NikonTransfer software vs. buying a CF-card reader...

[dpbours]

<p>When moving from my thrustworthy D200 to my new D700 I suddenly had to start using the Nikon Transfer software. The camera is not recognized anymore as 'mass storage device' as it was with the D200.<br>

I'm about to buy a CF-card reader, since the Nikon Transfer software is slow and cumbersome. Through the windows explorer, only the jpegs are visible in the little camera-icon, not the raw shots. And yes, in Nikon Transfer, you only see the raw files (shooting jpeg+raw) and when transferring them, the jpeg + raw is transferred, not just the raw as I would expect.<br>

Does anyone have another solution? Are upload capabilities in other software packages better? Like Adobe Bridge or IDImager?<br>

Will there be firmware upgrades so that the camera is recognized as a mass storage device?<br>

Will there be a moment in time that I'll get used to the Nikon Transfer software, or can I better buy a USB CF-card reader?</p>

 

[benjaminm]

<p>It is much safer to use CF card reader. Cases of camera drops were reported on this forum where people accidently pulled the camera <> PC connection cable. I'm using Adobe Bridge CS for file transfer from my D700 to my NAS system.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I use Nikon transfer with my card readers. Never really had any problems with it. But then I only shoot NEF files</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Get your camera manual and look for the menu setting to change the camera from being recognized as a PTP device to being mass storage device. It's all in the D700 settings, no need to come up with a new workflow! For some reason Nikon has by default set it to be PTP, which is a fairly useless way to transfer images.</p>

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

<p>I'll join the chorus suggesting a CF card reader. They're inexpensive, and far easier to hook up to the computer. I'd be very surprised if you were to regret the purchase. </p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i don't believe the D700 allows you to change from PTP to mass storage device, unlike earlier bodies. it is what it is -- and that's a mass storage device as far as windows is concerned. windows should recognize it out of the box. but if you're using vista, then the system may get stuck looking for the mass storage device driver. if so, you must explicitly tell the system where the driver resides: c:\windows\system32\drivers -- if i remember correctly (my neice had a similar issue).<br>

i also urge you to get a card reader. not a 5- or 7- or 20-in-one, a dedicated CF reader. the multis have a tendency to split the USB channel for each interface, making for agonizingly slow xfers. on a USB 2.0, a card reader will zip your pics into the computer.<br>

also, please go to nikon's website and download the RAW codec so you can view the thumbnails in windows. that's the only thing preventing you from seeing them now...<br>

everyone has a preferred workflow. you may want to stick with nikon transfer even with a CF card. i just create a folder inside my photos folder for a new batch of captures, and then move the contents of the card to it. it's very simple to then review the images in ViewNX. but whatever works for you is what you should choose.</p>

[robbie_robertson]

<p>Card readers are also faster and save wear and tear on your camera.</p>

[bmm]

<p>As William implies, it's not a case of card reader <strong>or</strong> Nikon Transfer</p>

<p>Much better is card reader <strong>and</strong> Nikon Transfer (and then seamless integration into View NX and Capture NX2)</p>

<p>Very usefully, if you retain use of Transfer, you get file renaming, dual-location storage (ie backup) and a host of other things that set up your workflow well from the start. Plus you get to see the RAW/NEF files right through your workflow without having to also unnecessarily shoot and save JPGs. Its very much worth getting used to if you do use the Nikon suite of software tools.</p>

[richard_reeve3]

<p>I have a paranoid problem with connecting any camera to a PC via USB. The risk is small but there is a risk of an electrical short that will damage the camera plus there is the often commented on danger of the camera being dragged off a desk because of a dangling cable.<br>

The other view is to leave the card in camera and reduce or remove the danger of damaging the CF card or the pins in the camera but I rotate cards anyway so that is not an issue for me.<br>

My vote is a card reader. :-)</p>

 

[leighmcmullen]

