Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon SD300 first impressions... and possible issue?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 12:53:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm a Nikon D100 user, but just got a Canon SD300 as a
'snapshot' camera for those times when the D100 is too bulky
to cary around.

First, I've got to say I've had this thing for a day and a
half and LOVE it so far. I'm still using the miniscule 16MB SD
card that Canon ships with it, waiting for delivery of my
Sandisk Extreme 512MB card. Until then, I'll have to settle
for 6 'superfine large' photos or about 8 seconds of video
before the card is full

I recognize that there are a few issues that make it less than
perfect (some blue fringing around high contrast borders,
softness at some aperatures, lack of direct shutterspeed or
aperature control) but for my purposes it is perfect! The
video mode (640x480 @ 30fps until the memory card is full) is
amazing.

All of the controls I use most often are no more than two
button pushes away. The camera's interface is very intuitive.

I expected to be underwhelmed by the flash, but I did some
test shots in full darkness last night and was fairly
impressed by the results when in 'slow flash sync' mode. These
pics will never be art shots, but for a snapshot camera they
are more than adequate. BTW: There is a LOT of grain at ISO
400, similar to that which I get with the D100 at 1600+. I
would avoid 400 except as a last resort

I was surprised to find some very helpful features like AE
Lock, AF Lock and even an Auto Flash lock (fires a test flash
at the subject in focus then locks that setting while you
recompose, so you can meter the flash on an object that is not
centered in the frame).

The camera is small enough that when you slip it into a pocket
you may even forget it is there...

On thing that bugs me in general about the Canon cameras is
that the USB interface requires you to install and use their
software to transfer pics. The Nikon mounts the camera as a
USB storage device, so you can browse to it as a drive on ANY
computer, no software install required. With the SD300, I
counted no less than *9* installed programs in my 'add remove
programs' listing after doing what I considered a pretty
minimal install.

Finally, the one thing I've noticed so far that may be a real
issue. I regularly filled the 16MB card while doing my test
pics. Almost every time, if the two last pictures were 'Large,
Superfine' images the transfer program would die before
downloading them, giving some kind of 'connection to camera
lost' error. When I check the camera, it would be powered off!

I've made sure I had a fresh battery installed and even
reformatted the card to make sure I didn't have some disk
corruption, but this error happens again and again. Hopefully,
it is only an issue whith a completely full SD card, so I
won't have to deal with it once I have a 512MB card. Even
better, it is a known issue that will be addressed with a
firmware or computer software update.

So my conclusion so far: Don't buy this camera for 'fine art'
photography, but if you want a really really nice snapshot
camera rich with features but easy to use, this is the one!
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 1:10:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Curt Bousquet <NNTP@scanline.com.nospam> wrote let it be
known in news:Xns95CF6EB939993xyzzyxyzzy@216.196.97.142:

> Finally, the one thing I've noticed so far that may be a
> real issue. I regularly filled the 16MB card while doing my
> test pics. Almost every time, if the two last pictures were
> 'Large, Superfine' images the transfer program would die
> before downloading them, giving some kind of 'connection to
> camera lost' error. When I check the camera, it would be
> powered off!

