[quote=bsprague]WD My Passport Wireless is one of very few, if not the only, HDD that has a built in SD card slot and will copy files without a computer involved.

My post is admittedly anecdotal regarding the above device. I got very excited about it & bought one. But I couldn't get it to work! In case my failure was due to being a cyber-imbecile, I consulted a more knowledgable neighbor. He too, gave up, but not in the sense of calling WD's Support Line. It was then determined that the unit was DEFECTIVE.

Given WD's already questionable reputation net-wise (in my view,) regarding product reliability, this has markedly decreased my zeal for search of such a product, for now. When a device that fits in the palm of my hand, has an SD card slot, and employs a durable storage technology, such as SSD, appears at a reasonable price, I'll reconsider buying one.

Till then, I'm using my iPad Air (aka iPad5) with the SD card-camera adapter.

Thank you, Bwana.

FYI readers of this a7 mark II Thread, I just created a new topic, On Refining Statements about the Capabilities of Photo Equipment.

This idea came to me after reviewing the entire thread. I think it might benefit at least some of us, in particular Mark & Cholly, assuming they take the time to read, evaluate it, and act on it.

Comments welcome.

lev29: First, I'd like to thank the 3 insomniacs for commenting <15 min. after I posted this @ 3 am CDT. Yeah, I bet at this time of night, my post would put most to sleep. I wish pleasant dreams to the 1st two who replied.

SharpShooter, I appreciate your response. Until I created this topic & the other one regarding the solicitation for subscribing to a Canadian photo rag, I was only following one topic, as mentioned above. In there, I don't believe I'm the only one under 65 and there's some character assassination going on. I believe my idea has merit, but no, I can't make a horse drink just because I brought him to the water. But I know one thing: I'm not the only participant in this forum who evaluates assertions. If the author doesn't explain how he reaches his conclusions but just asserts they are true, his credibility begins to drop in my eyes.

I'm a newcomer to this Forum but have already noticed a pattern of miscommunication that has led to jousting among participants. My concepts are based upon review of the Active Thread regarding the mark II versions of Sony's Full-Frame (abbrev. FE) a7 E-mt series of digital cameras.

I'd like to dedicate this topic to THE REFINEMENT OF COMMUNICATING OPINIONS & ASSERTIONS AS TO THE FUNCTIONS OR CAPABILITIES OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT.

PUT ANOTHER WAY, HOW CAN WE EFFECTIVELY QUALIFY OUR STATEMENTS REGARDING EQUIPMENT SUCH THAT THEY ARE COMMUNICATED CREDIBLY?

Obviously, the most I can hope that we accomplish is a set of suggested guidelines to more effectively communicate with each other. There won't be any "Diction Police," as there will always be newcomers, those who never review this thread, and those who just want to quickly state their opinions and don't have time or want to be bothered by any such suggestions.

To get things started, I'm going to give my suggestions. Readers should feel free to opine. I would imagine that the range of comments for each suggested guideline would be from "no way" to ineffective to ambiguous to further modification/refinement to "great idea!" All I request of others is to convey your comments courteously and constructively.

1. SHOW, DON'T TELL. This is a basic dictum in writing both fiction and non-fiction. This certainly is not always possible when discussing equipment functions or capabilities. One cannot, for instance, always present a photo regarding a failure of equipment to do something that's expected. No photo that I can conceive of can convey how poorly the autofocus function of a camera/lens combination does at tracking an a moving object. However, a photograph can be used as proof in some cases that a piece of equipment does work.

2. ONE SHOULD QUALIFY A STATEMENT AS TO THE ABILITY OR INABILITY OF A DEVICE TO FUNCTION BY ADDING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PHRASES:

a. "I arrived at this conclusion by using this equipment myself";
b. "I heard/read from such-and-such a source [e.g. a friend, a forum, a magazine, a website, manufacturer's user manual or sales pitch,] that this can/cannot be done with this equipment";
c. "I think that I heard/read (or as I recall) ... ";
d. "I surmise that this function is present/suboptimal/absent based on [either] my use or someone else's report of this function on a similar but different apparatus"; or
e. "I just pulled this statement out of my butt."

