Hmm true, but think how much easier the storage and back up would be
too! However I can't imagine anyone would wait to download 2 TB of
images. Surely you always download after every job!
I'm not aware either, of any greater risk of failure with SD cards than
with mechanical hard drives. I've had CF cards pack up though...
And why is 2 TB too small to replace an analogue drive? I'd thought the
same arguments about failure risk apply to electromechanical hard drives
as well. I feel 500GB is ample; after that's full then replace it. But
then I'm not a pro.
Answers on the back of an email please :)
Howard
P.S. Sorry I've been off forum for a while.
2 Terrabytes with 136,000 photos is around 14 Mb/picture, typical of a
good modern camera.
A hell of a lot to lose if it goes wrong!!!!
Jim Thyer
----- Original Message ----- From: "Emily L. Ferguson"
<elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: CES 09: Digital cameras to store 136,000 photos
2 Terabytes. 136,000 images? How small are those images, let me
find the calculator.
Anybody think downloading those images to the computer is going to be
fun? How about scrolling through them to choose the ones to have
printed? What a blast.
Even for movies it doesn't make sense to me. Pros, whose movie files
are large, are shooting directly to their computers, I suspect. And
2 Terabyes is too small to replace an analog hard drive in a
computer. I'd get excited when they get up to 8 Terabytes.
In addition, there is the card failure/loss consideration. I don't
even want a 4 Gig card, thanks.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
