Not sure that this shouldn't be in the computer bit.
Family is going on a "trip of a lifetime" to Australia over Christmas. I anticipate taking loads of photos but am a bit worried that some disaster my befall the camera or memory card(s) and I might lose some irreplaceable shots.
So, was wondering if there was any compact, cheap device that I could transfer photos to every few days without having access to a computer or internet.
Camera is a Panasonic Lumix TZ60.
Any suggestions? Ta in advance.
Course, I could take the old Pentax ME Super and a dozen or so films for processing at Boots on return!
P
|
Take 3 memory cards and rotate them. You might lose 1 of them at max so still will have majority of your photos.
|
What phone do you have? If it's a smartphone of some sort then we can suggest using that.
For example, an Android phone that supports USB on the go would mean you could copy the files of the memory card to somewhere else, e.g. the cloud. Or just onto a USB stick or something.
But I agree with no using only one memory card... Storage is cheap and corruption/loss can happen.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 23 Nov 15 at 20:03
|
Polaroid camera. Post the prints home individually.
Never send two on the same aeroplane.
:)
|
>> Take 3 memory cards and rotate them. You might lose 1 of them at max
>> so still will have majority of your photos.
yer - gets my vote get three smaller memory cards not one big one, and rotate them.
There is nothing like having xmas dinner on the beach!
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 23 Nov 15 at 20:19
|
|
Parsnips and Sand do not mix.
|
|
If you have a tablet, download and save them every day, they could also be backed up to whatever Cloud you may subscribe to at the same time.
|
"Take 3 memory cards and rotate them. "
I took 5 when we went to the Galapagos Islands, and never more than half filled them.
My son went on a 2-month cultural tour of Europe after he'd completed his degree, and he overfilled a card, losing many of his pictures. He was gutted.
|
|
Work out how you will back them up to cloud storage, and there are many different options. Dropbox, One Drive, various photo sites etc.
|
Used to do a lot of wedding photography in my time (film), but note that these days those covering such an important event take time out to transfer the digital images to a laptop every so often.
They don't delete images on the memory cards though, as it's in effect a backup. It's possible to get hundreds of image on a card, so no problem about running out of storage capacity (unlike film!).
|
>> Work out how you will back them up to cloud storage,
Work out how to upload them too. Free wifi in hotels and such like may not have the bandwidth to cope when 20 guests all get back and try to upload their pictures before dinner.
|
...there are specialist devices that provide back-up facilities for cards, but they don't come in cheap. At several hundred pounds or more, a cheap laptop with a card-reader would be much more functional (if somewhat more unwieldy for travel).
Given that many people travel with a smartphone or tablet, however, it got me thinking.
If said device has an SD card slot and an amount of spare internal memory, it might be possible to duplicate to a spare card via a "shuffle in, shuffle out" methodology (assuming that the spare internal memory is not going to be enough to permanently hold all the backups).
Something like this:
linitx.com/product/ablytech-sdmicro-to-sd-card-adapter/11922
...combined with a file manager installed on the phone/tablet might allow one to copy an SD card (or part thereof) into the internal memory, switch the card to a backup, and move the files out to the backup card.
I can't vouch for it, and a bit unwieldy, but certainly quite cheap ;-)
|
...and, with a bit of additional thought, it's occurred to me that a similar method as I've outlined above (using a 'phone or tablet to shuffle the pics) might well be achieved by reversing the process and using a micro-SD card inside a cheap micro-SD to SD-card adapter (less than £1) within your camera (i.e. whilst taking photos).
That could then be transferred to the 'phone or tablet by removing it from the adapter, and a similar back-up, or shuffle in, shuffle out be used (to an additional, back-up, micro-SD card)
You'd also need a couple of Micro-SD cards (one for prime, one for backup) but these are cheap as chips (pardon the pun) nowadays.
The whole thing would cost under £10 (assuming you have access to a phone or tablet with a micro-SD slot)
|
NB.
