Should I buy a SD Card Reader or a USB cable?

[rshake20]

I bought a Kodak EasyShare CX7430 digital camera at a pawn shop yesterday.It works but it doesn't come with a USB cable. I've been looking on a lot of websites and the USB cables cost like $20.I went to WalMart and I saw some SD Card Readers for $10. Do you think that I should buy a SD Card Reader? I took some pictures and I recorded some video but I can't put these files on my computer.

[David Metsky]

A USB card reader is definitely the way to go. It's a no brainer, IMO.

[gjtoth]

It depends on where the slot for the card is on your camera. If you can access the batteries and card with it mounted on the tripod -- then, card reader. But, if you mount your camera and then have to remove it from the tripod just to access the card -- then, USB cable. Depending on what type of access door you have (like Nikon and Kodak both have a slide-and-lift door) you may want to get a USB cable because those doors are fragile. Especially, when you're in a hurry to change things out and you accidentally hit the door with your hand and snap it off. One other thing to keep in mind: not all computers and operating systems will recognize the reader inside the camera. MOST operatings systems and computers WILL recognize a card reader. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[bascom]

I'd rather use a USB cable so I don't need to fiddle with the memory card every time I transfer photos.

[David Metsky]

Really? I find it much easier to pull the memory card from the camera then to run the cable from my camera to the computer. Since I have multiple cards I'd have to play with them and the camera anyways.

Besides, this is a pawn shop camera, it may last it may not. A proprietary cable will be junk if this camera dies - a card reader will always work, assuming you still have the right memory cards.

Card readers are usually faster to transfer as well.

[bascom]

I prefer USB because Mem cards can get bent or dirty which will make them not work. Finger prints are bad on the contacts.

[TheWengler]

I leave the cable plugged into my computer so all I have to do is open up the I/O door and plug it in. I leave the card reader in my bag in case I need it while away from my computer.

[K1W1]

Using a USB cable to transfer images has the following disadvantages;
* It is often slower than a card reader
* It drains the camera batteries at an increased rate
* It exposes the camera to a risk (a small one but one nevertheless) to getting a zap and being destroyed by a faulty USB port on the PC
* You run the risk of damaging what is often a fragile USB connection port on many cameras and rendering the camera useless.

Using a card reader has the following disadvantages;
* You might drop the card between the camera and the reader and have to bend over to pick it up
* You might damage the card door on the camera.

I have never once connected a camera to a PC with a USB cable for the purpose of transferring images.

[photography555]

I would definitely say a card reader. It is much faster.
Here is a really cheap card reader: http://cgi.ebay.com/4-IN-1-USB-2-0-MEMORY-CARD-READER-WRITER-SD-MMC-XD-MS_W0QQitemZ130174377483QQihZ003QQcategoryZ43450QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I have one and it works great. It actually works with Macs too.

[D Thompson]

Really? I find it much easier to pull the memory card from the camera then to run the cable from my camera to the computer. Since I have multiple cards I'd have to play with them and the camera anyways.

Besides, this is a pawn shop camera, it may last it may not. A proprietary cable will be junk if this camera dies - a card reader will always work, assuming you still have the right memory cards.

Card readers are usually faster to transfer as well.

^^^what he said^^^

[tim11]

I prefer USB because Mem cards can get bent or dirty which will make them not work. Finger prints are bad on the contacts.

I'd rather have a bent card than a fried up camera. USB contact suffer wear and tear from usage. Plus I can't find the right USB cable amongst the many cameras I have, (I also have one Canon and one Kodak for the kids.).

[bascom]

Using a USB cable to transfer images has the following disadvantages;
* It is often slower than a card reader
* It drains the camera batteries at an increased rate
* It exposes the camera to a risk (a small one but one nevertheless) to getting a zap and being destroyed by a faulty USB port on the PC
* You run the risk of damaging what is often a fragile USB connection port on many cameras and rendering the camera useless.

Using a card reader has the following disadvantages;
* You might drop the card between the camera and the reader and have to bend over to pick it up
* You might damage the card door on the camera.

I have never once connected a camera to a PC with a USB cable for the purpose of transferring images.
The USB cable I use transfers at USB 2,0 speed which I think is 480 mps. That seems very fast. How fast can a card reader go? I thought 480 mps was the fastest speed there is now.