Update: This appears to be a problem with the software on the
computer side. When I use the transfer button on the camera to
initiate the transfer, it all works perfectly.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 2:15:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Curt Bousquet" <NNTP@scanline.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF6EB939993xyzzyxyzzy@216.196.97.142...
> I'm a Nikon D100 user, but just got a Canon SD300 as a
> 'snapshot' camera for those times when the D100 is too bulky
> to cary around.
>
> First, I've got to say I've had this thing for a day and a
> half and LOVE it so far. I'm still using the miniscule 16MB SD
> card that Canon ships with it, waiting for delivery of my
> Sandisk Extreme 512MB card. Until then, I'll have to settle
> for 6 'superfine large' photos or about 8 seconds of video
> before the card is full
>
> I recognize that there are a few issues that make it less than
> perfect (some blue fringing around high contrast borders,
> softness at some aperatures, lack of direct shutterspeed or
> aperature control) but for my purposes it is perfect! The
> video mode (640x480 @ 30fps until the memory card is full) is
> amazing.
>
> All of the controls I use most often are no more than two
> button pushes away. The camera's interface is very intuitive.
>
> I expected to be underwhelmed by the flash, but I did some
> test shots in full darkness last night and was fairly
> impressed by the results when in 'slow flash sync' mode. These
> pics will never be art shots, but for a snapshot camera they
> are more than adequate. BTW: There is a LOT of grain at ISO
> 400, similar to that which I get with the D100 at 1600+. I
> would avoid 400 except as a last resort
>
> I was surprised to find some very helpful features like AE
> Lock, AF Lock and even an Auto Flash lock (fires a test flash
> at the subject in focus then locks that setting while you
> recompose, so you can meter the flash on an object that is not
> centered in the frame).
>
> The camera is small enough that when you slip it into a pocket
> you may even forget it is there...
>
> On thing that bugs me in general about the Canon cameras is
> that the USB interface requires you to install and use their
> software to transfer pics. The Nikon mounts the camera as a
> USB storage device, so you can browse to it as a drive on ANY
> computer, no software install required. With the SD300, I
> counted no less than *9* installed programs in my 'add remove
> programs' listing after doing what I considered a pretty
> minimal install.
>
> Finally, the one thing I've noticed so far that may be a real
> issue. I regularly filled the 16MB card while doing my test
> pics. Almost every time, if the two last pictures were 'Large,
> Superfine' images the transfer program would die before
> downloading them, giving some kind of 'connection to camera
> lost' error. When I check the camera, it would be powered off!

Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file transfer:
Get a card reader.
I don't understand why people insist upon connecting the camera directly,
when cards are made to be removed, replaced, and swapped, etc.
You'll then have the drag-and-drop, drive-letter browsing you seak of
wanting, AND tranfer will likely be faster too.

I have considered the SD300 recently as well.
With the video mode, can you zoom while shooting? Or must that be set
before the video begins? 30 frames per second is fnatastic for that
resolution. Very unusual.

Thanks.
-Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 4:50:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote
let it be known in news:ktYAd.62799$QR1.31388@fed1read04:

> Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file
> transfer: Get a card reader.
> I don't understand why people insist upon connecting the
> camera directly, when cards are made to be removed,
> replaced, and swapped, etc. You'll then have the
> drag-and-drop, drive-letter browsing you seak of wanting,
> AND tranfer will likely be faster too.

Yeah, I guess I'm just too lazy to take the card out every
time I want to transfer. :(  I've foud that initializing the
transfer from the button on the camera works without fail
every time, so it is certainly a flaw in their windows
software.

> I have considered the SD300 recently as well.
> With the video mode, can you zoom while shooting? Or must
> that be set before the video begins? 30 frames per second
> is fnatastic for that resolution. Very unusual.

Zoom is locked while shooting :( . At least it continues to
meter the light, so adjusts as needed. Another thing I just
learned to appreciate while out shooting video a few minutes
ago (my 512MB card just arrived) is how easy you can set a
custom white balance. It is just a few button pushes into the
menu and easy enough to use that I'm sure I'll be doing it
under almost all conditions for the best results.

The 30fps VGA is nice, but I think I'm going to enjoy the
60fps @ 320x200 just as much. I shoot a lot of pics (and now
video) on my Mtn. bike rides and can't wait to take some 60fps
video of jumps and things, then play it back at 30fps for slow
motion.

