Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is a card reader really necessary?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's also mention the fact that 4gb is a pitiful amount of a modern camera.
Internal memory was around in the early days for someone to try out their camera before they bought a camera. It was usually a pitiful amount-enough for maybe a dozen images. Some cameras, like the Apple Quick Take 100, didn't have provisions for internal storage but that's reaching back to the very early days of 640x480 cameras.
I have a handful of early DSLRs in my collection, and none of them have built in memory. Even the Nikon D1 from 1999 didn't have it(and yes I have a couple of those). The really fun one is my Kodak DCS 760, which is a Nikon F5 body with a Kodak digital tumor grafted onto the bottom of it. And yes there's no real speculating as to what body it's based on(unlike the DCS 14/n or the Fuji Finepix S3, which are both N80 based but entirely branded Kodak or Fuji) given that the 760 and all the other early Kodak DSLRs actually says Nikon and F5 on the pentaprism, and things like the prism and focusing screen are interchangeable with F5. In any case, it was meant to take PCMCIA hard drives. Fortunately it works with a PCMCIA-CF adapter.
Internal memory was around in the early days for someone to try out their camera before they bought a camera. It was usually a pitiful amount-enough for maybe a dozen images. Some cameras, like the Apple Quick Take 100, didn't have provisions for internal storage but that's reaching back to the very early days of 640x480 cameras.
I have a handful of early DSLRs in my collection, and none of them have built in memory. Even the Nikon D1 from 1999 didn't have it(and yes I have a couple of those). The really fun one is my Kodak DCS 760, which is a Nikon F5 body with a Kodak digital tumor grafted onto the bottom of it. And yes there's no real speculating as to what body it's based on(unlike the DCS 14/n or the Fuji Finepix S3, which are both N80 based but entirely branded Kodak or Fuji) given that the 760 and all the other early Kodak DSLRs actually says Nikon and F5 on the pentaprism, and things like the prism and focusing screen are interchangeable with F5. In any case, it was meant to take PCMCIA hard drives. Fortunately it works with a PCMCIA-CF adapter.
The headlight lenses on my car are polycarbonate, just like a lot of camera lens elements now, so my car and camera lenses are basically the same thing too. I don't know why they've never bothered to put a transmission in my camera.
Yes 4GB is nothing for a modern camera. However its allot of hours of record time for a voice recorder. My recorder also takes SD cards if I wanted even more record time.
Memory is so cheap these days that if one of the manufacturers saw it as a desireable feature and thought it would give them a "leg up" over a competitor, they'd do it in a second.
The fact that none of them do it should tell you something.
Memory cards are basically disposable devices. Buy smart(Sandisk and Lexar for CF or SD, Sony or Lexar for XQD) and they last a long time, but they're still disposable. That's especially true with tiny, fragile SD cards(which have to be one of the worst removable media designed that actually took off). At the first hint of an issue, like a year or so back when my cameras quit writing to a 64gb Sandisk CF 100 shots into a a day out, I get rid of them. To Sandisk's credit, I sent it to them and they replaced it without question with the current equivalent(which was a better card than what I sent them). Fortunately too I was able to get everything off that one. Also, the fact that it was removable meant I could just pop it out, grab another from my wallet, and keep going.
The fact that none of them do it should tell you something.
Memory cards are basically disposable devices. Buy smart(Sandisk and Lexar for CF or SD, Sony or Lexar for XQD) and they last a long time, but they're still disposable. That's especially true with tiny, fragile SD cards(which have to be one of the worst removable media designed that actually took off). At the first hint of an issue, like a year or so back when my cameras quit writing to a 64gb Sandisk CF 100 shots into a a day out, I get rid of them. To Sandisk's credit, I sent it to them and they replaced it without question with the current equivalent(which was a better card than what I sent them). Fortunately too I was able to get everything off that one. Also, the fact that it was removable meant I could just pop it out, grab another from my wallet, and keep going.
I think he needed to put in a comma in a strategic location......and the failure to do so makes what he wrote rather odd and incomprehensible, at least in American English, to say the least. Because of the fact that there are a lot of non-native English speakers and writers on this site, though, it is frowned upon here to point out or comment in a negative way on someone's use or misuse of the English language in their postings.