While I doubt anyone would use the 5th choice above, I believe that qualifying a statement by employing one of the above would lend its author more credibility and reduce the chatter about "bull-$h€t" artists. It also could result in reducing the volume of certain reader replies that ask the author HOW s/he arrived at such & such a conclusion.

Of course, it would be tedious and take too much time for someone to add one of these qualifiers to each of a number of assertions made in a single posting. For those individuals who "get on a roll," I suggest that use of a qualifying statement immediately preceding a paragraph or long list of assertions would usually be sufficient.

Well, that's it for now. I hope you'll find that reading this wasn't a waste of your time.

TWO ITEMS:
A. As to the above discussion of my iPad error, I forgot to express my sincere thanks to Desert Gecko for informing us as to the existence of another type of camera manual that Sony provides on-line.

B. Regarding a direct reply to D.G.'s prior reply to me about Image Stabilization, I feel obliged to inform y'all that some of us amateur photographers suffer from motion tremors that involve our hands. Mine is due to Parkinson's disease. Without the IS feature, such as I belatedly discovered is lacking on my Sony a6000, my only other choice is to increase the shutter speed 2-3 fold, and that, as you know, can result in NO PHOTO AT ALL if the available light is too low!

One can always condescend my purchasing the a6000 with the comment, CAVEAT EMPTOR, but for someone who has been buying Sony photo equipment since the A-100 debuted in 2006, I felt deceived.
Now it appears the solution for my situation is at hand with the advent of the a7 II and the a7R II, the latter at twice the price of the former. Frankly, it's not worth it to me to get almost double the # of Megapixels.

HOWEVER, I AM INTRIGUED BY SOMEONE'S RECENT POST IN THIS THREAD THAT ONLY THE a7R II WAS ABLE TO USE AUTOFOCUS WITH SOME LENSES THAT COULDN'T BE ACHIEVED WITH THE a7 II !! Did that assertion only apply to using adapters with lenses that are not Sony/Minolta? Either way, have other members here actually compared these latest two models head to head wrt to Autofocus?
Thank you, lev29

I just took a quick look, and sure enough, Sony has two manuals out for the a7ii, as I expected. It's a bit misleading, really, but it puts out a simplified "Instructional Manual," which is like "a7ii for Dummies," but also a "Help Guide" that goes into the more complex and useful features of the camera. For me, I moved up from the a77 to the a77ii and was puzzled why the instructions manual told so little about the new model's features, but then I heard about the Help Guide. Anyway, here's the link to where you can download it:

http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=ILCE7M2&LOC=3#/manualsTab

Hi, all, this lev29 admitting my 1st of a few (only, I hope,) errors I've made to come! I exchanged a couple of PM's with Desert Gecko on what initially appeared to me as an unintentional error on his part. Specifically, the URL he provides above yielded, USING MY OLD iPAD2, what is best described as a SAVE SCREEN, i.e. no touching or equivalent clicking anywhere on the screen would jump me to another page!

When I alerted D.G. to this, he was surprised. But he did send me the link again in his PM to me, which I reviewed on my Apple laptop. THIS TIME the link he sent me & had posted both WORKED! The page at Sony I was sent to was touch/click sensitive! I then did the same on my newer iPad Air and both worked!

I'm not an expert, but I believe the problem with my older iPad is probably related to either its inability to employ the web nuisance known as Jave script or player, or else, somehow (?), inability to use Adobe Flash Player. This is the 1st time I've encountered this type of problem.

I realize that this discussion has little to do with the Sony a7, but for those of us who use tablets, or perhaps the broader category of older computer equipment, I suggest that ONE BEWARE OF SUCH A PECULIARITY and not immediately "blow off" a URL Link provided by another person.

