Article:		iPod as Digital Photographer's Best Friend
Subject:		It's *slow*
Date:		2003-12-02 18:43:18
From:		anonymous2
Beware! It is slow! If you transfer a lot of images the ipod will run out of power before the transfer completes. Look at the following two links for more info: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1023&message=6403600 and http://www.ipodlounge.com/ipodnews_comments.php?id=P1750_0_7_0_C

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.

• RE: It's *slow*
  2003-12-02 19:24:39  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Yes, the upload times were stated in this article. I don't think you have to worry about the iPod running out of power using this device, unless that is, the battery is already low when you commence the upload.
  
  I would, however, use good batteries, preferably rechargeable ones, in the Belkin Reader. I think it's primarily designed for 128 MB cards and below, although 256 MB cards work fine, given a little extra time for transfer. Uploading a full 512 MB card can be painful, and probably not a good idea unless you have fresh batteries in the Belkin.
  
  All of that being said, I like the Belkin, am using it, and am having fun exploring the new uses for the iPod, as illustrated in the article.
• RE: It's *slow*
  2003-12-03 05:48:02  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The users with the most need for secondary photo storage are currently those with a digital SLR. A 512mb or 1gb memory card is a 'must' here.
  
  Designing the media reader for 128mb will make it obsolete when the next generation of high-megapixel compact cameras hit the shelves.Even today, using a 5 megapixel compact camera with a 128mb memory card is not optimal.
  
  So what do you have now? A device designed for people who infrequently need to store a few pictures.
  
  A more sensible choice for those people would be to simply buy a larger 512mb memory card - about the same price and the same capacity as with 4 'belkin uploads'.
  
  Sorry, but I do not see this device fulfilling the needs, but for a few select users.
• RE: It's *slow*
  2003-12-04 15:26:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  There is an entire class of digital photographers who would benefit from the Belkin reader - serious amateurs and "prosumers". People who burn through 100-200MB of storage on a typical day of sightseeing and picture-taking. Sure, these people could just get an extra 512MB card for the same price as the Belkin reader, but that card would only last them an extra day. What happens when you go away for a long weekend? Or when you go away on vacation for a week? Or for six weeks as I just was? It is most certainly worth $100 to have an almost limitless supply of image storage and the freedom to leave your laptop at home or not have to shell out an extra $400-500 for a portable storage device like the FlashTrac.
  
  And one last thing, who says the Belkin is designed for 128MB cards? It's more accurate to say that it is designed for users who will only need to clear off their memory cards about once a day - people for whom its not a problem to let their 512MB card upload while they're eating dinner or watching TV. Oh, and one last last thing. Cameras are hitting a practical ceiling for resolution - there is a certain point beyond which extra pixels are pointless, and todays cameras are almost there. IMHO, the ceiling for consumer cameras is 5MP, 10MP for prosumer, and 16MP for professional. So, I don't think you'll see consumer cameras getting much higher in resolution.
• RE: It's *slow*
  2003-12-03 09:12:48  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, I think you made your point. And it seems like you have a plan that works for you. That's great!
  
  For me, I'm not going to throw the Belkin out with the bath water. Upload speed is not *the only* issue for me. If it were, I would not have even bothered with Mac OS X for the first year of its existence.
  
  What I think is interesting, and is the point of this article (as stated in the intro) is how the Belkin transforms the iPod into a new device, that I think is useful for many photographers now, and will only become more so in the future as improvements are made.
  
  I still shoot with 256 MB cards often. I've uploaded data from them to the iPod, and it's fine. I'm a multitasking person and move right to the next thing, such as changing camera batteries, while the files are uploading.
  
  This doesn't work for you. That's cool. I think we've covered this aspect sufficiently so readers can decide what's best for their needs.
  
  Thanks for your posts!
• RE: 2008 -- Is the Belkin Media Reader still viable?
  2008-05-19 13:32:15  marde [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been searching for information to help me decide whether the iPod (especially iPod Touch) could be a viable portable image storage device for traveling. I shoot a Canon 30D (typically RAW - CR2 files). I briefly had an Epson P-3000, which unfortunately, was stolen. It had a beautiful 4" screen, is easy to use (simply insert the CF card) and reads my RAW files. It also plays MP3 & movies (which are 'bells & whistles functions to me), but lacks internet function which is something I'd appreciate more. I can replace the Epson with another one, but am attracted to the more compact (thinner, lighter) design of the iPod Touch, as well as the internet functions, which would make it even easier to travel without my laptop.
  
  I just read the fairly enthusiastic review you wrote in 2003 (5 years ago!) of the Belkin Media Reader for the iPod as a way of doing just what I suggested. I've been trying to determine (a) if the media reader will work with the iPod Touch in the manner you describe here, and (b) if there is any simpler, more compact way of accomplishing this. (The B. Reader + iPod nearly equals the Epson viewers in bulk.) Actually, it is difficult to get an accurate dimension reading on the Belkin reader. Sites vary in their specs considerably.
  
  I will likely go back to the Epson unless I can find a way to make the iPod Touch work with my system. I'm hoping you can offer some more current advice.