PDA

View Full Version : From camera to computer



Newbie
10-03-2004, 03:23 PM
I was wondering how long it takes to transfer "x" number of pictures(in mb/gb) to your computer from your camera with a USB 1.1 thingy. From a compact Flash card, if that matters.

Realising how not everyone has the same card speed, same card size and everything. I am asking for your personnal experience, so if you could tell me the type of card you have(brand/speed) and its size. The card had to be full... or at least if you could give me an idea of speed per 100mb, it would be nice.

Rhys
10-03-2004, 06:08 PM
I was wondering how long it takes to transfer "x" number of pictures(in mb/gb) to your computer from your camera with a USB 1.1 thingy. From a compact Flash card, if that matters.

Realising how not everyone has the same card speed, same card size and everything. I am asking for your personnal experience, so if you could tell me the type of card you have(brand/speed) and its size. The card had to be full... or at least if you could give me an idea of speed per 100mb, it would be nice.

Full 128mb card 3 minutes
Full 256mb card 6 minutes

Firewire is a LOT faster than USB 1.1 or USB 2.0

Newbie
10-04-2004, 03:21 AM
I know firewire is faster, but I do not have that on my computer(do I ?)... Also, I don't think the camera I am interested in have it.

I was mainly asking cuz someone said it took about as long to download as to take the pics... Something which I find overly exagerated considering the numbers you have given me right there.

Rhys
10-04-2004, 06:30 AM
I know firewire is faster, but I do not have that on my computer(do I ?)... Also, I don't think the camera I am interested in have it.

I was mainly asking cuz someone said it took about as long to download as to take the pics... Something which I find overly exagerated considering the numbers you have given me right there.


Firewire is a card that can be put into your computer. It's really easy - buy the card, open the case, knock out the blank at the back of the case, plug the card into the corresponding card slot and then fasten the screw that holds the card to the case, close the case and you now have firewire.

All you need then is a firewire card reader and the dreadfully long transfer speeds I experience will disappear into seconds.

Plugging the camera in and transferring photos straight from the camera to the computer is a fine way to waste batteries and to whittle an afternoon away doing something not very productive.

judge9847
10-04-2004, 11:01 AM
Firewire is a card that can be put into your computer. It's really easy - buy the card, open the case, knock out the blank at the back of the case, plug the card into the corresponding card slot and then fasten the screw that holds the card to the case, close the case and you now have firewire.

All you need then is a firewire card reader and the dreadfully long transfer speeds I experience will disappear into seconds.

Plugging the camera in and transferring photos straight from the camera to the computer is a fine way to waste batteries and to whittle an afternoon away doing something not very productive.
True on the firewire setup but there will be many computers,mostly older ones running Windows 98 or older, that simply don't have the resources to handle it. Mine's included in that group.

And you gave in your first post:

"Full 128mb card 3 minutes
Full 256mb card 6 minutes"

as being the time needed to upload/transfer the images to a computer. I take it that's by USB cable from camera to computer? Would that be right? If so, it does seem to be at somewhat at odds with your comment about whittling away an afternoon doing it ... 6 minutes isn't that long a time surely? Or was that information not quite right ... ? ;)

See how easily I'm confused?

D70FAN
10-04-2004, 11:33 AM
Firewire is a card that can be put into your computer. It's really easy - buy the card, open the case, knock out the blank at the back of the case, plug the card into the corresponding card slot and then fasten the screw that holds the card to the case, close the case and you now have firewire.

All you need then is a firewire card reader and the dreadfully long transfer speeds I experience will disappear into seconds.

Plugging the camera in and transferring photos straight from the camera to the computer is a fine way to waste batteries and to whittle an afternoon away doing something not very productive.

For as much as I am a big fan of firewire (IEEE1394) there are very few reasonably priced readers that use firewire, and fewer laptops have firewire as well. I have found that a reasonably priced USB 2.0 High Speed (480Mb/sec.) reader is only slightly slower than firewire, and much easier to find.

