I went firewire - as suggested.

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
<xyztnday@lineone.net> 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.

> 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

Gladiator wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
> <xyztnday@lineone.net> 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.

On Jul 10, 8:02 pm, "Steve Wolfe" <h...@codon.com> 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.

On Jul 10, 8:42 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Gladiator wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
> > <xyztn...@lineone.net> 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.

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:56:06 +0100, "Eatmorepies"
<xyztnday@lineone.net> 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

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?

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.