[jbinpg]

USB-C is in the pipeline as the new standard port design. It will take either USB2 or 3 cables. Next iteration of the K-1 will likely have the new design.

[stevebrot]

I keep the usb cable in the computer at all times so just hooking it up versus ejecting a card

I just keep the card reader in the computer at all times (built in) and simply flip the card door open, take the card out, and put it in the reader for full USB 3 speeds without having to fiddle with the clutzy USB 3 connector, the rubber flap, or tripping on the cable (flings the camera off the counter...not good)...


Steve

[Mikesul]

Yes. I was excited about the USB-3 when the K-3 was announced. But I found, in practice, it was still just easier to use the SD card in my USB3 reader. I suspect the reason they left USB2 in was that they would have had to change the bus or parts of it to accommodate USB3 speeds and did not find that worth the cost. I think it is interesting that parts of the camera were designed that long ago because USB 3 has been prevalent for quite a few years.

[Not a Number]

The final USB 3 spec was announced in Nov 2008. It didn't really start showing up on devices until about 2012 and it wasn't until 2014 that USB 3 started to be included as a standard on most computer mainboards. The Ricoh/Pentax rep didn't say USB 3 was not available at the time, just that USB 2 was more used at the time. A 3-4 year development cycle for the K-1 would seem to be in order.

[Kunzite]

Yes, it appears they started the development sometimes in 2012.
It's interesting how the K-3 got the USB 3, but the K-1 didn't. Maybe there simply wasn't enough time to change it, which is plausible given that the camera was delayed. Maybe the design doesn't easily allow for the extra space required for the USB 3 connector (but it should allow for an USB-C connector). It appears to us as a "move back to USB 2" but it really is about not moving forward to USB 3
I'd really love to talk with their engineers about the decisions they had to make, the challenges and so on (the beer would be on me, of course). Or, at least, to see more content added to the pentax.com.

[Igor123]

I just keep the card reader in the computer at all times (built in) and simply flip the card door open, take the card out, and put it in the reader for full USB 3 speeds without having to fiddle with the clutzy USB 3 connector, the rubber flap, or tripping on the cable (flings the camera off the counter...not good)...

Steve

=)

I agree, I exaggerated the cable-way and you the card-way. I do understand that there are good reasons for not including it, although I don't know why, I suspect some of the mentioned reasons such as time to change it, space for the connector or similar are the reason.

But for fun, let's at least try a more unbiased/fair comparison: (Help me add factors for and against each here, I use cable mostly and may not be aware of other card advantages or disadvantages)

Points: Team card / Team cable
0/0.5. Buying a good card reader. 1 or perhaps half a point to team cable - the cable is included in the box and free so no time or money spent on getting a good usb 3 reader.
0/0.5. As you said, the reader can be attached/built into the computer as well as me having the cable connected at all times so we call finding cable/reader a draw.
0/0.5 Flipping card door open vs cable door draw as well.
0/0.5 Ejecting the cards vs inserting the cable also similar effort. Cable is a bit more fiddling perhaps but there are two cards vs one cable on the other hand.
0/1 Putting the card into the reader, 1 point to team cable? Let's say just a half, it's a minor thing.
1*/1 Transferring images, a held point for team card here - this is what the discussion is about - it wouldn't be any faster using the card if USB 3 was used for the camera connector.
1*/2 Waiting for the transfer from card 1 to complete, eject it, put the other card in, resume transfer on computer OR don't wait for it and "lose" the time it didn't transfer while away, and replace it when coming back - either way I'd say a point to cable
1*/2.5 Take the card out from the reader AND put the cards back in the camera and close the door vs just pull the cable and close the door. I would have let this one slide if the possibility of forgetting to put the cards back wouldn't mean problem/delay at next shoot so at least 0.5 I'd say.
1*/2.5 Card reader ejector wear vs connector wear..tie?
1.5*/2.5 You mentioned the risk of tripping the cable..camera sitting on the desk? And also someone mentioned a few minutes more battery drain. I'd say the first risk is really small, and the second one also not worthy of a point since you'd probably recharge after a shoot anyway, could it be a few % of the charge at most for a large transfer? But I can be nice and give 0.5 to team card for them combined not to seem unreasonable =)

So 1.5p for cards vs 2.5p for cable, even though I think I rounded to the cards advantage at a couple of places and one point is considering usb2, not usb3

So I'm not after starting a transfer war here =), I realize different parts of the above would "score" differently for everyone, but I just wanted to show that the view "why on earth would anybody care about the usb connector" isn't a great one, I still believe the card way is more convenient in most cases, especially with two cards (which I guess would be needed to maximize the possible write speeds and empty the buffer as quickly as possible).

But if I could choose =), I'd want 802.11 AC -compliant wifi transfer instead, which I think would win the comparison above...perhaps half the speed of usb3 but then NO fiddling with camera doors, readers, cables etc..

