Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Memory Cards, Microdrives, Card Readers (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/memory-cards-microdrives-card-readers-51/)
-   -   card reader or camera AC adapter? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/memory-cards-microdrives-card-readers/35532-card-reader-camera-ac-adapter.html)

mattki Oct 12, 2004 7:47 PM

I just got a Kodak DX6490 digital camera. I would like opinions on using a card reader to transfer the pictures to my computer? or should I purchase the cameras AC adapter, and use the camera to transfer the pictures? Also should I reformat the card in the camera? or use the card reader and computer? I have read on the Internet that the computer and the camera use two different methods to do the reformatting, and that the methods are not compatible. Which is the best way to go? Thanks, Matt

Mikefellh Oct 12, 2004 8:33 PM

1) I prefer using the reader over the camera because the reader is usually faster than the camera connection. Also there's less risk of frying the camera with the USB connection.

2) When it comes to transferring files, I COPY, not MOVE the files...this way there's no writing to the card unlike a MOVE command which deletes files as you go...in the case of your computer locking up, or a brownout, you would still have all your pictures on your card and there's less chance of corrupting a card. I only erase the pictures (using the camera's erase/format function) AFTER I make sure they were transferred properly.

3) Format ONLY in the camera. Computers, especially XP, can corrupt cards.

I should add that I haven't lost a picture in two years in following this proceedure.

PeterP Oct 12, 2004 8:45 PM

Yup, I agree 100% with Mikefellh, That is exactly what I have been doing and not a failure yet. And dedicated readers can be USB 2.0, don't know of many P&S that have more that usb 1.1 in them.

:-)Bet I just jinxed that:-)knocking self on head to avert evil jinx.

Having the power adapter for your camera is not a bad thing as it lets you work "in studio mode" without having to worry about batteries running out.

BillDrew Oct 13, 2004 5:44 AM

Either direct USB or a card reader will work just fine. The direct USB connection to the camera is (generally) much slower, but is safer for your memory since handling is the major cause of failure. If you are carefull, that isn't a big issue. If you are not carefull, you are likely to have problems whichever way you do it. I use the camera's USB connection and haven't had a problem in four years.

If you have another use for an AC adapter (studio), I'd suggest starting with using the camera's USB connection. If the slow transfer really bugs you after doing that for a while, then get a card reader.

Pay very close attention to Mikefellh's last two points. Doing otherwise is one of common sources of problems.
Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:

1) I prefer using the reader over the camera because the reader is usually faster than the camera connection. Also there's less risk of frying the camera with the USB connection.

2) When it comes to transferring files, I COPY, not MOVE the files...this way there's no writing to the card unlike a MOVE command which deletes files as you go...in the case of your computer locking up, or a brownout, you would still have all your pictures on your card and there's less chance of corrupting a card. I only erase the pictures (using the camera's erase/format function) AFTER I make sure they were transferred properly.

3) Format ONLY in the camera. Computers, especially XP, can corrupt cards.

I should add that I haven't lost a picture in two years in following this proceedure.

Stevekin Oct 13, 2004 3:11 PM

I concur with the above advice, and, while i DO NOT recommend trying this at home, this little crumb of comfort comes from the October 2004 (issue 14) of a publication here in the U.K. called Better Digital Photography (same stable as What Digital Camera for those of you in the U.K.)

I quote :

"Worried about losing your pictures if something happens to your memory cards? Recent research by Digital Camera Shopper suggests you should rest easy as most memory cards were found to be virtually indestructible.

Five memory card formats - CompactFlash, Secure Digital, xD, Memory Stick and Smartmedia- survived being boiled, trampled, washed and dunked and left in hot coffee or cola. They were also put through the washing machine, trampled by a skateboard, run over by a child's toy car and being given to a six year old boy to destroy (by jumping, biting, throwing, kicking,scraping and bending).

Even some of the thinner cards that appeared to be fragile fared well in the tests, though most cards did fail to get through two additional tortures-- being smashed by a sledgehammer and nailed to a tree. Even then, data experts Ontrack Data Recovery were able to retrieve photos from the xD and Smartmedia cards!

Each of the tested cards was loaded with the same 14 images totalling a little over 6MB. Five of them were single colour canvasses in red, green, blue, black and white, eight were ordinary shots taken at two or three megapixels, and the last was a copy of the old BBC test card."



No info on brand, speed or capacity, but i for one, while still being careful, will not be frightened to handle my Lexar cf cards anymore.



KueH Oct 15, 2004 9:22 AM

LOL, one test they didn't try is put the cards in the middle of carbon arc light.

But seriously, make sure you don't have a stored static electrical charge when playing with your memory cards. Touch wood ......... er grounded metal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2