Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
USB card reader v camera cable.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 9 next> last>>
Aug 12, 2019 07:01:23   #
ggenova64
 
Longshadow wrote:
Typically the transfer from camera via the cable is slower than transferring from a card.
I always transfer from the card. Once the files have been backed up, I delete the images on the card via Windows Explorer.


I never delete the images on the card via any Computers Operating System! (OS) I download the photos to the computer via wifi and than reformat the card in camera.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:05:06   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
ggenova64 wrote:
I never delete the images on the card via any Computers Operating System! (OS) I download the photos to the computer via wifi and than reformat the card in camera.

I've been deleting via the computer for ten years, never a problem.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:07:17   #
greg14
 
I use the cable because of the negatives referred to already.
Not being a Professional, most of my downloads are in the 30-100 images except for once a year road trips.

I purchased a Nikon Z6 and because of the updates require a new card reader, for the XQD, I purchased one.
We went on vacation and took 100's of pictures that I used the card reader to use as a B/U to download to my laptop, I did not bring the cable.
Well, The XQD card that came with the camera (120 GB Delkin) as a Bonus worked but the Sony 64GB that I purchased as an additional safety measure and/or separate location use did not work as the card reader was not a Sony.
While I had no safety issues with lost images had I simply brought the cable instead of the card reader, there would have been a lot less anxiety, LLOL

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2019 07:07:55   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
johneccles wrote:
I always use the USB lead to transfer photographs from my camera to the PC.
My reason for this that the less an SD card is handled the safer your photos will be.
When an SD card is removed from a camera and inserted into a reader you increase risk corrupting the card by four times, far too risky in my opinion.

I think that's just chatter. I've had the cards in and out of the camera a million times in the past ten years and never had a single problem. Where did you get the "four times" the chances of corrupting the card???
I seriously doubt from a component engineer.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:10:54   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Longshadow wrote:
I've been deleting via the computer for ten years, never a problem.

and as long as you don't purchase a camera bothered by the extra folder(s) created by the computer, you won't have any issues.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:14:54   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
rehess wrote:
and as long as you don't purchase a camera bothered by the extra folder(s) created by the computer, you won't have any issues.

My computer does not create <any> "extra" folders.
I don't format it on the computer, I format it in the camera, once, when I first use the card.
Deleting files on the computer does not create any folders.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:20:08   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Longshadow wrote:
My computer does not create <any> "extra" folders.

Are you sure of that? I know that both Windows and Linux create a .Trash {or something similar} folder to hold items that have been moved to "Trash" but not yet truly deleted - any system with that kind of capability needs something like that to do the bookkeeping, but those directories aren't shown in normal display.

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2019 07:36:43   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
buckscop wrote:
Not the hottest topic here, but am interested in the answer. Is downloading the camera to a PC/tablet faster with a USB reader, or using the cable that came with the camera (Canon)? Some of my larger shooting sessions (200ish) photos, takes awhile with the cable. USB also seems easier to bring along on trips versus the cable. The USB reader would almost be 'universal' . Just wondering what the UHH crowd prefers.


Hooking the camera up by cable uses lots of camera battery power, especially during post processing. My preference has always been using a card reader.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:39:43   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
I use a card reader—never had a problem.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:40:35   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
buckscop wrote:
Not the hottest topic here, but am interested in the answer. Is downloading the camera to a PC/tablet faster with a USB reader, or using the cable that came with the camera (Canon)? Some of my larger shooting sessions (200ish) photos, takes awhile with the cable. USB also seems easier to bring along on trips versus the cable. The USB reader would almost be 'universal' . Just wondering what the UHH crowd prefers.


If your computer has a USB 3 or 3.1 port and your camera is only USB 2, a card reader will be a lot faster, especially if you have fast cards. I have always had concerns about the USB port in the camera - it is small, and relatively fragile. I've broken USB connectors on card readers, and when it has happened, I can get a replacement reader for about $20. It would be a different story if the camera's port got damaged. I now use an IO Gear USB 3.1 reader that has the same form factor as a USB memory stick - so no cables.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 07:47:24   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
robertjerl wrote:
Lets see, how about one slot only takes one type of card but it will read every model and speed variation released up to this year, if you count each of those as a different card and multiply by the 7 slots you could get up to 72 fairly easy with 7.


Could be. It probably addressed that in the directions that came with it, that I never read, of course!

Reply
 
 
Aug 12, 2019 07:53:44   #
mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma
 
I just plug the card into my laptop. No muss, no fuss

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 08:02:28   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
rehess wrote:
Are you sure of that? I know that both Windows and Linux create a .Trash {or something similar} folder to hold items that have been moved to "Trash" but not yet truly deleted - any system with that kind of capability needs something like that to do the bookkeeping, but those directories aren't shown in normal display.

No, no "trash" folder.
I have Windows Explorer set to display "hidden" files/folders.
I only have the folders that the camera creates.

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 08:10:20   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Longshadow wrote:
No, no "trash" folder.
I have Windows Explorer set to display "hidden" files/folders.
I only have the folders that the camera creates.


Every version of Windows has a trash folder. When you delete something, unless you hit shift/delete, it goes into the trash until you empty it. If you have never emptied it you probably have thousands of files sitting there.

On some systems it shows as a waste basket on the desk top. On very old versions it may show as a folder called "deleted items".

If you delete from a card or camera that is plugged into the computer they probably are gone, without first going into the trash.

----

Reply
Aug 12, 2019 08:11:40   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Longshadow wrote:
No, no "trash" folder.
I have Windows Explorer set to display "hidden" files/folders.
I only have the folders that the camera creates.

Jan-Jun I had a Linux desktop and a Win7 Laptop. When I used one system to read a card that the other had deleted files in, I could see the extra directory. Windows changes actual methods very slowly, so I would be surprised if they stopped using that hidden directory - besides I doubt if they use magic to implement trash - but you can believe what you want.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.