Well I don’t understand what was trying to be said. I even added a comma in my head while I read it and I still couldn’t make sense of it.
Yeah, we're OK here because according to rule #8 under "Minor Problems" in the rules a discussion of this particular situation falls under the fact that the wording is distinctly confusing (not to mention that the poster is presumably a native English speaker, so no excuses there!).
"8. Corrections. There is no need to point out another poster's spelling or grammatical errors unless you think it is causing confusion."
Well, yeah, this particular post sure as heck had the potential big-time to cause confusion!
Going back a little and reading everything in context, including the posts preceding the one in question, to me it looks as though the post should have read, "Camera makers don't, true."
That would have been in response to Bunnspecial's post just above that which says:
"Memory is so cheap these days that if one of the manufacturers saw it as a desireable feature and thought it would give them a "leg up" over a competitor, they'd do it in a second.
The fact that none of them do it should tell you something."
Slotting in a response such as "Camera makers don't, true" works in this scenario. However, without that all-important and absolutely essential comma, what was written makes absolutely no sense. It's still not exactly conventional written English language usage, though, even if it might pass muster when spoken in a casual conversation. I'll admit that it took me a while to analyze this situation and figure out what the heck was probably meant by this post's awkward wording and unfortunate lack of essential comma.....
In both spoken and written communication, regardless of in which language, clarity is all-important, and its failure is definitely an attention-grabber!
"8. Corrections. There is no need to point out another poster's spelling or grammatical errors unless you think it is causing confusion."
Well, yeah, this particular post sure as heck had the potential big-time to cause confusion!
Going back a little and reading everything in context, including the posts preceding the one in question, to me it looks as though the post should have read, "Camera makers don't, true."
That would have been in response to Bunnspecial's post just above that which says:
"Memory is so cheap these days that if one of the manufacturers saw it as a desireable feature and thought it would give them a "leg up" over a competitor, they'd do it in a second.
The fact that none of them do it should tell you something."
Slotting in a response such as "Camera makers don't, true" works in this scenario. However, without that all-important and absolutely essential comma, what was written makes absolutely no sense. It's still not exactly conventional written English language usage, though, even if it might pass muster when spoken in a casual conversation. I'll admit that it took me a while to analyze this situation and figure out what the heck was probably meant by this post's awkward wording and unfortunate lack of essential comma.....
In both spoken and written communication, regardless of in which language, clarity is all-important, and its failure is definitely an attention-grabber!
Last edited:
I really wasn’t trying to nitpick about grammar or condescend to the poster.
I am pretty good with editing and parsing together thoughts in this manner. I was probably too abrupt with my remark but I am distracted by my iMac continually shutting down for no reason.
Regardless, even adding in the comma to his sentence, it makes little sense on context to the preceding post.
I appreciate your help though.
I am pretty good with editing and parsing together thoughts in this manner. I was probably too abrupt with my remark but I am distracted by my iMac continually shutting down for no reason.
Regardless, even adding in the comma to his sentence, it makes little sense on context to the preceding post.
I appreciate your help though.
I agree, and as I said, it is still unconventional English language written or spoken usage and not all that clear, even WITH the comma inserted, as the reader would then still need to refer to the post above in order to make some sense out of it, which may or may not become apparent.
I went to the extent that I did, though, in trying to figure this out and then to clarify in my own post that in this situation there IS genuine confusion about what the poster wrote and that this is what provoked the comments and discussion. I don't think anyone wants to be issued a warning or whatever for a situation in which they expressed their genuine puzzlement over what another member had written.
I went to the extent that I did, though, in trying to figure this out and then to clarify in my own post that in this situation there IS genuine confusion about what the poster wrote and that this is what provoked the comments and discussion. I don't think anyone wants to be issued a warning or whatever for a situation in which they expressed their genuine puzzlement over what another member had written.
OOh... proper topic. What film camera do you have in mind?