>> So, was wondering if there was any compact, cheap device that I could transfer photos
>> to every few days without having access to a computer or internet.
which presumably rules out cloud backup.
|
If you don't have a tablet buy a cheap one - £49 pound will get you one of these and back up your photos to it daily. You can view your photos better as you go then and delete those you don't want.
Personally I have virtually given up on holiday photos. Hardly ever view them and no one else is interested in sitting through them!
www.tesco.com/direct/binatone-homesurf844-8-inch-8gb-hdd-wi-fi-tablet-with-android-kitkat-442-os-in-white/171-7303.prd?skuId=171-7303&pageLevel=sku&sc_cmp=ppc_sh-_-sh-_-bg-_-171-7303&gclid=CLvWv8TeqMkCFcaVGwodRgICpQ&gclsrc=aw.ds
|
>> Personally I have virtually given up on holiday photos. Hardly ever view them and no
>> one else is interested in sitting through them!
>>
Concur. I try to be really economical with what I take - only the real real highlights, because reality is you will never ever look at them after the first dreary pass when all you are thinking is "how can I edit this morass down?"
A colleague recently went to Iceland for ten days. He bought new camera gear. He took 3700 photos (he told me).
End result - he has worked endlessly for weeks since sorting, editing, deleting, photoshopping, with a net result for his efforts of four pictures he deemed worthy of exhibition. Which he showed us and we all said "oh yes, they're really good, lovely" and went and had a coffee.
That might be a bit extreme, but I for me get my mind into a broad and loose "I have 30 shots a day maximum" on any given event. Makes you think more about what you take and really reduces the faff later. Sometimes it's 60, sometimes it's two.
|
|
Things are so seldom worth shooting. Why, for example take a photo of the Eiffel Tower. There are tens of thousands of them on the internet if you can't remember what it looked like. ;-)
|
|
We find them a great way of diarising our trips. No, we don't look at them that often, but often enough to make them very worthwhile. Quality isn't important though, so don't waste time editing them, apart from rotations.
|
>> Things are so seldom worth shooting. Why, for example take a photo of the Eiffel
>> Tower. There are tens of thousands of them on the internet if you can't remember
>> what it looked like. ;-)
>>
It's like concerts now. Everybody is concentrating on holding their mobile phone in the air to capture a crap sounding blurry video of the performance rather than enjoying it.
|
Thinking about it, I wonder why old film rolls were typically 30 shots. The film and the camera evolved hand in hand so it could probably have been almost anything but nobody was trying to make 100 shot film, or five, as a competitive advantage. Perhaps 30 was deemed to be the sweet spot for size, convenience, or just about enough for most needs.
Intriguing. Makes me start to wonder about other things we take for granted, like why vinyl singles play at 45 and not 50 or 35. How arbitrary were these decisions? I bet there's some interesting history hidden away here.
Sorry, I'm built this way, I can't help it.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 24 Nov 15 at 12:07
|
Wasn't 24 or 36 shots? I don't remember 30.
There were some promotional films that I was given once which I think were 6 shots.
|
Yes, I think you're right. 24 or 36.
I have a half day waiting for the chimney sweep. An afternoon Google prodding might be in order here.
|
|
36 exposures on a 35mm (135?) cassette was equivalent to or slightly better than could be achieved on roll film - 32 at 6*4.5 on 220 roll. That probably decided the size of the cassette and once it was 'mainstream' more could only be achieved by thinner film probably with complications (analogy would be in the C120 audio cassette).
|
>>Wasn't 24 or 36 shots? I don't remember 30.>>
35mm film used to come in 12, 24 or 36 exposure capacities. The size of the film cassette meant that 36 was the maximum number of exposures which could be accommodated.
|
>>35mm film used to come in 12, 24 or 36 exposure capacities.
Spot on.
|
35mm film used to come in 12, 24 or 36 exposure capacities.
