PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=49783)

[email protected] October 13th 05 05:06 AM

Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
 
Dear experts,

I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.

I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
noticed a few issues.

The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
There was no split in the middle where you can focus
by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.

The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
for other Nikons, but not the D70.

So, this brings up the question, if there is any
real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
focus them.

I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
lenses too if I bought a Canon.

I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
have different screens?

How does the Canon compare in any other area that
you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?

Thanks a lot


MarkČ October 13th 05 05:34 AM

wrote:
Dear experts,

I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.

I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
noticed a few issues.

The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
There was no split in the middle where you can focus
by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.

The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
for other Nikons, but not the D70.

So, this brings up the question, if there is any
real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
focus them.

I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
lenses too if I bought a Canon.

I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
have different screens?

How does the Canon compare in any other area that
you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?

Thanks a lot


The Canon with similarly small sensors have similar issues with manual
focus...
But...
The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
$3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.




Richard H. October 13th 05 05:45 AM

wrote:
The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
There was no split in the middle where you can focus
by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


Bingo. Not just because it's digital - because it's auto-focus. You'll
find this with film AF cameras too. It's nearly impossible to manually
focus sharply with the current SLR focus screens.

They seem to have cut a corner here since "nobody would want to focus
manually with an AF camera". Sadly, there's not an after-market option
to add a split prism or other style of focusing screen. (If somebody
knows of one for the N80 or D70, please tell!)

This may help - it's a viewfinder magnifier for Nikons. It looks a
little goofy, but it's on my to-buy list anyway...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=37321&is=GREY
and it needs this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=37445&is=REG


The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
for other Nikons, but not the D70.


Interesting point. I hadn't noticed.

I would speculate that if the viewfinder screen is smaller, it's because
the image being cast onto the sensor / viewfinder is smaller. (Though
I'd think that should be correctable in the viewfinder regardless. Hmmm.)

If you search on "nikon diopter d70" at http://www.bhphotovideo.com, you
will see there is a full range of them. There is also a minor
adjustment built into the body. If you're fortunate not to have an
astigmatism, they will work OK; otherwise, you'll need to keep your
glasses on when shooting.


I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
lenses too if I bought a Canon.


Very true.

Ironically, some of Nikon's very good lenses are manual-focus only, such
as their 50mm f/1.2.


How does the Canon compare in any other area that
you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?


Let the religious battles begin. :-)

After much debate, it's usually apparent that both are excellent
systems. Canon seems to lead in some areas, and Nikon in others.

Aside from the obvious things like lens selection available, look at
subtler things too like compression tech (number of images per MB),
battery life, continuous rate buffer sizes, etc.

Cheers,
Richard

Mike Warren October 13th 05 05:48 AM

wrote:
Dear experts,


Not me, but I'll answer anyway. :-)

The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
There was no split in the middle where you can focus
by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The
full frame ones would be better since the focus screen is
bigger.

There are after-market focus screens available for some
dSLRs. I don't have any personal experience though.

And, in the catalog, there is no diopter (?) correction
for the D70. They have some for other Nikons, but
not the D70.


The D70/D70s and D50 all have viewfinder diopter adjustment.
It's under the left side of the eye cup.

--
Mike Warren
My web gallery:
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike



Wayne October 13th 05 05:59 AM

In article .com,
says...
And, in the catalog, there is
no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
for other Nikons, but not the D70.



The D70 has a small slider on the right side of its eyepiece, allowing
small adjustment from -1.6 to +0.5 diopter.

There are also optional stronger replacement eyepieces listed in the
Accessories section of the D70 web page at
www.nikonusa.com. The
builtin slider still works to modify those lens by -1.6 to +0.5.


Richard H. October 13th 05 06:11 AM

MarkČ wrote:
The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
$3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.


A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific lenses.
He made an interesting observation about the prospect of full-frame
CCD sensors becoming the new trend...

* With the smaller sensors, we're "beyond" the resolution of the mass
market needs, even at 6 or 8MP. (i.e., it's good enough for most 35mm
purposes, and while consumers may ask for higher resolution, there
aren't enough willing to pay for it.)

* The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
market segment)

* At a manufacturing level, full-frame sensors will always be more
expensive to make because they have a higher probability of defects and
fewer of them fit on a manufacturing wafer (more scrap material, lower #
units per batch, & higher defect rate).

