Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

In article 0Cz3f.1609$UF4.1450@fed1read02,
says...
"wilt" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

For many, the 5D doesn't offer enough of an advantage over the 20D to
justify the price, for others, it does. Even though the resolution is a
bigger jump over the 20D than the 20D was over the 10D, it is being seen
that much of that improvement is lost in the lenses, in the real world, not
in the lab. Many others feel that the 10-22 EF-S mount lens combined with
the 17-85 IS gives enough wide angle and a good carrying around lens, so the
full frame sensor is moot. And many don't even know how a spot meter can be
an advantage (or detriment) so that doesn't affect many 20D owners. They
like the apparent reach that they get with the 1.6x sensor and feel that the
5fps is an advantage over 3fps. The 5D wasn't built with these people in
mind.
Some of us don't feel that way, though. Some of us want wide and superwide
fixed focal length lenses, not available for the 20D, some of us want WA
zooms that are faster than f3.5, others missed the spot meter from their
film cameras, or appreciate the heft of the 5D.


"Heft"??? It isn't built well enough to qualify in the heft department,
Skip.

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

DD (Rox) wrote:
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!

Funny you should say that, I know two dentists who are hectically
involved in photographic equipment! Actually one's an orthodontist, but
I suppose it's the same sort of thing...

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.

DoN. Nichols wrote:
I had a nice 180mm f2.8 manual lens "chipped" so
it will work nicely with the metering in the D70, though it still has no
autofocus.

Ooooh, neat. I never heard of that, but it makes some sense. Where,
and how much?

What determines whether it can be chipped or not? Whether it has the
contacts (or can they add them)?

Richard

DD (Rox) wrote:
In article CiF3f.1650$UF4.1597@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...


Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is
hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for
the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in
time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is.
Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to
sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go
unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced.
I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences
about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the
mark, and not appreciated.

Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed
playful banter.
But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming
tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago...

Oops!
That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!"


Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not
even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has.

Even Dallas says he's no longer objective.
-Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that...
?
-It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts,
though...

Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when
someone disses your precious brand.

That had nothing to do with it.
I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment.
I don't know who you are, Dallas.
You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lots of
brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being
even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort
of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a
*brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also
indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the
subject.

I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands.
You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like
a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise
above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought.

I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
it like it is.

BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is
serious about photography.

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.

To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old
28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured,
comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from
your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosen a
self-declared lack of objectivity.

And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's
Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?

Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor.
-Something you clearly don't have.
We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just
you.
I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all
the time.
-Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into
entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography.
You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse.
You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than
your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from
the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside
sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become
the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools.

Regarding "dissing..."
Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether
the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this
and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's
handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When
Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so
ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he
was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you
claim).

So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.

Other than that...You're not a bad guy.

In article 2fI3f.1674$UF4.484@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...

Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when
someone disses your precious brand.

That had nothing to do with it.
I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment.

Ridiculous? Not really. Just obvious. Whenever I say something about
Canon, there you are, like the proverbial shadow.

I don't know who you are, Dallas.

I don't know who any of the people on this forum are, but I can classify
them segmentally with the greatest of ease.

You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lotsof
brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being
even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort
of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a
*brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also
indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the
subject.

I also like Pentax and I also like Olympus. But I will not tolerate
people saying that Canon is superior to anything else because as I have
proved over and over again, that is bull****. There is *nothing* special
about Canon. Sadly this goes against the thought processes of yourself
and a few others around here and you get uptight about it.

I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands.
You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like
a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise
above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought.

Unlike you and the rest of the Canon worshipers I have used Nikons and
Canons extensively. In fact I was just working it out that out of the 5
years I have been sick with photograhpy disease, 3 of them were spent
using Canon equipment. So I have effectively had more experience with
Canon than I have with Nikon.

A tiny corner of thought? I don't think so, Mark. A LOT of thought has
gone into the comments I make about how crap the Canon consumer line is.

I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
it like it is.

BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is
serious about photography.

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. I say that with conviction.

I don't claim to be in the same league as someone like Simon Stanmore,
for instance, but I am a lot better than most of the people who have the
cheek to call themselves professional photographers. Of that there is no
doubt in my mind.

To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old
28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured,
comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from
your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosena
self-declared lack of objectivity.

The 28-135mm Canon lens is a very soft lens compared to most consumer
grade Nikkors I have used with similar focal lengths (I have never used
a 24-120mm though).

But all that is besides the point, because you, like so many other
psuedo photo experts, seem to think that you can tell how good a lens is
simply by looking at a jpeg posted to the internet. FWIW, the images I
have on my site come from a variety of different sources...digital SLR's
(3 types), film SLR's (about 5 types) and rangefinders (1 type). At
least 10 different lenses too. I challenge you to tell me what equipment
took what shot.

And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's
Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?

Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor.
-Something you clearly don't have.

But you just said you don't know me, so how can you make a statement
like that in the same post?

We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just
you.
I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all
the time.
-Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into
entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography.
You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse.
You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than
your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from
the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside
sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become
the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools.

At least I am not a nerd.

Regarding "dissing..."
Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether
the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this
and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's
handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When
Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so
ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he
was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you
claim).

So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.

I never blather. I speak the truth. Some people can't handle the truth.
Are you among them?

Other than that...You're not a bad guy.


Too late for that.

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

Mark² wrote:

So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.

Other than that...You're not a bad guy.



Feel better now, Mark?

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

John A. Stovall wrote:

Others are already asking that question as to why both Zeiss and Leica
don't do that.


Leica had discussions with both Canon and Nikon within the last two
years.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:29:41 +0200, DD (Rox)
wrote:

BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious
about photography.

I guess Robert Farber isn't as serious about photography as I
thought...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846



--
Alex
atheist #2007

"Skip M" wrote:
"William Graham" wrote in message

Porsche owns over 18% of VW now.....

Not exactly. There is a common family ownership of Porsche, Audi and VW.


William is exactly right. Porsche owns 18.4% of VW and intends to
increase that stake to 19.9%

There is no common family ownership of Porsche, Audi and VW. The
Piech and Porsche families are related, so there is a family
relationship between the respective management teams, but VAG
(VW-Audi) is majority owned by the government of the German states in
which the main VW manufacturing plants are located.

There is a possibility that more VAG shares may be offered on the
German Stock exchange. Porsche relies on VAG for many components and
the Porsche board wished to secure a significant shareholding in VAG
to ensure that the co-operative relationship between the two companies
would not be diluted by any future sell-off.

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

Funny you should say that, I know two dentists who are hectically
involved in photographic equipment! Actually one's an orthodontist, but
I suppose it's the same sort of thing...

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

Hmm, my dentist is into motorcycles. Owns 3 of them. Only moderately
interested in photography, not sure he's not just making small talk...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com