Philosophical comments and constructive criticism of my blunder are welcome.
Humbly, lev29

I own the Sony a6000 camera but was dismayed to discover post-purchase that it doesn't have IS, unlike all of the A-mt cameras. So I'm thinking of buying the a7 II. So far, I've only bought 3 E-mt lenses, all primes, no teles. Regarding your opinion of the Sony FE 70-200 f/4, have you actually tried it out? If so, how exactly does it disappoint you vis-a-vis a 70-200 f/2.8 lens? I know it's a stop slower, but doesn't changing the ISO compensate? Or is it that the Autofocus on the f/4 is slower as a result?
Thanks,
lev29

There are two books due out for this camera (I'm a Sony user, by the way,): the first is by a Brian Matsumoto, The Unofficial Quintessential Guide, debuting on Oct. 30 (I'm not familiar with this author,) while the other is, in theory, due out Feb. 12 next year by the venerable David D Busch. My skepticism is due to the promised release date of book for the Sony a6000 camera. IT WAS DELAYED ~9 MONTHS from when it was supposed to be released! I like his books, though.
- lev29

I recently investigated this issue for myself, as I don't want to lug my MacBook Pro around JUST to use it as an Image Storage Device. Q: Do you own a tablet with a lot of available storage space? For iPads w/ available space, the answer is easy. Just buy one or both of the following adapters: camera cable w/usb 2.0 female end into Apple Lightning or 30-pin male terminus OR SD Card slot into Apple L. Or 30. male terminus. These adapters won't work for all files; they're intended only for transferring Image Files. Apple User Tip: if you already own one of these adapters with a 30-pin terminus but now use an iPad 3 or later generation, you don't have to buy the Lightning version. Rather, you can save a bit by buying the "Lightning to 30-pin" adapter (truly BASS-ACKWARDS labeling convention Apple uses) for $29. It works & I use these adapters for both my iPad 2 and iPad Air.

In summary, if you don't mind "lugging" around a tablet, then you might have yourself a temporary image storage site while you're out and about.
- lev29

Dear NJFrank,

Thanks for the greeting!

lev29

Db7423, I thank you for the suggestion. A little surprise just happened: I rediscovered the charger and the batteries that came with that "turkey" GE camera I previously mentioned, model G5 WP-55. I'll say this, w/o the U/W housing, it is waterproof down to 5m, since I did pool-test it 2 yrs ago. It even has Image Stabilization ... but available in only ONE of a few modes offered. Now I believe I have an niche role for this piece of semi-junk: on the beach and as a poor man's compact camera, definitely useless for photographing subjects that move.

Why do I state the above? Well, I think my debate between the GoPro Hero4 and the Nikon AW130 has been tabled for a while as a result. Tabled unless someone wants to start a thread now with a little extra qualifying info from me. I don't pretend to be an expert U/W photographer, but in case there aren't many participating U/W photographers, I hope those reading don't mind my recitation on a couple of U/W photo concerns:

1. In my experience (abbrev. IME,) built-in flashes (=strobes) are useless unless one's diving in a swimming pool. Why? The scatter from particulate matter bounces right back into the lens. That's why if one want to use a strobe, it must be external. One is good, but two strobes drastically reduce the shadows and penumbra effects.
2. Depth ratings for unhoused cameras are critical; in my opinion, it should be the 2nd item defined in any ad or camera description. How many scuba dive sites could you take a camera to with a depth rating of only 33' or 50'? Oh, I know, one: Stingray City at GCI.
3. I've only done U/W photo with E-6 process slide film. I guess with digital WB now, the necessity for color correction by means of a strobe isn't critical (the color Red is gone by 20' sw depth,) but ambient light is obviously reduced at depth.
4. Never assume that an U/W camera package which includes a video light or flash can be used for both Video & Still Photog. unless it's asserted to do both.

I don't anticipate doing as much diving as I used to (~225 dives logged in 20 years,) then just a few after I got married. For me, this means not investing too much in new U/W photo equipment.
Virtually every piece of U/W photo equipment I bought in the 90's is now obsolete! While digital is better, Sea & Sea pulled a Minolta/Canon (I read that when AutoFocus tech came out in 1985, M&C changed their lens mounts but Nikon & Pentax did not.) Only the shoe-mounted Optically-corrected $$$ parallax Viewfinder could be used, but why use it since Live-view exists? Wire conductors to trigger strobes have been replaced by fiberoptic. And just as before, U/W housings (w/ interchangeable ports) for dSLRs cost $1500-$4000.

