Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53062 > unrolled thread

wifi cameras?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-07 14:25 +1100
    Re: wifi cameras? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-12-07 08:36 -0700
      Re: wifi cameras? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-07 10:51 -0500
        Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 07:55 +1100
          Re: wifi cameras? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-07 16:10 -0500
            Re: wifi cameras? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-07 19:20 -0500
              Re: wifi cameras? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-07 19:22 -0500
        Re: wifi cameras? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-12-10 01:06 -0500
          Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-09 22:16 -0800
          Re: wifi cameras? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-10 12:22 -0500
      Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 08:00 +1100
        Re: wifi cameras? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-07 16:10 -0500
      Re: wifi cameras? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 15:56 -0600
    Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-07 07:49 -0800
      Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 07:39 +1100
        Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-07 13:35 -0800
          Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 09:30 +1100
            Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-07 21:22 -0800
              Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 16:47 +1100
                Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-08 04:52 -0800
    Re: wifi cameras? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-07 16:49 +0000
    Re: wifi cameras? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 03:30 +0000
      Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-08 16:27 +1100
        Re: wifi cameras? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 06:34 +0000
          Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-09 07:05 +1100
        Re: wifi cameras? Richard Wakeford <rwakefordfortynine@gmail.com> - 2013-12-08 09:58 +0100
          Re: wifi cameras? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-09 09:18 +1300
            Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-09 10:39 +1100
              Re: wifi cameras? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-09 18:51 +1300
                Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-09 17:43 +1100
                  Re: wifi cameras? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-10 09:11 +1300
                    Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-10 09:08 +1100
                      Re: wifi cameras? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-10 13:40 +1300
            Re: wifi cameras? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-08 19:25 -0500
              Re: wifi cameras? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-09 00:32 +0000
                Re: wifi cameras? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-08 19:50 -0500
                  Re: wifi cameras? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-09 15:53 +0000
                    Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-09 09:22 -0800
            Re: wifi cameras? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-09 00:31 +0000
              Re: wifi cameras? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-12-08 18:13 -0800
              Re: wifi cameras? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-09 07:59 -0600
          Re: wifi cameras? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-09 07:44 +1100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#53080

On 2013-12-07, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Anyone have experience with any digital camera, compact preferably, 
> that can wirelessly transmit pics to a Macbook (or any desktop)? Say 
> you take a shot and you are near your own computer, is it simple to 
> then open the file on your computer screen?

I do this with my iPhone *all the time*. Ever heard of PhotoStream? ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53116

In message <dorayme-F48F2D.14254107122013@news.albasani.net> 
  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Anyone have experience with any digital camera, compact preferably, 
> that can wirelessly transmit pics to a Macbook (or any desktop)? Say 
> you take a shot and you are near your own computer, is it simple to 
> then open the file on your computer screen?

I use an Eye-Fi.

-- 
You Bastard was thinking: ...Delta squared. Thus, dimensional pressure k
will result in a ninety-degree transformation in Chi(16/x/pu)t for a
K-bundle of any three invariables. Or four minutes, plus or minus ten
seconds...  The camel looked down at the great pads of his feet.  Let
speed equal gallop. --Pyramids

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53122

In article <slrnla7pvf.u5u.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <dorayme-F48F2D.14254107122013@news.albasani.net> 
>   dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Anyone have experience with any digital camera, compact preferably, 
> > that can wirelessly transmit pics to a Macbook (or any desktop)? Say 
> > you take a shot and you are near your own computer, is it simple to 
> > then open the file on your computer screen?
> 
> I use an Eye-Fi.

Ok... and you transfer pics from a camera to a desktop on a Mac? What 
is the process, is it elegant...? 

OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
connect the cable. 

My ideal would be to turn the camera on, maybe also press or turn a 
knob on the camera and it appears auto on the desktop or triggers a 
program window on the Mac where the files are evident and can be 
dragged off.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53125

In message <dorayme-B7858F.16275408122013@news.albasani.net> 
  dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnla7pvf.u5u.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <dorayme-F48F2D.14254107122013@news.albasani.net> 
>>   dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > Anyone have experience with any digital camera, compact preferably, 
>> > that can wirelessly transmit pics to a Macbook (or any desktop)? Say 
>> > you take a shot and you are near your own computer, is it simple to 
>> > then open the file on your computer screen?
>> 
>> I use an Eye-Fi.

> Ok... and you transfer pics from a camera to a desktop on a Mac? What 
> is the process, is it elegant...? 

When the camera is in range of the computer and it's on, the pictures
show up on the computer.

> OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? 

Setting it up the first time took a little time, since then it is
completely seamless.

> My ideal would be to turn the camera on, maybe also press or turn a 
> knob on the camera and it appears auto on the desktop or triggers a 
> program window on the Mac where the files are evident and can be 
> dragged off.

No pressing or turning anything.

-- 
A ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53142

In article <slrnla84n3.1b35.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <dorayme-B7858F.16275408122013@news.albasani.net> 
>   dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <slrnla7pvf.u5u.g.kreme@mbp55.local>,
> >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> In message <dorayme-F48F2D.14254107122013@news.albasani.net> 
> >>   dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> > Anyone have experience with any digital camera, compact preferably, 
> >> > that can wirelessly transmit pics to a Macbook (or any desktop)? Say 
> >> > you take a shot and you are near your own computer, is it simple to 
> >> > then open the file on your computer screen?
> >> 
> >> I use an Eye-Fi.
> 
> > Ok... and you transfer pics from a camera to a desktop on a Mac? What 
> > is the process, is it elegant...? 
> 
> When the camera is in range of the computer and it's on, the pictures
> show up on the computer.
> 
> > OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? 
> 
> Setting it up the first time took a little time, since then it is
> completely seamless.
> 
> > My ideal would be to turn the camera on, maybe also press or turn a 
> > knob on the camera and it appears auto on the desktop or triggers a 
> > program window on the Mac where the files are evident and can be 
> > dragged off.
> 
> No pressing or turning anything.

So, the files just appear on the desktop or in a folder and they stay 
there when you turn the camera off? That sounds good.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53126

On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:

> OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
> idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
> is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
> was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
> connect the cable.

I've been reading this discussion with interest and have looked at Eye-Fi
but decided against it, even though I use my iPhone a lot for pictures.
It'll also save me having to spend another 40€ on a new card!
With my Canon S90 I have a 4GB memory card (and a spare when I go away for
a long time which isn't often) and, when I get home, I plug the camera into
my Macbook Pro with the USB cable, switch on the Canon and it automatically
fires up iPhoto and offers to download all the pictures. I can then scroll
through them and delete whatever I don't want, then import the rest and
edit whatever is needed either in iPhoto or Photoshop Elements which I use
a lot. No battery wastage or waiting ages for a sync in the field! What
photos I want to keep, or put, on the iPhone I do with my iTunes sync.
Couldn't be easier but that's just my way of doing things and everyone is
different in their needs and ideas. I agree with not being able to find the
cable sometimes!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53143

On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> 
> OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
> idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
> is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
> was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
> connect the cable.

Plugging in a USB cable?!?
Irritating factor: 2 out of 10 ... or less if you actually keep the
cable in the camera's bag.


Fiddling about getting the memory card out to put into a card reader
and then back again - irritating factor: 6 out of 10.


Having a wi-fi connection fail part way through the transfer process -
irritating factor: 25 out of 10.   :-)


Not having any need to take photos or transfer them ... priceless.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53147

In article <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> > 
> > OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
> > idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
> > is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
> > was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
> > connect the cable.
> 
> Plugging in a USB cable?!?
> Irritating factor: 2 out of 10 ... or less if you actually keep the
> cable in the camera's bag.
> 
...

If the desktop computer is the one you almost invariably use, keeping 
cable near the usb port (or dongle adaptor) would seem sensible.

> 
> Not having any need to take photos or transfer them ... priceless.  ;-)

I see there is nothing you will not comment on. So... can the Iranians 
be trusted?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53155

In article <dorayme-084579.10391609122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> > > 
> > > OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
> > > idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
> > > is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
> > > was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
> > > connect the cable.
> > 
> > Plugging in a USB cable?!?
> > Irritating factor: 2 out of 10 ... or less if you actually keep the
> > cable in the camera's bag.
> 
> If the desktop computer is the one you almost invariably use, keeping 
> cable near the usb port (or dongle adaptor) would seem sensible.

True, but keeping it (or second cable) in the camera's bag means you've
always got it whenever you are somewhere else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53156

In article <091220131851220670%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <dorayme-084579.10391609122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
...
> > 
> > If the desktop computer is the one you almost invariably use, keeping 
> > cable near the usb port (or dongle adaptor) would seem sensible.
> 
> True, but keeping it (or second cable) in the camera's bag means you've
> always got it whenever you are somewhere else.