You could squeeze 38 from a roll on the non-auto loading type....#broketeeneager.
|
>>#broketeeneager.
Reminds me of me optimistically chasing a girl.
Or did you mean teenager?
|
>> 35mm film used to come in 12, 24 or 36 exposure capacities.
>>
>>
>> You could squeeze 38 from a roll on the non-auto loading type....#broketeeneager.
you could, you ended up with half a photo tho!
|
Yep...sure did..!
Fat Finger Syndrom Mark
|
>> >>
>> It's like concerts now. Everybody is concentrating on holding their mobile phone in the air
>> to capture a crap sounding blurry video of the performance rather than enjoying it.
>>
Quite. Just looking at a view and taking it in seem impossible for some people, It's as though a thing exists only if they take a picture of it.
As for those photographing their dinner in restaurants..............
|
>> As for those photographing their dinner in restaurants..............
>>
>>
Why it's for putting on trip advisor so we all can know and understand what plates of food look like.
;-)
|
>> As for those photographing their dinner in restaurants..............
>>
Its called a "Facebook moment". Snap it, post it up, count your likes from your 6 gazzillion "friends" and forget it.
|
>> A colleague recently went to Iceland for ten days. He bought new camera gear. He took 3700 photos (he told me).
My wife is no better!
On a week long holiday I usually take 300 photos max in my DSLR. After coming back home I delete 20% of them immediately and assign a rating 1-5 to the remaining and back them up (1 copy in computer + 1 copy in external disk + 1 copy of best photos only in cloud).
My wife usually takes 3000 photos. She only downloads them just before next holiday to clear the memory cards. She never sorts her photos. In fact I quickly scan thru them and hand pick 1% of them which seem reasonable + few of my own pictures (because I'm always missing in my camera photos). Those 'good' photos are added to my collection and cataloged.
I distribute best photos (typically never more than 20% of my shots) to family members via cloud URL link.
|
|
My first US trip (three weeks) used 30 rolls of 36 shot film. I have an album of 30 photos only
|
>> My first US trip (three weeks) used 30 rolls of 36 shot film. I have
>> an album of 30 photos only
Only shot about a fifth of that volume on slides, mostly Agfa, on a trip to Switzerland in 1983. Posted them home as I went avoiding the risk of loss. The vast majority are underexposed and or lack focus/field depth due to a faulty lens iris.
|
I take photos like its going out of fashion. But when back at base I am ruthless as to what I keep or delete.
About 5% kept, I reckon.
|
Blimey chaps! Didn't expect a response like that - I Googled the question and it came up with nothing!! Thought you lot might have more to say!!
Hope you don't mind if I take a while to read all replies and think about them! (Been out since 5am and only just got back!)
First impressions are that;-
a) Taking the old ME Super and 10 rolls of 36 exposure Ektachrome might be a good idea!!! ;-)
b) I made right decision on Sunday in buying 2 spare SD cards!!
c) Reckon my son will have his Ipad tablet thingy with him and therefore I might be able to link to that or "Cloud " thingy.
but, going to have a good read of your suggestions and will get back to you.
Thanks again - great response :-) Much appreciated
P
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 Nov 15 at 01:14
|
The answer partly depends on the phone/tablet you have and how many GB of pictures you're talking of.
I've backed up from a camera SD Card to USB stick before now (partly to prove it worked if I needed it).... copied via a phone.
Current phone has a total of 64GB of storage so might just copy to that in future. Even though I have inclusive data in Europe, it's only 4GB/month.
|
Only got a Samsung S III Mini as a phone so no USB slot. I only use it for phone calls/texts and then occasional What'sAp/maps etc
Think I will go with the 3 cards suggestions - got a 16mb one in camera now and got 2 32 mb ones on special offer the other day. That should allow me to take about 20,000 photos and delete 19,950 leaving the 50 good ones!