Most computers (motherboards) with Windows XP installed are USB2.0 High Speed. Most after-market USB 2.0 PCI add-on cards have drivers for Win 98SE and newer.

If your system is older than that then you definately need to upgrade.

Rhys
10-04-2004, 12:13 PM
True on the firewire setup but there will be many computers,mostly older ones running Windows 98 or older, that simply don't have the resources to handle it. Mine's included in that group.

And you gave in your first post:

"Full 128mb card 3 minutes
Full 256mb card 6 minutes"

as being the time needed to upload/transfer the images to a computer. I take it that's by USB cable from camera to computer? Would that be right? If so, it does seem to be at somewhat at odds with your comment about whittling away an afternoon doing it ... 6 minutes isn't that long a time surely? Or was that information not quite right ... ? ;)

See how easily I'm confused?


That's from a USB 2.0 compliant Sandisk multi-card reader to a Windows ME based system of unkown vintage.

judge9847
10-04-2004, 02:10 PM
So, USB 2.0 transfers files at the rates you quoted. And you reckon that's the equivalent of whittling away an afternoon, waiting for nothing to happen ... boy, you must live your life at some pace :rolleyes:

Glad I'm not on your team :eek:

Newbie
10-06-2004, 08:42 AM
Ok, but I believe that most Canon cameras only support USB 1.1, so having USB 2.0 on your computer will not be any more useful than having 1.1 ?
Also, how does 2.0 compare with 1.1 ?

Edit: Also, how am I to know if my computer has USB 2.0 or 1.1 ?

judge9847
10-06-2004, 08:53 AM
Ok, but I believe that most Canon cameras only support USB 1.1, so having USB 2.0 on your computer will not be any more useful than having 1.1 ?
Also, how does 2.0 compare with 1.1 ?

Edit: Also, how am I to know if my computer has USB 2.0 or 1.1 ?
Yes, you're quite right: USB 2.0 does require both communicating devices to be compliant. If your camera is 1.1 (and I can't talk to the Canons being that way) and your PC is 2.0, the transfer rate will only be at 1.1 speed.

As for the difference, I believe that increases in speed of forty (40) times is claimed - 2.0 over 1.1 of course. I don't know if that's true but I do know that it is a truly significant performance enhancement.

Hope that helps.

D70FAN
10-06-2004, 05:01 PM
Ok, but I believe that most Canon cameras only support USB 1.1, so having USB 2.0 on your computer will not be any more useful than having 1.1 ?
Also, how does 2.0 compare with 1.1 ?

Edit: Also, how am I to know if my computer has USB 2.0 or 1.1 ?

Here is what you need:

1. A card reader that is USB 2.0 High Speed (480Mb/sec).

2. A computer that has USB 2.0 High Speed (480Mb/sec) ports

So now it doesn't matter which camera you use/buy. I have not used the on-camera USB plug on my digitals since USB 2.0 High Speed was introduced.

The actual transfer rate increase depends on the memory card, but even the slowest memory card will see an increase of about 4 to 5 times.

If your computer was built in the last year, it probably has USB 2.0 ports. If not then is is a simple matter of buying a USB 2.0 PCI board (for desktops) or a PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter for laptops. These run from about $10 to about $40, and are pretty much plug and play for Windows 2000 and XP. Genreally they will include a driver for Win98SE and ME as well. Win 95 does not support USB.

Hope this helps.

Rhys
10-06-2004, 05:50 PM
Here is what you need:

1. A card reader that is USB 2.0 High Speed (480Mb/sec).

2. A computer that has USB 2.0 High Speed (480Mb/sec) ports

So now it doesn't matter which camera you use/buy. I have not used the on-camera USB plug on my digitals since USB 2.0 High Speed was introduced.

The actual transfer rate increase depends on the memory card, but even the slowest memory card will see an increase of about 4 to 5 times.

