digital backup "in the field"

[adrian tyler]

I also have an 80GB ipod. Any suggestions for photo connectors that work well?

yes that is an interesting solution, suggestions would be great!

[Struan Gray]

I have used the Apple photo connector to automatically download images from a digicam onto an iPod photo. It works, but is slow, and because the special photo connector blocks the power-supply contacts, the transfer turns into a race to get the files across before the battery on the iPod or the camera runs down. It was really only usable if you had an uninterrupted two-three hour slot, and both devices fully charged before you started. Power loss in either device half-way through the transfer was a *really* bad thing to happen.

I would take a mini laptop. Dell and HP both have models which are not much larger than, say, the older Epson image banks. Even if you absolutely, positively won't *ever* need the convenience of having a full computer along with you, a decent user interface to check that the files transferred and can be read can only add to productivity. In addition, it vastly increases the ways you can do a further backup by ftp or disk burning when and if you get the chance.

If you really don't want to take a whole computer, then quite a lot of network storage drives (NAS in the lingo) will do an automatic backup of any USB storage device you attach to them, including cameras. That would allow you to sidestep the automatic markup that 'photo' drives seem to attract, but you might not be able to find the right combination of ruggedness and form factor, and you're unlikely to find a battery-powered solution.

iphones and other mobiles with built in storage are attractive, but most don't have *that* much storage, and most don't encourage use as portable drives. In principle you could hang a usb-to-bluetooth adapter off your camera (or make the right cable to connect camera and phone usb ports) and manually transfer the files, but as far as I can see for now it will involve writing your own software, or stringing together a bunch of betaware low-level apps. Not my preferred solution, but perhaps lobbying an existing iPhone developer might pay off.

[Steve M Hostetter]

lobby an iphone developer..? Isn't there a law against that..? And just how much $$ is an iphone?

Ever notice ppl that buy a digiatl camera have no extra $$ for a computer?

[Don Hutton]

Ever notice ppl that buy a digiatl camera have no extra $$ for a computer?

The good news is that the spell checker on this forum is free.

[Struan Gray]

And just how much $$ is an iphone?

People do dafter things than that all the time:



I gave up trying to keep a running total of the goodies in his studio, but am nevertheless delighted he saved 20 Kronor or so by not buying a flashlight :-)

[David A. Goldfarb]

This is outside the realm of large format, but Canons can transfer files to an iPhone or any wireless thing with a web browser via their wireless file transfer accessories, but it would be cumbersome to transfer a large batch of files that way, particularly since you can just attach a USB drive to the WFT device and dump the files that way, or use FTP or PTP and the EOS Utility software for batch transfers. HTTP transfer mode is mainly designed for event photography, so, say, a news photo editor could see images as they come up and download the good ones for further editing and posting, or so images could be displayed live as the event (like a wedding or a sports event) was happening and participants could order or purchase the images before leaving the event. It is also possible to fire the shutter from the web browser.

There's also Eye-fi, which is a SD card, if your camera can use SD cards, with Wi-fi capabilities for wireless uploading to a computer.

I'm not sure what options you've got, but if someone is developing software for the iPhone, going through the web browser might be one way to do it.

There are also some other options for photo editing on pocket devices and wireless transfer from www.idruna.com, mainly aimed at photojournalists working in the field and event photographers. I met a photojournalist who was testing their phojo system a couple of years ago, and it seemed like a neat thing. He just plugged his CF card into his pocket PC, could do basic edits like cropping, curves and levels, and then uploaded them wirelessly to his editor at AP. With that and a cellphone, he could spend more time working in the field and only had to check in at the office a couple of times a week.

[aphexafx]

People do dafter things than that all the time:

Yay, however pointless, that video made my day.

[neil poulsen]

I'm with Adrian. I'd stay away from large cards. Sure, 4GB cards hold more. But, that's more to lose, if they fail. I get 58 raw images on a 1GB card, which is plenty for the way I photograph.

Beyond that, the JOBO thing looks pretty neat. I've never used one, though.

[Marko]

I would take a mini laptop. Dell and HP both have models which are not much larger than, say, the older Epson image banks. Even if you absolutely, positively won't *ever* need the convenience of having a full computer along with you, a decent user interface to check that the files transferred and can be read can only add to productivity. In addition, it vastly increases the ways you can do a further backup by ftp or disk burning when and if you get the chance.

That's what I did for my recent trip to Europe. I picked up an Acer netbook - it came with 120 Gig HD, 1G RAM and a decent but smallish (8.9") wide aspect screen. Very light and very manageable, two usb ports, two SD card readers, Wi-Fi, Ehternet, external monitor connection, not much heavier than stand-alone storage "bricks" if at all... And it also served great for email, checking weather, light browsing, music and sundry other travel activities. The only thing missing was an optical drive - you'd have to get a separate external unit, which does make sense keeping portability and typical usage in mind.

BUT, the major deal-breaker for me was the screen-resolution - Canon's tethered-shooting application refused to install stating that the available resolution (1024 x 600) was insufficient. Oh, well... I'll wait to see what will Apple's rumoured netbook be like and then decide between it and a MacBook Air.