If you’ve got a Mac with just a 128GB drive, you might find a $20 to $30 128GB SD Card could fit your needs.
The sweet spot is 256GB, which can cost from $60 to $80 at online stores 512GB cards are typically at least $200. We have to start demanding that camera companies do better.If you don’t use a standalone camera to shoot, you might be unaware that capacities have grown from 32GB and 64GB to 256GB and 512GB while prices have dropped ridiculously.
2016 MACBOOK SD CARD READER PRO
Yes, it’s an inconvenience that new MacBook Pro owners have to rely on external USB-C to SD Card dongles for transferring large media files, but that’s not Apple’s fault. Creators should demand better from camera companies, and anyone else who continues to use antiquated sub-USB 3.x interfaces on their products. But it’s almost 2017, and this is a trend that should have proliferated years ago. There are a few cameras that buck the current trend, such as Canon’s flagship 5D Mark IV, which features USB 3 connectivity. They are the ones who makes arduous menu systems that make it feel like you’re navigating an obstacle course, they are the ones who use slow interfaces, and they are the ones who continue to use inferior wireless technology. Not only is the wireless transfer slow, but getting it set up with the camera’s clunky menu system makes most people not even want to bother.Īgain, the majority of these issues fall squarely on the shoulders of the lackadaisical camera companies. Wireless transfer in the majority of today’s cameras is a downright abysmal experience. In that regard, I couldn’t disagree more. Phil goes on to opine about the usefulness of wireless transfer ability built into today’s cameras. It’s a situation that creators shouldn’t have to deal with. Not to mention that I’ve had several SD Cards simply fail on me due to the wear and tear this places on cards. I agree with Schiller’s opinion about the cumbersome slot, and the way the SD Card sticks halfway out. So we could never really resolve this – we picked SD because more consumer cameras have SD but you can only pick one. Then there are very fine and fast USB card readers, and then you can use CompactFlash as well as SD. You’ve got this thing sticking halfway out. My knee-jerk reaction was to lash out at Apple for ditching the SD Card slot, but in a recent interview with The Independent, Apple’s SVP of Worldwide Marketing, Phil Schiller, made some excellent points: Such an instrumental tool for creatives of all kinds. Hence, it’s the camera companies that should be called out for this the most painful thing is the lack of an SD Card reader. Now think about how long USB 3.x has been available? Exactly, it’s the camera companies that are slow to innovate. Imagine trying to import a 10 GB 4K video via USB 2.0. In other words, as creators we’re basically forced to eject the SD Card from our cameras and connect it directly to our computers if we want the file transfer to finish in a reasonable amount of time. What is the common thread between these cameras? Slow sub-USB 3.x camera connections and terrible wireless connectivity options. Take, for instance, my Sony RX 100, or any other popular camera released in the last five years. It’s the camera companies that we should be upset with, not Apple.
Camera companies have had years to innovate in this area, and have simply failed to do so.
That said, we shouldn’t be mad at Apple for this. These dongles are cheap, small, and easy to carry around, so at the end of the day it’s not an outright dealbreaker, but the fact that I have to remember to always carry one with me presents somewhat of an inconvenience. The reason is that SD Cards have long been the fastest way to transfer media from cameras to our computers.īut now that the new MacBook Pros have no built-in SD Card reader, it means that creators will have to rely on an external USB-C to SD Card dongle, like this one. When I first learned that the new MacBook Pro had no SD Card slot, like many creators, I was a little perturbed.
0 kommentar(er)