[beachgardener]

They stated in the interview that usb2 was already in the design from a long time back. They did not want to change the design to accommodate usb3. Why? Who knows.

Agree, exactly that, to change to USB 3 would have meant major changes design wise, better to wait for USB-C, or faster wireless AC. Having said that I think it would be wise of them or advantageous to us if they implement tethering. Maybe they have plans to sell the wireless tethering software, but hey open source it I say

[lotech]

It is unfortunately true a regression on the USB, but frankly most of us won't use it, or it better be a USB-C that also charges the battery, the tiny micro USB connector on my phone is so fragile I can't rely on even for charging. IMHO no matter USB 2 or 3, the max data rate can only achieved in prefect lab setup condition, USB 2 is good enough if it delivers.

[Adam]

I would rather have USB2 with tethering than 3 without

[wizofoz]

I don't remember where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason for 'regression' to USB 2 is that the K-1 has been in development for a very long time. Apparently this part of the design was finalised before they put usb3 into the K-3. So the development of the K-1 predates the development of the k-3 at least in this part of the design. The designers didn't think the reasons to change the design and update it to usb 3 was worthwhile for the improvement gained.

I repeat, I'm sure I read this somewhere, but I have no source.

[stevebrot]

I don't remember where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason for 'regression' to USB 2 is that the K-1 has been in development for a very long time. Apparently this part of the design was finalised before they put usb3 into the K-3. So the development of the K-1 predates the development of the k-3 at least in this part of the design. The designers didn't think the reasons to change the design and update it to usb 3 was worthwhile for the improvement gained.

I repeat, I'm sure I read this somewhere, but I have no source.

You are correct that the reason given is that the design was formalized with USB 2. What follows is pure speculation, but I suspect that there was an early commitment to an I/O board that was compatible with the form factor, but which only featured USB 2 support and that a suitable USB 3 replacement could not be found. That is pretty lame, in my opinion, but those kinds of decisions happen in the tech world with some regularity. I suspect there has been some minor gnashing of teeth in Ricoh marketing over the matter.

FWIW, the Sony A7R II supports 42.4 Mpx file transfer and tethering with USB 2


Steve

[jatrax]

Another factor may have been the speed of the internal bus for the SD cards. On the k-5, write speed seemed to max out at about 20MB/s on the k-3 this seemed to be about 35MB/s. USB 2.0 is 60MB/s. So while USB 3.0 sounds great, would it really have made any practical difference if the SD card sub-system could not keep up?

From a marketing view USB 3.0 would seem to be a requirement, but from an engineering view maybe it just made no sense. And if the work was already done to implement USB 2.0 why re-do it and possibly cause a cascade of other issues for no practical gain.

[Barry Pearson]

I just keep the card reader in the computer at all times (built in) and simply flip the card door open, take the card out, and put it in the reader for full USB 3 speeds without having to fiddle with the clutzy USB 3 connector, the rubber flap, or tripping on the cable (flings the camera off the counter...not good)...

Yes. I was excited about the USB-3 when the K-3 was announced. But I found, in practice, it was still just easier to use the SD card in my USB3 reader. I suspect the reason they left USB2 in was that they would have had to change the bus or parts of it to accommodate USB3 speeds and did not find that worth the cost. I think it is interesting that parts of the camera were designed that long ago because USB 3 has been prevalent for quite a few years.

I often use multiple cards (even large ones) in the field. So I often have cards with images on that are not in the camera.

I've never downloaded images via cable. I assumed most people did what I do!

[taz840209]

Another factor may have been the speed of the internal bus for the SD cards. On the k-5, write speed seemed to max out at about 20MB/s on the k-3 this seemed to be about 35MB/s. USB 2.0 is 60MB/s. So while USB 3.0 sounds great, would it really have made any practical difference if the SD card sub-system could not keep up?

From a marketing view USB 3.0 would seem to be a requirement, but from an engineering view maybe it just made no sense. And if the work was already done to implement USB 2.0 why re-do it and possibly cause a cascade of other issues for no practical gain.

Thank you...my thoughts exactly. Add to that, Memory for buffering. Like I said before, if you have a computer that has a good bit of memory and has USB 3 ports...it's makes more sense to remove the SD card(s) and use a USB 3 card reader. If your computer does not have USB 3 capability the whole argument is irrelevant.

Someone mentioned that it's too much work and takes too much time to open the card door and remove the cards. I must have too much time on my hands I guess...lol. Also I always thought you should rotate and reformat your cards. Ahh what do I know...

[monochrome]

I have to say if we're reduced to discussing (what I think is) such a trivial fault the camera must be great.

I really can't understand the difference between opening a door, plugging a cable in a camera, then plugging it in a computer vs. opening a door, pulling a card, then slipping it in the slot in my computer.