Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital camera USB link v Card Reader

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 6:44:28 AM

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

I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
data.

Phillip
June 8, 2005 10:28:49 AM

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

In article <1118223868.211340.82920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
sear@sear.screaming.net says...
> I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
> Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
> would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
> and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
> plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
> reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
> Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
> data.
>
> Phillip
>
>

Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.

REASONS:

1. unless you have an unusual camera, the card reader will be faster.

2. hooking the camera to the computer requires the camera to be on.

3. chance of camera being knocked around is much higher while its tethered to
the computer.

4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very likely to
snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer and loosen or break
the usb connector in the camera or pull the camera from table to floor (see 3
above)




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
June 8, 2005 3:12:48 PM

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

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message news:MPG.1d10926bb20f1fe09899ee@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <1118223868.211340.82920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> sear@sear.screaming.net says...
> > I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
> > Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
> > would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
> > and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
> > plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
> > reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
> > Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
> > data.
> >
> > Phillip
> >
> >
>
> Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.
>
> REASONS:
>
> 1. unless you have an unusual camera, the card reader will be faster.
>
> 2. hooking the camera to the computer requires the camera to be on.
>
> 3. chance of camera being knocked around is much higher while its tethered to
> the computer.
>
> 4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very likely to
> snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer and loosen or break
> the usb connector in the camera or pull the camera from table to floor (see 3
> above)

Agree on all points. Especially #4 for memory stick or
SD cameras, both of which use slotted connectors
instead of pins. Pins are far more prone to bending or
breaking when CF cards are improperly inserted.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 3:16:32 PM

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

sear@sear.screaming.net writes:

> I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
> Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
> would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
> and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
> plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
> reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
> Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
> data.

Given the heaps of stuff piled around my computer, I consider it
*much* safer for the camera to use a card reader (the camera might
fall off!). This is, however, based very much on *local* conditions,
and is not a general rule.

The other issue is camera battery life, perhaps.

Finally, some people report their card readers are much faster than
downloading through the cameras. I think that varies with age and
etc. of the cameras, too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 3:17:43 PM

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

"Robert J Batina" <rbatina@columbus.rr.com> writes:

> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> spewed:
>> Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.
>
> With memory sticks, I agree... however...
>
>> REASONS:
>> 4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very
>> likely to snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer
>> and loosen or break the usb connector in the camera or pull the
>> camera from table to floor (see 3 above)
>
> I know from experience that there is a chance of bending the pins in your
> camera if it uses a compact flash card. The more you take it in and out of
> the camera, the more chances you have of making your camera fubar. :-)
> I'm a firm believer in leaving the media in the camera to unload it now.

I'm sure it's possible, but I've been using my digital cameras heavily
since 2000 and haven't ever done so, nor even come close that I can
see, and don't know anybody else in person who has done so either.
So, you seem to have managed to do something pretty unusual.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:19:36 PM

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

Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> spewed:
> Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.

With memory sticks, I agree... however...

> REASONS:
> 4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very
> likely to snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer
> and loosen or break the usb connector in the camera or pull the
> camera from table to floor (see 3 above)

I know from experience that there is a chance of bending the pins in your
camera if it uses a compact flash card. The more you take it in and out of
the camera, the more chances you have of making your camera fubar. :-)
I'm a firm believer in leaving the media in the camera to unload it now.
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:03:07 PM

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

I agree with the first writer ... get a card reader. I own lots of cards. As
soon as I take the card out & put another one in the camera. I get the
images in quickly & open them in Photoshop right away. You can buy a card
reader for well under $40.00 or one that takes several type cards for a
little more. I equate someone who gets their images into the computer
without using a card reader as someone who also charges the camera batteries
while in the camera instead of using a separate charger ... allowing extra
batteries to always be charged and ready.

Craig Flory
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 4:02:02 AM

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

What about Kodak cameras that have a dock? I have both the dock and a card
reader.