I wish I could post links to some sample video, but the AVI
files the camera produces are HUGE (2MB/sec). Once I find some
software that lets me re-encode it to a better compressed
format, maybe I'll put some online.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 4:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Curt Bousquet" <NNTP@scanline.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns95CF9704A29B9xyzzyxyzzy@216.196.97.142...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote
> let it be known in news:ktYAd.62799$QR1.31388@fed1read04:
>
> > Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file
> > transfer: Get a card reader.
> > I don't understand why people insist upon connecting the
> > camera directly, when cards are made to be removed,
> > replaced, and swapped, etc. You'll then have the
> > drag-and-drop, drive-letter browsing you seak of wanting,
> > AND tranfer will likely be faster too.
>
> Yeah, I guess I'm just too lazy to take the card out every
> time I want to transfer. :(  I've foud that initializing the
> transfer from the button on the camera works without fail
> every time, so it is certainly a flaw in their windows
> software.
>
> > I have considered the SD300 recently as well.
> > With the video mode, can you zoom while shooting? Or must
> > that be set before the video begins? 30 frames per second
> > is fnatastic for that resolution. Very unusual.
>
> Zoom is locked while shooting :( . At least it continues to
> meter the light, so adjusts as needed. Another thing I just
> learned to appreciate while out shooting video a few minutes
> ago (my 512MB card just arrived) is how easy you can set a
> custom white balance. It is just a few button pushes into the
> menu and easy enough to use that I'm sure I'll be doing it
> under almost all conditions for the best results.
>
> The 30fps VGA is nice, but I think I'm going to enjoy the
> 60fps @ 320x200 just as much. I shoot a lot of pics (and now
> video) on my Mtn. bike rides and can't wait to take some 60fps
> video of jumps and things, then play it back at 30fps for slow
> motion.
>
> I wish I could post links to some sample video, but the AVI
> files the camera produces are HUGE (2MB/sec). Once I find some
> software that lets me re-encode it to a better compressed
> format, maybe I'll put some online.

Is there a facility for playing back in slow motion that comes with the
camera software bundle? That would be a great feature if so. Thanks for
the info on light metering during video shooting--another question I have
wondered about.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote
let it be known in news:skZAd.63081$QR1.35201@fed1read04:

> Is there a facility for playing back in slow motion that
> comes with the camera software bundle? That would be a
> great feature if so. Thanks for the info on light metering
> during video shooting--another question I have wondered
> about.

I haven't bothered much with the software that came with the
camera. A cursory look left the impression that it was very
limited and not worth spending much time with. If I do end up
getting a card reader, I'll probably end up uninstalling all the
nastyness that Canon loaded onto my system.

The video player software I use (BS Player
http://www.bsplayer.org/) lets you change playback speeds on the
fly from 10% up to... I don't kow. I've had it as high as 800%.

When I find some decent video editting software, I'm sure it
will allow me to set the playback speed to anything I want so I
can burn the videos to DVD at 1/2 speed or slower.

Does anybody know of any freeware or very cheap video editting
software? I'm not going to be using it enough to justify
spending a lot of money on it, but I'd like to be able to
transfer some stuff to DVD and add simple transitions, etc.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:04:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95CF9FA4936DCxyzzyxyzzy@216.196.97.142>, Curt Bousquet <NNTP@scanline.com.nospam> wrote:
>Does anybody know of any freeware or very cheap video editting
>software? I'm not going to be using it enough to justify
>spending a lot of money on it, but I'd like to be able to
>transfer some stuff to DVD and add simple transitions, etc.

I suspect this doesn't help you, but for the Mac users out there,
iMovie and iDVD are perfect for this. After experimentation with
iMovie settings I was able to convert a snippet of this video into
QuickTime MPEG for sharing by email. The resulting file is 5% the size
of the original AVI file, without appreciable loss of quality other
than reduction to 320x240.

John
--
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 12:40:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file transfer: Get a
> card reader. I don't understand why people insist upon connecting
> the camera directly, when cards are made to be removed, replaced,
> and swapped, etc. You'll then have the drag-and-drop, drive-letter
> browsing you seak of wanting, AND tranfer will likely be faster too.

I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:02:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xhdm3hvov.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> > Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file transfer: Get a
> > card reader. I don't understand why people insist upon connecting
> > the camera directly, when cards are made to be removed, replaced,
> > and swapped, etc. You'll then have the drag-and-drop, drive-letter
> > browsing you seak of wanting, AND tranfer will likely be faster too.
>
> I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.

Why?
For you own convenience.

Some people choose to live with headachs rather than spend 2 dollars on a
bottle of asperin.

As for me, I take asperin when I feel the pain.
The pain is relieved.
Similarly, I'll spend 12 dollars on a reader.
....But that's just me.
:) 

Laik bilong yu, after all!
:) 
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:08:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> > I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> > to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
>
> Why? For you own convenience.
>
> Some people choose to live with headachs rather than spend 2 dollars on a
> bottle of asperin.

