 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Rebel XT, access lamp is on, HELPPPPPP
My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on menu. I can't access camera from explorer I know only that card is full. What should I do. PLease help. j >My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on menu. I >can't access camera from explorer >I know only that card is full. >What should I do. PLease help. Buy a card reader ($10-$20) & see if you can rescue any of your photos from the memory card. IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future. Once you've retrieved (& tested) your photos via the card reader, delete the lot & reformat the card IN YOUR CAMERA. Unless there's something major wrong with your memory card or camera, things should then work okay for you. > IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera > into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future. OMG, why? >> IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your >> camera >> into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future. > > OMG, why? Because the electrons in the computer don't like the electrons from the camera, so they argue a lot and ultimately want a divorce. Yup, you guessed it...that's sarcasm! :-) Just to clarify, there is nothing at all dangerous in using the port in the camera. Lionel must have been trying out his sarcastic wit... >> IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera >> into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future. >OMG, why? It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC while trying to transfer them. If you remove the memory card & copy the files off it with a card-reader, it's quicker, more reliable, *and* (this is important!) you can look at the files on your PC to verify that they copied okay before deleting them from your memory card. Many of us in the photography newsgroups have learned this lesson the hard way. >>> IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your >>> camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC > while trying to transfer them. I thought you were joking, but apparently not. If you use the USB MSC (mass storage) protocol, the transfer happens exactly the same as with any card reader. The camera is considered an external USB mass storage device just like the card reader and is accessed in exactly the same manner using an international standard protocol. PTP is a slightly different protocol, but it's a standard and should not cause errors. However it doesn't allow the same flexibility in controling the files as MSC. > If you remove the memory card & copy > the files off it with a card-reader, it's quicker, more reliable, Quicker perhaps, but no more reliable. > *and* (this is important!) you can look at the files on your PC to > verify that they copied okay before deleting them from your memory > card. Using MSC, you can do the exact same thing with the camera, copying the files or moving them, and you have the same option to check the images on the computer before deleting them from the memory card in the camera. > Many of us in the photography newsgroups have learned this lesson the > hard way. You're the first I've ever seen suggest that, and I've been using digital cameras for over five years. I use both methods to transfer images. I use a P&S camera in MSC to transfer snapshots to the computer, and I use a card reader to transfer large images from my DSLR (although I've used the camera port when at a friends or with a laptop). In all the years and thousands of photos I've transferred, I've never had an error that was the fault of using the camera port. Yet I did have a failure with a card reader once due to a damage USB wire. >"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message >> It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >accessed in exactly the same manner using an international standard >protocol. Sadly, not very many cameras support that protool. >PTP is a slightly different protocol, but it's a standard and should not >cause errors. That's certainly the theory,yes. In practice, people seem to run into lots of problems with it. >> If you remove the memory card & copy >> the files off it with a card-reader, it's quicker, more reliable, > >Quicker perhaps, but no more reliable. For you, perhaps. If you Google through this group & RPD, you'll find that the vast majority of people (like the OP in this thread) who've *lost their photos* have done so while attempting to transfer them direct from the camera, rather than with a card reader. Oh, & it's not just a bit 'quicker' - a good, USB2 card reader is often as much as 5x quicker than D/Ling from the camera. >> *and* (this is important!) you can look at the files on your PC to >> verify that they copied okay before deleting them from your memory [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >files or moving them, and you have the same option to check the images >on the computer before deleting them from the memory card in the camera. Again, most cameras don't support that protocol, or support it so poorly that it's less than 100% reliable. >> Many of us in the photography newsgroups have learned this lesson the >> hard way. > >You're the first I've ever seen suggest that, Bullshit. People in this newsgroup recommend card readers over direct (USB/Firewire) tranfsers on nearly a daily basis - especially for non-technical users, & every DSLR user I've seen mention the topic here has said that they use a card reader. (As do I, BTW.) > and I've been using >digital cameras for over five years. I use both