I went firewire - as suggested.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eatmorepies, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. Eatmorepies

    Eatmorepies Guest

    A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    faster - advice followed.

    I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    reader (£24from Misco).

    Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.

    Thanks for the info.

    John
    Eatmorepies, Jul 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eatmorepies

    Gladiator Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
    <> wrote:

    >A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    >faster - advice followed.
    >
    >I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    >reader (£24from Misco).
    >
    >Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    >card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    >at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.
    >
    >Thanks for the info.
    >
    >John
    >
    >

    Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    speed.
    Gladiator, Jul 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eatmorepies

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > speed.


    Only theoretically. In real-world performance, firewire blows USB 2.0
    away.

    steve
    Steve Wolfe, Jul 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Eatmorepies

    SMS Guest

    Gladiator wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    >> faster - advice followed.
    >>
    >> I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    >> reader (£24from Misco).
    >>
    >> Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    >> card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    >> at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the info.
    >>
    >> John
    >>
    >>

    > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > speed.


    It depends on a lot of things.

    If you read Rob Galbraith's page at
    "http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8462" Firewire
    readers performed great on the Mac, not so great on the PC. USB 2.0
    performed better on the PC than on the Mac. Unfortunately, he leaves it
    at that, and his tables of tests are only for USB 2.0 on the PC and
    Firewire on the Mac (and it's the older PowerPC Macs).

    Not suprisingly, USB 2.0 was faster than Firewire 400, while Firewire
    800 blew USB 2.0 out of the water. It's be great to see some newer
    tests, USB 2.0 on the Mac, and Firewire on the PC.
    SMS, Jul 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Eatmorepies

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 10, 8:02 pm, "Steve Wolfe" <> wrote:
    > > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > > speed.

    >
    > Only theoretically. In real-world performance, firewire blows USB 2.0
    > away.
    >
    > steve


    And you don't need to install Microsoft spyware like SP2 for XP to use
    firewire, unlike USB 2.0.
    Rich, Jul 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Eatmorepies

    Pat Guest

    On Jul 10, 8:42 pm, SMS <> wrote:
    > Gladiator wrote:
    > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    > >> faster - advice followed.

    >
    > >> I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    > >> reader (£24from Misco).

    >
    > >> Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    > >> card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    > >> at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.

    >
    > >> Thanks for the info.

    >
    > >> John

    >
    > > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > > speed.

    >
    > It depends on a lot of things.
    >
    > If you read Rob Galbraith's page at
    > "http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8462" Firewire
    > readers performed great on the Mac, not so great on the PC. USB 2.0
    > performed better on the PC than on the Mac. Unfortunately, he leaves it
    > at that, and his tables of tests are only for USB 2.0 on the PC and
    > Firewire on the Mac (and it's the older PowerPC Macs).
    >
    > Not suprisingly, USB 2.0 was faster than Firewire 400, while Firewire
    > 800 blew USB 2.0 out of the water. It's be great to see some newer
    > tests, USB 2.0 on the Mac, and Firewire on the PC.


    I can't give you numbers, but if you download video on USB 2, you drop
    about 10% of the frames. If you use firewire 400, not only don't you
    lose any frames but you get enhanced functionality like the ability to
    control the camcorder from the computer. If you use firewire 800, it
    doesn't actually speed things up on video transfers because the
    transfer time is based on the playing of the tape. But if you have to
    transfer files to a hard drive array, FW800 is like lightening.
    Pat, Jul 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Eatmorepies

    Bob AZ Guest

    On Jul 10, 12:56?pm
    >
    > Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    > card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    > at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.


    John

    You have a problem unless the 30D is slow.

    I routinely download more pictures than this. I have a 20D. Just a
    few minutes at best. Usually less than 2 minutes. RAW format all the
    time. I use the USB cable that came with the 20D and connect it
    directly to my computer.

    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Jul 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Eatmorepies

    Bob Williams Guest

    Eatmorepies wrote:
    > A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    > faster - advice followed.
    >
    > I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    > reader (£24from Misco).
    >
    > Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    > card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in RAW
    > at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.
    >
    > Thanks for the info.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >

    38 minutes to download 240 RAW is outrageously slow!
    Your USB interface is almost certainly USB 1 instead of USB 2.
    You can replace your USB 1 interface card with a USB 2 card for a few
    dollars (Recommended).
    This will speed up any other USB devices by about 30X
    Since you now have a Firewire reader for your CF cards, there is no need
    to upgrade to USB 2 for this purpose alone. Download times will be about
    the same with either interface.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Jul 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Eatmorepies

    John Bean Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
    <> wrote:

    >I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    >reader (£24from Misco).


    Good solution, gald it works for you.

    >Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    >card via a PC world USB card reader.


    Well, as others have said that's definitely USB 1.1 speed,
    due possibly to your "PC World" (ugh) reader. Many people
    are fooled into buying readers that say "Full Speed USB 2.0"
    which is a marketing con-trick - they are actually just USB
    1.1 by another name. "Proper" USB 2.0 readers will usually
    state "High Speed" and/or quote download rates - which is an
    even better indicator since there are lots of variations. I
    just replaced my old no-name USB 2.0 reader - 5.5MB/s max -
    with a Sandisk Extreme USB reader that does a little over
    15MB/s on my PC. Both are "real" USB 2.0 but one is three
    times faster than the other.