Also going to check with son re his ipad - do they have a USB port or, it occurs, bluetooth which my camera has? Anyway, he's a serious photographer with a big newish Canon DSLR and is pretty tech savvy so will probably be considering some way of saving his photos as we go along.
I was rather hoping there would be some "hard disc" type gadget, battery powered, phone sized, with a USB socket and/or card reader to which one could download photos.
Thanks again for all the contributions, you are better than Google!
P
|
>> I was rather hoping there would be some "hard disc" type gadget, battery powered, phone
>> sized, with a USB socket and/or card reader to which one could download photos.
>>
There is you need one of these.
www.amazon.co.uk/Ex-Pro®-Picture-Drive-EX205KB-Storage/dp/B00OFVNIRW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1448475957&sr=8-2&keywords=nexto+di
|
I don't know how much storage your SIII has, but it also has Bluetooth, and WiFi so could act as a staging post between your camera and cloud storage.
You can also use an USB OTG cable with it.
|
Thanks CGN and FM - will investigate further.
P
|
>> Only got a Samsung S III Mini as a phone so no USB slot.
I'm sure it does have a micro-USB slot for charging and connection on the bottom.
...but it also has a microSD slot, but internal to the device (back cover off to insert) supporting up to 32GB cards.
If so, my suggestion above (that instead of an SD card, you use a microSD card in a microSD to SD converter in your camera), should allow you to read the photos on the phone via that microSD card.
Then transfer to the cloud (when wifi available) or read them into spare phone memory, switch microSD cards, and write a copy out again.
I haven't tried it, but there's nothing there that shouldn't work. A converter is less than a pound, and microSD cards are very cheap.
The only extra you *might* need is a "file manager" to move the pictures from the card to the phone internal memory. ES File Explorer is a decent Android file manager, and is free to download.
How workable the copying would be (not the cloud upload) would depend on how much free memory the phone has.
|
Thanks tyredn,
Yes, phone does have micro USB slot for charging/downloading photos etc, and I understand about the microSD card and in fact have a spare converter. Saw some microSDs in PC World the other day so you suggestion is well worth investigating.
Thanks for the input
P
|
>>Saw some microSDs in PC World the other day so you suggestion is well worth investigating.>>
Best source for top brand memory cards at lowest prices including delivery is almost certainly:
www.7dayshop.com/memory-cards/
|
|
... who have an extra 5% off today using code BFMEM5
|
Thanks again all - have just ordered micro SD card from 7dayshop (32 mb which should be more than enough for my photos!!).
Think I have taken advantage of several suggestions above!
Thanks for all the input.
Don't Google it , Car4Play it!!
P
PS Just paid £7.29 for identical card to one seen in John Lewis this aft for £19.99!!
Last edited by: PhilW on Sat 28 Nov 15 at 18:37
|
PPS
Not a bad day today. Went into John Lewis to look at prices of mice (mouses?) for computer 'cos mine gave up the ghost a few days ago.
Saw a Logitech one next to a computer for £24.95. Thought I'd browse the others and saw identical mouse amongst the others with price tag on shelf of £12.48. Went up to a sales bloke and told him I was a bit confused - he checked price - £24.95 but said since it said £12.48 on the other shelf I could have it for that!
So today have saved £12.70 on micro sd card and £12.47 on the mouse which means I am £26 richer than I was this morning!
Well, that's how Mrs W would reckon it when she's hunting bargains!!
As a further aside - have you tried operating a desktop on Widows 10 without a mouse - blinkin' impossible! (for a technotit like me!)
P
|
|
Perfectly applied man maths Phil
|
>> (32 mb which should be more than enough for my photos!!).
32GB surely :-)
I remember paying quite a lot for a 32GB Compact Flash card in 2000! My first 4GB card was actually a miniature hard drive.... but it didn't perform well in the iPAQ so it went back.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 28 Nov 15 at 23:13
|
"32GB surely :-) "
Proving myself a technotit again!