<p>Card reader, not only do I not want my camera on my desk were myself or some random child can knock it off, or go play "Daddy", but a firewire 800 card reader is more than twice as fast as connecting to the camera body.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I greatly prefer the Lexar USB 2.0 card reader over the camera cable. Also, my Aperture auto-loads to "transfer" mode when I insert the CF card into the Lexar reader. Very convenient set-up, IMHO.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I really don't see how Transfer NX is slow?. When I use my Lexar UDMA CF cardreader with Transfer NX, the download speed is around 20-30 MB/s... and that's about as good as to be expected. Transfer NX does not slow anything down.<br>

Next to that, I like a number of features in Transfer NX, but it's a matter of taste. YMMV. Other downloaders do the same task, with roughly the same features. I do not know of any program that rises above the crowd. So it's a matter of preference more than anything else.<br>

So, yes, do get a cardreader since they're just much easier than the clumsy rubber flap covering the USB port, and then you can use any transfer option you like. Alternatively, check the manual, because since a D300 can be set to be mass storage device, I cannot imagine a D700 misses that option.</p>

<p>ps. I really fail to see why TransferNX should only download the RAWs when you give it a card full of JPG+RAW... of course it downloads all, why wouldn't it? If you do not wish to transfer the JPGs to your PC, then why shoot those in the first place?</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>it isn't that transfer NX is slow, it's the bus... USB 2.0 is at it's peak rate, all alone half the speed of firewire 800's sustained rate.<br>

------------<br>

the differences between sustained and peak rates, has been discussed all across the intertubes, but net-net, for transferring lots of big files even firewire 400 is 30-70% faster than USB's peak rate of 480, and firewire 800's rate is unmatched by any other standard's transfer rate peak or sustained.<br>

-------------<br>

Amazon sells firewire 800 card readers and memory cards in nice bundles. you may need to get a firewire 800 card (unless you have a modern mac) they're not expensive either.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>You can use a card reader that fits a USB port or a firewire port (IEEE 1394). The latter reader should be faster. So if you have a free firewire port get one of these. I use Downloader Pro from Breeze Systems to download my images along with other things too. Nikon Transfer will work too, but I am not aware of all of its functions. Check out the manual for Downlaoder Pro at this link and compare it to NT.<br>

<a href="http://www.breezesys.com/downloads/Downloader_Pro_Manual.pdf">http://www.breezesys.com/downloads/Downloader_Pro_Manual.pdf</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>it isn't that transfer NX is slow, it's the bus... USB 2.0 is at it's peak rate, all alone half the speed of firewire 800's sustained rate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At it's peek rate, alone, USB2.0 can do 480 Mb/s, which is 60MB/s. Take away some overhead, and maybe the tiny interference of a USB mouse, and you might be left with some 45 MB/s if you're not using a lot of other USB devices at the same time (which is a typical scenario). 45MB/s is still more than most UDMA CF cards.<br>

So, sorry, but USB is not to blame here. Sure firewire800 is faster. PCs tend to have firewire400, which is usually faster...but it does not really matter...USB 2.0 is fast enough for the fastest memory cards, and USB card readers are a lot cheaper than the firewire cardreaders. Buying a firewire cardreader will not solve the perception of Transfer NX being slow as stated by the topic starter.</p>

[erik_christensen3]

<p>I download both RAW + JPEG via Apacer or Hama Card Reader/Nikon Transfer from both D300 and D700 daily and I do not have any problem except for speed, but that is my old laptop and nothing else</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>not to pick nits... but the *sustaned* transfer rate of USB 2.0 lay around 10-20 MB/s depending on a number of factors including your CPU.<br>

But I don't want to start a USB vs Firewire arguement. as Wouter pointed out, in many instances, the cards can be slower than that even.</p>

<p> </p>

[dpbours]

<p>Thanks for all the answers! A card read it will be.<br>

And true, the D700 does not have the PTP option anymore. No mass storage recognition possible.</p>

<p>Any preferred brands? I saw Lexar passing by as a brand.</p>