To all who read this & my Intro, please feel free to give me feedback as to the readability and length of these posts. I tend to get longwinded, which can be "death" in personal e-mails.

Thank you! lev29 (by the way, Lev is the Hebrew name for Louis, my paternal grandfather.)

Quote: He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.

Hey, JoeB! I really like that quote! From what source did you acquire it; better yet, do you know who originally said it? I was one of those question-askers in both grad and med school.

Was the purpose of your quote to commend the person who introduced himself (and perhaps others) in order to motivate photo-related questions in general?

Peace,
lev29

Hey, Rovin! I've got 3 ?'s for you.

In your intro, were you using the term "paint" as a synonym for making a photographic exposure OR were you referring to the process of selectively illuminating objects with a flash while continuously exposing the film/sensor OR were you referring to taking a photograph and then projecting it over a canvas on which you paint what you see?

What kinds of photography are you interested in? Landscapes, Candids, Children, Pets, Sports, etc.

The lenses that you listed; may I ask, are those all of the usable lenses you have?

:wink:

Thanks, Mac! Were you in the Navy? My dad was at the end of WW II. If I had enlisted, I would've chosen the Navy.
Later, lev29

I'm a 55 yo retired professional and an intermediate-level Amateur photographer with only modest computer skills, e.g. I can store and e-mail my photos but haven't learned yet how to manipulate them, e.g. with Photoshop-type programs. I got into photography "kinda backwards," shooting UNDERWATER photos since 1989. Before then, I had used the now-famous Olympus XA 35 mm Film Camera.

In 1995, I bought my 1st SLR camera, a Minolta 400si, then progressed to their "retro-"style 600si model. My 1st digital camera was a Nikon Compact 2001 model with horrible shutter lag. Thanks to Minolta's bungling, my 1st digital SLR purchase was delayed till 2006: a SONY A100. In 2007, I developed PD manifested mostly by hand tremors. So fortuitously, I bought into the camera-line with Image Stabilization built into their camera bodies.

I've been mainly doing LANDSCAPE photography, usually w/o a tripod. I used to photograph some SPORTS, specifically my son playing soccer and baseball.

Since then, I purchased Sony's 1st gen. SLT camera, the A55. Regrettably, I discovered the hard way that its Video capabilities are quite limited. I subsequently converted the Sony A-100 to Color IR. My A-mt lenses include: 200G f/2.8 FF; 50 f/1.8 FF; 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 FF; 50 f/2.8 Macro FF; 100 f/2.8 Macro ?FF; 75-300 f/4.5-5.6; 18-70 f/3.5-5.6; 16-50 f2.8; & 50-150 f/2.8.
Teleconverters include a Minolta G 1.4x and two MC Kenkos, 1.5x & 2.0x.

Later, I found my A-55 to be intermittently locking up. Rather than risk $200 on a repair attempt, I decided to make it a "back-up" camera, believing that the new Sony a6000 (mirrorless) camera could be my #1; yes, I bought the LAEA-4 Adapter so I can use my A-mount lenses on this E-mount camera. I then bought 3 E-mt lenses: 16 mm f/2.8; 35 mm f1.8 OSS; & the Lensbaby Composer Pro w/ the Sweet Optic 50 mm lens.

WHAT I TOOK FOR GRANTED & was disgusted to discover was that at the time, NONE of Sony's E-mt cameras had IS!! They put a symbol on the camera that I thought represented IS, but wasn't. So, it looks like I'll probably have to buy the A7 II.

My return to U/W photography in 2013 was marred by horrible camera ostensibly put out by Sea & Sea (I loved using 2 of their Motormarine Film cameras in the '90s,) but really made by GE. It has only one major problem: Shutter Lag (à la 2001 gen cameras)!! I'm debating now between a GO PRO HERO4 w/ an external strobe and the compact Nikon AW-130 camera.

That sums things up for now. I look forward to feedback as well as participating. :-D