Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
k...

"Scott Schuckert" wrote in message
...
In article JvH3f.5830$MN6.2949@fed1read04, Richard H.
wrote:

This is an odd trend; I wonder about the cause and effect with dentists
and photography. :-) Locally, there's known to be a large Internet porn
company that's owned by (you guessed it) - two dentists. No knowing if
they shoot their own pics, but I'd bet so.

I think the same aspect of the personality (fascination with mechanical
things?) that leads them to dentistry tends to make them hardware
junkies. My GP doesn't have much more than a scale and a stethoscope in
his office; my dentist has a computerized 3D X-ray machine and an NC
milling machine to make replacement teeth.

Another dentist I know collects 1958 Cadillacs; has over a dozen of
'em. So it's probably no suprise they're camera collectors; the odd
thing was that they all seemed to be into Nikon instead of Leica.

I have a sneaking suspicion americans pay a lot in dental fees.


Your suspicion is correct. I know not for the USA, but at least in Canada,
dentistry is not part of our so called "universal health care" and believe
me, it costs an arm and a leg.

Don't get me started on the topic of Canadian healthcare. It is nowhere
near anything what it is supposed to be: Hospitals are overcrouded!
Service is C---! Nurses are overworked! (I know, I am one!) You want
true universality? Then we should include Optometry, Dentistry and
Pharmacy services; but our government is too stingy to spend any DECENT
amount of monies where they should! What does Mr. Martin do with this
SURPLUS we've been running since he was Minister of Finance? Hell, true
Universality: Take healthcare out of the Provinces' jurisdiction and
make it exclusively a federal jurisdiction so that ALL provinces get
the same services. Right now the ones with bigger voices (Quebec and
Ontario) seem to get the "Lions' Share".

Sorry, Just had to rant.

Jennifer in BC.

In article , ian
lincoln wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion americans pay a lot in dental fees.

Uh, yeah. Fortunately I have good teeth, but the first dentist I
mentioned is into my ladyfriend for about $50,000 over the last 4
years.

Why not just do what most Canadians do - come to the USA and use our
facilities....

PC


On 10/16/05 2:52 PM, in article
, "
wrote:

Don't get me started on the topic of Canadian healthcare. It is nowhere
near anything what it is supposed to be: Hospitals are overcrouded!
Service is C---! Nurses are overworked! (I know, I am one!) You want
true universality? Then we should include Optometry, Dentistry and
Pharmacy services; but our government is too stingy to spend any DECENT
amount of monies where they should! What does Mr. Martin do with this
SURPLUS we've been running since he was Minister of Finance? Hell, true
Universality: Take healthcare out of the Provinces' jurisdiction and
make it exclusively a federal jurisdiction so that ALL provinces get
the same services. Right now the ones with bigger voices (Quebec and
Ontario) seem to get the "Lions' Share".

Sorry, Just had to rant.

Jennifer in BC.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Don't get me started on the topic of Canadian healthcare. It is nowhere
near anything what it is supposed to be: Hospitals are overcrouded!
Service is C---! Nurses are overworked! (I know, I am one!) You want
true universality? Then we should include Optometry, Dentistry and
Pharmacy services; but our government is too stingy to spend any DECENT
amount of monies where they should! What does Mr. Martin do with this
SURPLUS we've been running since he was Minister of Finance? Hell, true
Universality: Take healthcare out of the Provinces' jurisdiction and
make it exclusively a federal jurisdiction so that ALL provinces get
the same services. Right now the ones with bigger voices (Quebec and
Ontario) seem to get the "Lions' Share".

Sorry, Just had to rant.

Jennifer in BC.

Why don't you consider getting it out of the government's hands altogether,
and making it a competitive, private enterprise business? If you don't like
the services provided by one hospital/HMO, then you can go to another, and
give your money to the people who do the job best, just like you do when you
buy groceries or clothing, or automobile insurance.
Not that that's the way it is here in the US.....Our health services
have been screwed up by socialism just as bad as yours have. For some
reason, people think, "important" things should be handled by their
governments. They never seem to get the message that anything the government
touches gets destroyed by the inefficiency that comes with lack of
competition, and guaranteed permanent employment no matter how badly you do
your job.
End of my, "rant".

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Tony Polson wrote:

No doubt Canon want to sell EF lenses to 5D users, rather than seeing
them use Leica and Carl Zeiss glass instead.

The huge interest in using Leica and Carl Zeiss lenses on Canon DSLRs
makes me wonder whether it would make good commercial sense for Leica
to manufacture lenses with the Canon EF mount.


Given that its Canon, I doubt... after they have licenced all the patents,
spurious or not in it that are held worldwide, its hardly likely they have
any apetite for making lens any more...

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:

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

Me thinks me smell a troll.... The D2 series of Nikons accept and
meter with the older Nikon lenses.. as do the high end Canon's with
older Canon glass. The D70s has an adjustable diopter on the view
finder and dipoters are available for the high end cameras. And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light. My Nikon F split prism blacks out with slow lenses and long
lenses. An AF camera in maual mode still shows the electronic
rangefinder and works in a much wider variety of lighting than my old
split prism.


Do a little research......

If you want to buy Canon, then do it. You will get an an excellent
state of the art camera. Don't do it by making up or implying features
of the Nikon line that simply aren't true.

Nikon F, Nikon N90s, D70s, Coolscan IV, Mac G4 OS 10.3 and a
couple of Kodak Carousels.

Jim
--
Jim

Jennifer,

I sympathize with you on your frustration on your job; my sister-in-law
is a nurse in Ottawa and I hear her complain about the shortages
constantly.

However, I must mention that our healthcare system, with all its
faults, has one advantage we cannot take for granted: Should anyone of
us have a serious accident which would cause us to be hospitalized, our
healthcare system pays for our stay, our Doctors, our Therapists, our
Nurses, our medications while in hospital. I cannot imagine the cost I
would have had to incure when I was involved in a highway accident last
winter and was in the hospital for 3 weeks.

Jennifer, yours is a wonderful job.

RobGN

"RobGN" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jennifer,

I sympathize with you on your frustration on your job; my sister-in-law
is a nurse in Ottawa and I hear her complain about the shortages
constantly.

However, I must mention that our healthcare system, with all its
faults, has one advantage we cannot take for granted: Should anyone of
us have a serious accident which would cause us to be hospitalized, our
healthcare system pays for our stay, our Doctors, our Therapists, our
Nurses, our medications while in hospital. I cannot imagine the cost I
would have had to incure when I was involved in a highway accident last
winter and was in the hospital for 3 weeks.

Jennifer, yours is a wonderful job.

RobGN


Gotta agree with you there, but the system is in serious need of a major
overhaul. Sure would be nice if opthalmology / optometry, dentistry and
pharmaceutical drugs were covered under the healthcare plan, but I don't
know of anywhere in the world where that exists. Even private insurance
plans, most only cover up to 90%, providing you pay the extra premiums (or
your union has negociated a really good deal).

~Robert C.

Mark² wrote:
DD (Rox) wrote:
Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond
the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your
sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard.
What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses
that leads you to declaring crap on anything else.

Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us
begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that
leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am
talking about? Are you saying the images are ****? If so, tell me
how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better
than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase.

Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there
are indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various
reasons...and not to impress or sell my photos...

Shots like these are certainly snapshots:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original
and
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original

Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions...
Like:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original

But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws!

Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship.

Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot"
put-down... Like this one:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original

And this one:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
(you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better
than most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as
close as you'll ever hear me come to bragging).

Or perhaps this non snap-shot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original

Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit
off-level: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original

I like this one too...kinda different:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original

What are some of the shots you like from your site?
(And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that...
These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps...

-Mark

What happened, Dallas?
Where are you?
Is it possible that you've been shooting your mouth off...busily bragging
that your pictures are "better than my snapshots"...only to run off with
your tail between your legs?
I've NEVER made claims of ANYTHING about my images, but since you seem
entirely determined to draw comparisons here, lets see if you can back up
your mouth.
So far...I just don't see it.

In my above posted response to you, I've not only shown images that are
decent, but I've also shown yet more examples of my LONG history of pointing
out Canon flaws...which AGAIN negates your endlessly monotonous accusations
of Canon worship.
I've acknowledged the obvious...that some of my posts are indeed snapshots
(Uh...Dallas...I've never claimed otherwise). -But it appears that your
mouth has again landed egg on your face.

OK.
Since you won't respond...
Here are your site's landscape shots:
http://dallasdahms.com/v3_Other.htm
I like the top and bottom shots here, but the middle two are about as
interestingly framed as mud is clean.
Why all the sky and sand?

Let's have a look at your "Animal" (zoo) images by clicking "Next Set" under
the above images:

Here we find a poorly focussed/poorly framed bird, and noisy and dull B&W
dog pic, and a strangely-framed beach picture that is 50% plain blue sky
with a horizon smack in the middle for no apparent reason.

OK. Not sure what you're braggin about...

People pics:
http://dallasdahms.com/v3_People.htm#
I think a couple of these are perhaps your best shots.
My favorite is the B&W of the boy playing with his car track. Very nice.

As for your claims that any of your site's shots are "better than my Pbase
posts"
-I really think you should avoid this kind of bragging...at least until your
images can back you up.
And even then...bragging just isn't a good practice in general, which is why
I have never, and will never do it.

-M2

PS--Just in case you're not up to referencing my images from the earlier
post...here they are(and then some), quickie-style (crap that they are):
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
A non-Canon-worshipper pic:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original
And since you posted that boring doggie pic, here's a non-boring doggie pic
for you:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37319958/original
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original
A bit off-level, but nice:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original
Close and sticky:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49043194/original
A crappy snapshot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original
Another crappy snap:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original
A NON-zoo bird:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235052/original
A ZOO bird:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306222/original
A portrait:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216/original
Another "snapshot":
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original
A 30 second snapshot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37442910/original
And finally...just to make you smile...
....An image of Canon pain:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941/original

-M2