My D70 got Smashed

Paul Furman wrote:

Worth repairing? It meters & autofocuses. None of the buttons on the
left side work. Quality changed from jpeg+RAW to stuck on normal. The
final shot is number 33360 so I got my money's worth.

Good excuse to get a ruggedized D200 (with a wrist strap & a carabiner
clip).

Apparently Nikon will give an estimate for free, the shop I'm getting a
D200 body from (talked him down to $50 over MSRP) will waive $15
shipping so I should be good to go. I don't mind $50 rather than a race
to Best Buy's next shipment, probably a week.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
That was God punishing you for sinning against the book of Canon.


Nah. He should've got a Pentax.

I fell 110 feet down a glacier in the Andes with one round my neck about
20
years ago. The camera hit a rock (which otherwise I would have hit) and
got
a dent in the pentaprism housing. But it continues to work perfectly to
this day.

20 years ago, it wouldn't be a DSLR. I remember the story from the 70's (not
necessarily true, but it ought to be) about the climber in the Himalayas who
dropped his Nikon F over a 10,000 foot precipice. After recovering it
several days later, he wrote Nikon a stern letter of complaint over the fact
that it would now only work on a single shutter speed.

I wouldn't try smashing rocks with my F2, but I probably could. I could
certainly smash my D70 with it.

--
Apteryx

Joseph Kewfi wrote:
It now looks like I hit the camera repeatedly with a huge hammer. $1,300
(USD) are gone in an instant.

That is one fuked up story, you seem pretty relaxed about it though. I'd be
****ed for long while if same happened to me.

No one will dispute that!

--
John McWilliams

Ken Nadvornick wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:

Over goes the heavy tripod along with the far heavier plywood...
right into the other tripod. I look up with immobilized hands only
just in time to see the combined weight of the first setup hit the
second and smash the camera, backward and groundglass down, directly
onto the asphalt. The camera *explodes* as it hits.

That was literally painful to read, Ken.
-Made me cringe and frown...

-Mark²

Well, I got the D200, looks & feels good, had not been used, photo #0 in
the exif, tried a shot into the sunset with dark edge & no banding & the
sucker has a METAL body for the next tumble in the woods.

Brighter bigger viewfinder, shutter is quieter, about the same weight, a
little bigger, nice rubber grips, more dials & knobs & they are designed
so it doesn't switch modes while pulling it out of the bag, huge LCD
zooms to full resolution.

My 2GB cards only hold 88 RAW+fine jpeg though instead of 300.

Here's the damage on the old D70:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/cameras/2006-04-27-smashed-d70&PG=1&PIC=1
-it's off to Japan to see if it can be repaired.

wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Bummer! I dropped my 1D Mark II from about 3 feet onto a rock
when I was in Australia, and I thought it was a goner. Not even
a scratch, and it works fine!


I have to say, DSLRs seem to be more rugged than I'd give them credit
for. I dropped my 300D from a height of 3-4 feet onto a hard tile
floor about 18 months ago...the bottom corner hit the ground first,
the camera sort of bounced and tipped forward, and the fall was
ultimately stopped by the 18-55 kit lens, which hit the floor hard
enough to knock the lens cap loose. The only damage? A piece of
plastic about the size of a dime broke off of the corner of the
battery grip, near the shutter release. I used the camera for the
rest of the night (astonished that the kit lens still functioned
perfectly), and the next day I superglued the broken piece back on to
the grip.

Right.
Even my H-U-G-E smash from 90 feet onto hard rock left remarkably little
body damage to my old D30.
So many have claimed that a non-metal body is inferior...but the fact is,
and ONLY part of the body housing that broke was a very narrow strip on the
bottom near the battery door. The rest of the body housing remained
completely unharmed. This is not to say that the internals were unharmed.
They were screwed up big-time...but the arguments of so many...for so
long...has been that only metal bodies are strong enough for "pro this" or
"pro that." The whole concept is rather silly, since the internals are far
more sensitive to shock that the body housing itself. If anything, a metal
body might actually transfer MORE shock to the internals than a somewhat
flexible composite housing would...

-Mark²

According to Paul Furman :
Well, I got the D200, looks & feels good, had not been used, photo #0 in
the exif, tried a shot into the sunset with dark edge & no banding & the
sucker has a METAL body for the next tumble in the woods.

Well ... metal is just as likely to deform under those extreme
conditions -- it just may not *split* as this did. But it might deform
enough to render parts of the image out of focus, or even to jam the
meter mechanism or the mechanical shutter.

And who knows whether the sensor survived the experience.

Brighter bigger viewfinder, shutter is quieter, about the same weight, a
little bigger, nice rubber grips, more dials & knobs & they are designed
so it doesn't switch modes while pulling it out of the bag, huge LCD
zooms to full resolution.

I keep being tempted by the D200 -- but hope to not have this
kind of motivation to upgrade.

My 2GB cards only hold 88 RAW+fine jpeg though instead of 300.

Hmm ... not RAW+BASIC the way the D70 wants to do it?

Here's the damage on the old D70:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/cameras/2006-04-27-smashed-d70&PG=1&PIC=1

Ouch! Photographed by the new D200, I presume? Did the lens
survive? I presume that you've tried it on the D200.

Good luck with the repairs.
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Paul Furman :

Well, I got the D200...

My 2GB cards only hold 88 RAW+fine jpeg though instead of 300.

Hmm ... not RAW+BASIC the way the D70 wants to do it?

Any of three quality settings combined.

Here's the damage on the old D70:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/cameras/2006-04-27-smashed-d70&PG=1&PIC=1

Ouch! Photographed by the new D200, I presume?

No, a friend's P&S.

Did the lens
survive? I presume that you've tried it on the D200.

Yes, works fine.

"Roger N. Clark" wrote:

Bummer! I haven't lost a camera yet, but I have
managed to mess up several lenses. Last summer I dropped
a 150mm caltar when taking it off my 4x5. I had a UV
filter on the front, but the lens fell onto a pointy rock
with the rear element hitting the rock. I bought
a new Nikon lens to replace it.

You might look at a Toho FC-45x, see
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

It is a metal camera, and the lightest field camera, yet
still has great movements. I love mine and I was able
to lighten my tripod, thus making my backpack
much lighter. It is only available from Badger
Graphic (at least when I got mine several years ago).

Thanks for the camera recommendation. I'll definitely have a look-see. I'd
always thought my next camera purchase would be an 8x10 or 11x14 for contact
printing. In fact, Wista makes a DXII-featured 8x10 for under $1,900. I
hate like hell to be spending for a replacement 4x5, but enlarging in my
darkroom is built around that format.

Ken

"Mark²" wrote:

That was literally painful to read, Ken.
-Made me cringe and frown...

And the best may yet be coming. By sheer coincidence I just today received
notice from Calumet that my long-delayed electronic shutter speed tester
thingy shipped for arrival next Wednesday. So I've decided to wait for the
chance to try it out before taking the 210mm lens in for its check-up (or
funeral).

I guess I'm gonna' find out just how rugged those rugged Copal shutters
*really* are. This oughta' be interesting...

Ken