Huh? Isn't it better to not have the headache in the first place? If
the camera can't present the standard USB storage interface to the
computer but wants you to use some weird proprietary upload software
instead, it's causing a headache. If it didn't cause a headache, you
wouldn't need aspirin.

I see having a headache and buying aspirin for it as less convenient
than not having the headache.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:31:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xd5wqyjnh.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> > > I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> > > to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
> >
> > Why? For you own convenience.
> >
> > Some people choose to live with headachs rather than spend 2 dollars on
a
> > bottle of asperin.
>
> Huh? Isn't it better to not have the headache in the first place?

Sure it is!
-But since we don't have complete control over all aspects of otherwise
excellent camera's, we find ways of most easily dealing with imperfection.

>If
> the camera can't present the standard USB storage interface to the
> computer but wants you to use some weird proprietary upload software
> instead, it's causing a headache.

Not if you never even bother with the annoying software...
....which I don't.

>If it didn't cause a headache, you
> wouldn't need aspirin.

I don't have a headache.
I have a card reader.
Frankly, I wouldn't likely use the camera for upload in nearly ANY
circumstance, because I use numerous cards. In fact, MOST people use
NUMEROUS cards.
This means you're taking cards in and out of SOMETHING, no mater what.
Which is easier?:
Taking numerous cards in and out of the camera to load using it's cable and
battery?
-Or placing numerous cards into a dedicated reader that requires no battery,
and frees up your camera?
I fail to see the advantage of the camera as reader.
-Especially when you must consume battery power to do so, and incapacitate
your camera during upload (which, by the way, takes considerable time with
1GB, 2GB cards...even with USB 2, or firewire).

Again. If that works for you, GREAT! More power to you.
In my personal experience, it is a silly exercise.
In fact, more often than not, I'm allowing an entire 1GB card to copy over
(takes about 9 minutes)...meanwhile, in the field, I'm already shooting
images before it's done copying...using another card in the camera. Can you
do this while using your camera as a card reader?

:) 

> I see having a headache and buying aspirin for it as less convenient
> than not having the headache.

Me too!
But headaches are a reality in many aspects of photography.
We deal with each of them as best we can, and in the way which suits us.
If you find Utopia, please post directions here.
-Mark
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:49:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> -But since we don't have complete control over all aspects of otherwise
> excellent camera's, we find ways of most easily dealing with imperfection.

Well, it would be nice if the camera makers fix imperfections when
they find them. This is one. Canon should get with the modern era
and use the modern interface.

> >If it didn't cause a headache, you wouldn't need aspirin.
>
> I don't have a headache. I have a card reader.

You bought the card reader because you HAD a headache.

> Frankly, I wouldn't likely use the camera for upload in nearly ANY
> circumstance, because I use numerous cards. In fact, MOST people use
> NUMEROUS cards.

Well, some do, I don't know if most do. I myself usually use just one
card. It would be nice to never have to take it out of the camera.

> This means you're taking cards in and out of SOMETHING, no mater what.
> Which is easier?:

Easier is to leave the card in the camera and not take it in and out
of anything.

> Taking numerous cards in and out of the camera to load using it's cable and
> battery?

I mostly use just one card, and I think that's a common pattern.

> -Or placing numerous cards into a dedicated reader that requires no
> battery, and frees up your camera?

If the dedicated reader needs no battery (powered by USB port), I don't
see why the camera should need battery power when uploading. It should
also be able to use USB power when being used as a card reader. I think
some cameras can indeed do that.

> I fail to see the advantage of the camera as reader.
> -Especially when you must consume battery power to do so, and incapacitate
> your camera during upload (which, by the way, takes considerable time with
> 1GB, 2GB cards...even with USB 2, or firewire).

There's no inherent reason the camera must use internal battery power
when reading cards. Even if there is, it's not that big a deal, if
it's just 9 minutes as you say. A battery charge should be able to
run the camera much longer than that. Meanwhile, your card reader is
instead draining power from your computer. If it's a laptop that's
itself battery powered, you're not really gaining anything by using
your laptop's batteries instead of your camera's batteries to read the
cards.

