I agreed completely. In my case most of the older files will never be used; I keep them for reference. This week a potential client (a group of 134 churches) asked for help in developing a project. Searching for a similar project, so I would not have to reinvent the wheel on a ton of details, I found one -- from 1985, involving 550 churches.
My 'day job' involves working with clients in intensive, short-term, highly organized projects nation-wide, and we hire and train temporary clerical help for each one. Each is unique. There are over 7,000 files in my 'library.' Using the 'save as' feature to upgrade the files one-by-one is an impossible task.
The works program has adequate power and combines informaiton in a word processor and data base, and -- a major priority -- easy to train someone to use it than word and access.
I learned this week that my system, less than three years old, could not use the old files,
My son, a systems analyst, told me that Microsoft does have software that will convert older files, beginning with works 6, to today's word format. It is downloaded, and I need to learn how to use it.
I'm lucky, for my eight-year-old laptop can read the old files, and I transfered the files from the 3.5 disks last night and plan to use the MS converter today.
This would not have been possible if I had not kept the old laptop and the 3.5 drive.
I'm in the middle of this right now and will solve the problem. The OP's comments about a new type of memory card and a matching new memory slot in a camera certainly fit what I'm going through now. I use my computer for photography as well and don't like the idea of losing images if newer technology can read only recently-created files.
Thanks for the info on Libre Office. I'll look into it.
i live in the world of commercial aviation. the summer of 2011 i got the Boeing bootcamp on their new B787. they are pretty much rebooting the airplane as we know it. kinda cool to experience. oh and it will be somewhat painful too. i will have 25 or so to sheperd.
You know, I suspect the parts on that aircraft won't fit any other aircraft! Great analogy.
My realm is directing capital funds appeals for non-profit community institutions, churches and groups of churches. Essentially we work with people. Photography has been a big help, for visualizing a causes can help people relate to it. I helped the Red Bank YMCA on two occasions many years ago.
My guess is that mainly its "quid pro quo" between Sony and Nikon. New technology is expensive, maybe they bargained better price for sensor from Sony in exchange for XQD cards being used in D4 (and D800 I guess).
I'm actually excited about the new card. Once people see the benefit of the new card everyone will want one. Obviously video will see the main benefit but write speed for large long burst should also see benefits. Having two different card slots does not bother me as the 1ds mk III has compact flash and SD and it has never been an issue. For some it my bother but in reality it not a big deal.
Kittyk wrote:
i think good move would be if they made D4 with CF+CF upgradeable to XQD, or at least some third SD slot.
it is not 2014 yet and flagship camera should not be used to push new format onto us
Nikon is still offering the CF slot, so I don't think the XQD is being "forced" on anyone. Sony is claiming its new card will record 100 frames in raw in continuous mode. SThat will be a godsend to somebody, I'm sure.
There is a long tradition of introducing new technologies on the top-of-the-line models of anything. The electric starter debuted on GM Cadillac. Automatic transmissions, power steering and power brakes all came on the high end cars to begin with.
Had Nikon put the XQD in a Coolpix, there would be an uproar from D4 buyers who couldn't use the cards.
Nikon made the huge marketing mistake of making its first "G" lenses consumer lenses. This immediately created created the perception that the lenses were "losing" something. Had the lack of aperture ring been introduced on the high-end 14-24, it could have been introduced as a convenience and improvement to lensmaking technology. Instead, Nikon spent a couple years fighting the notion that its G lenses were inferior to ordinary glass with an aperture ring.
and that just matches the claimed raw buffer ability of the D4 and 200 jpg. all referenced using the XQD card and its a 12bit compressed raw and jpg (fine /medium.{too much crunch for me}) i love those asterisks and the caveats hanging off of them. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/features02.htm
needless to say it will be somewhat smaller numbers at highest quality on both fronts.
no references to the CF card slot that is UDMA 7 capable.
That's an amazing technology! How many photographers need that capability? That's far beyond my needs.