True, but if you have not got a bag, you have to get one for this.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53182

In article <dorayme-0B7BF5.17430309122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <091220131851220670%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <dorayme-084579.10391609122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
> > <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > In article <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> > >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> ...
> > > 
> > > If the desktop computer is the one you almost invariably use, keeping 
> > > cable near the usb port (or dongle adaptor) would seem sensible.
> > 
> > True, but keeping it (or second cable) in the camera's bag means you've
> > always got it whenever you are somewhere else.
> 
> True, but if you have not got a bag, you have to get one for this.

Many cameras come with a free bag, or you can get one cheaply. You
should really have some sort of bag / case to protect the camera when
not being used. Even our ancient Canon camera came with a little bag,
just big enough for the camera and a little pocket on the front which a
USB cable fits into.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53191

In article <101220130911299574%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > True, but if you have not got a bag, you have to get one for this.
> 
> Many cameras come with a free bag, or you can get one cheaply. You
> should really have some sort of bag / case to protect the camera when
> not being used. Even our ancient Canon camera came with a little bag,
> just big enough for the camera and a little pocket on the front which a
> USB cable fits into.

My G11 came with an impressively solid bag, there is not much room for 
anything else but the camera. You could squeeze a cable in and you 
might if you were traveling about.

Is there anything of a similar obvious nature that we can keep 
exchanging?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53192

In article <dorayme-FFAB39.09083510122013@news.albasani.net>, dorayme
<dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <101220130911299574%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > True, but if you have not got a bag, you have to get one for this.
> > 
> > Many cameras come with a free bag, or you can get one cheaply. You
> > should really have some sort of bag / case to protect the camera when
> > not being used. Even our ancient Canon camera came with a little bag,
> > just big enough for the camera and a little pocket on the front which a
> > USB cable fits into.
> 
> My G11 came with an impressively solid bag, there is not much room for 
> anything else but the camera. You could squeeze a cable in and you 
> might if you were traveling about.
> 
> Is there anything of a similar obvious nature that we can keep 
> exchanging?

I don't know about "obvious" ...  :-\ 

It's not for the consumer-level cameras, but the Hyper company does
sell an add-on called iUSBportCamera for "most Canon / Nikon DSLR
digital cameras" (according to the advert) which gives Wi-Fi
transferring of images, as well as being able to remote control the
camera from your Android / iOS / Mac / PC device, live view of what the
camera is seeing, etc. It plugs into the cmaeras USB port to give a
wireless connection to other devices, and can be mounted on the
camera's hot-shoe.
http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive/iUSBportCAMERA/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53149

On 13-12-08 15:18, Your Name wrote:

> Having a wi-fi connection fail part way through the transfer process -
> irritating factor: 25 out of 10.   :-)

Generally speaking, the Eye-fi acts as a WiFi hotspot that a computer or
phone connects to. This mean you need to set your computer (or phone) to
connect to the Wi-Fi hotspot created by the Eye=-Fi in the camera.

Someone can confirm if it can act as a client over an existing wi-fi
network, I am not sure it can do that.

Having your Mac connect to the Wi-Fi hotspot created by the camera isn't
enough.  You need software that will access the Eye-Fi and synthetize a
local drive on your computer (or synthezise a camera).

On the iPhone for instance, you first connect to the Wi-Fi created by
the Eye-Fi and then start the Eye-Fi app which then negotiates with the
card for download of images.

Where this becomes very useful is during a press conference (or
conference) where a photograpgher roams around taking pictures and they
are sent right away to the reporter's laptop who can include them in
his/her articles and uses a USB tether with phone to upload to the
newspaper.

If you are working alone, it is often faster to just pop the SD card
into the Mac Pro after you've finihsed taking pictures  to see which
pictures you want to import instead of importing the whole lot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53151

In message <52a50de9$0$12629$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-12-08 15:18, Your Name wrote:

>> Having a wi-fi connection fail part way through the transfer process -
>> irritating factor: 25 out of 10.   :-)

> Generally speaking, the Eye-fi acts as a WiFi hotspot that a computer or
> phone connects to. This mean you need to set your computer (or phone) to
> connect to the Wi-Fi hotspot created by the Eye=-Fi in the camera.

No you don't.

-- 
Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53153

On 13-12-08 19:32, Lewis wrote:

>> Generally speaking, the Eye-fi acts as a WiFi hotspot that a computer or
>> phone connects to. This mean you need to set your computer (or phone) to
>> connect to the Wi-Fi hotspot created by the Eye=-Fi in the camera.
> 
> No you don't.

Pray tell,  how do you program your Eye-Fi card to access some public
network in a conference room that requires a password or worse, access
an HTTP page to "agree" before allowed access ?

