Camera download vs. Card Reader?

mtbparker · September 1, 2009

Pathfinder wrote:

Ara, get a card reader, do not download images directly from your camera. Lots of reasons for this; just get a good USB 2.0 card reader

All,

Hello. I was reading another thread here in these forums and I read this comment (above). Pathfinder mentioned that you should download your photos by card reader vice directly downloading from the camera. This caught me TOTALLY by surprise. I then went back to the photography book I'm reading and found a little "tip" on the side that says, "When downloading photos from your camera, it's easier and safer to use a card reader instead of connecting your camera directly to your computer." So two independent sources say the same thing. But I'm at a complete loss as to why.

Pathfinder, if you're out there or if anyone else knows the answer, can you please enlighten me? I'm a software engineer by trade -- 15+ years. To me, I thought transferring a file was simply bits over a wire. Is there some sort of conversion or compression going on? And I definitely don't understand the "safer" part of the tip that I read in my book.

In the interest of not hijacking the other thread, I'm starting this new one.

Thanks in advance,
Tom

CoryUT · September 1, 2009

Hi Tom! Electrical Engineer here.

You're right that we are simply transferring bits over a wire, but every form of communication has some kind of structure. As a software engineer you are probably familiar with packetizing and handshaking, both of which are part of the USB protocol. The data has to be prepared, transmitted, and received. If you transfer from your camera, the camera then has to do a bit of work to send the files over.

"Safer" might be a stretch, but if you transfer from a reader you can download the photos with your camera safely powered off and in the camera case. That way there isn't even a slight possibility that something could go wrong and damage camera electronics, and you are probably less likely to knock the camera to the ground.

I personally do it because it's a lot easier and, on my computer, faster.

pathfinder · September 1, 2009

As Cory says, when ever you download from your camera you are introducing another element in the linkage. Using a card reader is a much simpler, and safer mode. Some computers and some cameras do not always play well together, while reasonably current USB 2.0 card readers and operating systems get along pretty well. Also, you are not depending on your battery in your camera.

Get a card reader, they are well worth it. They are usually much faster than getting the bits via your camera as well. (I have never downloaded files directly from my camera.)

Always format your card when you put it back into your camera as well ( if you have your images safely stored on two separate hard drives first of course )

BradfordBenn · September 1, 2009

Also one of the other things to consider is that on some cameras I have had, the mini USB port on it is only USB1.1 speed, not USB2.0 speed, which is a huge savings of time using the USB2.0 or Firewire 800 reader compared to USB1.1.

colourbox · September 1, 2009

mtbparker wrote:

I then went back to the photography book I'm reading and found a little "tip" on the side that says, "When downloading photos from your camera, it's easier and safer to use a card reader instead of connecting your camera directly to your computer." So two independent sources say the same thing. But I'm at a complete loss as to why....I thought transferring a file was simply bits over a wire. Is there some sort of conversion or compression going on? And I definitely don't understand the "safer" part of the tip that I read in my book.

No, the transfer itself is the same. No conversions. But I too have heard that there is a higher risk of power and data glitches messing up the camera or the card when the camera is directly connected via USB.

My own motivations are different. My Firewire card reader is terrifically faster than my camera cable. A card reader doesn't run down the camera's battery, but the cable does. The camera can't be used during a cable transfer, but with a card, you can swap cards and keep shooting while the first card is uploading. Also, with a card reader there is no fiddling with the camera to get it into the data transfer mode. Just leave it in shooting mode ready to go. So, there are many practical advantages to using a card reader in addition to the power fry concerns with the cable. I never take my USB camera cable out of the drawer except on the extremely rare occasions I want to do tethered shooting.

mtbparker · September 1, 2009

Hi Cory,

I completely understand what you're talking about.... all too well.

So it might be a little slower. That's cool. And I completely agree that a camera safely in it's bag is a good place to be.

Curious if there's other reasons as well.

Thanks again.
Tom

mtbparker · September 1, 2009

Wow! This thread lit up while I was typing. Thanks to everyone else for the additional inputs. All quite obvious once you started talking about them. doh!!

With all my ESD training I get at work (electrostatic discharge), I should have thought about the possibility of a possible electrical hiccup hurting the electronics.

Tom

Gary752 · September 1, 2009

One other thing that no one mentioned is the fact that with a card reader, you can upload the photos back to the card if need be, after they have been edited. In reality, the card reader works much like a hard drive when a card is inserted, and as stated earlier, the card reader is a whole lot faster!

GaryB

mtbparker · September 2, 2009

BroPhoto wrote:

One other thing that no one mentioned is the fact that with a card reader, you can upload the photos back to the card if need be, after they have been edited. In reality, the card reader works much like a hard drive when a card is inserted, and as stated earlier, the card reader is a whole lot faster!

GaryB

I'm starting to understand the reason for my surprise. With my camera, as with anything else I buy, I tend not to install any of the bloatware that comes along with it -- things like: Pictures-A-Plenty, Portrait Magic, and Easy Share -- if you catch my drift.

.

