PDA

View Full Version : Digital card readers, are they really needed?



Cerwin Vega Fan
08-28-2004, 05:39 PM
Do you use one?

Rhys
08-29-2004, 05:56 AM
Do you use one?

Yes. They're very convenient. I never use camera-manufacturer's software - just the card reader. It means I'm not wasting camera batteries when I'm transferring data and the data transfer rate is higher.

speaklightly
08-29-2004, 07:02 AM
If your PC uses Windows 95/98, Windows ME, or Windows 2000, the need for a chip reader is more vital because those operating systems have a very difficult time indeed identifying the attached digital camera.

Fo Windows XP itis more for speed than to assist in identification of the camera. In every case, a card reader offers speed, which can be up to 40 times faster on the older operating systems, and convenience. The download does not require your digital camera to swing over to the downloading mode and most importantly, as Rhys, mentioned, battery power from the digital camera is not utilized for the operation, which can be lengthly on a Windows 95/98 operating system.

Sarah Joyce

judge9847
08-29-2004, 07:37 AM
In a very short while, I've come to respect Sarah Joyce's views about everything. She's certainly seen - and done - an awful lot to do with all things "digicam".

But I have to disagree about Windows 98! I've got the drivers of three (soon to be four) cameras on my PC, each using the FinePix viewing software of the first Fuji to get attached.

I've not had a single problem with any and the loading of the images is fine. It might be a bit slow but then that's the age of the PC (an original PIII running at only 450mhz) and nothing to do with the drivers or viewing software.

I did make sure though that I didn't load any of the software, other than the drivers, that came with the cameras. That may have saved any problems I might otherwise have had.

Hope that helps a bit more.

Edited:
Oh and I should have said that my experience with two cameras involving several thousand images now is that battery consumption uploading images really isn't a problem. I do make a point though of uploading the images first, switching off the camera and then viewing them from the directory they were saved to. That does save any demands on the battery that viewing directly from the card might make.

speaklightly
08-29-2004, 01:44 PM
Bob-

You caught me! I was attempting to give a rather generalized reply. Fuji brand digital cameras used in conjunstion with Fuji software do quite well on the earlier Windows operating systems. However, the Fuji cameras are the exception. Unfortunately, there are a lot of "other" brand digital cameras that don't fare very well at all with Windows 95/98.

Bob, all of you will soon have a rest from Sarah. As a professional digital camera lecturer, my 6 week vacation is about to end and I must go back to work. We head out on a 4 1/2 month contract this coming Wednesday. Thanks for your nice comments.

Sarah Joyce

propwash
08-30-2004, 07:06 PM
Sarah Joyce,

I, for one, will miss you on this forum. I have come to respect your usual objective comments about many digital cameras. Have fun on your tour, and we'll be looking for you upon your return!

djsanderson
07-30-2005, 05:55 PM
I use a digital card reader because it's so simple. I have one that will automatically ask if I want to upload my photos to my web site and it puts the photos on my computer and even asks if I want to clear the card. Pretty good software huh?

Rhys
07-30-2005, 06:59 PM
I hope people realise that under Windows 95, only a seriel port card reader can be used as Windows 95 can't access the USB port (like NT4 can't without 3rd party software)

Clyde
07-30-2005, 08:35 PM
Yes. They're very convenient. I never use camera-manufacturer's software - just the card reader. It means I'm not wasting camera batteries when I'm transferring data and the data transfer rate is higher.

Of course Rhys is quite right, but there is another reason to use a card reader.

If the battery on your camera should happen to run dry while you are transferring, there is a risk of losing pictures, and getting a new-thread-generating formatting problem in your memory card.

Card readers are cheap, and save the wear and tear on your camera from the constant plugging and unplugging cables.

Clyde

TheObiJuan
07-30-2005, 08:41 PM
I got one for free on FM that I use from time to time.
It's handy to have just in case, but I like the way breezebrowser makes a folder and puts the file in chron. order. It allows me to quickly go back and find 'em.

james_sky
07-31-2005, 02:38 PM
Card readers are cheap, and save the wear and tear on your camera from the constant plugging and unplugging cables.

As opposed to the wear & tear on the camera and the card reader removing and inserting the card? I'm not sure which is worse. True, the rubber flap covering the A/V Out jack will probably wear out.

-- James.

fnoel
08-01-2005, 09:43 AM
Of course Rhys is quite right, but there is another reason to use a card reader.

If the battery on your camera should happen to run dry while you are transferring, there is a risk of losing pictures, and getting a new-thread-generating formatting problem in your memory card.

Card readers are cheap, and save the wear and tear on your camera from the constant plugging and unplugging cables.

Clyde
Wow. I never thought of that. I always say when it comes to cameras and stuff I have to be the biggest idiot alive. Probably why I lost a lot of pictures of the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago. I guess I will have to make a card reader one next purchases.

cdifoto
08-01-2005, 10:02 AM
My printer has a card reader built into it, and the printer is on my desk next to my monitor. There's no reason NOT to use it. The same USB cord is used for the printer and built-in card reader...so no extra ports are wasted.

ekk
08-01-2005, 05:04 PM
i myself use a usb card reader. more convenient for me to just take out the CF card and then put in the reader. :)

plus i also have another small reader that i have in the bag to transfer pictures to my mp3 player that has a 20gb HD on it when the CF card gets full. and no its not an ipod :p

ReF
08-02-2005, 08:10 PM
this was my reply in a similar thread from not long ago:

i definately recommend a card reader if you are transfering large amounts of data. those built in card readers on the front face of most computers are really slow. it takes 19minutes to download a 1gig sandisk ultra card, while the card reader plugged into a USB2 port does it in 2minutes. big diff, huh? since my camera isn't plugged into the computer while downloading pics, i have the camera is ready to shoot anything that comes up (i have pets doing odd things all the time). i also use it like a thumb drive, allowing quick and easy transfering of data between computers.

one time, i went camping and had limited battery life for a few days (no place to charge) so using the camera to download pics wasn't an option. i used the card reader to offload my pics onto a friend's 3 year old laptop which at least had USB 1.1. very useful device.