    So it's not really as clear cut as it might seem in this
    "Firewire vs USB 2" battle but the important thing is you
    now have a reader that is rather faster than the glacial
    speed of a USB 1.1 reader :)

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Jul 11, 2007
    #9
  10. Eatmorepies

    Matt Ion Guest

    Bob Williams wrote:

    > 38 minutes to download 240 RAW is outrageously slow!
    > Your USB interface is almost certainly USB 1 instead of USB 2.
    > You can replace your USB 1 interface card with a USB 2 card for a few
    > dollars (Recommended).


    Now why would he do that when he's already spent the money on a firewire
    card and is quite happy with it?

    > This will speed up any other USB devices by about 30X


    Irrelevant if the only other USB devices are things like mouse, webcam, etc.

    > Since you now have a Firewire reader for your CF cards, there is no need
    > to upgrade to USB 2 for this purpose alone. Download times will be about
    > the same with either interface.


    Then why did you just tell him to buy a USB2 card above?
    Matt Ion, Jul 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Eatmorepies

    Bob Williams Guest

    Matt Ion wrote:
    > Bob Williams wrote:
    >
    >> 38 minutes to download 240 RAW is outrageously slow!
    >> Your USB interface is almost certainly USB 1 instead of USB 2.
    >> You can replace your USB 1 interface card with a USB 2 card for a few
    >> dollars (Recommended).

    >
    > Now why would he do that when he's already spent the money on a firewire
    > card and is quite happy with it?
    >
    >> This will speed up any other USB devices by about 30X

    >
    > Irrelevant if the only other USB devices are things like mouse, webcam,
    > etc.
    >
    >> Since you now have a Firewire reader for your CF cards, there is no
    >> need to upgrade to USB 2 for this purpose alone. Download times will
    >> be about the same with either interface.

    >
    > Then why did you just tell him to buy a USB2 card above?


    Because he probably has other USB 2 peripherals eg., Scanner, Printer
    etc., that are slowed down by the the slower speed of USB 1.
    Bob Williams, Jul 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Eatmorepies

    Alan Browne Guest

    Gladiator wrote:

    > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > speed.


    .... Firewire is still faster than USB 2.0 in file transfers (in real
    conditions) as it's not about bw alone.
    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Eatmorepies

    Alan Browne Guest

    SMS wrote:

    > If you read Rob Galbraith's page at
    > "http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8462" Firewire
    > readers performed great on the Mac, not so great on the PC. USB 2.0
    > performed better on the PC than on the Mac. Unfortunately, he leaves it
    > at that, and his tables of tests are only for USB 2.0 on the PC and
    > Firewire on the Mac (and it's the older PowerPC Macs).


    On my dual core and on my Celeron (PC's) Firewire is nearly twice as
    fast as USB 2.0.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Jul 14, 2007
    #13

  14. > > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > > speed.


    The reason for the difference is that USB (1.1 or 2.0) connections are
    supervised by, and use cycles on, the main processor. FireWire
    controllers have their own dedicated I/O controller; the OS essentially
    tells it "start that data transfer, and don't bother me until it's
    done."

    In ideal circumstances, FireWire (400 Mbps) is about the same or
    slightly faster than USB 2.0 (480 Mbps). In typical applications,
    FireWire is up to twice as fast.
    Scott Schuckert, Jul 14, 2007
    #14
  15. Eatmorepies

    Ron Recer Guest

    "Gladiator" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>A few weeks ago I asked you lot how best to download files from a CF card
    >>faster - advice followed.
    >>
    >>I bought a firewire card for my PC (£10 on eBay) and a Lexar RW019 card
    >>reader (£24from Misco).
    >>
    >>Prior to this it took 38 minutes to download 240 RAW files from my 30D CF
    >>card via a PC world USB card reader. Last weekend I took 215 pictures in
    >>RAW
    >>at an event - download time was 3 minutes 40s.
    >>
    >>Thanks for the info.
    >>
    >>John
    >>
    >>

    > Was that USB 1.1 or 2.0? USB 2.0 has higher bandwidth than Firewire so
    > I don't see why there would be such a big difference in download
    > speed.


    He must have been using USB 1.0. I use a USB 2 card reader and download 2
    GB of RAW images (200+) in about 3 minutes.

    Ron
    Ron Recer, Jul 16, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SmltLi4u?=

    "Monitoring Wireless Connection Transfer Rate...suggested software

    =?Utf-8?B?SmltLi4u?=, Jun 14, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    619
    Jack \(MVP\)
    Jun 14, 2005
  2. MJBrown

    Suggested material for A+ exam

    MJBrown, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    404
    MCSE World
    Dec 3, 2003
  3. KT
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    408
    hello
    Nov 26, 2003
  4. Dave
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    328
    UAError
    Feb 18, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    778
Loading...

Share This Page