<sear@sear.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:1118223868.211340.82920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
> Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
> would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
> and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
> plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
> reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
> Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
> data.
>
> Phillip
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 6:42:44 AM

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

Many thanks for all your suggestions. I think the consensus is that I
should get a card reader as a MS Pro user.

Phillip
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 12:32:44 PM

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

sear@sear.screaming.net wrote:
> Many thanks for all your suggestions. I think the consensus is that I
> should get a card reader as a MS Pro user.
>
> Phillip
>
Well, either a card reader, or a camera with USB 2.0 HiSpeed connection
for faster transfers.
I like the convenience of the card reader, and its flexibility.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:42:02 AM

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

In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of Larry Did Inscribe:
>
> Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.
>
> REASONS:
>
> 1. unless you have an unusual camera, the card reader will be faster.
>
> 2. hooking the camera to the computer requires the camera to be on.
>
> 3. chance of camera being knocked around is much higher while its tethered to
> the computer.
>
> 4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very likely to
> snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer and loosen or break
> the usb connector in the camera or pull the camera from table to floor (see 3
> above)

5. You don't need to install $VENDOR's drivers or use /their/ proprietary
software to get /your/ pictures from /your/ camera. I had upgraded
Windows at work from Win98SE to Windows XP... which broke the version
of Camedia I was using at the time. I was told by Olympus tier two
tech-support that it would cost me $25US to replace their Camedia
software and that was the only way to get my pictures off my camera.
Instead, I spent $14US and bought a 8in1 card reader; and a couple
gin and tonics.

6. USB card readers use the mass storage driver which is built into all
Windows versions higher than Win98, all Macs, and on all the myriad
Linux and Unix variants. (This is the big one for me as I run Debian
GNU/Linux as my primary OS; Gphoto2 has support for over 500 models
of cameras, but it's one less thing to worry about.)

--
Heck is where people go who don't believe in Gosh.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 8:58:32 AM

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

Brad Sims wrote:

> In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of Larry Did Inscribe:
>
>>Its easier in daily practice to use a card reader.
>>
>>REASONS:
>>
>>1. unless you have an unusual camera, the card reader will be faster.
>>
>>2. hooking the camera to the computer requires the camera to be on.
>>
>>3. chance of camera being knocked around is much higher while its tethered to
>>the computer.
>>
>>4. you wont likely "wear out" the memory slot, but you are very likely to
>>snag the usb cable attatching the camera to the computer and loosen or break
>>the usb connector in the camera or pull the camera from table to floor (see 3
>>above)
>
>
> 5. You don't need to install $VENDOR's drivers or use /their/ proprietary
> software to get /your/ pictures from /your/ camera. I had upgraded
> Windows at work from Win98SE to Windows XP... which broke the version
> of Camedia I was using at the time. I was told by Olympus tier two
> tech-support that it would cost me $25US to replace their Camedia
> software and that was the only way to get my pictures off my camera.
> Instead, I spent $14US and bought a 8in1 card reader; and a couple
> gin and tonics.
>
> 6. USB card readers use the mass storage driver which is built into all
> Windows versions higher than Win98, all Macs, and on all the myriad
> Linux and Unix variants. (This is the big one for me as I run Debian
> GNU/Linux as my primary OS; Gphoto2 has support for over 500 models
> of cameras, but it's one less thing to worry about.)
>
Hi,
It all depends how much pictures you have to upload to PC.
I use reader if I want to empty a card. But for couple shots, I just
plug in the camera.
Tony
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 12:21:40 AM

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

sear@sear.screaming.net wrote:
> I have just got my first digital camera - a Sony that uses Memory Stick
> Pro cards. I can connect to my PC fine with the supplied USB cable. I
> would be interested to know, however, which would cause the least wear
> and tear to the camera, to keep connecting it to the USB cable (ie,
> plgging and unplugging it frequently) or getting a cheap USB card
> reader that would remain permaaently connected to the PC and take the
> Memory Stick in and out of the camera every time I want to transfer
> data.

Both methods have their merits, depending on your equipment and how much
you have to download.

