# Direct camera to iPod wire transfer (Firewire or USB2.0)



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 17, 2004)

With the number of camera companies putting out new digital cameras with firewire and/or USB2.0 ports built in, I don't understand why Apple doesn't contact one (or several) of these companies in order to figure out how to *directly* transfer photos from the camera to an iPod.

i.e. Using a camera to iPod direct wire transfer (rather than some dodgy Belkin flash card reader solution).

Any thoughts?

Kap

P.S. I've already posted the above to www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 17, 2004)

Isn't the iPod like an external disk following all standards? If so, then it's rather a stupidity of the camera companies to not add certain software to their cameras that supports external disks other than card readers.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 17, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Isn't the iPod like an external disk following all standards? If so, then it's rather a stupidity of the camera companies to not add certain software to their cameras that supports external disks other than card readers.


Agreed. Especially because the iPod has such a large (and growing) following now and has _heaps_ more storage that those ridiculous cards.

Along the same line, why don't the cameras adopt those USB/Firewire sticks as storage media? (maybe I just don't realise it and it is possible to transfer photos to a USB/Firewire stick, but I've never heard that it was possible)

Kap


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 28, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Isn't the iPod like an external disk following all standards? If so, then it's rather a stupidity of the camera companies to not add certain software to their cameras that supports external disks other than card readers.


I've had a second thought about this that I wanted to follow up on.

i.e. Does it really have anything to do with the camera companies?

My reasoning:

Connecting a digital camera to a computer via Firewire will transfer the photos via iPhoto. There is no special camera software - it's just a matter of having the appropriate drivers present in OS X.

So, why can't the iPod just pretend that it's iPhoto and get the pictures off the camera in the same way?

We already know the iPod can download pictures via the Belkin card reader. Why is the Belkin card reader special? (compared a direct connection to the camera)

Kap


----------



## mi5moav (Sep 28, 2004)

I can see why a direct import as the pictures are being taken may be a bit difficult since the drive would have to constantly be spinning or somehow have the ipod pull the info to the 32MB memory buffer on the ipod and then transfer it to the disk. I think  that is one reason why a digital camera with a HD would be so expensive since you couldn't just have a small HD in there you would also need a memory buffer to grab the pictures instantly and then have the HD spin up when it becomes full or just right before.   Now, I really don't understand why after my camera has it's photos on its SD card i can't just put it into USB mode and download directly through my ipod. This is a one time deal the HD would spin up and pull down info.  I can very easily tranfer by dragging and dropping between camera folders and ipod folders. I think it's Apple blocking for some reason. If I am correct in my assumption the ipod can only pull info from an authorized source. Does the belkin card reader have some authorization device built in that Apple had requested?  Since if I could just pull info from a small HD device or SD device why wouldn't I be able to connect to ipods together and pull info between one another. I don't think Apple want's this since it may get into copyright stuff and this is a way to blcck that. In a sense a authorized dongle device(belkin reader) may have to be added to perform an authorized transfer.  If they could make a HD camera with firewire I wonder if they would bump up the ipod battery life so that the camera could actually be charged by the ipod at the same time the ipod would have a beefed up memory buffer to 64 or 128 so that it could store a few more pictures before having to access the HD and start wasting the battery.  I am sure Apple is on it just a matter of time.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 28, 2004)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> I think it's Apple blocking for some reason. If I am correct in my assumption the ipod can only pull info from an authorized source. Does the belkin card reader have some authorization device built in that Apple had requested?  Since if I could just pull info from a small HD device or SD device why wouldn't I be able to connect to ipods together and pull info between one another. I don't think Apple want's this since it may get into copyright stuff and this is a way to blcck that. In a sense a authorized dongle device(belkin reader) may have to be added to perform an authorized transfer.


I can see why Apple would block iPod to iPod transfer, but not camera to iPod. Even if they were doing such blocking, what makes Belkin any different from a camera manufacturer (e.g. Canon)?



			
				mi5moav said:
			
		

> I am sure Apple is on it just a matter of time.


Hope so. I've heard the Belkin reader is slower than a turtle. I don't want to be forced to buy one if I can do a direct wire transfer instead.

Kap


----------



## chevy (Sep 28, 2004)

The camera and the iPod are slave USB devices.

To transfer from the camera to the iPod, the camera must become the master. I agree it should be part of the software of expensive camera.


----------



## OlsonBW (Sep 29, 2004)

Directly connecting my digital still or digital video camera to my iPod to download pictures and video is something I also want. This is _less_ of an issue after I bought a 1GB flash card. But still ...

As far as copying to an iPod. I've had no problems copying 20GB files from my iMac to my iPod so there shouldn't be any problems copying a gig of pictures or video to one.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Sep 29, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> The camera and the iPod are slave USB devices.
> 
> To transfer from the camera to the iPod, the camera must become the master. I agree it should be part of the software of expensive camera.


?

Why couldn't the iPod be the master (i.e. pretend it was iPhoto) and suck pictures from the camera?