I don't recall any such capabilities when I setup mine. It sets up a
wi-fi hotspot with an ID specific to that card, and you enter a password
for the card.

It is the computers/phones that connect to the Eye-Fi and supply the
password that was programmed into the card. Transparent when the
computer "remmebers" that card and knows the credientials.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53168

In message <52a513f4$0$18956$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> I don't recall any such capabilities when I setup mine. It sets up a
> wi-fi hotspot with an ID specific to that card, and you enter a password
> for the card.

That's not how mine works at all. I set up the eye-fi with the settings
to connect to my WiFi, which it does automatically.

> It is the computers/phones that connect to the Eye-Fi and supply the
> password that was programmed into the card.

Not on mine.

-- 
'There's Mr Dibbler.' 'What's he selling this time?' 'I don't think he's
trying to sell anything, Mr Poons.' 'It's that bad? Then we're probably
in lots of trouble.' --Reaper Man

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53173

On 2013-12-09 15:53:32 +0000, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <52a513f4$0$18956$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> I don't recall any such capabilities when I setup mine. It sets up a
>> wi-fi hotspot with an ID specific to that card, and you enter a password
>> for the card.
> 
> That's not how mine works at all. I set up the eye-fi with the settings
> to connect to my WiFi, which it does automatically.
> 
>> It is the computers/phones that connect to the Eye-Fi and supply the
>> password that was programmed into the card.
> 
> Not on mine.

The Eye-Fi  "Mobi" was intended for use with mobile devices and so the 
set up was optimized for that purpose. Also the "Mobi" does not handle 
RAW files.

< http://www.eye.fi/products >


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53150

In message <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com> 
  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>> 
>> OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an 
>> idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do 
>> is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that 
>> was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and 
>> connect the cable.

> Plugging in a USB cable?!?
> Irritating factor: 2 out of 10 ... or less if you actually keep the
> cable in the camera's bag.


> Fiddling about getting the memory card out to put into a card reader
> and then back again - irritating factor: 6 out of 10.

Boy, do you have those backwards.

Plugging in the camera is way more of a pain in the ass. First of all,
if you're like most people you have to unplug something first. Second,
cameras have dog-slow USB interfaces, so the transfer will take much
longer, Third, you have to drain the camera's battery for the transfer.

> Having a wi-fi connection fail part way through the transfer process -
> irritating factor: 25 out of 10.   :-)

Yeah, because that happens... right, never.

-- 
When this kiss is over it will start again
But not be any different could be exactly the same
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be this much fun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53154

On 2013-12-09 00:31:36 +0000, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <091220130918196522%YourName@YourISP.com>
>   Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:27:55 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>>> 
>>> OK, on a scale of 0 to 10 how irritating is it? Let me give you an
>>> idea of my ideal. On my Sony I connect via a USB cable. All I need do
>>> is turn the camera on and it appears on my desktop. I would say that
>>> was a 6 to 8 out of 10 depending on how irritating it is to find and
>>> connect the cable.
> 
>> Plugging in a USB cable?!?
>> Irritating factor: 2 out of 10 ... or less if you actually keep the
>> cable in the camera's bag.
> 
> 
>> Fiddling about getting the memory card out to put into a card reader
>> and then back again - irritating factor: 6 out of 10.
> 
> Boy, do you have those backwards.
> 
> Plugging in the camera is way more of a pain in the ass.

Yup!

> First of all, if you're like most people you have to unplug something 
> first. Second,
> cameras have dog-slow USB interfaces, so the transfer will take much
> longer, Third, you have to drain the camera's battery for the transfer.
> 
>> Having a wi-fi connection fail part way through the transfer process -
>> irritating factor: 25 out of 10.   :-)
> 
> Yeah, because that happens... right, never.

For my CF cards I use a SanDisk FW800 reader. For SD cards I use the 
built in reader on my iMac.
My MBP 17'' does not have a built in SD card reader, depending on my 
situation, I use either my PCI Express adaptor with CF slot, or  FW800 
reader and for SD cards I have my handy Elago USB reader.

Away from home base I use a Colorspace UDMA for initial in the field 
back up. When I get to a more secure location I download to my MBP and 
make a third backup to an OWC Mercury On-The-Go Pro FW800 1TB HDD. That 
gives me a triple redundant back up, before thinking of reformatting 
cards.
If the location is good and I have a solid internet connection, Wi-Fi 
or other, I will also back important shots to one of the cloud services 
I use.



-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web