* "Digital" format lenses are cheaper to produce (and sell), and can be
smaller and lighter because they require less glass for the same result.

Looking at the above if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd be focusing on
increasing resolution by improving density of the smaller sensors at the
same / less cost, not on physically increasing the size of the sensor.

It'll be very interesting to see if Canon's 5D is setting a new trend,
or a short-lived idea.

Cheers,
Richard

Nikon User October 13th 05 06:25 AM

In article ws.net,
"Mike Warren" wrote:

Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The full frame
ones would be better since the focus screen is bigger.


It's the same thing with 35MM autofocus cameras. The N8008s doesn't
have a split image device either.

MarkČ October 13th 05 06:35 AM

Richard H. wrote:
MarkČ wrote:
The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large,
bright viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It
also accepts different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
$3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.


A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific
lenses. He made an interesting observation about the prospect of
full-frame CCD sensors becoming the new trend...

* With the smaller sensors, we're "beyond" the resolution of the mass
market needs, even at 6 or 8MP. (i.e., it's good enough for most 35mm
purposes, and while consumers may ask for higher resolution, there
aren't enough willing to pay for it.)

* The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
market segment)

* At a manufacturing level, full-frame sensors will always be more
expensive to make because they have a higher probability of defects
and fewer of them fit on a manufacturing wafer (more scrap material,
lower # units per batch, & higher defect rate).

* "Digital" format lenses are cheaper to produce (and sell), and can
be smaller and lighter because they require less glass for the same
result.
Looking at the above if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd be focusing
on increasing resolution by improving density of the smaller sensors
at the same / less cost, not on physically increasing the size of the
sensor.
It'll be very interesting to see if Canon's 5D is setting a new trend,
or a short-lived idea.

Cheers,
Richard


At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this is
its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neither
want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is for
serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They have
also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the
full frame sizes in the future.

The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses. As sensors grow
both in size and pixel density, we are quickly reaching a point where lens
quality is paramount. Sensors are now capable of revealing lens' optical
flaws. From a marketing standpoint, this could be good for Canon, since it
would then "justify" the purchase of their highest quality (and, by far,
their highest priced) lenses. It is already happening. More and more
advanced amateurs seem to be gravitating toward larger, faster, more
expesnive glass. This is where Canon will make a mint. If they were to
limit themselves to small sensors (which also lead to lower threshholds for
noise), they'd only be inviting lesser lens manufacturers to nab their cash
cow (lenses), since everyone could churn out small-sensor-optimized lenses.

I think Canon is not only on the right track business-wise, but they are
also in a position of command in terms of utilizing the larger sensor's
capacity for high-res/low-noise imaging.

-Mark



DD (Rox) October 13th 05 07:06 AM

In article Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02, "Mark=B2" mjmorgan(lowest=20
even number says...
At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this =

is=20
its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neith=

er=20
want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is =

for=20
serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who=

=20
want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They h=

ave=20
also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and =

the=20
full frame sizes in the future.


Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped=20
into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with=20
the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in=20
the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but=20
amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular=20
photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera=20
(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and=20
they had to had it.

The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.=20


I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment and=20
supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds their=20
operation is made from P&S digital cameras.=20

--=20
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com

MarkČ October 13th 05 07:15 AM

DD (Rox) wrote:
In article Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of
this is its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't
likely neither want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized
built-in flash. It is for serious photographers who want their wide
angle lenses to work...and who want the high res of 12.8MP without
sacrificing quality to noise. They have also indicated a plan to
keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the full frame sizes
in the future.


Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much
interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10
orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were
not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought
the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the
newest thing and they had to had it.


There will always be people like that.
I've seen people hauling around Leicas for the same reason: They think they
look cool holding one. I'm sure that happens with all sorts of
things...cars...motorcycles...guns...and cameras. Meanwhile, those who
actually know how to use a camera are using them well, regardless of how
many dorks with money there might be--posing in their mirrors holding their
new toy.

The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.


I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment
and supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds
their operation is made from P&S digital cameras.


Since this is a discussion about photography equipment, I thought it would
go without saying that I was referring to SLR photo equitpment $$ coming
from sale of lenses, as opposed to bodies.

-Though actually, I suspect that with the huge successes of digital bodies,
that may be swinging a bit.
I don't know.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com