«

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:00:54 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>that wasn't in reply to you. it was in reply to tony, the resident
>apple-hater.

Actually, I neither hate nor like Apple. I'm very neutral about the
products, but don't see the need personally to buy something more
expensive than I need to own.

I do admit to disliking Appleholics, though.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:57:02 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:00:54 -0700, nospam <>
>wrote:
>
>>that wasn't in reply to you. it was in reply to tony, the resident
>>apple-hater.
>
>Actually, I neither hate nor like Apple. I'm very neutral about the
>products, but don't see the need personally to buy something more
>expensive than I need to own.
>
>I do admit to disliking Appleholics, though.

I should amend that last statement. I hold no brief with someone who
uses and likes their Apple product. It's the ones who think they've
found Jesus in the box and then use the box like a Fundamentalist's
pulpit.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >why don't you go to the apple store and have them teach you.
>
> I dunno, but is there an Apple store convenient to him in New Zealand?

apparently, reading is not your strong suit.

he said he's already been to an apple store, where the apple genius was
very young and googled for answers.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> Actually, I neither hate nor like Apple.

bullshit. your words tell a different story.

> I'm very neutral about the
> products,

bullshit. you're always criticizing them, claiming they're overpriced
among other things.

> but don't see the need personally to buy something more
> expensive than I need to own.

nobody said you or anyone else has to buy something more expensive than
needed. yet another feeble attempt to twist things into something it
isn't.

On 30/10/2012 21:17, tony cooper wrote:
[]
> That must be part of the Applefanatics credo: If you can't do it on
> an Apple product, it's no big deal regardless of what the user thinks.
[]
> Part II of the Applefanatics credo: Apple products do everything you
> want them to do except what you need to buy something else to do.

It comes across like that. It surprises slightly that people can't
bring themselves to admit that that Apple products have faults - it
seems that there is a lack of objectivity. Reasoned argument goes out
of the window.

BTW: my last trip used about 20 GB of memory - not everyone shoots in RAW!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 31/10/2012 03:56, Savageduck wrote:
[]
> The iPad makes a great image viewing device. It is just not the best
> backup device. It only fills that role in a pinch. The iPad with the
> retina display makes a better viewing device.

... and if you've copied, say, 300 photos across from an SD card to show
someone on the excellent display, you /still/ have the problem of
deleting those 300 photos without having to tap each and every one. The
problem still exists whether it's a display or a backup device.

Oh, and let's not mention the picture ordering issue when used as a
display from images copied from an SD card.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 31/10/2012 03:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
> It seems none of them are very bright, doesn't it?

With my Android phone, there is a File Manager program which runs on the
device itself, and it /does/ include a Select All option.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 30/10/2012 21:22, Savageduck wrote:
[]
> Damn! you have to stop getting me to agree with you.
> The iPad makes a terrible in the field backup device. You would be
> better off using an iPhone as a WiFi hotspot and transferring files to
> one of the cloud services such as DB or PogoPlug.
>
> For in the field backup you cannot do much better than a Colorspace
> UDMA. It handles CF, SDHC, MS etc. It does full and incremental backups
> from the cards and connects to laptop/desktop via USB.
> < http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-...-UDMA-s/64.htm >

Where I was recently there was /no/ Internet access, and if it had been
available, via a mobile phone it would have been desperately expensive.
For me, there's enough free space on the iPad, so I don't need yet
another box (and its charger, weight and bulk). Why take two boxes when
one will do?

I do appreciate that your needs are different as you take RAW and need
more space. BTW: can you transfer files from the Colorspace to the iPad
for display?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 31/10/2012 02:35, Eric Stevens wrote:
[]
> My wife and her gang thought they could use an iPad to view photos in
> the field. Isn't the iPad suitable for that? What other device would
> you recommend buying for the purpose?

It's ideal for that job, Eric. We use ours quite a bit. Excellent
quality display for just one or two gathered round.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 31/10/2012 03:12, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:42:08 -0700, nospam <>
> wrote:
[]
>> i did already but here it is once again:
>> plug the ipad into the computer with the provided usb cable and it
>> shows up like an ordinary digital camera. use whatever software you
>> normally use, including explorer which you've said you like to use,
>> select whatever photos you want, then copy and/or delete them as you
>> would if it was any other digital camera.
>
> Aah - but I don't do that with a digital camera. I've encountered too
> many stories about memory cards being stuffed up by this kind of
> activity until they are reformatted by the camera. I certainly don't
> want this kind of problem with an iPad.

Do try what nospam suggests - it does work. Only the directories
containing images are exposed to the PC, so you can't accidentally
delete the operating system or user programs.

You /can/ get a program called iPhone Explorer (IIRC) which /does/ allow
that level of access, though. Caveat Emptor in that case!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu