-= Canon EOS R7 owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

Same here. I record RAW to the CF and JPEG to the SD. Download and delete the over the cable. Never pull either card.

I tend to max out at 400 or so shots so it's just not a big deal time-wise. The only annoying thing is that even with sleep set to eight minutes, the camera will not sleep if connected to the computer so the battery will run down if I forget to power it off.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19410144
I always take my SD card out to transfer, especially when I have a couple thousand pics to transfer, what is the problem with doing that?

I'm one who prefers not to handle the card. I transfer from the camera. For me it's efficient and fast and I'm not messing with the card. What's the problem with that? Different Strokes

Lou

I can see the utility of using a cable to transfer from camera, absolutely.
I am not one of them, as I "grew up" at a time when a card could only hold a small fraction of the images that we can put on a single card today. My first CF card held 8 megabytes! So any given session or outing would almost always require the use of multiple cards. Card reader was a must.

today, 1TB SD cards are readily available and stupid affordable!

Speaking of huge cards, my 128GB CF Express is downloading at approx 220MBs..

The R7's SD cards will follow. Can't wait to see what I got from "Ragnarok Beach" , the home of the Bald Eagles

^^^^HaHa - I grew up in the era of the Brownie Hawkeye. My first real cameras were a Ricoh 500 and a Minolta SR1 that I bought while stationed in Japan. I still have 'em.

Lou

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19410238
.
I "grew up" at a time when a card could only hold a small fraction of the images that we can put on a single card today. My first CF card held 8 megabytes! So any given session or outing would almost always require the use of multiple cards. Card reader was a must.

.
Jake, I believe this is why so many of us developed the habit of downloading with a card reader. . It was out of necessity.

Many of the photographers I know are serious wildlife photographers, and they frequently take 2,000 to 8,000 photos each day when the animals are cooperative. . Add to this that they are often photographing far from home, on a trip that they didn't bring a computer with them, and using multiple cards and card readers is still a necessity, even with the modern high-capacity equipment.

I think it's the same for many rodeo photographers and sports action photographers, who also shoot thousands upon thousands of photos during an event, and have to switch out cards. . Some wedding photographers probably do the same thing.

.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19410144
I always take my SD card out to transfer, especially when I have a couple thousand pics to transfer, what is the problem with doing that?

No one said anything is wrong with that. That's what I normally do, and my Prograde reader is faster than the R5, and I don't trust the camera to move files, as I have had some turn to 0 bytes in the move, at least with an earlier firmware..

We were talking about the ports, though, and I was just pointing out that "USB3" does not mean "USB3 potential speed". The 7D2 is a case in point.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19410172
.
Every photographer I know uses a card reader and takes the card out of the camera and puts it in the card reader to download images to their computer. . There must be photographers who do it differently, but I sure don't know any of them. . What you are doing is widespread and normal.

Forum users are NOT representative of the photography community in general. . So if you spend time on forums such as this one, and don't know a lot of photographers in real life, it can be easy to think that the way people on the forum do things is the normal way of doing them. . Not the case at all. . The vast majority of photographers I know are not on any photography forums at all, and they are a much more representative cross-section of photographers than the few who are active on photography forums.

.

Regardless, I never implied any of what Jeff thought I did. Someone mentioned the USB3 port on the 7D2, and I mentioned the fact that it was slower than USB2. That's it. I don't know how anything else got read into it.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19410076
The 7D2 has a USB3 port, but its max transfer rate is around 10MB/s IME.

I haven't tested the R7 USB speed, but the R5 definitely transfers at 130MB/s or better.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19410250
Regardless, I never implied any of what Jeff thought I did. Someone mentioned the USB3 port on the 7D2, and I mentioned the fact that it was slower than USB2. That's it. I don't know how anything else got read into it.

Slower than USB 2 in your experience.