If your computer was built in the last year, it probably has USB 2.0 ports. If not then is is a simple matter of buying a USB 2.0 PCI board (for desktops) or a PC Card (PCMCIA) adapter for laptops. These run from about $10 to about $40, and are pretty much plug and play for Windows 2000 and XP. Genreally they will include a driver for Win98SE and ME as well. Win 95 does not support USB.

Hope this helps.

The last edition of Windows 95 did actually have USB support although it didn't always work. Similarly NT4 can be made to support USB with an additional program.

judge9847
10-07-2004, 04:20 PM
The last edition of Windows 95 did actually have USB support although it didn't always work. Similarly NT4 can be made to support USB with an additional program.
Whilst that's true, the final edition of Win95 was OEM Service Release 2.5 version 4.03.1214 (4.00.950C).

It was never made available directly to the public at large either by way of download, update or purchase.

At the time, Microsoft recommended that if you had Win95 without USB support, and you wanted to use it, you upgraded to Windows98. I'm sure some will dismiss that as a simple marketing issue but that really was not the case. USB in Win95 was unreliable.

The first version of Win95 to support USB was OEM Service Release 2.1 which was, in perhaps typical Microsoft style, the immediate predecessor to SR2.5 :)

As for NT, it never natively supported USB in any way. However, there were many drivers written for it by OEMs so that their products could be used with NT Workstation. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being pedantic but hey, that's how I am :)

D70FAN
10-07-2004, 04:41 PM
Whilst that's true, the final edition of Win95 was OEM Service Release 2.5 version 4.03.1214 (4.00.950C).

It was never made available directly to the public at large either by way of download, update or purchase.

At the time, Microsoft recommended that if you had Win95 without USB support, and you wanted to use it, you upgraded to Windows98. I'm sure some will dismiss that as a simple marketing issue but that really was not the case. USB in Win95 was unreliable.

The first version of Win95 to support USB was OEM Service Release 2.1 which was, in perhaps typical Microsoft style, the immediate predecessor to SR2.5 :)

As for NT, it never natively supported USB in any way. However, there were many drivers written for it by OEMs so that their products could be used with NT Workstation. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being pedantic but hey, that's how I am :)

Actually, from the home user standpoint Win95 does not support USB, and I have a feeling that very few home users ever knew about NT, except that windows 2000 was powered by it. Pendantic? Ha! :D

Rhys
10-08-2004, 02:29 AM
Actually, from the home user standpoint Win95 does not support USB, and I have a feeling that very few home users ever knew about NT, except that windows 2000 was powered by it. Pendantic? Ha! :D

Most home users were conned by Microsoft into thinking that Windows 3.1/95/98/SE/ME was a worthwhile operating system. Business users had NT then 2000 and XP. It was only because Linux became more popular with its Windows-styled user interface that Microfost decided to make its pro software available to home users. They didn't fancy being driven out of business by a superior product. Thus they took XP and castrated it to produce XP home. Those of us who have been around computers for a while I'm sure will have either a Mac, Windows 2000 or XP Professional and won't have fallen for XP (castrated).

Basically, W3.1-ME were built on top of MSDOS. That was their major flaw. NT4,5,5.1 (NT, 2000, XP respectively) were based on a totally different technology. I gather XP uses DCOM extensively.

I never had a crash that I didn't cause with Linux, NT or XP. Windows 95 crashed 4 times daily and 98 will crash daily.

But.. I'd say that if anybody wants to change from Win 95 then NT and an OEM USB driver is the way to go - particularly on older systems.

judge9847
10-08-2004, 05:55 AM
Most home users were conned by Microsoft into thinking that Windows 3.1/95/98/SE/ME was a worthwhile operating system. Business users had NT then 2000 and XP. It was only because Linux became more popular with its Windows-styled user interface that Microfost decided to make its pro software available to home users. They didn't fancy being driven out of business by a superior product. Thus they took XP and castrated it to produce XP home. Those of us who have been around computers for a while I'm sure will have either a Mac, Windows 2000 or XP Professional and won't have fallen for XP (castrated).