When I got my new camera, I just plugged it in and let Windows autodetect the device. As a result, the only thing that happens when I connect my camera is a new drive shows up on my computer just like any other thumbdrive, external hard drive, etc. I just drag-n-drop files as any other USB drive. So, I completely understand the faster USB speeds via USB 2.0. I also understand the practical things like keeping your camera safe, not using the camera battery, transferring from one card while shooting on another, etc.

My main concern going into this was a sacrifice in image quality that I might not have been aware of. Another concern of mine is the mechanical wear-n-tear on the card slot by constantly taking it in and out. If my camera follows the fate of my TV remote controls, the little locking mechanism to hold the card and the locking door will eventually break and I'll be holding the card in there with some duct tape.

But y'all have convinced me.

With all the inputs you guys have given, I understand what's going on here. Thanks all for the feedback. It's much appreciated.

Tom

Photog4Christ · September 2, 2009

My #1 reason for using a card reader:

The camera has a mini-USB port. So, each time you plug/unplug the cable into the camera (over time) you are weakening the mini-USB plug on the cable. What happens if the mini plug breaks off and gets stuck in your camera??

A card reader is less than $20. I would rather replace a $20 card reader vs. a $1200+ card reader.

And... I can leave the card reader plugged into the computer.

TonyCooper · September 2, 2009

I could make a case for either side on this. Repeatedly plugging the mini-cable into the camera could result in damage to that port. Repeatedly removing the card from the camera could result in damage to the card door. Either way, the camera is damaged.

The card reader downloads faster. However, if you add the time it takes to extract and remove the card, the time difference is measured in seconds. I usually multi-task when downloading (and that includes everything from going off to refill my sweet tea glass to draining off the earlier glasses of sweet tea) so I can't recall ever sitting and waiting for the download to complete. Either way, the time factor is negligible.

You could trip over the cable connected to the camera, knock the camera to the floor, and crack the sensor. You could drop the card after removing it from the camera, hit your head on the desk retrieving it, and bleed all over the new wall-to-wall carpeting. Either way, there's some potential danger.

I have a card reader and use it most of the time. However, I've also downloaded my images to my son's computer using a cable (he doesn't have a reader). Either way, the images get transferred.

There are some really important decisions we have to make in life...like is it safe to eat the last of the pickled herring in cream sauce in the refrigerator even though the expiration date is near. Card reader vs cord is not one of them, in my opinion.

mtbparker · September 2, 2009

Too funny Tony. My experience with the Herring in cream is DON'T!!

Tom

Photog4Christ · September 2, 2009

Ditto on staying away from the herring!

Art Scott · September 2, 2009

not sure if it was the card manufacturers site of in my Konica Minolta owners manual......but one of them said to never download from the camera for almost all of the reasons listed by other posters.................

I do know it was the Lexar site that stated emphatically to never format the card in computer only in camera..and the KM manuals stated the same....but I was using Lexar cards before I bought into KM.....my first Lexar card was bought for an HP C200 1 mp cam......but that was a whole 'nother thread...............

colourbox · September 2, 2009

mtbparker wrote:

when I connect my camera is a new drive shows up on my computer just like any other thumbdrive, external hard drive, etc. I just drag-n-drop files as any other USB drive.

I stopped being interested in drag-and-drop as the raw importers got smarter and smarter. Now you can plug in the camera or the card into a reader, and your favorite raw importer (Bridge, Aperture, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc.) can pop up ready to import with big preview icons so you can see which ones you're importing if you don't want them all. While it's importing, it can apply your preferred image rendering, your copyright, business info, location info, keywords, and other metadata for that shoot, rename the files to your convention, organize them automatically into your standard folder hierarchy, etc. You just stand back and watch it happen as the images come in. Because of the above I now see drag-and-drop as too manual of a process, leaving too much work for later.

This is not meant to say you're wrong, only to provide another perspective. If drag-and-drop is the best for you, then it's the best.

Even I drag and drop once in a while if I only shot one or two test pictures and I may not need them to be assimilated into the big library.

CWSkopec · September 3, 2009

Maybe I missed it if someone mentioned it already, but a big reason I went out and got a card reader is because of the camera's battery. After a long day/evening out shooting, my batteries often don't have a lot of juice left in them. I had two occasions early on where the battery died while importing. On the first, it was no big deal, I just popped another battery in and went on my way. On the second, an image got corrupted. Just one, and judging from the shots it was bracketed with, it was a throw away anyway, but what if it was that once in a lifetime shot where you were just in the right place at the right time and managed to squeeze off just one good frame before the scene changed entirely.

That thought alone set me to the store the next day to get a reader. $20 was a good trade-off to make sure I could get that once in a lifetime shot off the card. Now I just need to find that once in a lifetime shot!

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2009

mtbparker wrote:

My main concern going into this was a sacrifice in image quality that I might not have been aware of. Another concern of mine is the mechanical wear-n-tear on the card slot by constantly taking it in and out. If my camera follows the fate of my TV remote controls, the little locking mechanism to hold the card and the locking door will eventually break and I'll be holding the card in there with some duct tape. But y'all have convinced me.

