Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 300d won't talk to PC (XP)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:14:54 AM

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

I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed to
go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.

More about : canon 300d talk

Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:14:55 AM

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

ben via PhotoKB.com wrote:
>
> I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
> loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed to
> go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
> itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
> Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
> load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
> reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
> talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.

does canon have a help number or email address? :) 
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:26:22 AM

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

not a local one that came with the camera, but i'm trying to hunt one up...
Related resources
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 12:38:21 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:14:54 GMT, "ben via PhotoKB.com"
<forum@nospam.PhotoKB.com> wrote:

>I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
>loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed to
>go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
>itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
>Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
>load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
>reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
>talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.

Have you got any other Imaging devices (e.g. a flatbed scanner)
plugged in via USB ?

I couldn't get my 300d to be recognised by Windows XP until I
unplugged my Mustek USB scanner. I didn't need to uninstall anything -
I just physically disconnected the scanner from the PC and everything
was OK.

Both work fine now, but I can't have them plugged in at the same time.

It seems the Mustek scanner driver takes over and doesn't allow the OS
to see the camera.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:31:43 PM

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

ben via PhotoKB.com wrote:
>
> not a local one that came with the camera, but i'm trying to hunt one up...

i think canon has a website?
it might have a help number.

it did when I needed it.
April 29, 2005 9:04:16 PM

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

On user manual page W-14, have you try to set your camera Communication to
"Normal" instead of "PTP"?
I had problem with photos transfer when I set to PTP, I'm using Windows XP
as well.
Good Luck

JL

"ben via PhotoKB.com" <forum@nospam.PhotoKB.com> wrote in message
news:b8cde552e0c14a9d868800cfe44c5739@PhotoKB.com...
>I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
> loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed
> to
> go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
> itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
> Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
> load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
> reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
> talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:04:17 PM

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

yep - tried to connect while set in both modes, but got the same message
though.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:34:20 PM

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

"ben via PhotoKB.com" <forum@nospam.PhotoKB.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:b8cde552e0c14a9d868800cfe44c5739@PhotoKB.com...
>I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
> loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed
> to
> go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
> itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
> Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
> load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
> reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
> talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.


Buy a Pentax *istD. XP sees it as an USB disk drive. No need for drivers :) 
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 2:14:15 AM

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

"ben via PhotoKB.com" wrote:
>
> I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
> loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed to
> go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
> itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with 'Canon
> Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could not
> load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
> reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
> talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.

Don't bother with connecting the camera to the PC, get a card reader
instead. The 300D (i have one) uses usb 1.1, and is deadly slow
downloading images. A usb 2.0 card reader is not expensive and
downloads a lot faster.

Colin
May 1, 2005 12:58:21 PM

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

It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
those download?
Thanks
JL

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:42735A77.E319F12A@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> "ben via PhotoKB.com" wrote:
>>
>> I have just got myself a Canon 300d (digital rebel). In the process of
>> loading the bundled software, the installation of the cd software seemed
>> to
>> go fine - but when i restarted the computer and plugged in the camera
>> itself to the usb port, the Found New Hardware message came up with
>> 'Canon
>> Digital Camera' but an error box keeps coming up saying "Windows could
>> not
>> load the installer for Image". I tried deleting the drivers and
>> reinstalling, but same problem. Is there any way I can get my camera to
>> talk to the PC without a card reader? I am using windows XP.
>
> Don't bother with connecting the camera to the PC, get a card reader
> instead. The 300D (i have one) uses usb 1.1, and is deadly slow
> downloading images. A usb 2.0 card reader is not expensive and
> downloads a lot faster.
>
> Colin
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:35:22 PM

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

PC wrote:

> It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
> Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
> those download?

I think your problem may be somewhere else. I have a USB 1.1 interface
on my PC and it takes less than 15 minutes to unload a 1 GB card (in
camera) when it is nearly full.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 8:08:36 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> PC wrote:
>
>> It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
>> Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to
>> do those download?
>
>
> I think your problem may be somewhere else. I have a USB 1.1 interface
> on my PC and it takes less than 15 minutes to unload a 1 GB card (in
> camera) when it is nearly full.