Basically, W3.1-ME were built on top of MSDOS. That was their major flaw. NT4,5,5.1 (NT, 2000, XP respectively) were based on a totally different technology. I gather XP uses DCOM extensively.

I never had a crash that I didn't cause with Linux, NT or XP. Windows 95 crashed 4 times daily and 98 will crash daily.

But.. I'd say that if anybody wants to change from Win 95 then NT and an OEM USB driver is the way to go - particularly on older systems.
I wonder if this is really the place to expound such personal views about Microsoft and what you clearly see as its inadequacies? Additionally, to litter a statement like yours with what are at best misunderstandings, along with a deal of inaccurate and/or misleading information, is not, I feel, what we should be doing here.

There are many forums and usenet groups around the internet where such things can be said and where subscribers will listen. Perhaps it's best to use them.

In the meantime, George is completely correct: most home users would never have heard of NT, an operating system that Microsoft hasn't produced in years and not even supported for a long while now. Recommending its use to anyone these days would be simply asking for trouble on all sorts of fronts.

Rhys
10-08-2004, 08:56 AM
I wonder if this is really the place to expound such personal views about Microsoft and what you clearly see as its inadequacies? Additionally, to litter a statement like yours with what are at best misunderstandings, along with a deal of inaccurate and/or misleading information, is not, I feel, what we should be doing here.

There are many forums and usenet groups around the internet where such things can be said and where subscribers will listen. Perhaps it's best to use them.

In the meantime, George is completely correct: most home users would never have heard of NT, an operating system that Microsoft hasn't produced in years and not even supported for a long while now. Recommending its use to anyone these days would be simply asking for trouble on all sorts of fronts.

Bob. I am a computer expert. Software and operating systems are what I do.

NT4 remains an operating system I will always recommend to anybody running a 400mhz or less system. Linux is OK but it's not as intercompatible as Windows.

judge9847
10-08-2004, 09:28 AM
Bob. I am a computer expert. Software and operating systems are what I do.

NT4 remains an operating system I will always recommend to anybody running a 400mhz or less system. Linux is OK but it's not as intercompatible as Windows.
As an "expert" in that case, do you think it wise to talk to an operating system that is no longer commerically available; an operating system for which Microsoft stopped technical support over two years past; an operating system that by and large would not, could not today support their digital cameras and which would, almost certainly, not run many of the leisure type applications that people use their home computers for?

YOU may be the "expert" that can handle and develop and change the OS so that it does all these things in which case that's fine. But the vast majority of people who use this site to gain an insight into their digital camera needs, wants and queries, most certainly would not have that expertise. NT does not, even with a whole raft of Service Packs, support many of the programs that users will be using on their home PCs. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

As an "expert" then, you should be able to recognise the factual errors in your original post and correct them. I'll leave that up to you but in the mean time, as someone who has been deeply involved with computers for just a few months short of 25 years and who is in the process of finally winding up his own computer services company, this is my last word in this thread.

Rhys
10-08-2004, 10:27 AM
As an "expert" in that case, do you think it wise to talk to an operating system that is no longer commerically available; an operating system for which Microsoft stopped technical support over two years past; an operating system that by and large would not, could not today support their digital cameras and which would, almost certainly, not run many of the leisure type applications that people use their home computers for?

YOU may be the "expert" that can handle and develop and change the OS so that it does all these things in which case that's fine. But the vast majority of people who use this site to gain an insight into their digital camera needs, wants and queries, most certainly would not have that expertise. NT does not, even with a whole raft of Service Packs, support many of the programs that users will be using on their home PCs. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

As an "expert" then, you should be able to recognise the factual errors in your original post and correct them. I'll leave that up to you but in the mean time, as someone who has been deeply involved with computers for just a few months short of 25 years and who is in the process of finally winding up his own computer services company, this is my last word in this thread.

Only 25 years? I've been in computers since before the days of the Commodore PET and that's more years than I care to remember.

As I said, I recommend NT to anybody with an aged computer system. Incidentally elderly computer systems are no longer supported either.