Is download via USB faster than via parallet?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Imaging Resource Discussion : One Thread

I've narrowed my search for a first digicam to two models, the Canon S20 or Olympus 2020. I had thought that a USB camera would download photos faster than a card reader attached to a parallel port. I'm reading conflicting opinions on that. Which is faster? Of course, there are card readers that attach to USB port. If USB is faster, then I assume a USB card reader is as fast as a direct download from a camera with USB connection?

Thanks, Robert

-- Robert (broeux@home.com), April 17, 2000

Answers

Hi, robert,

I own a Kodak DC220 camera. It supports both USB and Parallel port. I compared them. And the USB download speed is at least 10 times faster than parallel. I don't have any card readers. So I'm not sure about your second question. But I believe USB should be much faster.

Xin

-- Xin Xie (xiexi99@yahoo.com), April 17, 2000.


Real world tests have proven they're about the same speed, if you've got modern parallel ports (ECP/EPP). The theorhetically larger bandwidth of USB doesn't help as much as you'd think because no single device is allowed to use it all.

So choose based on which is easier/cheaper for you.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), April 17, 2000.


The DC220 mentioned in the above reply has SERIAL & USB connections, not parallel port connections! I think they meant USB is 10X's faster than serial transfers... Actually, both Parallel and USB are about 100x's faster than 57.6Kbaud serial.

It's really a toss up, with USB often edging parallel out by no more than 10-20%. That may seem like a lot, but in practical terms you're talking about speeds like this:

Serial 8MB smartmedia card 24+ MINUTES @ 57,600 bits/sec.

Serial 8MB smartmedia card 12+ MINUTES @ 115,200 bits/sec.

Parallel 8MB smartmedia card 15 SECONDS! @ 550 KBYTES/sec.

So, if USB is only 10-20% faster than parallel in actual practice(forget the advertised 1200KBYTE/SEC HYPE!) it's not a very big deal. The real speed jump is in leaving serial transfers behind for PARALLEL OR USB!

I actually have USB on my Toshiba PDR-M5, but don't have USB ports on the Amity CN laptop I'm using and haven't bothered to install them on my office tower system. Actually, I ordered a $37 smartmedia to pcmcia adapter the other day so I can just pluck the smartmedia out of my camera and download it on my Amity while filling another on the camera. The adapter should be faster than either Parallel or USB transfers and means I can easily take my 2 lb. Amity nearly anywhere and take about as many photos as I like by dumping cards to it's 4GB drive! Not to mention getting a better look at the results or being able to correct them and dump them to a printer whenever I get near one or connect up and email them anywhere I like.

I think properly implemented USB is a great thing, but so many people seem to have trouble with it that it seems as annoying as serial in many cases. Me, I like simple. Simple, and FAST, is even better!

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), April 17, 2000.


Thanks, all, for your help. I have a follow-up question. Do you know if some brands of card readers are faster than others, as a function, for example, of their software? In other words, can you recommend a good, reasonably priced SM/CF card reader that gets the job done?

Thanks, again.

-- Robert (broeux@home.com), April 17, 2000.


The only reader I have direct experience with is the Lexar Digital Film Reader. Mine is a parallel port version and works fine with either my tower PC or laptop. The 550KB/sec rate mentioned above is from using it on my parallel port set for EPP or ECP. I have the smartmedia version. I believe they make a compactflash version, as well. They're available for under $40 on the web.

I know there are several manufacturers that make dual media versions. I'd have to assume that pretty much all of them operate at about the same speed, with perhaps a slight performance difference depending on your processor speed or how many programs are running at once. It's probably really not very critical. As an extreme example, consider that a 128MB media card would transfer in about 4 minutes. That's barely enough time to go get that cup of coffee or tea you're going to need to keep you awake while sorting through or editing 128MB of images... ;-) On the other hand, if they're all 5-9MB tifs I can see your need for speed. Of course, then I'd be recommending a 340MB microdrive and reader for it. I have a friend who recently bought a Nikon D1, and wonder if he got his downloading problem sorted out yet?

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), April 17, 2000.



Gerald, the MicroDrive option is one of the prime reasons I'm considering the Canon S20. Do you know if there are significant differences between the 340MB MicroDrive and, say, a 64MB SM card, when it comes to (a) writing photos to the drive, and (b) downloading them to the PC?

Thanks.

-- Robert (broeux@home.com), April 18, 2000.


I'd do a forum search for "microdrive" and see what turns up. I recall other "conversations" regarding power requirements, speed, etc. I think Dave's review of the Casio has the bottom line as he sees it. Not having a Casio, or any CF based equipment, I haven't really followed the issue that closely, but do remember the references I mentioned just above.

It seems to me that even though the microdrive is very tiny, and probably very rugged due to the requisite low mass components, it's still a mechanical device which is both more likely to fail and more likely to consume greater current while operating. But, I wouldn't worry too much about the failure aspects as you're probably more likely to win the lottery than mess it up without a lot of abuse. Chances are good that you'd have to drop it from a serious height or jar it in an extreme manner while it was operating to do any damage. Such abuse would likely render your camera a relatively large pile of junk as well.

I'd like greater storage like everyone else, but I think paying outrageous prices for it is silly unless you just have money to burn. Digital camera memory has almost become the "new inkjet ink"... I'm still using three 8MB, and one 4MB, smartmedia cards. I'll admit that they're a bit tiny with a 2+MP camera, but still manageable. I think most people could get along quite nicely with two cards large enough to store between 20-40 high res, low compression shots and swapping them in and out while shooting. While using one, you dump the other to the PC or laptop if you're on the road. Consider that I spent about $550 for my Amity mini-laptop, brand new, and upgraded it to a 4GB hard drive and added another 16MB of RAM for about another $150 total. So, I have about $700 in it and can dump oodles of images into it and even toss the crummy ones by viewing them on it's larger screen. The microdrive may only cost around $350-$400, but it can't hold a tenth as many images, and once it's full you're back to square one until you dump it anyhow! And you can't access the internet with a microdrive... ;-)

OKAY, honesty time. If I was made of the stuff, I'd have the microdrive, or two, a Nikon D1, and the laptop... and a shiny new red Maseratti to carry it all around. :-) Man, if I'm that bad now, wait'll I hit that mid-life crisis.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), April 18, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