I don't quite see the point of that. Assuming that a card will hold the information forever, one then has a huge number of cards stored somewhere but no way to ~see~ the photos. So, at some point the pics have to be downloaded to some device (most likely a computer) in order to see or edit the files. Once that's done, you may as well take the extra step to save the files to a hard disk or other storage system and reuse the cards.
Assuming that you fill one card per week and that the cost of the cards is $75.00 each, storing the photos on the cards is $3750.00 annual expense. For about 1/2 that cost you can buy a really great computer with a couple-three huge hard disks, which allow for storage, viewing, and editing of the files. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: Toralf Lund > Yeah, maybe they are reliable enough... I'm quite sure they are OK for > the temporary storage they are used for today, but would you trust them > to keep your images for years? What I meant was wouldn't it be nice if > you could just keep the data on the SDcard or whatever as backup instead > of writing to CD/DVD? And by that last question above I meant to imply > that even though many people seem to be reasonably happy with the way > they handle the files today, surely most would find working with digital > cameras even more convenient if they could just keep the in-camera media > "forever" instead of having the data transfer as a required step.
