Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
wrote:

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

What does the size of the sensor have to do with the size or brightness
of the viewfinder?

cjcampbell wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
wrote:

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

What does the size of the sensor have to do with the size or
brightness of the viewfinder?

Because it's a larger illuminated area...meaning a larger prism
housing...meaning a larger viewfinder image to reflect the entire sensor
area. Trust me on this one... It's MUCH larger. When you crop down the
sensor size, there just isn't enough space in their to somehow magnify the
reflected image off of the mirror. With a larger sensor, you also have a
larger mirror...larger prism...larger focus screen...larger viewfinder to
view that larger screen.

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
wrote:

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

What does the size of the sensor have to do with the size or
brightness of the viewfinder?

Because it's a larger illuminated area...meaning a larger prism
housing...meaning a larger viewfinder image to reflect the entire sensor
area. Trust me on this one... It's MUCH larger. When you crop down the
sensor size, there just isn't enough space in their to somehow magnify the
reflected image off of the mirror. With a larger sensor, you also have a
larger mirror...larger prism...larger focus screen...larger viewfinder to
view that larger screen.

Okay, I can see that.

In article ,
says...

Yes....Many years ago I had a IIIf. It was a great camera. I will pick up a
late model M one of these days, and maybe a fast 90mm lens to go with
it......

The big bargains seem to be coming in the form of M2's or M4's these
days.

When I swapped my 17-35mm for an M6 (remember the one that had a faulty
meter?) I was quite disappointed with the viewfinder compared to that of
the M3. The focussing patch on the M3 never flares, but the first time I
looked through the finder on the M6 I encountered the flare problem.

Having said that, it was a joy to use anyway, even with its faulty
meter. I did manage to swap a mint 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor for the 90mm f/2.8
Elmar(it? - I can never remember those Leica lens designations) that the
M6 came with once we sent everything back to one another. Very nice
lens.

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

In article KAU7f.3483$UF4.3060@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...

There was/is a preacher I always liked listening to who had a line I found
amusing/interesting.
It went something like this:

"God can do a lot with sin...
...but what can he do with stupidity??"

(-Always followed by chuckles from the congregation, since we all knew
EXACTLY the kind of stuff he was talking about!)

-Not saying you're stupid, Dallas, but you've definitely been saying some
things that fall into that category. We all say stupid things from time to
time, it's just that some tend to make a habit of it.

Trouble with you and some of your brethren, Mark, is that you have
reading comprehension problems. You read things that are not there, make
comments that are derived from some sort of convoluted "understanding"
of the conversation, then you stomp your feet, point your finger and act
in a way that reminds me a lot of the group mentality of unsupervised
children on a playground.

See ya.

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

"DD (Rox)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yes....Many years ago I had a IIIf. It was a great camera. I will pick up
a
late model M one of these days, and maybe a fast 90mm lens to go with
it......

The big bargains seem to be coming in the form of M2's or M4's these
days.

When I swapped my 17-35mm for an M6 (remember the one that had a faulty
meter?) I was quite disappointed with the viewfinder compared to that of
the M3. The focussing patch on the M3 never flares, but the first time I
looked through the finder on the M6 I encountered the flare problem.

Having said that, it was a joy to use anyway, even with its faulty
meter. I did manage to swap a mint 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor for the 90mm f/2.8
Elmar(it? - I can never remember those Leica lens designations) that the
M6 came with once we sent everything back to one another. Very nice
lens.

Well, my IIIf didn't have a meter, and it was never a problem to me. But
then, in those days (the late 50's) I only shot B&W, and you could correct
for almost anything in the darkroom. Today, shooting color slides, I suspect
that I would have to use a hand held meter were I to use a manual camera.

In article ,
says...
When I swapped my 17-35mm for an M6 (remember the one that had a faulty
meter?) I was quite disappointed with the viewfinder compared to that of
the M3. The focussing patch on the M3 never flares, but the first time I
looked through the finder on the M6 I encountered the flare problem.

Having said that, it was a joy to use anyway, even with its faulty
meter. I did manage to swap a mint 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor for the 90mm f/2.8
Elmar(it? - I can never remember those Leica lens designations) that the
M6 came with once we sent everything back to one another. Very nice
lens.

Well, my IIIf didn't have a meter, and it was never a problem to me. But
then, in those days (the late 50's) I only shot B&W, and you could correct
for almost anything in the darkroom. Today, shooting color slides, I suspect
that I would have to use a hand held meter were I to use a manual camera.