> Again. If that works for you, GREAT! More power to you.
> In my personal experience, it is a silly exercise.
> In fact, more often than not, I'm allowing an entire 1GB card to copy over
> (takes about 9 minutes)...meanwhile, in the field, I'm already shooting
> images before it's done copying...using another card in the camera. Can you
> do this while using your camera as a card reader?

I usually read in cards while I'm at home in front of the computer,
not when I'm taking pictures. So tying up the camera for 9 minutes
doesn't bother me. The next thing I'm going to do after uploading the
pictures is look at them, edit them, whatever, not immediately shoot
more. If I want to immediately shoot more pictures after a card is
full, I'm indeed better off with multiple memory cards. But then I
don't need to upload right away. I just swap cards, keep shooting,
and upload later, after I'm done shooting.

> We deal with each of them as best we can, and in the way which suits us.
> If you find Utopia, please post directions here.

We're a long way from utopia, but we'll be a bit closer if Canon makes
their cameras present the USB storage interface and (optionally) makes
the camera USB powered when uploading.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 8:47:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like apples and anyone who likes oranges is stupid!

Don

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xvfaix36p.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>> -But since we don't have complete control over all aspects of otherwise
>> excellent camera's, we find ways of most easily dealing with
>> imperfection.
>
> Well, it would be nice if the camera makers fix imperfections when
> they find them. This is one. Canon should get with the modern era
> and use the modern interface.
>
>> >If it didn't cause a headache, you wouldn't need aspirin.
>>
>> I don't have a headache. I have a card reader.
>
> You bought the card reader because you HAD a headache.
>
>> Frankly, I wouldn't likely use the camera for upload in nearly ANY
>> circumstance, because I use numerous cards. In fact, MOST people use
>> NUMEROUS cards.
>
> Well, some do, I don't know if most do. I myself usually use just one
> card. It would be nice to never have to take it out of the camera.
>
>> This means you're taking cards in and out of SOMETHING, no mater what.
>> Which is easier?:
>
> Easier is to leave the card in the camera and not take it in and out
> of anything.
>
>> Taking numerous cards in and out of the camera to load using it's cable
>> and
>> battery?
>
> I mostly use just one card, and I think that's a common pattern.
>
>> -Or placing numerous cards into a dedicated reader that requires no
>> battery, and frees up your camera?
>
> If the dedicated reader needs no battery (powered by USB port), I don't
> see why the camera should need battery power when uploading. It should
> also be able to use USB power when being used as a card reader. I think
> some cameras can indeed do that.
>
>> I fail to see the advantage of the camera as reader.
>> -Especially when you must consume battery power to do so, and
>> incapacitate
>> your camera during upload (which, by the way, takes considerable time
>> with
>> 1GB, 2GB cards...even with USB 2, or firewire).
>
> There's no inherent reason the camera must use internal battery power
> when reading cards. Even if there is, it's not that big a deal, if
> it's just 9 minutes as you say. A battery charge should be able to
> run the camera much longer than that. Meanwhile, your card reader is
> instead draining power from your computer. If it's a laptop that's
> itself battery powered, you're not really gaining anything by using
> your laptop's batteries instead of your camera's batteries to read the
> cards.
>
>> Again. If that works for you, GREAT! More power to you.
>> In my personal experience, it is a silly exercise.
>> In fact, more often than not, I'm allowing an entire 1GB card to copy
>> over
>> (takes about 9 minutes)...meanwhile, in the field, I'm already shooting
>> images before it's done copying...using another card in the camera. Can
>> you
>> do this while using your camera as a card reader?
>
> I usually read in cards while I'm at home in front of the computer,
> not when I'm taking pictures. So tying up the camera for 9 minutes
> doesn't bother me. The next thing I'm going to do after uploading the
> pictures is look at them, edit them, whatever, not immediately shoot
> more. If I want to immediately shoot more pictures after a card is
> full, I'm indeed better off with multiple memory cards. But then I
> don't need to upload right away. I just swap cards, keep shooting,
> and upload later, after I'm done shooting.
>
>> We deal with each of them as best we can, and in the way which suits us.
>> If you find Utopia, please post directions here.
>
> We're a long way from utopia, but we'll be a bit closer if Canon makes
> their cameras present the USB storage interface and (optionally) makes
> the camera USB powered when uploading.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 9:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>>Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file transfer: Get a
>>card reader. I don't understand why people insist upon connecting
>>the camera directly, when cards are made to be removed, replaced,
>>and swapped, etc. You'll then have the drag-and-drop, drive-letter
>>browsing you seak of wanting, AND tranfer will likely be faster too.
>
>
> I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.

