Re: The MacBook Pro is the most advanced laptop in the world?


"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:241e0fd6-bdda-4632-a7ff-95b3d82ffb2b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"PC Guy" <pc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"-hh" <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> "Saves wear and tear on the camera card slot door, power switch,
> sensor cleaning (for those cameras so equipped), batteries..."

> But the $64,000 question is...how did you get the card out of the
> camera *without* using the camera's door, without cycling power (and
> auto sensor-clean for those cameras that have it) and incur other
> "wear" on the camera? Hmmmm...its a Red Herring from PC Guy.

Note the key word "saves" idiot.

I did, which is precisely why I called bull*** on your 'key word' of
"save":

You can't put a card into a dedicated reader until its been removed
from the camera, and it is that act of removal that is relevant to the
wear and tear on the camera, so it is the same regardless of if you
put the card into your own card reader or take it down to the local
pharmacy to have your images printed.

As I said...and you dodged: the question is...how did you get the
card out of the camera *without* using the camera's door...?

Wow! I forgot just how stupid Mactards can be. Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote:

"Real photographers (apparently of which Jim is not though he claims to be) don't
use a single memory card but swap them out while shooting."

A photo shoot can go something like this:

- Insert card into camera
- Shoot pictures until card is at capacity
- Remove current card

- Insert new card
- Shoot pictures until card is at capacity
- Remove current card

- Insert new card
- Shoot pictures until card is at capacity
- Remove current card

- Insert new card
- Shoot pictures until card is at capacity
- Remove current card

- Insert new card
- Shoot pictures until card is at capacity
- Remove current card

In this situation I have used five cards during the shoot. Four of those cards were removed from the camera as part of the shoot. Where the additional wear and tear on the camera, using the camera to transfer the pictures, comes from the following:

- Download pictures from card already in the camera
- Power down camera*
- Remove current card*
- Swap in new card*
- Power on camera*

- Download pictures from new card
- Power down camera*
- Remove current card*
- Swap in new card*
- Power on camera*

- Download pictures from new card
- Power down camera*
- Remove current card*
- Swap in new card*
- Power on camera*

- Download pictures from new card
- Power down camera*
- Remove current card*
- Swap in new card*
- Power on camera*

- Download pictures from new card
- Power down camera*
- Remove current card*
- Swap in new card*
- Power on camera*

Everything marked with an asterisk is additional wear that would not be incurred using a media reader. That situation would look like the following (the shoot remains the same):

- Remove current card from camera*
- Insert into meda reader
- Download pictures

- Remove current card from media reader
- Insert new meda >>> already taken out of the camera during the shoot <<< reader
- Download pictures

- Remove current card from media reader
- Insert new meda >>> already taken out of the camera during the shoot <<< reader
- Download pictures

- Remove current card from media reader
- Insert new meda >>> already taken out of the camera during the shoot <<< reader
- Download pictures

- Remove current card from media reader
- Insert new meda >>> already taken out of the camera during the shoot <<< reader
- Download pictures

A lot less wear on the camera. Did I really need to spell this out for you? Apparently so!

> "...plus it enables you to shoot with the camera while someone else
> downloads the pictures."

> Fair enough, but essentially this is a moot point for ...

> "Real photographers ... don't use a single memory card but swap them
> out while shooting."

> ... because they won't need to clear a card because they won't run
> short of cards during a shoot in the first place.

And?

And thus, there is no need to have some dweeb fat-fingering your
laptop and card to try to download the thing while you're filling up
your second card, because you don't need the first card back because
you have enough cards to not run out. Thus, no reason that
"concurrent" download is a profound feature.

I didn't say it was a profound feature. That would be your characterization. I made no attempt to quantify its value. I just said it's an option.

Many flash cards have been standard for quite some time. I bought a digital
camera back in 2001 which used Compact Flash memory. The camera I
bought a few months, six years later, ago uses, get ready for this:
Compact Flash.

Get this: your new camera is either a dSLR-type or an old leftover
Point & Shoot. Compact digital P&S's that use CF mostly went the way
of the Dodo around two years ago, with a few holdouts introduced
Summer 2006.

It's a dSLR. Which is really not that relevant. The important point is the CF form factor has been around for more than six years.

And while CF is still hanging tough in dSLR types, even some of these
now have dual slot systems, with CF & SD being one common example, so
its probably only a matter of time until SD capacities allow CF to be
dead.

It's only a matter of time before more any technology is replaced with something else. Therefore we should not include it?

FWIW, I'll miss CF too.


I'm sure Compact Flash is not unique in having been standard for a while
now.

It has had probably the longest run, although this was in part because
of who (didn't) own it. Nevertheless, CF has already gone the way of
the 5.25" floppy disk, with fewer and fewer new models now supporting
its form factor.

According to Wikipedia SD was developed in 1999 and became available in 2000. Let's just bump it to 2001 for arguments sake. That means it's been around for at least six years too. How many years have to go by before you'll accept that a technology is worth adopting?

I've been specifically looking for a CF-based P&S, but too late: its
already long gone from Canon's and Sony's P&S lines for easily two
years and IIRC, Nikon's around as long. Maybe you found some leftover
or oddball, but I'm not aware of any new models that were released in
2007 that featured CF. If you did find one, I'd certainly like to
hear the make/model.

SD is the emerging new popular standard for digital cameras, but it is
already disappearing from some other portable devices such as
cellphones...there's a competition underway with the mini-SD and micro-
SD formats.


> Hint: the ExpressCard/34 slot. Granted, its only on the Apple
> Macbook Pro, but in counterpoint, that's currently two thirds of their
> entire notebook product line (the 15" & 17", not 13")

Which ignores every other model...

Where "every other model" of Apple laptop is one: the macbook.

I didn't limit my comments to just portable computers. I can see your argument being somewhat reasonable for laptops. But desktops? Come on. Not a single desktop ships with a media card reader. And worse: You can't add an internal one to any model. Well, maybe some creative person will come up with one. But as it stand not there's no bays that can be used to add one.

Is there an ExpressCard/34 media card card?

Would I have mentioned it if there wasn't?

Delkin makes a CF adaptor (both in EC/54 and EC/34), as well as a 6-in-
one that reads SD, SDHC, MMC, Memory Stick, Memory Stick PRO & xD
memory cards (before adaptors for mini/micro-SD, etc).

There's also the Griffin "5-in-one" for EC/34 which costs less than
the Delkin, but it doesn't apparently support the new SDHD protocol,
which merely illustrates my point about how much these flash media
"standards" are a moving target.

The most popular ones are not moving targets nor have they been so for quite some time. Your attempt to portray them as such is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to apologize for a feature that most anyone working in multimedia, you know that group of people Apple caters to, are likely to want.

.