You'll find the M series have much better finders than the LTM's. I
haven't shot any slides with my M3 (yet!), but will probably do so at
some point.............when this annus horribilus comes to an end and I
can go on my annual shutdown).

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

Mark² wrote:

snip

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.

Well stated. Even people that are not yet willing to spend the bucks for
a DSLR with a full frame sensor, are buying the higher quality lenses in
anticipation of being able to upgrade their body later.

The issue of full-frame versus small-frame is more of an issue of noise
and lenses than of resolution.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"DaveW" wrote in message
news:TAv7f.6218$tl5.619@trnddc02...
William Graham wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:

I am not whining about my business costs. I am trying to get the society
to
save its drivers millions and millions of dollars every year that they
are
now giving to insurance companies because those companies have lobbied
to
get laws on the books that allow them to sell liability insurance
policies
to each car, rather than to the drivers who are the ones that incur the
liability.

Oh! You want a nanny state to protect you from the big bad insurance
companies!


No, I just don't want the "nanny state" to force me to give extra money
to the insurance companies, which is what is going on now. If you had
been following this thread, you'd know that the insurance company lobbies
have paid our legislators to make laws that allow the insurance companies
to rip the drivers off for billions of dollars every year.


While I agree that liability insurance should go with the driver rather
than the car, I don't see how this would save most of us much money. For

Addressing only liability coverage, not comprehensive or collision, which
I think everyone agrees should go with the car:

Say you now pay say $2000 a year, ($1000 per car for two cars). Now
change the system so that liability insurance covers the driver, not the
car. I say the coverage will cost you $2000 a year.

Why? Because they can.


I should add that back when I was a one family household with two cars,
one company which had been a good deal for one car turned out to be a bad
deal for two. Another company which would have been higher for only one
car gave a much better 2 car discount so that the package deal was better
than with the first co.

My Mamma told me, you gotta shop around.

Regards,

DAve

I agree that you should shop around, and in a free enterprise system, there
should be a variety of places for you to buy from. What I don't like is when
the government makes laws in restraint of free trade that allows all these
places to force you to pay more for whatever reason. If these places were to
get together in the middle of the night, and make decisions like this, they
would be breaking the anti-trust laws. So the insurance companies have
decided to let the government do it for them. If the insurance companies are
forced to compete, and the government doesn't make laws that give them all
an unfair advantage, then we would be living in the best of worlds, and
getting the best deals that the companies can possibly offer. I'm not asking
for anything special. Only fairness across the board.
Apparently what has happened is the following. First the insurance
companies could write the policies any way they wanted, and the people had a
huge variety of policies and payment schemes to choose from. Then some
unscrupulous company(s) wrote bad, rip-off policies, and screwed people out
of their money with policies that didn't have to pay them anything when they
were involved in accidents. So, these people sued, and the government made
laws that forced all the policies to have the same wording, so the
illiterates couldn't get hurt. Then, that set the stage for the insurance
companies to get the government to make more laws, such as the one that
allowed them to sell liability policies on the cars, instead of the drivers.
I think it was all a mistake. The government should not have made any laws
in the first place. Everyone should have to read the fine print on their
policies to make sure that they aren't getting screwed.

Let's admit it, not everyone wants to get a sufficiently
complete legal education in order to do this. I've seen numerous
lawyers in interviews where they said even they cannot understand
insurance policies -- it takes a specialist to do so. Do you really
want to read fifteen pages of small-print gibberish of which, in the
end, you'll likely have no idea of the meaningful contents.

As a small example, do you really understand the little bit of
writing on a parking garage receipt where it says things like, "This
contract does not constitute a bailment, etc."?

Many of these used to have in terrorem clauses which were
legally unenforceable, but discouraged claims when a car was stolen,
broken into or otherwise damaged.

In addition, long ago, the contract was written in such a way
that the garage owner could legally rent out your car while it was in
his care. Ownership was transferred for a short time to the garage
owner in such a way that he could let it out with impunity.

So yeah, I think there's a lot of room for the government to
enforce uniformity in common contractual issues. Whether the exact
enforcement meets your particular specs for fairness is a separate
issue. If free enterprise means you're entitled to write completely
incomprehensible contracets, then yes, I believe that it should be
curbed to the extent that a reasonable person can buy something with
reasonable certaainty that he does indeed have title to it and that
there are remedies available if the the thing has been misrepresented.