Correction. I just uploaded 1 GB from my camera via USB 1.1.
8 minutes. (81 JPG / 81 RAW / 81 THM).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 2, 2005 12:45:43 AM

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

PC wrote:
> It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
> Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
> those download?
> Thanks
> JL
>
373 images is probably going to take a couple of minutes or so. The
limiting factor when changing from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 is the speed at
which data can be read from the card, and written to the HD on your
computer. IIRC, about 6 - 10 mb/s from a compact flash card is typical.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:45:44 AM

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

aOn Sun, 01 May 2005 20:45:43 +1200, Frederick
<nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:

>PC wrote:
>> It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
>> Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
>> those download?
>> Thanks
>> JL
>>
>373 images is probably going to take a couple of minutes or so. The
>limiting factor when changing from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 is the speed at
>which data can be read from the card, and written to the HD on your
>computer. IIRC, about 6 - 10 mb/s from a compact flash card is typical.


a firewire cf card reader would be a lot faster
http://www.sandisk.com/retail/ultra-firewire.asp
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:26:47 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> Correction. I just uploaded 1 GB from my camera via USB 1.1.
> 8 minutes. (81 JPG / 81 RAW / 81 THM).

That exceeds the raw data rate of USB 1.1 (16Mb/s versus 12Mb/s).

David
May 2, 2005 1:26:09 PM

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

Gary MacKenzie wrote:
> aOn Sun, 01 May 2005 20:45:43 +1200, Frederick
> <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>PC wrote:
>>
>>>It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
>>>Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
>>>those download?
>>>Thanks
>>>JL
>>>
>>
>>373 images is probably going to take a couple of minutes or so. The
>>limiting factor when changing from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 is the speed at
>>which data can be read from the card, and written to the HD on your
>>computer. IIRC, about 6 - 10 mb/s from a compact flash card is typical.
>
>
>
> a firewire cf card reader would be a lot faster
> http://www.sandisk.com/retail/ultra-firewire.asp
>
Would it?
I haven't tried - but USB 2.0 speed is 480 mb/s - about 50 times faster
than the data can be read from the card. The bottleneck isn't the the
theoretical transfer speed of the bus.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:26:10 PM

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

Frederick wrote:
[]
> I haven't tried - but USB 2.0 speed is 480 mb/s - about 50 times
> faster than the data can be read from the card. The bottleneck isn't
> the the theoretical transfer speed of the bus.

SanDisk SD Ultra II card - read speed 10MB/s (bytes/second) or 80Mb/s
(bits/second)

That make the USB 2.0 hi-speed interface (480MB/s) just 6 times faster,
not 50 times.

David
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:51:24 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>
>>Correction. I just uploaded 1 GB from my camera via USB 1.1.
>>8 minutes. (81 JPG / 81 RAW / 81 THM).
>
>
> That exceeds the raw data rate of USB 1.1 (16Mb/s versus 12Mb/s).

I realize that and I was surprised myself. But

1) the card was full (a couple hundred K short of 1 GB) and,
2) it took a little less than 8 minutes to upload and,
3) the USB on my computer is most definitely 1.1.

I don't know if compression is possible in this case? (Using XP, seeing
the camera CF memory as a mounted drive).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:02:06 PM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:26:09 +1200, Frederick
<nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:

>Gary MacKenzie wrote:
>> aOn Sun, 01 May 2005 20:45:43 +1200, Frederick
>> <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>PC wrote:
>>>
>>>>It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
>>>>Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
>>>>those download?
>>>>Thanks
>>>>JL
>>>>
>>>
>>>373 images is probably going to take a couple of minutes or so. The
>>>limiting factor when changing from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 is the speed at
>>>which data can be read from the card, and written to the HD on your
>>>computer. IIRC, about 6 - 10 mb/s from a compact flash card is typical.
>>
>>
>>
>> a firewire cf card reader would be a lot faster
>> http://www.sandisk.com/retail/ultra-firewire.asp
>>
>Would it?
>I haven't tried - but USB 2.0 speed is 480 mb/s - about 50 times faster
>than the data can be read from the card. The bottleneck isn't the the
>theoretical transfer speed of the bus.


USB2 does not have a guaranteed sustined rate.

IEEE1394 ( firewire/ilink ) does. It has to due to it's requirement to
handle dv footage which must be constant and fixed rate.

1GB over firewire would take approx 1hr/13 = less than 5 minutes.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:11:09 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>> []
>>
>>> Correction. I just uploaded 1 GB from my camera via USB 1.1.
>>> 8 minutes. (81 JPG / 81 RAW / 81 THM).
>>
>>
>> That exceeds the raw data rate of USB 1.1 (16Mb/s versus 12Mb/s).
>
> I realize that and I was surprised myself. But
>
> 1) the card was full (a couple hundred K short of 1 GB) and,
> 2) it took a little less than 8 minutes to upload and,
> 3) the USB on my computer is most definitely 1.1.
>
> I don't know if compression is possible in this case? (Using XP,
> seeing the camera CF memory as a mounted drive).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I don't see how the hardware data rate could be exceeded. I suspect that
the OS was caching the data, and would suggest that the test was repeated
where there is no possibility of data caching. My own tests, though, have
been done with real files on real cards, not using the camera as a mounted
drive.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:11:10 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> I don't see how the hardware data rate could be exceeded.