(Had to check the label on another card to confirm GB not MB!!) ;-)
P
|
...given that the method described by me was (in my case) theoretical, as I hadn't tried it, I've had a play today.
A MicroSD card in an SD converter works fine in my second-line camera.
Transferring the MicroSD to an old HTC Android 'phone results in the 'phone immediately seeing the contained photos in the "Gallery" app.
I surmise from this that it therefore wouldn't be difficult to upload these to cloud storage if an account and wifi were available. (rather expensive over a mobile data connection!)
I also surmise that, with sufficient 'phone memory, the files could be copied in from the card (via a downloaded free file manager such as ES File Explorer), the card unmounted, a second one inserted, and the files *moved* out to provide a second, local, copy. Subsequent runs could *add* more photos to this back-up card.
It might all be a slow process for large amounts of photos, so little and often might be the rule.
NB, inserting the card in the 'phone adds a few additional Android files to the card. Re-inserting it into the camera afterwards, these had no effect on the ability to take more photos (adding them to the originals).
|
Anyone tried those wifi enabled sd cards?
All the swappery between cameras and tablets and PCs made me think it a good idea to just get your camera in range of a tablet or whatever and pull the photos off via a local wifi from the card, but I'm not sure how well they actually work and although the price has come down a bit there is still a premium to be paid of course.
|
|
shed load of agro with them, (camera compatibility) and its not just a matter of mounting as a drive on your host and dragging photos. Technology with a way to go yet before its stable mainstream, i think
|
Ta. Another thing off the list for now then.
Honestly, the money I've saved this Black Friday by not buying things is astonishing. If only I hadn't let Mrc C loose this morning in a garden centre with more Chinese Christmas decorations that sing, light up, flash, hypnotise and bounce than are strictly necessary for a Puritan soul to rest easy. I can only be glad we came out with just two strings of lights and a bag of shiny squirrels. Made of fir cones. Well, artificial plastic fir cones made to look in turn like a shiny squirrel, obviously.
Experience has taught me that any mention of Christmas relevance will result in me being banished to the dark corner of the shop where nobody goes. You know, the one where they keep the Nativity stuff.
|
>> for a Puritan soul to rest easy. I can only be glad we came out
>> with just two strings of lights and a bag of shiny squirrels. Made of fir
>> cones. Well, artificial plastic fir cones made to look in turn like a shiny squirrel,
>> obviously.
I nearly came away with a full size standalone furry indoor reindeer, but the price sticker north of 300 quid put me off somewhat. Plus my eyes were suddenly drawn to the full size dentists chair on sale, and I left über quickly
|
|
Surprised it wasn't a dental instruments Advent Calendar.
|
>> Surprised it wasn't a dental instruments Advent Calendar.
You are a sick bunny.
|
>> >> Surprised it wasn't a dental instruments Advent Calendar.
>>
>> You are a sick bunny.
Sorry make that
you are a sick duracell bunny
|
I do find Advent Calendars to be odd. I've seen a Barbie one this year, and also a cat and dog one (Look, Baby Jesus, the lovely Labradoodle has come to see you! Don't kick it, it wants to lick your eyes.)
When I were young it were all angels and mangers.
|
...not half as odd as the dog grotto in my neighbouring country park......
...and when I Googled, it's apparently not unigue!!
I've nothing against dogs, but, to coin a phrase, "do they know it's Christmas?".
|
>> I've nothing against dogs, but, to coin a phrase, "do they know it's Christmas?".
no but they feel excluded
(and dog owners will pay handsomely to be included)
|
>>
>> no but they feel excluded
>>
...especially if their owner befriends a furry indoor reindeer.......
|
>> >>
>> >> no but they feel excluded
>> >>
>>
>> ...especially if their owner befriends a furry indoor reindeer.......
>>
>>
you dont have to feed or train the reindeer
|
|
Crap at getting the newspapers in the morning though.
|
Not losing holiday photos. - movilogo