If you are computer minimalist who likes an uncluttered desk with just a
laptop sitting on it, a short USB cable takes up less space in a desk
drawer than most card readers. If you are a gadget freak like me,
you'll want a card reader hooked to your desktop machine full-time, and
a small card reader in the laptop bag.

Obviously if you need to download images from more than one card at a
time (or from cameras using two different memory card formats), using a
card reader will save wear and tear on the camera(s) and possibly
download faster.

While it may be worse with some cameras than others, using a digital
camera as a card reader can drain the battery. Oh, you can probably use
an AC adapter with the camera, but then you're hooking up two cables
instead of one; a card reader is certainly easier to connect, and faster
to use if it's already connected as mine is. Deleting files pulls down
the battery too, and *formatting* a card is a big drain.

I recommend using a card reader whenever possible, and saving the
camera's battery for taking pictures and powering the flash. But always
keep the USB cable handy for those times when you need to download to
someone else's computer, or when Junior has "borrowed" your card reader.
And of course, always keep a spare battery or two.

--
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal opportunity annoyer
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 1:31:14 AM

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

In article <3gusl6Fegs3bU1@individual.net>, BucketButt
<bucketbutt@bellsout.net> wrote:

> While it may be worse with some cameras than others, using a digital
> camera as a card reader can drain the battery. Oh, you can probably use
> an AC adapter with the camera, but then you're hooking up two cables
> instead of one; a card reader is certainly easier to connect, and faster
> to use if it's already connected as mine is. Deleting files pulls down
> the battery too, and *formatting* a card is a big drain.

That two seconds it takes to format a card is a pretty heavy battery
drain, is it?
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 7:32:32 AM

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

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <3gusl6Fegs3bU1@individual.net>, BucketButt
> <bucketbutt@bellsout.net> wrote:
>
>
>>While it may be worse with some cameras than others, using a digital
>>camera as a card reader can drain the battery. Oh, you can probably use
>>an AC adapter with the camera, but then you're hooking up two cables
>>instead of one; a card reader is certainly easier to connect, and faster
>>to use if it's already connected as mine is. Deleting files pulls down
>>the battery too, and *formatting* a card is a big drain.
>
>
> That two seconds it takes to format a card is a pretty heavy battery
> drain, is it?
Two seconds? I wish my camera were that fast. Takes more like 30 here.
But then I VERY rarely reformat a card...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 1:19:32 PM

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

In article <Akxqe.1735$Ub4.238@fe06.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Two seconds? I wish my camera were that fast. Takes more like 30 here.
> But then I VERY rarely reformat a card...

My 10D just takes about a second to format a 512MB card. And you're
better off formatting from time to time to get rid of those old empty
folders.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 1:45:03 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
: Two seconds? I wish my camera were that fast. Takes more like 30 here.
: But then I VERY rarely reformat a card...

that was my thought too. Different camera-memory card capacity
combinations take different times to do a total format. Even if instead of
a full format only a "delete all" is performed, a large enough card can
take more than a min to perform. But I personally find that doing
everything possible (file transfer, bulk deletion, format) with the card
in a card reader seems to work best for me. Now I will say that some
devices (including cameras) seem to have a proprietary format that can be
read by a card reader but a card formated on the computer can't be read by
the device without being reformated. But since I normally just delete the
files without a full format this isn't a big problem. Only when the
maximum image capacity number (displayed when I put an empty card into the
camera) falls do I do a full format.

JMHO

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:23:55 PM

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

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> Two seconds? I wish my camera were that fast. Takes more like 30
>> here. But then I VERY rarely reformat a card...
>
> that was my thought too. Different camera-memory card capacity
> combinations take different times to do a total format. Even if
> instead of a full format only a "delete all" is performed, a large
> enough card can take more than a min to perform.

A format should take but a few seconds - at least that's been my
experience with all the digital cameras I've used. A format only needs to
rewrite a few tables at the beginning of the card (like the function
Windows calls a Quick format). There's not need for for what I would call
a "full format" (overwriting every sector). Delete all might take much
longer, but why you would want to do that rather than a format escapes
me....

David
!