas up until now and have never felt inconvenienced by changing
floppies after 5-10 shots. Incidentally, there have been a number of
reports of early failures with the microdrive. What do one of those
babies cost anyway? You can get a three-inch CD-R for as little as 79
cents.

Keller: Second, doesn't having a media that is write-only defeat the
purpose of a digital camera?

ANS: Didn’t know the purpose of a digital camera was to have an
erasable media, thought it was to take digital pictures. Thanks for
enlightening me.

Keller: You can't delete a photo off the camera after it's taken, thus
wasting space.

ANS: Yeah, right. 79 cents for 150-200 images and you’re worried
about wasted space? Just for your edification, we Mavica owners seldom
erase photos from our floppies:
1. The time and trouble is not worth it because floppies, like CD-Rs,
are dirt cheap in terms of cost per image.
2. The original images are kept as a backup
3. The image you thought you didn’t want may turn out to be one
you want.

Keller: Suppose you're on a long trip in Turkey and you're down to your
last CD-R disc (I'd imagine that 3" CD-Rs will be hard to find). You've
got one photo left and you take a picture of some ruins, when someone
walks right through your picture. On every other camera, you'd just
remove that photo, and take it again. Not so on the Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.. Food for thought."

ANS: Give me a break! At 150-200 images per disk, a handful will hold
all the Turkey pictures anyone can stand to look at and more besides.
If in doubt, take an extra disk and you will be able to make up for
150-200 ruined photos, not just one.

Not food for thought, just silly gibberish with no logic behind it.

Rodger

Click to expand...

Flip said:

My opinion only, I just want to see this forum continue to benefit its
members.

Flip

buggles said:

Troll or not I agree with him... as do others. I don't think Jeff
Keller at http://www.dcresource.com would be considered a troll but about the
CD1000 he said the following:

"Time to step onto the soapbox for a second: $1300 seems like a lot of
moolah for a 2 megapixel camera. While I can see the appeal of the CD-R,
there's a few issues that stand out in my mind: First, it only holds 160
photos. The IBM Microdrive easily beats this. Second, doesn't having a
media that is write-only defeat the purpose of a digital camera? You
can't delete a photo off the camera after it's taken, thus wasting
space. Suppose you're on a long trip in Turkey and you're down to your
last CD-R disc (I'd imagine that 3" CD-Rs will be hard to find). You've
got one photo left and you take a picture of some ruins, when someone
walks right through your picture. On every other camera, you'd just
remove that photo, and take it again. Not so on the CD1000. Food for
thought."

http://www.dcresource.com/news_archives/jun00.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

buggles said:

Troll or not I agree with him... as do others. I don't think Jeff
Keller at http://www.dcresource.com would be considered a troll but about the
CD1000 he said the following:

"Time to step onto the soapbox for a second: $1300 seems like a lot of
moolah for a 2 megapixel camera. While I can see the appeal of the CD-R,
there's a few issues that stand out in my mind: First, it only holds 160
photos. The IBM Microdrive easily beats this. Second, doesn't having a
media that is write-only defeat the purpose of a digital camera? You
can't delete a photo off the camera after it's taken, thus wasting
space. Suppose you're on a long trip in Turkey and you're down to your
last CD-R disc (I'd imagine that 3" CD-Rs will be hard to find). You've
got one photo left and you take a picture of some ruins, when someone
walks right through your picture. On every other camera, you'd just
remove that photo, and take it again. Not so on the CD1000. Food for
thought."

http://www.dcresource.com/news_archives/jun00.html

Click to expand...