When I'm shooting weddings with both a 50D and a 5D2 and using 4GB cards (the largest I currently have), I get 170 (50D) and 150 (5D2) RAW files per card. This means that I swap cards out a lot during the course of the day and I sometimes have to do it in quite a hurry. So far (knock wood), I've not damaged anything or caused any (known) unreasonable wear to either the card slot or to the memory cards. I do, however, take the time to make sure that I don't force the card into the camera - no matter how desperate the situation.

Oh, and I also format all the cards I'm going to be using for a gig when I do my equipment prep. This means that every card is inserted and removed twice, once during the prep and once during the gig.

I have read of some who have somehow bent one or more pins in the camera and had to send the camera in for service (I've also read that this repair is not cheap

). However, if appropriate care is exercised when opening the door on the camera and when inserting the card into the camera, I don't see how there can be much chance of causing a problem. It's all about where your attention is focused when you do these things.

Finally, I returned from the last wedding I shot with something close to 30GB of RAW files. I KNOW my firewire card reader, when connected to my MBO's 1934/800 port, is quite a bit faster than any USB card reader or camera USB transfer. With the indicated volume of data, this can mean the difference between editing photos sometime that day or just swapping cards in/out of the USB card-reader/camera. The USB alternative is a non-starter for me - especially as there is no penality in terms of data integrity.

chrisjohnson · September 4, 2009

You make a couple of great points.

I know how manufacturers make a virtue of reducing material costs. There is a big difference between making a card slot for a camera where users normally never switch the memory card, and making for a pro who is switching every day.

I wonder where my 40D sits on this scale of virtue? I do know I won't be forcing anything.

Wonder what computer you are using with this amount of data?

Scott_Quier · September 4, 2009

goldenballs wrote:

You make a couple of great points.

I know how manufacturers make a virtue of reducing material costs. There is a big difference between making a card slot for a camera where users normally never switch the memory card, and making for a pro who is switching every day.

I wonder where my 40D sits on this scale of virtue? I do know I won't be forcing anything.

Wonder what computer you are using with this amount of data?

I believe the card slot in the xxD cameras are all the same. This is probably true of the 5D2 as well. I can't talk to the xD cameras as I think I've only held one once.

What am I using for a computer? Take a look at this thread. The machine has 12DB triple-channel memory, a 300GB system drive and a 500GB data drive and a couple of 21" monitors (one calibrated, the other one only close). Then, add on a 1TB eSATA drive for backup purposes.

mtbparker · September 4, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

When I'm shooting weddings with both a 50D and a 5D2 and using 4GB cards (the largest I currently have), I get 170 (50D) and 150 (5D2) RAW files per card. This means that I swap cards out a lot during the course of the day and I sometimes have to do it in quite a hurry. So far (knock wood), I've not damaged anything or caused any (known) unreasonable wear to either the card slot or to the memory cards. I do, however, take the time to make sure that I don't force the card into the camera - no matter how desperate the situation.

Oh, and I also format all the cards I'm going to be using for a gig when I do my equipment prep. This means that every card is inserted and removed twice, once during the prep and once during the gig.

I have read of some who have somehow bent one or more pins in the camera and had to send the camera in for service (I've also read that this repair is not cheap). However, if appropriate care is exercised when opening the door on the camera and when inserting the card into the camera, I don't see how there can be much chance of causing a problem. It's all about where your attention is focused when you do these things.

Finally, I returned from the last wedding I shot with something close to 30GB of RAW files. I KNOW my firewire card reader, when connected to my MBO's 1934/800 port, is quite a bit faster than any USB card reader or camera USB transfer. With the indicated volume of data, this can mean the difference between editing photos sometime that day or just swapping cards in/out of the USB card-reader/camera. The USB alternative is a non-starter for me - especially as there is no penality in terms of data integrity.

Thanks Scott... exactly the kind of information I was looking for. I was wondering if my concerns for damaging the card slot were well founded or not. As far as actual usage, I tend to operate much like Tony. I never really gave too much thought to card reader or cable. It often depends a lot on where I am and what I am doing.

The only time I had a massive amount of imagery to download was each night after a day full of photos at the OshKosh airshow this year. But there were other factors at play there. I was back at the campfire with the boys and loaded with at least 3 or 4 beers. At that point, transfer by punch-cards would have seemed fast. Transfer speed wasn't my problem. It was my tipsy typing.

Tom

Zimtok · September 4, 2009

Here again is a topic that has pros and cons either way you do it, and the old "depends on your situation" thing to factor in as well....

Currently I have a 4Gig card in each of my cameras (40D and 50D) with three 2gig cards as backups. I am never in a hurry to get a shot. I often take a few minutes to delete the obviously unusable shots directly from my camera and then continue shooting. I don't have to swap cards very often.

I don't have a seperate card reader, but I do have a card reader in one of my HP photo printers.

I personely like the Canon download software how I can set it up to automaticly create a folder on my hard drive and name the files in sequential order, date them, and list the camera they were downloaded from.

Camera download vs. Card Reader?

Comments