They may be aiming for a niche in the market and designing a camera and memory card for those who require that level. It is difficult to think of a wedding photographer who takes photos via the "spray and pray" method and has a several thousand images to edit.
two CF card, big enough buffer and dual card mode "every second shot to CFII" and you are there even with normal card speed.
but, who beyond "random-machinegun-me some good pic" sport togs need that?
GCasey wrote:
Do you foresee backward compatibility of camera slots and ard reading systems in the future that can read today's cards?
I'm in favor of progress, but also not in favor of losing images and files from the past.
It's already happening. The original Kodak digital CDs are virtually impossible to read from what I read in a magazine article last year. I've never really trusted digital archivability. That's why I make a print of any important photos, and still shoot b&w film for some family photos.
if you are referring to the original Kodak PhotoCD which uses the extension PCD i have to tell you i can open them just fine in ACDsee Pro as it is a supported format in this product along with about 100 others of which are a few i haven't even heard of. i only have one disc as i purchased a dedicated slide scanner not long after.
I'm actually OK with the mismatched slots on the D4.
When the D3 came out, part of why the dual slots made sense was that 8GB cards were about the largest that any working pro was using. Larger sizes weren't available in as fast of speeds, and a 16GB cost more than two 8GBs. Fast forward these four years, though, and fast 16GB and even 32GB cards are available for relatively reasonable prices.
Yes, you lose the ability to mirror the cards or to shoot RAW to one and JPEG to the other, but it's seemed to me that the majority of D3 shooters I've been around are using it just to have more "space" in the camera at a given time, and that's all I've ever used it for on mine.
Two23 wrote:
It's already happening. The original Kodak digital CDs are virtually impossible to read from what I read in a magazine article last year. I've never really trusted digital archivability. That's why I make a print of any important photos, and still shoot b&w film for some family photos.
Kent in SD
live digital backup is the best you can do in terms of archivability. digital media tends to age faster then analog backups like film, but if the backup is live (for example NAS server in your home, backed up several times), it will not age - it will get replaced, upgraded before it will have chance to age.
And i believe nobody can produce that amount of (meaningful) data that he cannot afford live backup.
Maximstensel wrote:
Yes, you lose the ability to mirror the cards or to shoot RAW to one and JPEG to the other, but it's seemed to me that the majority of D3 shooters I've been around are using it just to have more "space" in the camera at a given time, and that's all I've ever used it for on mine.
wild guess but i would say that all wedding and commercial photographers are using it for backup. Especially for reason you mentioned: that cards are big enough to use just one per session.
Maximstensel wrote:
I'm actually OK with the mismatched slots on the D4.
When the D3 came out, part of why the dual slots made sense was that 8GB cards were about the largest that any working pro was using. Larger sizes weren't available in as fast of speeds, and a 16GB cost more than two 8GBs. Fast forward these four years, though, and fast 16GB and even 32GB cards are available for relatively reasonable prices.
Yes, you lose the ability to mirror the cards or to shoot RAW to one and JPEG to the other, but it's seemed to me that the majority of D3 shooters I've been around are using it just to have more "space" in the camera at a given time, and that's all I've ever used it for on mine....Show more →
you don't lose any of those capabilities at all. i will use the raw bay (1) jpg bay (2) and will continue to do so. as jpg is substantially smaller then raw all i do is swap out the (1) card until (2) is full. mirroring is the same too if you wish. all that is required is the purchase of a few appropriate cards which you are going to get anyway once you see the advantage of XQD. and you are right many just use bay 2 for overflow. with 16GB as the starting point and 32GB becoming the norm you have to see how you will use the bay (2) in overflow. the way i shoot it was rare on the D3. i had a 1D3 from canon never used the SD bay. all these issue will be small once you start to use the camera and get some new cards. like i said early on you just may have to rethink your "card collecting" penchant.
now in writing this i just thought of the loss of usability of my Hyperdrive Colorspace. for me thats a loss
