[fishguy]

Can someone please explain why Apple has chose not to implement this? Is there a real technical reason? I have an iPod but the Belkin media reader is too slow to be practicle. I would be ordering one now if I could connect my digital cameras directly to it. I'm sure there are many other photographers out there that want a mobile storage solution as simple and elegant as the iPod. Add a Belkin media reader and almost all advantages are lost. And I was so psyched when I first heard...

[Boondoggle]

Well I just checked out the iPod photo, and although I agree the functionality you describe would be very nice, the thing is already a bit big and heavy compared to the regular iPod, and I'm sure a direct connection for a camera would only make it bigger.

I also would expect that Apple considers the iPod Photo an extension of iPhoto, not of your camera. It is for viewing/sharing photos that have been edited and selected on your computer, rather than for storage.

Maybe at some point when the technology allows for it to be smaller they'll add that. I would certainly approve.

For now the iPod photo is too much money for what it provides for me, especially with the size/weight penalty.

bd

[Drakino]

The iPod Photo already has a USB port. So all they need to do is change the USB chip inside to a host one, and implement support for cameras that use the standard protocals to get photos off.

iPod Photo is a disappointment to me, as even with the Belkin device, the photos don't show up till after it has been attached to a computer.

[nagromme]

Realize that people talk about TWO DIFFERENT and SEPARATE photo functions for iPods.

A) Unloading your digital camera when it fills up. The Belkin reader lets you do that with ANY iPod. The iPod Photo has nothing to do with this.

B) Displaying your entire photo library. THIS is what the iPod Photo's photo features are for.

If you want A), don't let the name "Photo" throw you--iPod Photo is simply not meant for your purpose.

Luckily, I want B)

There's also a very good reason NOT to integrate A) and B), as cool as it would be. There's a good reason why the Belkin card reader does NOT transfer photos that are iPod-viewable. (It's the same as the reason for iPodLounge's other big complaint--that when you first sync your photos, it's slow that one time.)

The reason is that your computer must prepare scaled-down versions for the iPod. The Belkin reader does not do scaling, and I don't expect any competitor is likely to. A media reader that ALSO does image scaling is called a computer, I'm afraid.

The benefit: your iPod displays photos faster! Pre-scaling to a useful size makes very good sense to me.

Bottom line, the iPod Photo is not meant for the purpose many people think it is. The Belkin reader is for that.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by nagromme:
Realize that people talk about TWO DIFFERENT and SEPARATE photo functions for iPods.

A) Unloading your digital camera when it fills up. The Belkin reader lets you do that with ANY iPod. The iPod Photo has nothing to do with this.

B) Displaying your entire photo library. THIS is what the iPod Photo's photo features are for.

If you want A), don't let the name "Photo" throw you--iPod Photo is simply not meant for your purpose.

Luckily, I want B)

There's also a very good reason NOT to integrate A) and B), as cool as it would be. There's a good reason why the Belkin card reader does NOT transfer photos that are iPod-viewable. (It's the same as the reason for iPodLounge's other big complaint--that when you first sync your photos, it's slow that one time.)

The reason is that your computer must prepare scaled-down versions for the iPod. The Belkin reader does not do scaling, and I don't expect any competitor is likely to. A media reader that ALSO does image scaling is called a computer, I'm afraid.

The benefit: your iPod displays photos faster! Pre-scaling to a useful size makes very good sense to me.

Bottom line, the iPod Photo is not meant for the purpose many people think it is. The Belkin reader is for that.

Those are nice excuses, but competing devices can view directly downloaded images just fine. No scaling required.

[nagromme]

Then those devices ARE meant for a purpose the iPod photo is not.

And I suspect it's a purpose with a far smaller audience than the one for showing your photo library (the purpose of the ipod Photo).

If you want to manage your pictures, a computer can never be removed from the equation--an iPod alone will always be a poor solution. If you want to view pictures you've just taken, you can do that right on the camera.

Being able to view photos during that particular window of time AFTER they're removed from the camera but BEFORE they're on your computer might be nice for some people. But it's a need that sounds pretty specific to me--and specific to a purpose that the iPod Photo isn't designed to perform. The iPod Photo is not a peripheral for a digital camera. Plus, it's a purpose that can be met far more portably and cheaply, by buying more memory cards for your camera. Then you can store AND view more photos than your camera holds.

Nobody I know even fills up their camera's memory anyway so it's a moot point

Bottom line, if Apple added photo-scaling software just to meet this particular situation for people who DO want to buy a Belkin reader but do NOT want to buy more memory cards... I don't think they'd see much resulting increase in sales. And then they'd have to synch photos in TWO directions on the iTunes end as well. Doing direct-transfer viewing RIGHT wouldn't be some simple thing.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't want exactly the feature that fits YOUR needs, whether it's the intent of the iPod Photo or not. It never hurts to ask, so I hope you tell Apple what you want.

I do think some confusion will result from the fact that the iPod Photo does something new--and thus unexpected. People will hear "Photo" and invent a purpose in their mind, based on what they already know: the iPod has storage. But the real purpose of the iPod is different, and will appeal to different buyers.

[michaelb]

The device you want is called a Nikon CoolWalker:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04...coolwalker.asp

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by michaelb:
The device you want is called a Nikon CoolWalker:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04...coolwalker.asp

Actually the device I want is an iPod with some of this functionality, but I will buy an iPod mini instead, and maybe something like the Nikon. ie. Less money for Apple.

It seems the overwhelming reaction to the iPod Photo of the people on the photo forums is "meh", at least for the photo part. I guess I fall into this same group.

I still think the iPod Photo will sell well, but it could have gotten a few more percent in sales had it had better photo support.

[fishguy]

After considering many possibilities and expecting an iPod photo to actually be beneficial to photographers, I think that I'll stick to my 12" PB. Downloading photos from your computer to a viewable device is pretty un-earth shattering to me. Your mileage may vary. I'm what you would call an advanced amateur photographer; I take it very seriously but I don't make money from my images. I have numerous friends, colleagues, and acquaintences that share my hobby/passion. We regularly fill our flash cards. In fact we would never leave for a weekend without several 1GB or 2GB flash cards. While certainly small, and serveing the purpose, we would like a device to download photos into and have very cursory editing capabilitites. (i.e. delete? Y/N). Also several flash cards adds up to the price of an iPod Photo 60 GB. Most of my fellow photogs have an iPod and every single one wishes desperately for this feature. Even more would buy an iPod if this feature were implemented. I'm not saying that iPod sales would double, but there are an awful lot of us photogs that would snap one up instantly for this purpose. Also, many photography forums have been watching and commenting on the iPod for this purpose so I'm quite confident that there would be a noticable jump in sales.

We already have camera bodies, lenses, flash, etc., and a laptop. More devices is not the solution. I would kill to have my music for the flight to and from Europe and storage capacity for 35-40 GB's of photos to browse on the return flight. After looking at this issue lately, this would certainly complicate matters for Apple but it is doable. My photo buddies and I, it seems, will stick to hundreds of $$ in flash cards for now, with the added weight of a laptop for longer trips. No biggie, but when we heard "iPod Photo", we just about wet ourselves with anticipation. I have a 1G iPod and for now it is not worth it to me to upgrade