methods to transfer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >had an error that was the fault of using the camera port. Yet I did have >a failure with a card reader once due to a damage USB wire. IME, someone who's just lost their photos rarely cares *where* the transfer screwed up - all they care about is that it /did/ screw up. Regardless of theory or marketing claims, tranferring your photos with a card reader is much less likely to screw up than transferring them direct from the camera. Snip >Bullsh*t. People in this newsgroup recommend card readers over direct >(USB/Firewire) tranfsers on nearly a daily basis - especially for >non-technical users, & every DSLR user I've seen mention the topic >here has said that they use a card reader. (As do I, BTW.) Cut It may be wise to use a USB card reader if for no other reason than this: Why risk using a ($1,000+ US) camera as a card reader when a ($15 US) USB 2.0 card reader can do the same job & very likely quicker? The USB specification for a "powered" USB port is able to supply 5VDC @ 500 Ma. (1/2 A.), so we are not just talking about low power logic level communication power levels here. Chances are you will never have a serious problem connecting a DSLR to a PC via the USB port but why take the risk no matter how small it may be when safer & very inexpensive alterative exists? This is just my viewpoint as an technician where I learned that the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle has value. No insult intended to anybody, it just seems to me that the simplest solution is usually the best 1. In this case it's likely to also be faster & more reliable because the USB card reader get's power from 1 place, the PC via the USB cable. With the camera to PC, 2 power sources are needed. The power to the PC *&* the DSLR's battery power. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>If you use the USB MSC (mass storage) protocol, the transfer happens >>exactly the same as with any card reader. The camera is considered an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sadly, not very many cameras support that protool. Odd, every camera I've used in the last few years has had mass storage. The only one that did not was my first crappy little P&S I bought five years ago that wasn't compatible with anything unless I installed the device driver. >>You're the first I've ever seen suggest that, > > Bullshit. ??? No seriously, you're the first I've seen suggest that failure is due specifically to the port inside the camera. > People in this newsgroup recommend card readers over direct > (USB/Firewire) tranfsers on nearly a daily basis - especially for > non-technical users, & every DSLR user I've seen mention the topic > here has said that they use a card reader. (As do I, BTW.) Recommending a card reader because it's faster is a big difference from recommending one because you believe all camera USB ports suck. I generally recommend a card reader for speed too, but not for file integrity. > Cameras aren't designed to be card-readers, they're designed to be > cameras, & the USB I/F functionality is an afterthought, & often buggy > because of it. Purpose-built card readers /are/ designed to be card > readers, & are consequently much more reliable & standards-compliant. Maybe in poorly designed cameras like the $49 junk one might find at the flea market. Or in early models before the mass storage concept became popular. In todays cameras, the USB port inside a camera is specifically designed and built to transfer data at high speed through a wire to a computer, exactly like a card reader - same protocols, same port, same wires, same controller. They are no longer an "afterthought" or convenience feature. In fact, the ports are so good in new models that they can get darn close to card reader speeds. My Nikon D80 with a Sandisk Extreme III card can transfer just almost as fast as my Sandisk reader (not counting the new Extreme IV cards and readers of course). The Canon XT I owned previously wasn't nearly as fast as the Nikon even though it used USB 2 hi-speed as well. I expect the newer XTi model is quicker too. >>>If you use the USB MSC (mass storage) protocol, the transfer happens >>>exactly the same as with any card reader. The camera is considered an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >No seriously, you're the first I've seen suggest that failure is due >specifically to the port inside the camera. Except that I didn't say it was. You've just assumed that that was what I meant - it isn't. >>>>If you use the USB MSC (mass storage) protocol, the transfer happens >>>>exactly the same as with any card reader. The camera is considered an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Except that I didn't say it was. You've just assumed that that was > what I meant - it isn't. It was very apparent that he was specifically addressing your reliability comments. Your response that mem card readers are recommended here every day was therefore misleading because those recommendations _never_ mention reliability over dl'ing directly from camera. I call foul to your bullshit comment. >>> Bullshit. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Except that I didn't say it was. You've just assumed that that was > what I meant - it isn't. You suggested that many people in these photography groups have learned the hard way that using the cameras USB port is dangerous and unreliable. Perhaps you would like to clarify your position. What exactly did you mean? >>>> Bullshit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the hard way that using the cameras USB port is dangerous and >unreliable. No, I didn't. I said that transferring pictures directly from the camera was dangerous (especially for non-technical users), & that it was much safer to use a card reader instead. >Perhaps you would like to clarify your position. What exactly did you >mean? Perhaps you could go back & re-read my original post, rather than putting words into my mouth? >>Perhaps you would like to clarify your position. What exactly did you >>mean? > > Perhaps you could go back & re-read my original post, rather than > putting words into my mouth? I just re-read your post, and these are your words quoted below: "Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future." Which is just spreading FUD. "Rarely have I seen a device come with drivers or applications that're as reliable or safe as single purpose packages sold by third party vendors for the same devices." With all your claimed experience, you should know better. What do you think happens when you plug in a card reader? Windows XP or Vista loads up a device driver that just happens to be part of Windows driver set. When you plug in a camera it uses the exact same mass storage device driver as the card reader. Both devices function in EXACTLY the same manner (unless the camera is set to PTP). "most non-technical users don't understand the difference between 'moving' files & 'copying' files, & they often assume that if they can see the image on their PC monitor, it's been safely transferred, even though they may well be viewing it over the USB connection." Again I ask, how is using a card reader any different? The inexperienced user may delete the files on the card in the reader just as easily as deleting them when the card is in the camera. There is no difference between the two. You don't happen to work for a card reader manufacturer? [quoting me] >"Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera >into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future." > >Which is just spreading FUD. Rubbish. If you're non-technical user, it's a fact. Do you consider an operation that can result in the irretrievable loss of your photos to be dangerous? - I certainly do, as do most people - And the *fact* is that for non-technical users, direct transfer from camera to PC *can* result in unrecoverable data loss, while failed transfers from card readers can nearly always be performed again successfully. And there is nothing even slightly theoretical or scare-mongering about saying so either - I've seen it in person, & seen hundreds of posts in RPD/RPDS-S from inexperienced digicam owners who've lost photos while trying to transfer them to their computer. >"Rarely have I seen a device come >with drivers or applications that're as reliable or safe as single [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >When you plug in a camera it uses the exact same mass storage device >driver as the card reader. If you're accessing it via Explorer, on an up-to-date version of XP, & your famous-brand-name camera is running the latest firmware, sure. Most non-technical users aren't - they have some proprietary piece of Taiwanese crapware that came with the camera, running on some random version of 'Doze that's crawling with random, obsolete drivers, spyware, & the rotting, half-installed/uninstalled giblets of a dozen software packages crawling around in it. In that situation, it's safer to assume that *any kind* of data transfer will screw up from time to time. When that happens with a card reader, you can nearly always reboot/power-cycle & try again successfully, but with PTP (or even MSP) from the camera, your data may be gone forever. > Both devices function in EXACTLY the same >manner (unless the camera is set to PTP). Again, if you're using Explorer in a clean copy of Windows XP/SP2 + updates, sure, that's quite probably true, but again, that's rarely the case with non-technical users. (It's not even all that common amongst reasonably experienced users IME.) See, the mistake you're making is confusing theory & marketing with reality. Those of us who get paid to actually make systems work & keep them working have learned the hard way that nothing works the way the glossy ads say it does, or even the way the documentation says it does, & most especially that any system run by a non-technical person is rarely running to spec. >"most non-technical users don't >understand the difference between 'moving' files & 'copying' files, & [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Again I ask, how is using a card reader any different? The USB function on a Digicam is like the can opener on a Swiss Army pocket knife - it's there because it's a feature that consumers want, but it's a much lower design priority than the main blade, or even the hinge mechanisms. If the can opener gizmo does a lousy job sometimes, only a small percentage users will ask for their money back. OTOH, a card reader is like a proper can opener - opening cans reliably is its only task, & the designers will have put nearly all their effort it making it work correctly 100% of the time, because if they don't succeed, the product is screwed. > The inexperienced >user may delete the files on the card in the reader just as easily as >deleting them when the card is in the camera. There is no difference >between the two. There are numerous differences between the two situations, & I've already provided several examples. If you were actually interested in learning something - rather than just trying to pick a fight - you'd probably be able to figure many of them out for yourself. >You don't happen to work for a card reader manufacturer? Hardly. All my development work has been higher up the food chain. The reason why card readers are - in general - more reliable devices for transferring data is for all the same reasons that other very simple, single-purpose devices are - again, in general - more reliable than very complex, multi-function devices. And if you can't figure out why /that/ is true, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain it to you. > If you're accessing it via Explorer, on an up-to-date version of XP, & > your famous-brand-name camera is running the latest firmware, sure. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reboot/power-cycle & try again successfully, but with PTP (or even > MSP) from the camera, your data may be gone forever. I'm sorry to hear that you're stuck in a world where everything is incompatible and every computer crashes constantly. But this is 2007 where XP is widespread and fully compatible cameras have been around for years. You can believe whatever you want, but obviously there are millions of users around the planet who are not having any of the problems you claim are so rampant and dangerous. You sound just like the greedy Antivirus companies that use FUD to scare users into buying expensive software they don't need. I'm done with this thread... >> If you're accessing it via Explorer, on an up-to-date version of XP, & >> your famous-brand-name camera is running the latest firmware, sure. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I'm sorry to hear that you're stuck in a world where everything is >incompatible and every computer crashes constantly. *My* computers work perfectly reliably - As I've stated at least a dozen times; I was referring to computers belonging to non-technical users. > But this is 2007 >where XP is widespread and fully compatible cameras have been around for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >companies that use FUD to scare users into buying expensive software >they don't need. If your paranoid fantasy were true, I'd be able to concentrate on building networks for people, instead of wasting so much time fixing PCs for end-users who've broken them by installing broken software on them, or by downloading 20-30 pieces of spyware. >I'm done with this thread... Wow. You really are this stupid. I knew I was wasting my time responding to your last post, where you clearly hadn't actually understood anything I'd said. >>"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message >>> It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > a card reader is much less likely to screw up than transferring them > direct from the camera. C'mon Lionel... I've been transferring directly from my cameras since my Canon G1, back in 2000 and never had any problems. What's YOUR problem? ;-))))) Marcel > I've been transferring directly from my cameras since my Canon G1, back in > 2000 and never had any problems. Any one person's experience in almost anything electronic is just that: his experience. Even a small gaggle of folks posting the same thing means squat. I've read enough of folks encountering problems with the camera's battery dying in mid-transfer that I'd recommend against it as a *general* practice.  SignatureJohn McWilliams > I've read enough of folks encountering problems with the camera's > battery dying in mid-transfer that I'd recommend against it as a > *general* practice. But that's a problem with the user not offering a proper power supply, not the transfer protocols or port design as Lionel implied. And it also means the user isn't paying attention to the procedure or the requirements of the camera. I would suspect the same person who transfers images from the camera with a nearly depleted battery also goes out to shoot for a whole day with a nearly depleted battery (and no charger) and then complains that the camera has a lousy battery system. In other words, they're incompetent. :-) Besides, if you use the mass storage connection and COPY the files to the computer, a recovery program should be able to access all the files on the card since only the file allocation table would be corrupt or invalid, not the actual files themselves. >> I've read enough of folks encountering problems with the camera's >> battery dying in mid-transfer that I'd recommend against it as a >> *general* practice. > >But that's a problem with the user not offering a proper power supply, >not the transfer protocols or port design as Lionel implied. I didn't specify the *cause* of the problem with direct transfers from the camera, & I most particularly didn't blame them specifically on the cameras USB port. All I said was that it was dangerous in comparison to transferring with a card reader, which is 100% true, for a whole range of reasons. >It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC >while trying to transfer them. If you remove the memory card & copy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Many of us in the photography newsgroups have learned this lesson the >hard way. How is the camera NOT acting as a card-reader? You plug in, the camera appears as an external drive, you drag the pictures wherever you want. Or are you using some complicated program to interface? >>It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC >>while trying to transfer them. If you remove the memory card & copy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How is the camera NOT acting as a card-reader? Cameras aren't designed to be card-readers, they're designed to be cameras, & the USB I/F functionality is an afterthought, & often