Epson P-2000 - is 40GB enough?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Royce, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. Royce

    Royce Guest

    I'm thinking about buying the Epson P-2000 storage viewer for
    transfering digital images files and freeing up my CompactFlash cards.
    I have 8 - 1GB cards that I use with my Canon 20D and original 1Ds. I
    can't see where I'd need more than 40GB (about 35GB free from what I
    read). What are the experiences of others? I can't see spending
    another $200 right now for the P-4000 with its 80GB hard drive. What's
    the group's feelings on this?

    Royce, Dec 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Two of us, shooting both JPEG and limited movies, cam nowhere near to
    filling the Epson P-2000 on a one week holiday. But you are asking "how
    long is a piece of string"!

    David J Taylor, Dec 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Royce

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Royce writes ...
    I lQQked carefully at this one but ended up waiting for the P-4000
    because I didn't think 36 GB was enough for both my wife and myself,
    since we both occasionally shoot a lot of frames on wildlife ... for
    just one photographer though it's probably sufficient unless you're on
    very long trips.
    Just a warning, the 1Ds RAW files won't show up on the screen (unlike
    1D Mark II and 10D and probably 20D files). This means you have to
    shoot RAW+jpeg (or just jpeg) to see the 1Ds images on the P-2000/4000
    I get roughly 100 1Ds RAWs on a 1 GB card, ~ 125 1D Mark II RAWs (which
    should be about the same size as your 20D files since they are 8 MPixel
    bodies), so between 3,600 - 4,500 images could be stored in 36 GB,
    depending on how you split the camera usage. If you're willing to
    delete some of the 'mistakes' then it's even more. So it depends on
    how many shots you take each day, how many days you're out and whether
    you're willing to cull based on the small screen image. For me 40 GB
    would definitely be enough for a typical one week trip but for much
    longer I'd want something larger, just in case. For example my wife
    and I are going to Tanzania on a 17 day photo safari in the next few
    months and are taking the 80 GB P-4000, a 100 GB Wolverine and a laptop
    to edit and reduce the # of files before storing on the portable
    drives. But this is the longest trip we're taking all year and
    typically we could get by with less storage.
    I'd say get the P-2000 unless you have some really long trips planned.

    Bill Hilton, Dec 14, 2005
  4. Royce

    wilt Guest

    Answer for yourself...

    35 GB free space,
    per shot 8.2 MB RAW + 3.3 MB JPEG (average, using sample of 50 shots
    RAW+JPG Large taken with 20D)

    = just over 3000 photos.
    wilt, Dec 14, 2005
  5. Royce

    Royce Guest

    I can't see spending another $200 right now for the P-4000 with
    I appreciate the feedback on this, and the advice on making sure I shot
    a JPEG with my RAW. I'm thinking of going with the P-2000 then, and
    maybe upgrading the hard drive and battery down the road. I found this
    site that has a good price and has instructions on how to make a
    portable battery charger for under $19, and how to upgrade your HD for
    about $120:

    Do you think this is safe (on the HD upgrade)? Maybe I'll do it after
    the one year warranty is up ;-)

    Royce, Dec 14, 2005
  6. Royce

    ASAAR Guest

    I wonder if people that use the "don't put all of your eggs in one
    basket" argument to justify using several flash cards instead of one
    large card would ever also suggest getting two P-2000s instead of
    one P-4000? If the P-4000 died, *much* more would be lost than if a
    single card failed, and any hard drive is inherently more prone to
    failure than cards. I'm obviously not referring to you, especially
    since you also have the Wolverine and laptop. That said, I'd have
    no problems with backups limited to only a single P-2000, but I'd
    also want to bring along most of my memory cards, not just one or
    two. This way if the P-2000 died, much less would be lost.
    ASAAR, Dec 14, 2005
  7. ASAAR wrote:
    What we have done is to take enough flash memory, /and/ backup onto the
    Epson P-2000. A suggestion: if you don't have enough memory for the trip,
    borrow some from a friend. It helps, taking JPEGs rather than RAW though.

