Import: Connect Camera vs. Insert SD Card?

[mbaginy]

In one of Michael’s and Jeff’s earliest LR tutorials, they mentioned importing images.  If I recall properly, they commented that it would not be good practice to connect the camera to the computer via cable but to physically insert the SD (or CF or whichever) card into the computer or via a card reader.  I have followed this practice even before viewing the tutorial, then formatting the card in the camera once I’ve confirmed proper import into LR and copy to selected hard drive and I've never encountered problems.

My question is: why is the connection of camera to computer not a good idea?  Or did I misunderstand their explanation?

[Fred Salamon]

My question is: why is the connection of camera to computer not a good idea?  Or did I misunderstand their explanation?

Card readers are generally faster.
Card readers are powered by the computer, so no need to make certain camera battery is charged in order to download.
Less wear on the camera, plugging and unplugging cables.
Camera can be used for photographing while cards are being downloaded.

[mbaginy]

Card readers are powered by the computer, so no need to make certain camera battery is charged in order to download.

Thanks, Fred.  I find only one reason which minimizes risk - the battery charge.

Less wear of the camera or cable connectors is offset by an increased wear of the card's and the card reader's contacts.  The main concern on contacts would be a loss of (tin, gold or paladium) plating which may lead to corrosion.  That said, I've bent one of the CF card pins on the camera side of my (original) Canon 5D years ago.  I guess I was inserting the card without paying enough attention to proper guiding.

If memory serves, Michael and Jeff simply stated it was poor practice (to connect the camera directly) but didn't mention why.  I haven't found the tutorial again and may be completely wrong with my recollection.

[stingray]

When travelling, you will often want to start re-charging your batteries as quickly as possible, while at the same time importing and doing initial edits on your images. You may also have limited access to power, so you may want to preserve your batteries as much as possible.

In the field I copy my cards to a Colorspace UDMA portable device (with inbuilt ssd  https://www.hypershop.com/products/hyperdrive-colorspace-udma3 ). This gives me a backup in the field.  When I get back to the hotel I connect the Colourspace UDMA device to my laptop, which gives me disk to disk copy speeds. Once copied, I can comfortably format my cards, as I now have 2 copies. I can start charging my batteries the minute I get into the hotel room.

[Reiep]

I usually directly plug the card in the card reader. It's faster and, maybe even more important to me, Photo Mechanic doesn't want to read the photos from my cameras

[rdonson]

As a retired computer geek I would never trust anything with power to be plugged into a camera.  It's just a question of safety for me.  The chances may be small but I don't want to risk having a bad cable or bad USB source burn out anything in my camera. 

This is especially true for car cigarette lighter USB power devices. 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/automotive-usb-adapters-tear-down,4705.html

Stick with your tried and true method of removing the CF/SD cards and importing them into your computer.  It just reduces the chances of disaster. 

[stingray]

Also, I have seen many instances where cameras (and laptops and projectors etc) have been dragged onto the ground when people trip over trailing cables.

[Fred Salamon]

"Less wear of the camera or cable connectors is offset by an increased wear of the card's and the card reader's contacts.  The main concern on contacts would be a loss of (tin, gold or paladium) plating which may lead to corrosion. "


I would argue that it is less expensive, faster and easier to replace a card and or card reader than to repair or replace a camera.
Also, less downtime than if your camera needs a repair, much faster to just replace the card.

[mbaginy]

Thanks to all for your comments.  I'll continue with my current process of inserting the SD Card into my iMac or MacBook or using a card reader when a CF card was the storage medium.

There are potential electrical and mechanical risks to the camera which would be more costly than having to replace a card or its reader.  I guess the main reason I never connected the camera to the computer was because I didn't want to handle another cable.  And changing my current procedure wasn't really in my mind.

I'll probably never learn exactly which potential risks Michael and Jeff saw, but they may well be the same as you had mentioned.  Thanks, guys!

[luxborealis]

It seems the arguments on both sides are really splitting hairs. While Jeff's and Michael's recommendations are certainly very helpful, they are, in the end, only recommendations which may or may not be based on any hard evidence. A great many recommendations over the years have lacked logic or substantive reasoning. A great many more are simply a personal preference that has escalated into directive.

Do what works for you.

FWIW, I do both: switch out the SD card to the computer and back again AND plug the camera directly into the computer, but not at the same time  – it all depends on the circumstance and I have different reasons for choosing one method over the other. I do what works best for me at the time.

[dwswager]

In one of Michael’s and Jeff’s earliest LR tutorials, they mentioned importing images.  If I recall properly, they commented that it would not be good practice to connect the camera to the computer via cable but to physically insert the SD (or CF or whichever) card into the computer or via a card reader.  I have followed this practice even before viewing the tutorial, then formatting the card in the camera once I’ve confirmed proper import into LR and copy to selected hard drive and I've never encountered problems.

My question is: why is the connection of camera to computer not a good idea?  Or did I misunderstand their explanation?

I have always downloaded the card via a card reader since earliest days.  And it is the correct practice to reformat the card in the camera instead of just deleting the images. 