You're not so expected, except by a small but insistent group of people.
I do have a card reader, but often plug my cameras directly into the
USB port on the keyboard.

--

John McWilliams

Remember to pillage *before* you burn.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 9:03:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kY5Bd.308738$HA.223564@attbi_s01...
> Paul Rubin wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
> >
> >>Same solution for nearly ALL issues regarding file transfer: Get a
> >>card reader. I don't understand why people insist upon connecting
> >>the camera directly, when cards are made to be removed, replaced,
> >>and swapped, etc. You'll then have the drag-and-drop, drive-letter
> >>browsing you seak of wanting, AND tranfer will likely be faster too.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> > to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
>
> You're not so expected, except by a small but insistent group of people.
> I do have a card reader, but often plug my cameras directly into the
> USB port on the keyboard.

Nobody is insisting upon or expecting anything.
He/she is free to do as he/she chooses.
But as long as comments are posted here, they will be fair game for the
voicing of opinions and experience.

Many have found what they find to be a helpful solution in a card reader,
and have shared that solution here. Take it...or don't take it. But good
grief, man, don't take offense.

This newsgroup serves little purpose if not to give input and suggestions to
those voicing a problem or question. What you see as a negative insistence
is really nothing more than the voice of folks persuaded of a merits of a
solution found to be satisfactory in our experience. If you can find fault
in that, then you are trying too hard.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 11:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7xhdm3hvov.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.

You are not EXPECTED to buy a card reader. Like everything else, it's an
accessory.

In my case, I purchased a Lexar CF reader so I could avoid the hassle of
opening the less-than-convenient "flap" on the side of my new 20D for each
file dump. The CF compartment door appears to be engineered for MANY more
open/close cycles than the "flap" covering the data and control ports. If
anything breaks on this camera, I expect the first to go will be this
flap-type cover. Only time will tell if it represents poor engineering.

:) 
JR
December 31, 2004 12:47:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <jim.redelfs-66CC0F.08003931122004@news.central.cox.net>,
jim.redelfs@redelfs.com says...
> In article <7xhdm3hvov.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
> > to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
>
> You are not EXPECTED to buy a card reader. Like everything else, it's an
> accessory.
>
> In my case, I purchased a Lexar CF reader so I could avoid the hassle of
> opening the less-than-convenient "flap" on the side of my new 20D for each
> file dump. The CF compartment door appears to be engineered for MANY more
> open/close cycles than the "flap" covering the data and control ports. If
> anything breaks on this camera, I expect the first to go will be this
> flap-type cover. Only time will tell if it represents poor engineering.
>
> :) 
> JR
>


There is a simple answer to the question "Do I NEED a card reader":

If you are anticipating taking LOTS of pictures, in a continuously on-going
maner, in such a way as to fill more than one card, then YES you should get a
card reader, and not put the camera through the work of being a disk drive.

If its going to take you more than a day to fill up a card, and you have
plenty of time to take the camera away from "taking pictures" then you dont
NEED a card reader.

Card readers are so inexpensive, and most work so well, I cant see the reason
to argue against them, but to each his own.

Just remember, WHILE OFF LOADING PICTURES, THE CAMERA IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
TAKE MORE.

Sorry for shouting, but thats really what matters.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
December 31, 2004 1:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark wrote:

SNIPPAGE
> I don't have a headache.
> I have a card reader.
SNIPPAGE

I have a card reader. And now *I* have a headache.

I just realized how many CF cards I need for the
marathon this year...no time for fiddling with a
laptop...

