Thinking about D70... Need advice

I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
kinda fuzzy to me,
and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
that's what a digital SLR is like. I've also heard complaints about dust
getting on the CCD. Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
give
fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
"outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
It
makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

Thanks

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at
comparison
photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70
look
kinda fuzzy to me,
and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up,
and
that's what a digital SLR is like.

Look at reviews on dpreview, luminous-landscape.com and megapixel.net.
They are not totally unbiased but give you a fair idea.

Also, it would help if you posted links to the reviews and photos you
refer to in your original posting. Just might be that you are not
looking at the right places.

Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews
even
though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A P&S digital camera with a Leica
lens might outperform the most expensive dSLR with an el-cheapo Tokina
lens - the 28-80mm kit lens kind.

Again, post links to reviews that rate a P&S higher than the Nikon D70.


I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC
World they
love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while
they
give
fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews
of
"outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that
price?
It
makes no sense.

PCWorld isn't a good place to look for camera reviews, IMHO. Pick a
good photography magazine or look at the sites I listed above. They
provide a more accurate and useful review of photo gear.

Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

It does. Goto a store, try out the Nikon D70 and any P&S digital
camera. You won't need to read a review after that to make your
decision.

I have a Canon 300D and another guy in my club has a Panasonic FZ20.
The camera looked damn neat and pics looked fine from the Panasonic. I
held the viewfinder of the Panasonic upto my eye and realised there was
no way I was ever going back to P&S (hint: EVF). There simply is no
comparing a P&S with a dSLR.

- Siddhartha

Sheldon wrote:
I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
kinda fuzzy to me,
and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
that's what a digital SLR is like. I've also heard complaints about dust
getting on the CCD. Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
give
fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
"outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
It
makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

Thanks

Sheldon




This is what i think: If you need the camera now and cant afford Canon
20D, then get the D70. If you dont need it now, wait to see what is the
replacement for eos 300D, because it probably has 8MP sensor and what
more important, Digic II processor which seems to be effective.

The only problem i see in the image quality with d70 is the móire you
probably have heard already, but that seems to occur only in extremely
rare situations and to my thinking it is not a big problem.

Usability seems to be a huge plus to D70 and it includes a lot of
options and settings even though lacking the setting for exact color
temperature. And to my liking D70's continuous shooting is very cabable.
I found this site which compares D70 and 20D:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not beat
the Nikon D70 completely.

I have also been thinking to get D70, but i heard speculations about a
model replacing 300D, so i want to see what that is like before i make
my decision.

-Ari Nevalainen

RONKELI wrote:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not
beat
the Nikon D70 completely.

cough As has been discussed earlier on the NG, Ken Rockwell is a guy
with the magical power to review cameras without ever touching them. So
his reviews are worth almost ______ /cough

On 14 Jan 2005 02:38:28 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
wrote:

RONKELI wrote:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not
beat
the Nikon D70 completely.

cough As has been discussed earlier on the NG, Ken Rockwell is a guy
with the magical power to review cameras without ever touching them. So
his reviews are worth almost ______ /cough

I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
claims he hasn't picked on up).

If this is the case, the claim is floored.

Ken has some strong opinions, and his reviews would be more acceptable
if he saw the world in shades of gray instead of black & white. He's a
man with pure caffeine running through his veins.

--
Owamanga!

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:47:19 -0700, "Sheldon"
wrote:

I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
kinda fuzzy to me,

I presume you are looking at 1:1 pixel shots (3000x2000) at about
80dpi (which is roughly 1024x768 on a 17" monitor) on your computer
screen, equivalent to a 35mm enlargement of 37" by 25" (which is damn
huge) and you complain that they look fuzzy?

Grab one of your best ISO 200 35mm slides or negs, do the same
enlargement and tell me that they look *significantly* better. Tests
I've seen along these lines, prove they don't.

If you are looking at any other size image, then naturally there is
softening with a downsize re-sample that would usually be hit with
some unsharp mask or similar process to bring back the illusion of
sharpness.

Sharpening of the image in Photoshop is an essential part of my
workflow, I don't see how the camera thinks it can do it because where
do you get to tell the camera how big the print is going to be? And
sharpening an image before knowing the final output size is a fools
game.

Other cameras do significant sharpening in-camera. This, I believe,
generates a lower quality image in the long-run, but looks good in the
reviews. You should *always* do some sharpening to the image based on
it's output size, but sharpening (process) should only be done *once*
on an image, and it should be the very last stage in the digital
darkroom, not the first.

You should also have noticed that the D70's saturation is lower than
most other Digicams, again, in the name of quality I don't see this as
a problem - everything goes through the digital darkroom and gets
adjusted by hand to where I think it needs to be. In this respect,
natural colors coming from the D70 are preferred to the almost
Disney-like colors that come from other Digicams.

and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
that's what a digital SLR is like.

Basically, this is true.

I've also heard complaints about dust
getting on the CCD.

As can happen with any DSLR. This is *far less* noticeable than a
piece of dust on a neg scan, a fingerprint, or a lateral scratch that
some labs add to the negative when they process them.

Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

Given your investment in Nikon lenses, in my opinion, the D70 is your
*only* choice. Of course, digital market moves quickly and any new
Nikon models that get released in the future could change that
recommendation.

Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

Because you were a pro, you appreciate the advantages of
interchangeable lenses that only an SLR can bring. Also, this camera
is technically superior to any other Nikon body you own, just look at:

Flash sync at 1/500th
3fps continuous shooting
The most advanced metering system in history, 3D color matrix metering
using 1005 pixels.

Okay, you might own a body that beats 3fps, but what you can't do on a
film body is 2.5fps for 160 frames non-stop.