As to why it was recommended back then, I suspect because camera transfer was rather slow compared to card readers.  It also frees up the camera for use.  And there was  a good chance they had multiple cards to download and reinserting them into the camera was probably not worth the hassle.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And it is the correct practice to reformat the card in the camera instead of just deleting the images.

Although more convenient, I'm not so sure it's better/correct to format instead of deleting files.

The cards have a limited (few thousand) number of writes, and therefore the number of writes have to be distributed evenly over all cells. The system that takes care of this is called "Wear leveling".

Depending on implementation, formatting can reset the Wear Leveling, so that some cells wear out faster than others, leading to a somewhat earlier demise of the card.

Cheers,
Bart

[mbaginy]

...leading to a somewhat earlier demise of the card.

Bart, just when I thought I had a fair grip on digital photography which pertains to my usage.
In comparison, shooting and processing film seemed far simpler, despite the necessary years of learning the details.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, just when I thought I had a fair grip on digital photography which pertains to my usage.

Sorry Mike.

In comparison, shooting and processing film seemed far simpler, despite the necessary years of learning the details.

It only seems like that. Lots of things seemed to be better in the good old days, but they weren't really. I remember static on films in the Winter, Fogged film due to X-rays or heat, reciprocity failure, air bubbles on the film during development, scratches and dust, you name it. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I'd rather use digital, any day, warts and all.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Bart - do you have any info on formatting affecting wear levelling?  The card's controller shouldn't care about formatting (other than the read/writes performed), and shouldn't reset.  Only if you managed to somehow low-level format (such as it is on a memory card) could I see that affecting the controller's block database?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart - do you have any info on formatting affecting wear levelling?  The card's controller shouldn't care about formatting (other than the read/writes performed), and shouldn't reset.  Only if you managed to somehow low-level format (such as it is on a memory card) could I see that affecting the controller's block database?

Hi Phil,

No, that's the problem, we do not get information about the card's condition (SSDs do have SMART data that can be read). I also have no tools that can show what is going on with a Low Level format on a Flash memory card. Which is another point, some cameras allow to choose between 2 types of formatting, Quick or Low level., others don't specify what they are doing (so the time it takes is the only suggestion as to what type of formatting it does).

This thread answers the question, but I do not know how authoritative it is, and if it applies to all possible brands/manufactures.

The delete a file action does not really write to the memory cells of the card, it just marks the memory cells as being available for a later write operation (and the wear leveling logic will use a Last In Last Out sequence). The 'erase and write' operation to all cells (which wears them down) is most likely triggered by a Low Level Format, but not by a Quick Format (which just marks all directory entries as deleted without overwriting the cell contents). But we're at the mercy of how it's implemented in Camera Firmware and Card Controller logic.

Cheers,
Bart

[MBehrens]

But we're at the mercy of how it's implemented in Camera Firmware and Card Controller logic.

Boy, I'd be really surprised if any camera was doing low level formatting of memory cards. Firmware space is precious and they will not commit it to something that isn't necessary. The code would be in the card controller, but still I just can't see why they would do that.

So the bottom line is it makes no difference, format (quick) or delete, they are both doing the same thing, updating the FAT.

From what I read, there is a prevailing opinion that the card should be formatted by the device using it. Though this is not a hard and fast rule.

Me: In camera format to clear the card after off loading the images from a card slot on the PC. Never use USB and Never delete files from the card. I have had one card fail a session, reformatted it and continued to use it to this day.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Boy, I'd be really surprised if any camera was doing low level formatting of memory cards.

See attached, from this clip for an EOS 5D Mark III, and my EOS 1Ds Mark III already had that option in 2007. So I would not be surprised if more cameras can do it.

It's optional, so User beware ...

Cheers,
Bart

[dwswager]

Although more convenient, I'm not so sure it's better/correct to format instead of deleting files.

The cards have a limited (few thousand) number of writes, and therefore the number of writes have to be distributed evenly over all cells. The system that takes care of this is called "Wear leveling".

Depending on implementation, formatting can reset the Wear Leveling, so that some cells wear out faster than others, leading to a somewhat earlier demise of the card.

Cheers,
Bart

According to both Sandisk and Lexar, it is the way to go.   I will admit that this was in reference to CF cards.  I also use the same practice with SD and XQD.

[Farmer]

Thanks for your reply, Bart.  It's interesting, but I want to clarify what you mean by low level format.  You can "quick" format which is just a table update, or you can do a full high level format (which takes a long time for large devices), or you can do a low level format (which is rarely done, other than at the factory - in fact, on a modern IDE/ATA or SCSI drive you can't do a low level format from your computer and if you did, it would basically just destroy the drive from being usable).

So I presume what you mean is a full high level format, rather than a genuine low level format.  I could see a real low level format causing issues, but not a full high level or quick high level format, other than the wear related to writing to every block with a full high level format.

I can't see any reason why anyone would attempt a real low level format on a modern drive or memory card unless their intent was to make it inoperable, so I doubt that cameras are doing that.  They probably just have a quick or full high level option (and there's no need to ever do a full one - that stopped being useful when drives got larger than about 100GB (because it just took too long and didn't really provide any benefits.

Interested in any additional comments/information, though.