Well folks - the last few posts are beginning to establish the fact that there is no such thing as 'Normal'

A century ago it was quite normal to expose one plate at a time - three quarters of a century ago some early roll films had six shots or eight shots as normal - and about this time Leica was becoming the normal with 36 shots loaded - all I wanted then was one of those 35mm Leica Reporter 250 models - the magazines for that Leica held 250 shots - there was a motor drive version although rare today.
So - fast forward a few decades and as Jake describes the evolution of his memory cards the normal is shifting. A good few years ago - some of my colleagues presented me with a 20MB hard disk drive - Not the normal till a few years later - Today that drive would not hold a single JPG from any of the modern cameras.
What is normal is our very own individual way of solving our own file transfer method. Some choose speed, some choose convenience and some of us more normal types do what we have always done - whatever that may be!

Capn Jack wrote in post #19410257
Slower than USB 2 in your experience.

In my experience as well.
I do need to explain that my card reader is USB2. Connecting to my 7D2's USB3 port results in a much slower transfer rate than using my card reader. I normally use the card reader but not always.

Rod

Best way to find any defects in a card, even minute defects, is to constantly pull it in and out of the camera and the card reader. Yes, they're supposed to be able to handle it, but they don't always. That being said, today's cards are durable and robust and unlikely to fail but if you want to test that, keep yanking them in and out when you don't have to.

RodS57 wrote in post #19410265
In my experience as well.
I do need to explain that my card reader is USB2. Connecting to my 7D2's USB3 port results in a much slower transfer rate than using my card reader. I normally use the card reader but not always.

Rod

The difference is that you aren't using your experience to show that the 7D2 USB3 can't deliver USB3 speeds. He is starting to imply that his experience is universal, as in his statement below.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19410248
No one said anything is wrong with that. That's what I normally do, and my Prograde reader is faster than the R5, and I don't trust the camera to move files, as I have had some turn to 0 bytes in the move, at least with an earlier firmware..

We were talking about the ports, though, and I was just pointing out that "USB3" does not mean "USB3 potential speed". The 7D2 is a case in point.

Optiq wrote in post #19410288
Best way to find any defects in a card, even minute defects, is to constantly pull it in and out of the camera and the card reader. Yes, they're supposed to be able to handle it, but they don't always. That being said, today's cards are durable and robust and unlikely to fail but if you want to test that, keep yanking them in and out when you don't have to.

You can test the card or you can test the USB port!

RodS57 wrote in post #19410265
In my experience as well.
I do need to explain that my card reader is USB2. Connecting to my 7D2's USB3 port results in a much slower transfer rate than using my card reader. I normally use the card reader but not always.

Rod

I first noticed how slow the 7D2's "USB3" was when I tried to make the program "DigicamControl" do a burst sequence to the computer, tethered, with the same computer USB port that gives me about 500MB/s with other things. I thought that it was unique to the tethered shooting, but one morning I needed to empty a card before I caught a bus, and the camera was already connected to the computer, so I started a copy of the card from the camera to the computer, and progress was not happening, and I checked the throughput, and it was only about 10MB/s, compared to the ~80MB/s I was getting with a USB3 card reader with that card, and the ~25-30 MB/s I remember getting with the last USB2 reader I used in the past.

There are so many products out there that do not deliver the bandwidth that they claim. Any claim that is exactly the theoretical limit for a type of bus ("5Gbps") should be immediately questioned. Honest numbers are usually not so well-rounded.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19410308
I first noticed how slow the 7D2's "USB3" was when I tried to make the program "DigicamControl" do a burst sequence to the computer, tethered, with the same computer USB port that gives me about 500MB/s with other things. I thought that it was unique to the tethered shooting, but one morning I needed to empty a card before I caught a bus, and the camera was already connected to the computer, so I started a copy of the card from the camera to the computer, and progress was not happening, and I checked the throughput, and it was only about 10MB/s, compared to the ~80MB/s I was getting with a USB3 card reader with that card, and the ~25-30 MB/s I remember getting with the last USB2 reader I used in the past.

There are so many products out there that do not deliver the bandwidth that they claim. Any claim that is exactly the theoretical limit for a type of bus ("5Gbps") should be immediately questioned. Honest numbers are usually not so well-rounded.

USB-IF is as much a marketing organization as a technical organization. I remember when USB 3.0 first came out, the standard included the USB 2.0 rates but gave them new USB 3.0 names. So companies were able to simply rebrand their USB 2.0 products as 3.0. The less scrupulous ones even said something like “up to 10x faster than USB 2.0”, the operative words being “up to”.