Just curious -- have you ever applied for a loan on a piece of
real estate? Did you seriouslt read (and understand the complete legal
implications fo) the inch and a half thick bundle of papers which you
signed (or initialed) and dated in roughly thirty-eight places? Or did
you jave a lawyer by your side to review each document? How many hours
overtime did the office have to stay open in the evening so you could
do this?

That's what the
education system is for. To teach people how to read and interpret what they
read for themselves. I don't want my government holding my hand and making
sure I don't get screwed. I am capable of doing this for myself, and I would
think that everyone should think the same way. As soon as you allow the
government to do your thinking for you, then you set yourself up for getting
screwed by a collusion between the government and corporations who hire
lobbyists to bribe government officials to screw you out of your hard earned
cash. This is exactly what has happened here. The insurance companies are
making billions of extra dollars every year by selling liability insurance
on cars instead of drivers, and the government has laws on the books that
force the driving public to buy it, and which don't allow any, "renegade"
insurance company to offer anything else. I should be able to go to Lloyds
of London, or any other group of insurance companies that bid on insurance
contracts, and offer up for auction my own driving record to be purchased by
any enterprising insurance company in the group for a bid.

Yeah, the average person has plenty of time to go around
soliciting and fully understanding bids from international companies
not controlled by US law. We're all so independently wealthy that we
don't have to hold down a job and can afford to spend our lives
reading and understanding contracts for each transaction we make.

Some company
should bid on my driving ability, and offer me a policy that covers me for
any car I happen to be driving against liability. How many cars I own or
drive should have nothing to do with it. They should just say, "Mr. Graham,
considering your driving record, and how many miles a year you drive, we are
prepared to offer you liability insurance coverage for xxx dollars a year."
Then, anytime I am driving anything, whether I own it or not, I would be
covered for liability. Unfortunately, I can not do this by LAW! IOW, the
insurance companies have lobbied my legislature to get laws put on the books
that prevent me from doing this, and forcing me to buy liability policies on
each car that I own, whether I ever drive it or not. That way, these
companies are making lots of money on cars that are parked a large
percentage of the time. - A pitiful situation, IMO.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:19:38 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"no_name" wrote in message
.com...
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:53:34 +1000, Eugene
wrote:


It may not be as enjoyable as driving on the open road, but cars
can be driven in all parts of Manhattan, even downtown. The main
exceptions being certain areas when Presidents or other dignitaries
visit, New Year's Eve, some large annual parade routes and lower
Manhattan for a short period after 9-11.


Even if you can, perhaps you should be asking yourself if you should be
driving in downtown Manhattan. It really ****es me off seeing all the
people in Melbourne driving to and from work when they could easily be
using public transport. What really annoys me is when I hear people
complaining about the trams because they get in their way when they're
trying to drive. I personally would be happy if all cars were banned

Back in the days when I was repairing office machinery (punched card,
mostly) there was a lot of talk like this. but I had to carry parts and
tools around from office building to office building all day in order to do
my job. There was no way I could do this using public transportation. So,
you can't make a law that, "Forces everyone to park their cars outside the
city limits and use public transportation." There are always exceptions, so
laws should only be made with the greatest trepidition and the most careful
thought. Personally, I like the so called, "Golden Gate plan" which was
thought up about 30 or 40 years ago by some San Franc8sco traffic engineer.
He said, "Lets give the ground level over to cars, from building face to
building face. Put parking garages on the ground floor of all the buldings,
and put all pedestrians on the 02 level, about 20 feet above the ground on
sidewalks cantilevered out from the sides of the buildings. All stores and
shopping would be carried out up there, 20 feet above the street.
Over-the-street walkways would carry the pedestrians from block to block,
and no person would ever have to walk more than a few feet inside a parking
garage from their car to the nearest elevator that takes them upstairs. I
believe this is the way to go, but it is hard to impliment on citys that are
already built, like New York and San Francisco. If you ever get to design a
city from scratch, however.........

For someone who decries government "interference" in
complicated (for the average person) contract issues, you're sure fine
with the government mandating the re-engineering of urban life and
construction to meet your needs/desires/fantasies.



from driving in downtown city areas. It'd make the air a lot cleaner and

make it so much safer for pedestrians.


That might be doable if public transportation is excellent and
if people get to and from work at tegular times.

I orked at a decent distance from where I live and it would
take three transfers and 2.5 hours each way if I didn't drive. If I
had to work late, it would likely take an extra hour at least to get
home as public transportation is horrible off hours.

And where I worked, there was no public transportation off hours. If you
worked anything except strictly 9 - 5 you either drove or walked.

And since it was 15 miles out of town ...