Me neither. But, since the files on the camera flash are 'files', they
could (theoretically) be compressed before being sent over the USB. I
say theoretically because I don't know this to be the fact.

I suspect that
> the OS was caching the data, and would suggest that the test was repeated

It can't cache what it hasn't seen. The images copied over had been
taken in the couple hours before the connection to PC was made.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:51:32 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> I don't see how the hardware data rate could be exceeded.
>
> Me neither. But, since the files on the camera flash are 'files',
> they could (theoretically) be compressed before being sent over the
> USB. I say theoretically because I don't know this to be the fact.
>
> I suspect that
>> the OS was caching the data, and would suggest that the test was
>> repeated
>
> It can't cache what it hasn't seen. The images copied over had been
> taken in the couple hours before the connection to PC was made.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

How was the file copy done? Using e.g. Windows Explorer or some
proprietary software?

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:09:01 PM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:19:46 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Me neither. But, since the files on the camera flash are 'files', they
> could (theoretically) be compressed before being sent over the USB. I
> say theoretically because I don't know this to be the fact.

I would be surprised if that turned out to be the case.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:09:02 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:19:46 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Me neither. But, since the files on the camera flash are 'files', they
>>could (theoretically) be compressed before being sent over the USB. I
>>say theoretically because I don't know this to be the fact.
>
>
> I would be surprised if that turned out to be the case.

Then we're back to the mystery: 1 GB / 8 minutes.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 3, 2005 1:06:33 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Frederick wrote:
> []
>
>>I haven't tried - but USB 2.0 speed is 480 mb/s - about 50 times
>>faster than the data can be read from the card. The bottleneck isn't
>>the the theoretical transfer speed of the bus.
>
>
> SanDisk SD Ultra II card - read speed 10MB/s (bytes/second) or 80Mb/s
> (bits/second)
>
> That make the USB 2.0 hi-speed interface (480MB/s) just 6 times faster,
> not 50 times.
>
> David
>
>
Good lord. (I confused my bits and bytes)
That means that if Moore's law keeps up (for flash card read/write
speeds), in a few years a firewire card reader will be faster than USB
2.0 , and the OP will be correct.
May 3, 2005 1:40:49 PM

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

Gary MacKenzie wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:26:09 +1200, Frederick
> <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary MacKenzie wrote:
>>
>>>aOn Sun, 01 May 2005 20:45:43 +1200, Frederick
>>><nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>PC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It took me 2 hours to download 373 jpeg large photos from 300D to PC.
>>>>>Anyone know how much time can be save if I use USB 2.0 card reader to do
>>>>>those download?
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>JL
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>373 images is probably going to take a couple of minutes or so. The
>>>>limiting factor when changing from USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 is the speed at
>>>>which data can be read from the card, and written to the HD on your
>>>>computer. IIRC, about 6 - 10 mb/s from a compact flash card is typical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>a firewire cf card reader would be a lot faster
>>>http://www.sandisk.com/retail/ultra-firewire.asp
>>>
>>
>>Would it?
>>I haven't tried - but USB 2.0 speed is 480 mb/s - about 50 times faster
>>than the data can be read from the card. The bottleneck isn't the the
>>theoretical transfer speed of the bus.
>
>
>
> USB2 does not have a guaranteed sustined rate.
>
> IEEE1394 ( firewire/ilink ) does. It has to due to it's requirement to
> handle dv footage which must be constant and fixed rate.
>
> 1GB over firewire would take approx 1hr/13 = less than 5 minutes.


Nothing like trying something...

Cheap (US$15) Apacer USB 2.0 card reader
Slow system by today's standards (AMD 2.4/512MB/ATA100/XP)
Cheap card ("PQI" brand "40X" read speed)
Device "Optimized for Safe Removal" (not "optimized for performance")

Actual transfer rate achieved: 355 MB / minute.
1 GB over USB 2.0 using cheap and simple hardware in less than 3 minutes.

If you were copying from a USB card reader via PC to an external USB
hard drive, would it slow down significantly?
May 3, 2005 1:59:29 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> Me neither. But, since the files on the camera flash are 'files', they
> could (theoretically) be compressed before being sent over the USB. I
> say theoretically because I don't know this to be the fact.
>

And as they are image files, probably already compressed (Lossless RAW
or lossy JPEG), then it would be a remarkable thing if a camera
manufacturer had developed a codex capable of further lossless
compression to the extent that it would make any practical difference.
JPEG is very efficient - try zipping (or any other lossless codex) a
JPEG, and you will not save much - if anything.
Anyway, you could assume it as a fact that it doesn't happen - unless
there was some "invisible" and unknown decompression codex built in to
your OS.
!