I haven't noticed the battery drain. My photos transfer fast and then I turn off the camera so the drain seems negligible.

If the USB connection port gets damaged, why does that make the camera useless? If that happens then you can use a card reader for transfers.

I wasn't aware of the risk of damaging the camera from a faulty USB port. That is worth considering but as you said that risk is probably quite small.

Your list of disadvantages for a card reader excluded possible damage to the card.

[bascom]

I'd rather have a bent card than a fried up camera. USB contact suffer wear and tear from usage.
OK good point. If you look at it that way, that a card reader exposes your camera to less risk from a faulty USB connection, then a card reader makes sense. But I have to question how likely it is to encounter bad USB connections and how often USB cables gets damaged from wear and tear. My cable still seems good as new.

[David Metsky]

I've never had a card damaged from removing or handling it. SD cards are better in this regard then CF cards. (Well, the problem with CF cards isn't the card but the slot, which can get bent pins.) It's pretty hard to damage an SD card.

When I shoot I end up using multiple cards anyways, so they get removed all the time. Using the camera doesn't save me anything in that case.

[tim11]

bascom,

While a damage camera from faulty USB is rare how often in these many forums that you see threads such as 'Why I can't upload my image to the computer?'. You can either spend hours trying to pinpoint the problem or get a round about quick fix which is a card reader.
That's another advantage of card reader.

Even if the risk of wear and tear from USB usage is small, I see the card reader is most convenience, I can fit it in my pocket and take wherever I go, and I only need one for the many cameras I have. As for the USB cables, I still have to find 2 cameras that share the same one yet.

[fotogmarc]

Card readers are faster. However there is a good point for the USB; if you want to update software, firmware, etc. a USB cable is necessary.
I don't know if Kodak has a unique cable compared to other brands, but they're all standard. You can probably find one for very cheap, if not free. Every camera comes with one as well as other connectable equipment (cell phones, MP3 players).
Between Canon, Olympus, Toshiba, Motorola, IRiver, they all had the same cable. Frankly, I don't even check any more whose cable is whose and have not had any problems.
Just to make sure I connected my Canon G3 with the Motorola cable(cell phone) before posting and everything worked fine.

New info:
Just found the cable you need on Ebay $2.99
http://cgi.ebay.com/USB-CABLE-for-KODAK-easyshare-CX-7525-7300-7430-camera_W0QQitemZ280174882266QQihZ018QQcategoryZ886 60QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Twister]

I don't think you need the USB cable for a firmware upgrade. With most cameras you just put the firmware file on a memory card and start the camera.

Anyway, my vote goes for the card reader. It's much faster and more convenient. Especially the USB stick type adapters like the Hama 6in1 (http://dcareview.flashmemorytoolkit.com/cardreaders2/Hama-6in1/Hama-6in1.html).

[bascom]

Some of you said the USB port on the camera can get damaged by using the USB cable, but it would seem the memory card connections of a camera can likewise get damaged if you keep taking out and putting in a memory card to use in a reader. If that gets damaged and your camera can't record to a memory card, then the camera is useless.

Regarding speed, from what I've read some card readers are the same as USB 2.0 cables at 480 mps, but some are faster than 480 mps.

That said, I didn't know some card readers have faster transfer rates than USB cables, and that they are so cheap and small. So I bought one at Radio Shack this week, the Digital Concepts SD card reader, normally $13 on sale for $10 plus a $5 rebate reduces it to $5. For people like me who sometimes download photos at PC's that aren't at their home, using a reader is a very convenient, affordable way to do it. Instead of carrying my camera and cable with me, I can just carry my reader with the card in it.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2280578&cp=2032055.2032127.2032133&pg=1&searchSort=TRUE&retainProdsInSession=1&y=8&x=11&s=A-StorePrice-RSK&parentPage=family

[AZImmortal]

480 Mbit/s is only the nominal maximum speed that the USB 2.0 bus can operate at. Actual operating speeds are determined by the reading device (camera or card reader) and the memory card itself, and cameras are usually much slower than dedicated card readers. The USB cable being used doesn't factor into the speed equation as long as it's not faulty.