Built in card reader (compact flash) in Macs?
Reply 21 of 25
September 24, 2003 4:26PM
And I'm sure you weren't using that comment as a device to have the last word on this debate, were you
Personally I use my Palm to preview photos and show them to people as it has a bigger and better screen than my camera - plus I don't have to always carry my camera around with me.
Guess what-- I do the same thing with my Pocket PC & XD cards-- with the aid of a XD->CF adapter, of course.
My point was, that's the exception, not the rule. Besides, with WiFi & Bluetooth becoming integrated into more and more devices, I see less and less utility in having a common interchangable flash memory format-- just "bluetooth" or "wifi" it from one device to another. Unless, of course, you're transfering several megabytes of data, but, again, IME, that doesn't happen often with hand held devices.
And because you can use the same cards between devices doesn't mean that you have to use the same card for everything (your reference to dumping maps off a card in order to be able to use that card elsewhere).
Well, that wasn't what I meant. I think one of the benefits of having a single format for memory cards would be that you could use a card from one device in another, if you got into a pinch. Obviously, it's better than not being able to that, but I was just pointing out that given how people generally use the cards, there might be trade offs that just aren't worth it (losing the use of one device-- the GPS-- in this case).
What it does mean is that you can use the same card with the same data in multiple devices - which was what I was suggesting.
I just remain unconvinced of the utility of that, except in a few specific circumstances (showing images on your PDA, emailing an image with your phone). It seems that it's better to just use your computer as a repository (er, digital hub
) for all that information, then download to individual devices as needed.
Reply 22 of 25
September 24, 2003 8:22PM
I can grab one USB 6-card reader for like 25 CDN.
Reply 23 of 25
September 25, 2003 3:34PM
Originally posted by tonton
Uh. It's DIGITAL. There is no degradation.
Actually there can be degredation in anything, especially if the cable is crap. Digital information is still a bunch of electrons flowing through copper cable. If the cable is not up to snuff the data transfer will suffer in both speed and more importantly quality. This is why we have categorized wires ala Cat3, Cat3A, Cat5... If you notice that FW800 and FW400 connections are different on your computer This is so people wont use FW400 cables and expect FW800 performance.
Its funny that fireants mentions Sony. I recently bought a Sony camera and the pics look like crap when transferred to my PB over the Sony supplied cable. They are all grainy in appearance with little to no sharp lines. I can take a picture using a Cannon and take the same picture with the Sony. The Cannon comes out nice and sharp while the Sony is grainy. I didnt think about the cable and will try to transfer using a reader and see if it makes a difference.