Hello jens, Yeah, I'm looking at those right now. That is probably a better route to go. I guess some issues would be how fast the card can be downloaded and how long the batteries last on those units.
-- Best regards, Bruce Monday, January 19, 2004, 4:20:48 AM, you wrote: jbwd> Thanks Bruce jbwd> That sounds resonable enough. jbwd> By the way: A portable card reader & harddrive is VERY jbwd> much cheeper pr. MB tham memory cards - i.e. jbwd> Flash Trax, Vosonic X's Drive or Image Tank. jbwd> All the best jbwd> Jens jbwd> Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello Jens, >> >> I suspect part of the answer lies in what you are shooting. >> For >> landscape/scenic stuff you need to eke out every last bit of >> detail >> that the camera can capture. For that, raw is most likely >> the best >> way to go. >> >> For portraiture/weddings it may not be quite as important. >> I don't >> have enough storage space in cards yet to consider doing a >> wedding or >> a big session in raw. I remember Tom V saying he had about >> 9gb in >> cards when he shoots a wedding. >> >> So for the time being, I am shooting best quality jpegs. >> >> HTH, >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> Sunday, January 18, 2004, 11:14:20 PM, you wrote: >> >> JB> Hi Rob and other *ist D owners. >> JB> I'm having a dicussion with my brother: Will I loose >> (visible) data when >> JB> shooting/saving files in camera as JPEG's. >> JB> I think I will prefere to shoot RAW. Then edit, compress >> etc. later in the >> JB> computer. The discussion comes from limited storing >> capacity/the high cost >> JB> of RAM cards compared to i.e. the X-drive. My question >> to you is (I dont >> JB> have the *ist D yet. My brother has a Canon G5): >> JB> Is ther a visible difference betwen RAW shots, converted >> to TIF and a low >> JB> compression (best) JPEG shot. Your answer will be highly >> appreciated. >> >> JB> Regards >> JB> Jens >> >> >> >> >>