Jeff
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:o 88at0pkfap6p52qg08q8pm5hh8laioeh8@4ax.com...
> Mark wrote:
>
> SNIPPAGE
> > I don't have a headache.
> > I have a card reader.
> SNIPPAGE
>
> I have a card reader. And now *I* have a headache.
>
> I just realized how many CF cards I need for the
> marathon this year...no time for fiddling with a
> laptop...
>
> Jeff

-Were I to run a marathon, I'd have more than just pain in my head...
:) 
Count your blessings.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 1:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> writes:
> I have a card reader. And now *I* have a headache.
>
> I just realized how many CF cards I need for the marathon this
> year...no time for fiddling with a laptop...

Maybe what you really want is a video camera.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:46:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>>> I don't understand why I should be expected to buy another gizmo
>>> to plug the card into, when it's already plugged into the camera.
>>
>> Why? For you own convenience.
>>
>> Some people choose to live with headachs rather than spend 2 dollars
>> on a bottle of asperin.
>
> Huh? Isn't it better to not have the headache in the first place? If
> the camera can't present the standard USB storage interface to the
> computer but wants you to use some weird proprietary upload software
> instead, it's causing a headache. If it didn't cause a headache, you
> wouldn't need aspirin.
>
> I see having a headache and buying aspirin for it as less convenient
> than not having the headache.

One of my cards came with a reader. I guess the manufacturer figured I
had a headache.

All my cameras came with some kind of download interface. Every one of
them was some kind of headache, most a bit worse than the one the
manufacturer foresaw.

Many moons past, I chose to use the camera interface. Then I listened to
reasons to not use it. Then I tried the reader. Then I made arrangements
so that each of the options was equally accessible. Then I forgot to
notice which one I was using. Then I realized: I had stopped using the
camera interface. A very natural selection had taken place. I put away
the camera cables.


--
Frank ess
January 2, 2005 8:24:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 31 Dec 2004 02:48:34 -0800
In message <7xekh6oi9p.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Posted from Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> writes:
>
> > I have a card reader. And now *I* have a headache.
> >
> > I just realized how many CF cards I need for the marathon this
> > year...no time for fiddling with a laptop...
>
> Maybe what you really want is a video camera.

NO

Jeff
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 1:13:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John,
I just purchased this camera and was trying to transfer the movie
clips in to iMovie without success. It seems that the Mac wants a
firewire connection? I'm not that familiar with the camera or iMovie
and was wondering how you got the clips into your computer. Thanks for
any input.

John Pane wrote:
> In article <Xns95CF9FA4936DCxyzzyxyzzy@216.196.97.142>, Curt Bousquet
<NNTP@scanline.com.nospam> wrote:
> >Does anybody know of any freeware or very cheap video editting
> >software? I'm not going to be using it enough to justify
> >spending a lot of money on it, but I'd like to be able to
> >transfer some stuff to DVD and add simple transitions, etc.
>
> I suspect this doesn't help you, but for the Mac users out there,
> iMovie and iDVD are perfect for this. After experimentation with
> iMovie settings I was able to convert a snippet of this video into
> QuickTime MPEG for sharing by email. The resulting file is 5% the
size
> of the original AVI file, without appreciable loss of quality other
> than reduction to 320x240.
>
> John
> --
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 11:55:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1105035231.773597.324080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, <ewestin@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just purchased this camera and was trying to transfer the movie
>clips in to iMovie without success. It seems that the Mac wants a
>firewire connection? I'm not that familiar with the camera or iMovie
>and was wondering how you got the clips into your computer. Thanks for
>any input.

I transfer the movie clips to my Mac the same way I transfer still
images, using my card reader. If you do not have a card reader, you
should be able to transfer them using the usb connector. The movie
files have names like MVI_0010.AVI.

I then use drag and drop to import the movies into iMovie.

John


--
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:16:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John,
Thanks for your reply. I purchased the Sandisk reader but haven't
had a chance to use it yet. It seems to require no driver at all which
is nice. I don't think iMovie reads the movies via the USB port
however. Not a big deal though since it would probably put a strain on
the battery.
!