So, my laptop HD being compromised has brought a very serious problem to my attention: Even though I always keep multiple copies of all my images, and even though I regularly back up my other important data, what effect would a kaput macbook HD have on my actual work schedule? Chances are, I’d be seriously out of commission for quite some time if I were required to fire up my PC and try to recover emails etc. and “get back to work”…

So, I want to talk more about hard drives, and my concept for a fail-safe backup for both desktop and laptop machines. I don’t know if I can get along with having a PC desktop and a Mac laptop, so I’ll either be getting a Thinkpad W700 eventually, or I’ll just get a refurb Mac Pro tower for “cheap” and do my own upgrades.

Either way, I like to be in charge of what hard drives I use, how they are backed up, and how quickly I can be back to work if a hard drive fails, with the least amount of data loss as possible…

What are my options? I’ve already outlined the standard procedure of having a faster HD for your OS and all your applications and then a more standard, higher-capacity HD (or two) for your data storage. But now I’m more interested in safety, backup etc.

In a desktop, the ultimate luxury would be to have an in-board, fully-bootable backup of the high-speed (OS) HD. (For those of you who are reading along and learning WITH me instead of giving advice, what I mean is this- I’d have two identical drives in the computer, with identical data on them, and if the main hard drive failed all of a sudden, the computer would just think oh, hmm that hard drive isn’t responding, let’s try this other one! And boom, just a few seconds after a catastrophic failure I am back in business with hardly a single piece of data missing!)

In a laptop, unless I get a Thinkpad I am limited to one hard drive. Backing up this hard drive, well, how to do it? Just use an external hard drive to periodically create a FULL backup? But then there is the potential to lose recent data such as emails, documents, etc. that may have been created since your last backup. I think.

I could stand to lose a days worth of emails or something, I suppose.

And, for the record, I think it is FAR more convenient to do all document work, emailing etc. from my laptop, since I can take the work with me anywhere and never have to say “oh gosh, that document / email is on my desktop, I can’t get it for you right now, or I can’t work on it right now… etc…”

So, I’d like to continue to use a laptop for most everything. The only real use I have for a desktop is high-powered imaging, and lots of monitor real estate and storage space with which to do so. I don’t feel comfortable running around with more than a 120 / 160 gig laptop, just because the potential to NOT have your data backed up is too great. Or even if your original images are backed up, you could still lose a LOT of photoshop work, especially album design, in a crash. So that is very limiting, whereas a desktop hard drive can be 300 gigs for the OS and 500-750 gigs for the data, with room still for two more HD’s to back those up.

Alright I’ve gotta get back to work, so I’ll leave this hanging right here and get back to it later.

For now my main consideration is- I’m running out of storage space and it is time to get a larger capacity HD. Either external although I already have an external G-drive, or internal and I’ll just swap it with the current HD in my G-drive inclosure. RAID 1 would be a nice thing, (google G-safe) and I know about Drobo but the last I heard it was still USB 2.0…

The prime candidate is currently a Seagate barracuda 500 gig, 32 mb / 7200 / SATA 3.0 etc. But they actually do NOT get good reviews on Newegg, not as good as the WD equivalent. Which is very odd and makes me hesitate to buy…

=Matt=

UPDATE 01:

Just purchased two Seagate Barracudas, a 250 gig (5400, 8, 1.5) laptop drive and a 500 gig. (7200, 16, 3.0) Installed the 500 gig in my PC tower no problem. Seagate software is cheapo, they want me to pay extra for the auto-backup capability. Meh. Oh and I guess the 137 gig limit on FAT 32 is not a problem anymore? (As a cross-platform user, I’m not a fan of NTFS…)

Next I am going to try and upgrade my mac HD by creating a disk image on an external HD, swapping the laptop hard drives, and then creating another disk image on the new laptop HD, …and seeing if it works haha… I am so ghetto…

On another note, I still dislike Windows.

=Matt=

Wow. Canon just made quite possibly the ULTIMATE crop-sensor camera. They also just b*tch-slapped everyone who recently bought a 40D.

15 megapixels.

ISO 100-3200 (cleanly) with boost to 12800…

6.3 FPS.

3″ VGA (high-res) LCD screen

Digic IV processor.

AF fine-tuning.

Full weather sealing. (Not sure yet, actually, probably not as good as 1D-series but better than the 40D…)

I dunno what to say, I’m torn, very torn. Like I said, this is the most absurd, un-necessary move Canon could possibly think of right now.

The 40D was an awesome camera, with more value than the D300 considering the price. (That’s hard to explain. I think there is more value in the 40D, but at the same time the D300 is worth the extra money, if you can wrap your mind around that seeming contradiction.

Not only is the 40D awesome and not really in need of replacement, but the 5D REALLY DOES need a replacement. If you ask me, the days of excitement about cropped-sensor bodies is over. With the arrival of the $3000, fully professional D700, Nikon has REALLY put the pressure on the “low-end full-frame” market. With their two new FX f/2.8 pro zooms, they are really taking the market by storm. (We expect f/1.4 pro primes to roll out starting in a few weeks, too…)

If it’s true that Canon has pushed back the 5D mk2 to 2009 all I can say is, what a bone-headed move. Completely backwards from what they SHOULD have done. The crowd would have gone WILD if a 5D mk2 were announced this summer. 16-18 megapixels, ISO 25600 equal or better to the D3 / D700, and bam, you have a show-stopper. Then do the 50D on schedule, next year. But instead, “the crowd” is half totally confused and half downright PISSED.

Okay, weirdness aside, let’s take this at face value:

MAYBE, and we’ll never know unless we infiltrate Canon Corporate and procure the numbers ourselves, …just MAYBE the 40D was not selling AT ALL. Maybe Canon really DID need to redeem themselves. And MAYBE the 5D, and it’s replacement, are NOT big cash cows for Canon, either. This would indeed give reason for making a 50D now and worrying about the 5D mk2 later. Maybe the 5D is still selling fine at $2200, regardless of the AF shortcomings. Maybe this IS a smart move, and Canon knows what they’re doing.

The 50D, if it CAN pull off ISO 12800 as decently as the D300 has done ISO 6400, well, that is one hell of a camera. It really kinda makes you sit down and realize: Canon is still on top, and all Nikon can do is “catch up” every now and then. Assuming of course that it costs less than $2000. And also assuming that the 5D mk2 comes out and costs less than $3000.

But, just because it is a good business move doesn’t mean it’s downright mean to Canon’s customers. Advanced amateurs who just bought the 40D (and I DO see tons of them around) are going to be upset, and pros who desperately need an upgrade to the 5D are getting pretty angry by now I think. (Or, they’re spending $8000 on a 1Ds mk3, so again- Canon wins, customers lose. Ouch…)

At any rate, this is all pretty exciting! Both Canon and Nikon are making some pretty amazing tools, and for most the differences should only come down to what control layout you prefer…

Take care,
=Matt=