I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
give
fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
"outstanding."

PC World? What the **** do they know about anything?

Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?

They don't, these reviews are floored. Unless the site/mag in question
re-visits old reviews and revises them (normalizes the results) every
time the bar is raised with the release of a new camera, they can't be
used for comparison. You need to look for a side-by-side review of the
D70 vs some other camera, these are the only ones that matter.

Given the differences between the D70 and the Canon alternatives, most
people agree that they are so slight, ownership of either one's lenses
should be the deciding factor.

Now you just have to compare D70 with other Nikon offerings. Presuming
you are sticking with an SLR, the D70 offers the best value for money
and it beats it's digital superiors in many of it's technical
capabilities.

As soon as you decide that you *don't* want an SLR, obviously the fact
you own Nikon lenses becomes irrelevant and there are some very good
fixed-lens non-Nikon cameras out there. My problem with these, is that
they are *extremely* proprietary. Filters, macro lenses, wide angle
attachments etc are *very* expensive and probably won't be around for
more than a few years after camera production ends - plus they
probably sell 1 unit for every 20 D70's or 20Ds that are sold. With a
Nikon or a Canon DSLR you are buying into a system of lenses, flash
guns, trigger devices and other accessories that already have
significant history.

It makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

I think they do.

--
Owamanga!

Owamanga wrote:
I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
claims he hasn't picked on up).

Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
december' 04.
-------------snip begin-----------------------
Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
played with one.

16 megapixels is no big deal compared with 8 megapixels, see The
Megapixel Myth.

If you have work to shoot today by all means get one. It will give
spectacular results. If you're not a full time pro just know that the
photos you make with this are going to look the same as whatever else
you're shooting today.

Don't get one if you have to go out on a limb to afford it. It's not a
big deal. You are paying a stiff premium over cameras with very similar
performance.
------------snip end-------------------------

The guy makes several assertions. If I made similar assertions, I would
expect people to believe me if I tested a 16MP vs 8MP, posted some
objective tests and parameters and then gave a conclusion.


Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm posted on 16th december'
04
-------------snip begin-----------------------
Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
they HATE the poor flash exposure control. This means they always have
to tweak with the flash settings to get a decent result. By comparison
the Nikon D70 is extremely good. The one or two shots I made were fine.
------------snip end-------------------------

Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.

As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Owamanga wrote:
| I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
| never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
| pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
| review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
| claims he hasn't picked on up).
|
| Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
| december' 04.
| -------------snip begin-----------------------
| Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
| played with one.
| | ------------snip end-------------------------
|


| -------------snip begin-----------------------
| Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
| they HATE the poor flash exposure control.
| ------------snip end-------------------------
|
| Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
| sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.
|
| As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
| on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
| methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
| or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
| about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.
|
| - Siddhartha
|

Mr. Rockwell sounds like the Bill Murray character on "Saturday Night Live"
from way back when--the movie reviewer who reviewed movies that he hadn't
seen.

Rick

On 14 Jan 2005 06:00:58 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
wrote:

Owamanga wrote:
I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
claims he hasn't picked on up).

Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
december' 04.
-------------snip begin-----------------------
Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
played with one.

16 megapixels is no big deal compared with 8 megapixels, see The
Megapixel Myth.

If you have work to shoot today by all means get one. It will give
spectacular results. If you're not a full time pro just know that the
photos you make with this are going to look the same as whatever else
you're shooting today.

Don't get one if you have to go out on a limb to afford it. It's not a
big deal. You are paying a stiff premium over cameras with very similar
performance.
------------snip end-------------------------

The guy makes several assertions. If I made similar assertions, I would
expect people to believe me if I tested a 16MP vs 8MP, posted some
objective tests and parameters and then gave a conclusion.


Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm posted on 16th december'
04
-------------snip begin-----------------------
Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
they HATE the poor flash exposure control. This means they always have
to tweak with the flash settings to get a decent result. By comparison
the Nikon D70 is extremely good. The one or two shots I made were fine.
------------snip end-------------------------

Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.

As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.

Okay, so the guy is honest, owns up to not having used one and
produces a very short review.

I've never posted a link to this review of Ken's, and I agree, it's
fairly worthless. I don't believe I have ever posted a link to any of
Ken's reviews without also providing a number of alternatives.

He is crazy, but makes a number of interesting points, therefore I
don't agree with you that just because of one rather shabby review
that everything else he says should be discounted. We all make
mistakes.

For example, on the 6th Jan you made a claim that digicams only use 8
bits per channel, and well, you were basically wrong. That doesn't
mean we should discount your further posts does it?

g

... and I am not perfect either ..

--
Owamanga!

Owamanga wrote:
Okay, so the guy is honest, owns up to not having used one and
produces a very short review.
Just being honest does not help if your review is worthless.

He is crazy, but makes a number of interesting points, therefore I
don't agree with you that just because of one rather shabby review
that everything else he says should be discounted. We all make
mistakes.
Read the rest of the reviews. I agree that all comments made by a
person should not be discounted because of some of the comments made by
the person are baseless. But then the credibility of such a person
isn't much either.

For example, on the 6th Jan you made a claim that digicams only use 8
bits per channel, and well, you were basically wrong. That doesn't
mean we should discount your further posts does it?
Yes, and on being corrected, I readily owned up to making a mistake. Do
you see any such retraction at Mr.Rockwell's site or postings?

"RONKELI" made a reference to Mr.Rockwell's site as a basis for his
assertion. I merely pointed out that the particular reviwer wasn't
credible enough to be quoted any NG, in my opinion, given his rather
unique testing methodology.

- Siddhartha