$100 will get you a nice Canon AE-1 or Nikon FM over here with a 50mm f1.8. Great fun to play with.
OR... if you can go a step further and get a Rollieflex TLR that shoots 120 film, then you will feel the benefit of the film experience. If you are like me and you play with 35mm film, I think you will compare it constantly to what you are getting digitally. 120 film however, is an obvious step improvement (IMHO).
Also, if you plan to develop your own film, Ilford Simplicity kits are great and a LabBox from analogue wonderland massively eases the whole dark room adventure.
All things relative I am afraid yes, $400 is not expensive in camera terms. To illustrate not brag, I am using a lens adapter that cost more than $400. Photography is a money pit so arguably staying at the $400 price point is an impressive level of resistance. The thing is, as long as it has manual mode then you can learn the important bits of photography - light, composition and timing.
Once you have nailed those, then you may want to spend more on a camera so start saving.
That first paragraph sums me up to a tee too..... Can I nick it for a signature?
I am not quite sure yet. Definitely 35mm and definitely Nikon. Possibly an F100. It's a bit more than I initially wanted to spend, but I think it might be the right fit. Unfortunately my iMac started fritzing yesterday and it's possible I am going to have to replace it. And a working computer is more important than a new camera.
Although my husband is going to try to replace the power supply for me first I think.I think I mentioned a while back, but my mom gave my my grandfather's camera. I think it is a Kodak 1A Pocket camera (if not it is something similar by type; it's marked on the front I just haven't looked at it in a while). He bought it in the 1920s. The bellows are completely shot and in pieces. I think otherwise it works - the shutter works and it advances, etc. But no current way to keep it dark. I'd like to figure out how to rehab it, and then it needs to be converted for "modern" sized film, which is fairly easy to do relative to making new bellows.
But for my immediate needs I'd love just a regular 35mm to use my existing F mount lenses. Although I now shoot mirrorless and have a collection of Z lenses that continues to grow, I have enough F mounts still around that I could shoot just about anything on film.
When I was finishing college I bought a Canon Elan IIe which was really nice and had three focus point that followed your eyeball to focus where you looked. It was really clever. But I never learned manual mode well and as a poor college student I could afford film and practicing. I sold it when I moved to digital to fund that habit. Even though I now shoot Nikon, I wish I still had it with a 35mm lens.
Just before the pandemic lockdowns started last year, I was taking a black & white developing class and started off with an old battered Yashica 124G of my father's. The copal shutter fell apart one day so I had to quick get a new camera. Instead of buying another Yashica, I ended up with a Nikon FM2n. I love it! It's built like a tank, it can operate without batteries if you have a light meter and takes most Nikon lenses except G and beyond (they'll mount but won't function properly because of the electronically controlled aperture). A friend in the same class had the F100 and she loved it.I am not quite sure yet. Definitely 35mm and definitely Nikon. Possibly an F100. It's a bit more than I initially wanted to spend, but I think it might be the right fit. Unfortunately my iMac started fritzing yesterday and it's possible I am going to have to replace it. And a working computer is more important than a new camera.
I think I mentioned a while back, but my mom gave my my grandfather's camera. I think it is a Kodak 1A Pocket camera (if not it is something similar by type; it's marked on the front I just haven't looked at it in a while). He bought it in the 1920s. The bellows are completely shot and in pieces. I think otherwise it works - the shutter works and it advances, etc. But no current way to keep it dark. I'd like to figure out how to rehab it, and then it needs to be converted for "modern" sized film, which is fairly easy to do relative to making new bellows.
But for my immediate needs I'd love just a regular 35mm to use my existing F mount lenses. Although I now shoot mirrorless and have a collection of Z lenses that continues to grow, I have enough F mounts still around that I could shoot just about anything on film.
When I was finishing college I bought a Canon Elan IIe which was really nice and had three focus point that followed your eyeball to focus where you looked. It was really clever. But I never learned manual mode well and as a poor college student I could afford film and practicing. I sold it when I moved to digital to fund that habit. Even though I now shoot Nikon, I wish I still had it with a 35mm lens.
I'm looking forward to restarting some of my film-based creative pursuits this year.