    David J Taylor, Dec 14, 2005
  8. Royce

    ASAAR Guest

    Good idea, and when traveling, all of the cards can fit in a
    single pocket so there's no need to worry about having to store them
    in checked baggage as you would with bulkier backup solutions such
    as laptops, that might not fit in carry-on luggage.
    ASAAR, Dec 14, 2005
  9. Royce

    Bill Hilton Guest

    ASAAR writes ...
    Instead of two P-2000's I'd suggest one P-2000 and one something else
    with larger disk, lower cost but no preview ... I got a 100 GB
    Wolverine for around $300 for example, so 2.5x more disk space for 60%
    the cost (but no image preview). It's also a lot smaller than the
    P-4000 so easier to carry.
    I agree, that's why I *never* erase/reformat a memory card until it's
    been copied to TWO places (usually a laptop and small HD, or if I can't
    take the laptop then two small HD's with CF readers) and I've verified
    the images open in a RAW converter. This is often a pain in the ass
    but for sure the hard drives will die one day and if you have your
    files on only one you'll lose the data ...

    Bill Hilton, Dec 14, 2005
  10. Royce

    Royce Guest

    So Right! I agree: Always copy in TWO places before erasing the CF! I
    the past, I copied to my laptop and onto a DVD-R before erasing the CF.
    When I arrived back at the studio, I make a second DVD-R before I
    erase the files from my laptop. I keep on DVD at home and one at the

    One I get the Epson P-2000, I won't have to make a DVD-R on location
    (very slow), because I'll be using two high-speed hard drives (the
    P-2000 and the one in my laptop).

    Royce, Dec 14, 2005
  11. Royce

    TW Guest

    A low end laptop is going to be much more versatile than the P-2000. They
    actualy cost about the same but with a much larger screen. The down side is
    likely poorer screen.
    TW, Dec 15, 2005
  12. Royce

    Mark² Guest

    The REAL down-side (IMHO) is lugging the laptop around...
    I've been tempted to go against my frustration with Sony and look into their
    TX line of teeny-tiny laptops (a mere 2.7 pounds) that have gorgeous,
    high-def screens...but they are very pricey.
    They are incredibly light, compact, and durable (or so I've heard
    tell)...with amazing battery life (7 hours on a tiny standard battery).

    I wouldn't mind "lugging around" a super lightweight like that...but the
    cost is high...and Sony makes me mad...
    Mark², Dec 15, 2005
  13. And you can have great fun waiting to find out what poisonous DRM traps
    Sony have concealed in its innards. I also really like Sony laptops
    (both my wife and I have one from 5-6 years ago) and I quite lust after
    one of the latest ones - but I won't be buying one until I am quite
    satisfied it has no malware embedded in it. (And maybe not even then -
    have to punish the bastards.)

    David Littlewood, Dec 15, 2005
  14. Royce

    Al Dykes Guest

    IMO if the device has a decent viewing screen then I can prune out the
    dogs after uploading. In my case that would be 50%-90% of my shots,
    depending on what I'm shooting. I can't imagine filling a 40GB disk
    between visits to my computer unless I'm traveling. Look for battery
    life. You need to be able to run it for lots more time if you are
    going to use it as a shot viewing device.

    If I'm going on a very long/expesive trip I worry about device
    failure. I'd be tempted to buy two of these and keep them in seperate
    luggage in case of loss. I look to a small laptop with CD burning
    capability. I'd burn CDs in pairs as I travel and send one home as I
    Al Dykes, Dec 15, 2005
  15. Royce

    Bill Funk Guest

    Given equal list prices ($500US), a laptop would have a better screen.
    for one example.
    Same HD size, and far more versatility, too.
    Larger size, though; more hassle carrying.
    Bill Funk, Dec 15, 2005
  16. Royce

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Royce wrote ...
    Royce, if you're SURE you'll always be able to take a laptop then you
    might consider not getting a P-2000 and instead getting a smaller
    device with no viewer since this will be much lighter, less expensive
    and, if you want, higher capacity. I got the P-4000 partly because
    there are a couple of places I go where I can't reasonably take a
    laptop so with the Epson I can at least preview files, and I also got
    it hoping it would replace the laptop for something like Africa, but
    after trying to use it as a laptop replacement I felt it didn't allow
    me to look at files at 100% (sensor dust checks) easily enough, among
    other problems, so this was a false hope on my part.

    Bill Hilton, Dec 15, 2005
  17. Royce

    Charlie Self Guest

    Sure does. JPEG at loowest compression rates out at 502 on my 2 gig
    card, while RAW bumps up against its limits at 144. Just under 4 to 1.

    I still want a P-2000 or something similar, though. Only 12-13-15 other
    $300 to $650 items to go first.
    Charlie Self, Dec 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.