Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

On 12 Oct 2005 21:06:07 -0700, wrote:

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.

Stay with your Nikon. Canon bodies are designed for quick AF just like
Nikons. You're not going to find a body to deliver you from this
problem.


--
Alex
atheist #2007

In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02,
says...

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.

The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105
f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a
little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet,
yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those
of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part
time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII.

I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at
those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the
sales person.

There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would
like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from
people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true
sense.

"Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the
thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place.
Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see
another cent of my hard earned dough.

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

"Alex" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:32:18 +0200, DD (Rox)
wrote:

The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.

Not anymore as the mass market cameras are becoming commodities.
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...ofit_soars.asp)

The profits are in the high end digicams and dslrs. I believe all the
manufacturers are or have realized this already.


--
Alex
atheist #2007

With CCD chips for cameras so much of a commodity it is expected that by
next year every new mobile phone sold will have a camera built it. Of
course most camera phones have poor lenses and take rotten pictures but they
are a threat to the point and shoot digitals. That is why the camera
companies are trying to move up market, in the next few years point and
shoot digital cameras will have almost zero profit per unit.

DSLRs will always be smaller volume sellers than camera phones and cheap
point and shoots but they will be the only source of profit for the camera
makers. It will remain so as long as good optics cost top money and pros
and keen amateurs value quality.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

TheD 70 has a diopter adj.

In article , Rox
wrote:

Yep, too much disposable income. I once had a chat to a guy I saw
brandishing an F5 with a crappy Sigma lens on it. I wanted to know what
he thought of the camera and he prattled on about how it took the best
photos he ever saw. Sounds like another guy we know who owns an EOS1v.

Heh, heh. You know who the best retail customers are (or were)?
DENTISTS. When I had my camera stores, the dentists who came in were
incredible hardware junkies. One guy wanted to own - and nearly did -
the entire Nikon catalog. I mean, stupid stuff like Nikon-brand,
darkroom-only bulk film loaders. I know EXACTLY the people you're
talking about!

Richard H. wrote:
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...
[...]
* 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)

This is not true in many areas, for the same reasons it was not true in
the film world.

Photojournalism, sports, wildlife etc. all require speed, portability
and/or long lenses that are not practical with medium format. Digital
has not changed that.

Bolek

On 12 Oct 2005 21:06:07 -0700, wrote:

Dear experts,

[snip]

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.

[snip]

I'm in your boat. I used my Nikon FE and manual lenses for 20 years, I
have bad eyes - bifocals and laser treatment. I was worried, too, by
the reports of the small, dark viewfinder. But I've had my D70 for
several months. I use it with my manual lenses frequently. Focus has
never been an issue (except that I miss DOF markings on the new
lenses). There is an LED in the viewfinder that lights up when you are
in focus using a manual lens. It is very sensitive. I also use the
viewfinder with my glasses on.

HTH
Duncan

"Boleslaw Ciesielski" wrote in message
...
Richard H. wrote:
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...
[...]
* 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)

This is not true in many areas, for the same reasons it was not true in
the film world.

Photojournalism, sports, wildlife etc. all require speed, portability
and/or long lenses that are not practical with medium format. Digital has
not changed that.

Bolek

I was listening to the radio the other night (BBC Radio4) and the discussion
was about the greats of artistic photopgraphy. One of the points that was
made was how some people who were at a level of genius with 35mm could not
perform in medium format, and that some of the medium format greats were
hopeless with 35mm.
By all accounts they are as different as painting in water colours on the
one hand and oils on the other. Sadly I missed most of the show as I was
driving and arrived at my destination (Anyone hear all of it?)

Sure pros could afford medium format, but whether they could make the
transation is another matter. I have to say that having handled, but not
used, medium format I can see it as not being practical in many situations,
no doubt that is why 35mm is so universal..


Chris

wrote in message
oups.com...
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

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Canon is an evil company, but if you
have a bunch of Nikon lenses it just makes sense to go Nikon. The D70
definitely has a diopter adjustment, and you can get lenses for the
viewfinder. There is an LED that tells you when you are focused even with
manual focus, older lenses. It works. And as for the focusing screens:
Those split screen focusing aids were nice, but didn't work with all lenses.
I eventually switched all my screens to a blank screen on my old F's.

Seeing that you already have some Nikon lenses, I think you would be better
off with the Nikon.

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.

On another newsgroup was a poll "Are you upgrading from your 20D to
5D?" about 2/3 of the responses were 'No'.
Those who are upgrading are either must be firmly convinced of
visible superiority of 5D FF images (which is not quite so dramatic a
difference as testing is showing), or they feel that the 1.6 crop is
too restricting in use of existing arsenal of lenses, particularly in
the wide angle range, and either have an employer paying for the
upgrade (so even the backup to the 1DsII is FF) or have the resources
to spend nearly incremental $2000 for FF.