An Apple iPhone today is really a digital still and a video camera built into a phone. And it does come with built-in memory as how else are you planning to take photos and videos with it. 16Gb was great a few years ago, but so pitiful today with offerings like 4K and ProRAW. Today, the minimum offering for an iPhone is 64Gb, but we can agree that most people usually settle for 128Gb and up. They do this because they need storage as there's no provision to add memory other than adding something on the lightning port. But sadly, devices that do that last only as long as a one hit wonder album! My iLeef memory expansion stick is barely supported on iOS 14.5.1. So iPhone users are "forced" by Apple to pay the Apple Tax on memory.
So it seemed that the OP has grown up in the Apple eco-system, where you need to foresee the size of memory storage to have has to be pre-bought at Apple prices and if you look at his signature, he owns an iPhone 12 with 128Gb of built-in memory. And that's a good amount of storage to store a lot of photos and video, but the phone itself isn't cheap! If you want a more decent camera, you have to upgrade the 12 to Pro level.
Still, I see camera makers being well behind Apple in terms of having built-in storage. With my Apple iPhone, I just download my photos and video through WIFI using the app "PhotoSync" and make both my Mac Pro and my Asus Windows PC as servers. If I want to develop still photos, I just send the photos to my Mac Pro. If I want to work on 1080p and 4K stuff, I'll just send the footage to my Asus PC. Transfers are so fast with WIFI AC and I can do that back and forth.
Now where is this level of integration with the Japanese camera makers? None so whatsoever unless you go very high end with the Nikon, Canon and Sony. They're stuck in the 2000s with cards and only treat WIFI shooting as an afterthought, which to me is fine for professional use, because you want to use multiple memory cards. But the professional and pro-amateur markets are small; whereas the market for iPhone users looking for cameras that work just like an iPhone are much bigger like what you can see from how the OP thinks and articulates with cameras. And in fact, that's really normal of how people today think coming from their very 1st camera being a smartphone. Why aren't cameras come with memory? Why can't traditional cameras send photos and video just using an app or how come traditional cameras can not use apps to manipulate digitally on camera?
This is how the Japanese camera makers had failed to capitalize the iPhone and Android crowd and so far, they are just serving the market with people that are accustomed to working with a traditional camera mindset; not an iPhone or Android mindset.
It took me personally the whole year, thanks to the pandemic, to self reflect and introspect how I can use my iPhone. Before the pandemic, I considered my iPhone SE 2 with its built-in memory to be inferior, difficult and impossible to use for photo creativity. I treat my iPhone as only a communication device. That's it. No cards, have to sync this or that. A year later, I actually LIKE using the iPhone MORE because of the convenience of the built in memory which allows me to sync to my Mac Pro or Asus Windows PC very seamlessly. And I can even use screen share in ZOOM and delegate my iPhone as a second camera via WIFI. Again, with my traditional camera, I have to have this and that blah blah blah. Not with an iPhone and with its built-in memory and there's no memory slot or ports to wear out.
So it seemed that the OP has grown up in the Apple eco-system, where you need to foresee the size of memory storage to have has to be pre-bought at Apple prices and if you look at his signature, he owns an iPhone 12 with 128Gb of built-in memory. And that's a good amount of storage to store a lot of photos and video, but the phone itself isn't cheap! If you want a more decent camera, you have to upgrade the 12 to Pro level.
Still, I see camera makers being well behind Apple in terms of having built-in storage. With my Apple iPhone, I just download my photos and video through WIFI using the app "PhotoSync" and make both my Mac Pro and my Asus Windows PC as servers. If I want to develop still photos, I just send the photos to my Mac Pro. If I want to work on 1080p and 4K stuff, I'll just send the footage to my Asus PC. Transfers are so fast with WIFI AC and I can do that back and forth.