Kap


----------



## quiksan (Oct 28, 2004)

With the release of the iPod Photo, the topic of this thread seems to be the killer feature that Apple missed.

as soon as I read that an iPod Photo had been released, the first feature I hoped to find upon reading Apple's product page, was a direct digi cam connection for downloading (temp storage or whatever) all your recent pics, to free up the camera's storage.  c'mon, it's the obvious move isn't it?

my cousin recently took a trip to Europe with his new Canon 10D, and brought that goofy Belkin transfer thing to download to his ipod.  it didn't work too well.  think he had to track down a bunch of new cards, and manage the shots he took, instead of keeping them all to sort out later.

I could have rationalized the 499 or 599 price tag if this kind of function had been built-in by apple, but there's no way I'd get it otherwise.  too bad.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 28, 2004)

> Why couldn't the iPod be the master (i.e. pretend it was iPhoto) and suck pictures from the camera?



Perhaps it could, but there are two issues.

First, the iPod would still need to be a slave device for connection to a Mac.  You can't just have it switch to master mode when it 'sees' other slave devices on the USB port, because then it would get terribly confused when connecting to a Mac or PC via a USB hub.  However, you could perhaps include a menu choice on the iPod to switch between master & slave mode.

Second, with USB in particular, there is a difference between the master & slave ends of the cable.  The jack on the end of the iPod's USB cable fits into a Mac or PC USB port, but will NOT fit into the USB port on a camera.  A different cable, or adapter, would be needed.

On a related note: Most Canon digital cameras can be connected directly to a special Canon USB photo printer.  USB printers are normally slave devices, but this model knows how to be a Master.  On the camera, you select pictures you want to print and then press a 'print' button on the camera to initiate the printout.

Perhaps:
A) iPod Photos can be enabled to also interface with these Canon printers
B) With some iPod software changes, this interface could be used to copy individual photos between Canon CAMERAS and iPod Photo

EDIT: previously said 'between Canon printers and iPod Photo' --not what I meant!


----------



## quiksan (Oct 28, 2004)

brian:
I don't want to deal with the logistics of it, I just want it to work!  

yeah, there are enough hurdles that the current form factor might need a change (an additional port, etc).  hmmmm.

well regardless, I still think the iPod Photo platform would have been that ideal opportunity to jump into that functionality (whatever the logistical issues may be)...maybe in an update someday...


----------



## fryke (Oct 29, 2004)

There probably is also a lobby that wants to sell memory sticks, CF cards, SD cards etc. And the iPod would erase this market, basically, since it's TERRIBLY cheap compared to those cards. So I think it might not be in the best interest of many camera makers to enable such a support.

For the user, though, it'd be great, yes...

Ceterum censeo Apple should build a stereo microphone into the iPod - or at least allow a stereo mic add-on. (The ones available are mono only.)


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Oct 29, 2004)

quiksan said:
			
		

> With the release of the iPod Photo, the topic of this thread seems to be the killer feature that Apple missed.


Exactly.

The iPod Photo is an expensive joke, because it misses out on the two things that people *actually* want to do most with their photos while on the move:

*Store* a lot of pictures until they can transfer them to a laptop/CD/DVD (esp. when travelling) i.e. Transfer photos from their camera directly to the iPod (with an absolute minimum of fuss and extra weight)
*Share* their photos with other people (again, esp. when travelling) i.e. "That's a great photo, can I get a copy (now)?"

When I did a Contiki trip across Europe a couple of years ago, I travelled with 50 other people. We all took 10+ rolls of photos _each_. I didn't own a digital camera at the time, but what I wouldn't have given to have been able to store all my digital pictures and share them (and get the pictures of the others in the group) while on tour!

I'm going to attend a Ceroc ball tomorrow. I'll be taking my Powerbook so everyone attending there will be able to upload their photos to it on the night. What I wouldn't give to be able to just bring an iPod (for the extra cost/hassle of using Belkin's media card reader, I might as well use my Powerbook directly).

etc., etc..

I'm not going to buy an iPod Photo. If I want to show someone a slideshow, I'll burn a $1 CD.

Kap


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 29, 2004)

If iPod Photos (and Belkin iPod Media Readers) sell well, Apple may eventually do what they have done many times before; incorporate the functionality of a popular 3rd-party product into their own product line.


----------



## fryke (Oct 31, 2004)

Usually, they've done that in _software_ though.


----------



## chevy (Oct 31, 2004)

Wait for Bluetooth and WiFi embeeded iPods somewhere next year.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 31, 2004)

> Wait for Bluetooth and WiFi embeeded iPods somewhere next year.



Cameras too, I guess...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 16, 2004)

Anyone ever seen something like this:
http://www.macally.com/spec/usb/input_device/syncbox.html


> With Macally SyncBox you can transfer photos from your digital camera to your flashdrive (USB HDD) with a touch of a button and never have to worry about your digital camera running out of memory space again


.
Bumped on it and remembered this thread..


----------