buggy because of it. Purpose-built card readers /are/ designed to be card readers, & are consequently much more reliable & standards-compliant. > You plug in, the >camera appears as an external drive, you drag the pictures wherever >you want. As I mentioned to another poster to this thread, that requires that the camera support the USB Mass Storage protocol - most don't. The ones that don't, require software on the host computer that supports PTP protocol, which is usually some piece of buggy outsourced crap that came with the camera. >>>It's incredibly easy to corrupt the files on both the camera & the PC >>>while trying to transfer them. If you remove the memory card & copy [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > PTP protocol, which is usually some piece of buggy outsourced crap > that came with the camera. Cite some sources or you're the one espousing "bullshit." I've been using a D70 for just that for over two years, and I can't tell a difference between using it and a flash drive when it comes to transferring files. >>> You plug in, the >>>camera appears as an external drive, you drag the pictures wherever [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Cite some sources or you're the one espousing "bullshit." I've been working with computers for more than 25 years - including programming, debugging & supporting communications protocols - & that 25 years of experience is my source. Rarely have I seen a device come with drivers or applications that're as reliable or safe as single purpose packages sold by third party vendors for the same devices. > I've been using a >D70 for just that for over two years, and I can't tell a difference between >using it and a flash drive when it comes to transferring files. How, exactly, does one person's experience with one camera translate into general advice for thousands of cameras & millions of end users? My advice wasn't intended for technical, experienced users, it was intended for non-technical people like the OP, for whom the direct-transfer process (regardless of protocol) is riddled with dangers. Just for one example, most non-technical users don't understand the difference between 'moving' files & 'copying' files, & they often assume that if they can see the image on their PC monitor, it's been safely transferred, even though they may well be viewing it over the USB connection. There are many, many more ways in which things can go wrong, & we see posts in RPD & RPDS-S nearly every day from people who've run into such problems. For such people, my advice is exactly correct, & I stand by it. If you can come up with better advice for people like the OP, please feel free to give it in response to their posts - as I regularly do - rather than ignoring their questions, & then nit-picking those who make the effort to help them. > >My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on menu. I > >can't access camera from explorer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > IMPORTANT ADVICE: Stop downloading your photos by plugging your camera > into your PC - it's DANGEROUS! Use your card reader in future. Wow. I've heard some nonsense in my time but this is insane. There's absolutely NOTHING dangerous about it. It's not April 1st yet is it? Doc > Once you've retrieved (& tested) your photos via the card reader, > delete the lot & reformat the card IN YOUR CAMERA. Unless there's > something major wrong with your memory card or camera, things should > then work okay for you. > My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on menu. I > can't access camera from explorer > I know only that card is full. > What should I do. PLease help. I had this happen once (on the XTi), after a 10 minute time exposure while waiting for the in-camera long-exposure noise reduction to complete - which never did (or at least hadn't after 30 minutes, 3 times as long as it was supposed to take). Access light would not go off, could not turn the camera off, nothing worked. I eventually had to pull the battery. Reinserting the battery regained control. I lost the 30 minute exposure, but the rest on the card were fine. SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on > menu. I can't access camera from explorer > I know only that card is full. > What should I do. PLease help. Pulling out the battery pack usually does the trick. If not, remove the battery pack and also the little memory-backup battery for a minute to reset the camera. >> My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on >> menu. I can't access camera from explorer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If not, remove the battery pack and also the little memory-backup > battery for a minute to reset the camera. And recharge the battery! The main danger I've seen with downloading from the camera directly is when the battery reaches the critical point while connected to the computer. As it fails to deliver enough current to stay fully on, bad, sometimes very bad, things can happen. One's mileage will vary. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >> My access lamp is on either if camera is on or off. I can't turn on > >> menu. I can't access camera from explorer [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > john mcwilliams USE A CARD READER..!! They're cheap enough. Usually card readers come in multiple formats. I use a dazzle and another one for the mac or pc, can't remember the name right now. The dazzle cost me around 20 bucks. They were both arouhd the same price. Harry Flaxman Applications Engineer (retired) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.