Now where is this level of integration with the Japanese camera makers? None so whatsoever unless you go very high end with the Nikon, Canon and Sony. They're stuck in the 2000s with cards and only treat WIFI shooting as an afterthought, which to me is fine for professional use, because you want to use multiple memory cards. But the professional and pro-amateur markets are small; whereas the market for iPhone users looking for cameras that work just like an iPhone are much bigger like what you can see from how the OP thinks and articulates with cameras. And in fact, that's really normal of how people today think coming from their very 1st camera being a smartphone. Why aren't cameras come with memory? Why can't traditional cameras send photos and video just using an app or how come traditional cameras can not use apps to manipulate digitally on camera?
This is how the Japanese camera makers had failed to capitalize the iPhone and Android crowd and so far, they are just serving the market with people that are accustomed to working with a traditional camera mindset; not an iPhone or Android mindset.
It took me personally the whole year, thanks to the pandemic, to self reflect and introspect how I can use my iPhone. Before the pandemic, I considered my iPhone SE 2 with its built-in memory to be inferior, difficult and impossible to use for photo creativity. I treat my iPhone as only a communication device. That's it. No cards, have to sync this or that. A year later, I actually LIKE using the iPhone MORE because of the convenience of the built in memory which allows me to sync to my Mac Pro or Asus Windows PC very seamlessly. And I can even use screen share in ZOOM and delegate my iPhone as a second camera via WIFI. Again, with my traditional camera, I have to have this and that blah blah blah. Not with an iPhone and with its built-in memory and there's no memory slot or ports to wear out.
Last edited:
Rolleiflexes are great and all, but forget those ang go for a Pentax 67 ?
6x7 is a big step up even from 6x6. After you crop a6x6, you end up wit about 6x4 or 6x4.5. 6x7 prints to 8x10 with very little cropping, and since it’s 50-60% wider than 6x6, adds a substantial amount of area.
Of course the “best” 6x7 camera will be argued to the end of time. I had a really nice RB67 system that I sold because I never wanted to take it out of the house. The Pentax handles like what it looks like-a gigantic 35mm SLR-and to me is a lot mor practical. Plus, there’s the legendary 105mm f/2.4, while I’m not aware of any leaf shutter MF lenses that are faster than f/2.8.
All of my lenses are G lenses.? Well, there are two D lenses in the house, but technically they are my son's (I might steal them back if I get a film camera ?). I do enough manual focusing with all my assorted Lensbabies that I don't want to fuss with all manual focus on a film camera as well. And two of my LBs are F mount anyway and they would be interesting to use on a film camera.
But I think at least initially film is going to be such a different mind-shift for me that I'd prefer to focus on composition and deliberateness without having to also worry about focus. And if I want to MF, I can always switch over that way regardless.
My daughter took a film class this fall where she learned developing. They used all manual cameras/lenses. It was fun to see her learn stuff and she loved the developing aspect. Unfortunately her teacher did not actually teach them anything about metering or how to read a lens and she was properly impressed when I told her what all the numbers on her lens meant and how she could approximate the focusing distance by reading the focusing ring. She is thinking of taking advanced darkroom next year and it might be helpful if we had a decent setup at home as well (at least that's a good excuse for me ?).
You make some very good points. I think if OP had articulated this as well as you, this would have been a totally different thread
. Indeed, manufacturers missed some opportunities ecosystem-wise. While I'm less interested in a camera with built-in memory for a variety of reasons, the ability to rapidly share an image, for example, would be useful. Camera manufacturers are all really bad at writing software and "connectedness" is something they're pretty far behind on. There are some adequate (at best) WiFi options from most manufacturers (e.g. SnapBridge) but they don't make me sit up and go "Wow!", most just "Bow Wow".
I personally have no desire for "connectedness" in a camera, although I absolutely understand why some people would. But so much of my voice and style is wrapped up in editing, and since I shoot raw, being able to share directly from a camera wouldn't do me any good, other than sending a raw image to a computer. Which I can already do. But it's not like I could ever add some presets and an overlay layer (other than as a double exposure) in camera before sharing.
But for jpeg shooters (sports/documentary/etc. or other hobbyists) I guess that could be a desirable feature set.
But for jpeg shooters (sports/documentary/etc. or other hobbyists) I guess that could be a desirable feature set.
We aren't all strangers. A few of us know each other actually in the real world too.