"On the road" image storage solution for $30.

[barrie]

did you look at the flashtrax at all, if so, what did you like better about the epson..

The FlashTrax looks pretty good but the biggest difference for me is the lack of information I can find on it. There are lots of reviews on the Epson and pretty much everything I have found on it has been good. That’s the most important thing to me, being able to find lots of people who are happy with the product. I especially like the large screen and great resolution of the P-5000. Many reviews I read said it’s the best way to go for photographers. Here’s one example: http://bonus.ppmag.com/2007/01/review_epson_p5.html#more

I couldn’t really find much mention of the FlashTrax when researching devices, which is a red flag in my book. I did find some mention of it on this link, but even the person saying he liked it didn’t have much of a glowing review: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17298

There are two things that I don’t like about it. One is that it only reads CF cards. To read other types of cards you have to use an adapter which is sold separately. I use SD cards and that would be a hassle. Also, I don’t really care for the flip top. I know it’s good for protecting the LCD but I think it’s clunky and, to me, more moving parts means more to break.

Barrie

 

[Groucho]

we will have to make that happen...I don't wish to fight with you either...from my perspective it seems that you are always the one who first disagrees with what I say ...LOL

In this thread, you had suggested that someone buy one hard drive storage unit. I merely pointed out that hard drives are, by far, the least reliable storage medium out there, and I still stand by that. I get really nervous at the thought of someone storing an entire trip's worth (or more) of their photos in one such unreliable device.

I agree, however that 2.5 in my storage unit that is only used on vacation and with model photo shoots, should last longer than the 2.5 in a laptop that is used on a daily basis....just like the engine in my car would be the same engine if placed in a racecar...but will last longer just driving to and from work, than it would if it were on a racetrack everyday, being pushed to the limit...

The problem is that hard drive failures are so unpredictable. I've seen they die within a month of purchase, or a year. They are unreliable no matter how often they're used. Many, many hard drives don't last anywhere near their MTBF (and it's not because of rough handling.)

the 3 year warranty was printed right on the box

The only Seagate that should have a 3-year warranty would be maybe an external one - if buying one, I'd buy the enclosure separately then buy a regular 5-year-warranty drive to put in it. The problem with external drives is that it's difficult to do a proper scan on them, I'm not sure that any of the manufacturer's diagnostics will do a full test on a drive connected via USB... meaning to test it, you're looking at a surface scan from within Windows, which is verrrrrry slow. A USB drive will also not communicate it's SMART status to the PC, which is supposed to give you warning before the drive fails completely.

I feel so much better now that you've enlightened me on WD hard drives....

I just installed a 250 gig and 160 gig WD in my home pc and bought a 250 gig external WD for photo storage...
LOL

Like I said, I have three WD drives in my main PC. (All 160s - unfortunately, I haven't seen them get cheaper per gig than the $40-after-rebate 160g ones.) I like them, but I think that knowing how flaky drives are, I want the longest warranty possible, especially if the out-of-the-box one is only 1 year.