Any SLR Camera buffs out there?

Zampa

Zampa

Joined
14 Mar 2005
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
30
Country
United Kingdom
I am in the market for a Nikon D40X..

My first venture into the world of digital SLR photography, its seems reasonable now that you arnt going to lose a fortune paying for heaps of rubbishy traditional developed pics because your a novice.

Anyway...

All of the sites state that the software requirement is 'Vista' and doesnt mention anything about XP

Do i pressume that it wont work on XP?

Thanks...'Le Zamp'
 
Sponsored Links
probably.

but my camera (fuji s5000) will work with out the software

the pc recognises it as a new storage device and still lets me access the pcitures, the only thing the fuji software does is preview the pictures and lets me turn video clips through 90 degrees and some other bits
 
As Breezer says, most cameras appear as a removable drive when you plug the USB cable in.

There is some Nikon software that you can download from their support site which works on XP (I've got it on now) which allows you to view and basic manipulation of photos. It's called Nikon View.

Picassa from Google is quite good for viewing/sorting lots of photos which again is XP ok.
 
Thought you had put D40...was going to recommend D40X.. :oops:
 
Sponsored Links
oh, i forgot to mention, :oops: i only use the finepix s/w to view the pics, once down loaded i use paintshop pro to edit them / shrink for putting on websites
 
Me too, the included software is usually pap. I used to use Paint Shop Pro, but now use Photoshop
 
All of the sites state that the software requirement is 'Vista' and doesnt mention anything about XP
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with your camera so what follows might be rubbish - but here goes anyway.

I've come across this kind of claim many times. The "minimum system requirements" are those needed for everything that comes in the box, and that includes the bundled software. A good example is my trusty Creative Zen Nano MP3 player. The box said something like "350 MHz Pentium II or better" but I look at this and think "It's USB flash memory with an MP3 decoder stuck on the other end." Sure enough, those minimum requirements are for Creative Media Studio which comes with the player.

As others have already implied, the software you get free with hardware is often of poor quality, easily matched, and often bettered, by free alternatives. The only essential requirement is that your OS must recognize the device directly or, if it doesn't, there must be a driver for it. Check out the manufacturers' web site to see what drivers are available.
 
The majority of D-series use Compactflash cards (Some might be SD cards I think?) and any of these cards will connect directly to any computer with a USB port, using a cheap cardreader. The reader becomes a driveletter such as E: and you work with the images from there. Any OS will do so long as it supports USB.

As mentioned, some cameras will also work 'as a driveletter' if you connect the USB cable WITHOUT software installed, though my Nikon doesn't. The Minolta does. Disadvantage of this method is you're running-down the battery to read the card.

The software supplied with cameras serves two purposes:
- As a crutch for lamers.
- To put brand-advertising onto your computer.
 
The D-series DSLR's all use SD Cards. I've got the D50 the previous model to the D40 and thats what mine has, as well as the 80.

Once you have your camera you can regester for free on the Nikon Site and there are pages and pages of downloads that you can access. For it to use on XP will absolutly be no problems.

Dont bother loading the Nikon View....dont get on with it and it wobbles all over the place.

Use your camera as a card reader or pick up a card reader for 15 quid and go from there. Or a new computer will likely come with a in built reader.

Get Photoshop or PSP and go from there.

The batteries in the cameras will take (depending on conditions) circa 400-500 images without charge and will go on more than the Duracell bunny.
 
A friend of mine is a professional photographer.
He has a sponsorship deal with Pentax but then went to Nikon after they offered to build him a signature camera with all the bits he liked, none of the ...etc etc.
Since using the Nikons for a year he has come to the conclusion the Pentax is the superior camera.
He does all our completed project photography and I've had images from both cameras and even as a layman I can see the difference in quality.
He is now going back to Pentax in a new deal.
So, if Carl Beebee uses Pentax, you should too!!!
 
This is what bugs me about photography is that everyone else has an opinion on what equipment you should be using and not what you have in your hands. You will always get the Cannon v Nikon pros and cons discussions, and likewise you will get the v Pentax.

At the end of the day they are all capable cameras capable of producing photographs. How and the method in which you decide to use them and what is right for you is down to personal choice.

At beginner level do you honestly think that if I go out and buy 1000 quids worth of camera gear at beginer level we'd all know how to use it?

Being that he has a "deal" suggests to me that he has (being a pro) access to some pretty expensive superior kit....great but not much use when you are learning.
 
You're right, he does have access to some very expensive kit, like the price of my truck, but his point is a valid one at any price level for only one reason.
His opinion is based not on the gizmos, tricks, storage, battery life etc, only the lens. I'm told that the pentax lens is far better [how I have no idea - I'm no photographer!!] and I can only assume the lens quality is consistent across the range, from entry level compact to DSLR?
But you're right - all I have is a particularly rubbish samsung which we use for our snaps and that seems to give me a perfectly acceptable image quality. If I used a DSLR I would get dreadful pictures every time as I wouldn't know how to set it up.
It's horses for courses, but I assumed the question, as it appeared to be, was regarding high end DSLR's so I think the point about a pentax over a nikon is valid.
Had I been asked however I would have just gone for a canon - shows how much I know!!
 
I have amongst others an Olympus OM-1 SLR early 80's.
This came with a 'Zuiko' (Olympus' own brand 'golden light' ish) F1.4 50mm lens, great for low light photography... But the overall picture quality was a little lacking.
I then purchased a Zuiko F2.8 135mm -- Superb.

An awful lot depends on the glass hanging off the front...
Some say it is best to buy 'body' only, then go for a really useful, quality lens - If more than snapshooting envisaged.
-
But does it have that all important mettalic chassis??? ;) Just do not search Notters hall on this word MEGAPIXALS ...
:D :D
 
empip said:
An awful lot depends on the glass hanging off the front...
Click to expand...

True, although the real benefit of a more upmarket camera is its having manual controls. Automatic exposure does a reasonable job, and is a timesaver for snapshots, but autofocus IME never really works properly, in fact it often causes you to lose shots through 'tromboning' (focus-hunting) that would have been perfectly OK on infinity. That, and having a proper zoom-ring instead of having the press buttons for zoom. Once you've developed the skill to use a manual lens effectively, particularly on action shots, you just don't want to go back to an automatic camera. Hence I'd say that a D-series for a beginner is perhaps starting off on the right foot, as it's a tool which can be used to learn proper photographic skills, whereas an all-auto camera is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top