Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

DD (Rox) wrote:
In article 6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
You think that is somehow visually stimulating?

Yes. I do.

Well then you have **** taste in landscape photography because it's a
boring, mind numbing photograph.

-Spoken like a dude who finds gratification in shooting fat, sweaty guys
under red lights holding a guitar with a sleepy look on their face.


But as for boring landscapes... It's not boring if you've been to this part
of Alaska.
I've been to Alaska 3 times, and this is a favorite spot.
Perhaps you should get out of your little S. African World from time to
time, Dallas. There's a lot of beauty beyond dudes breathing heavily on
microphones and dripping on their guitars.

You know, Dallas...some beauty in nature doesn't require quirky,
artsy-fartsy style. It is simply beautiful by capturing it as it
really looks. That's what I did, and the response from viewers of
these panoramas have been overtly and enthusiastically positive.

From who? Mama, Papa and auntie Fanny? Get real mate. Your photography
is boring.


Did you check those links to other shots of the world famous Haleakala
crater?
When you do, you'll see why my shot is quite good.
But I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge this. You're too far gone to
do that.

That depends on what you're after.
As a depiction of one of the world's most beutiful areas, it served
its purpose well.
-But...Like bilong yu...
I guess you find blurry images of sweaty guitar players
more...ahem...stimulating?

Actually I do. I'd like to see you get even one decent shot of a
musician in a dark, smokey club. But no...spiders asses seem to be
more stimulating to you.

Aaah. NOW we see what's going on here!
This is very telling.
You're simply not into nature, are you.
That particular "spider's ass" is quite interesting to inquisitive, curious
people who see beyond their own little corner of existence. I guess I gave
you credit for more than I should have.
But yes. I do find a colorful spider...making his trap of death beneath
beautiful flower much more interesting than some fat sweaty dude playing in
a two-bit club. But that's not to say the fat dudes aren't interesting to
YOU. I'm sure that you find it very interesting. No problem, mate! To
each their own.

You are so full of it, Dallas...
I challenge you to find a better shot of Haleakala on the net.
There may be one, but I haven't found it yet.

You actually linked to one! Thanks for saving me the time!

Ha. Very funny.
You've now identified yourself as either entirely ignorant, or simply a
troll.
There can be no other alternative in relation to those linked shots.
If ANY of them strike you as better photos, then I can officially write what
was left of your photographic credibility off to zero.

You're making this WAY too easy, Dallas.

My shot presents it in as contrasty a way as you'll ever see it in
real life.

"Real life"? Is that what you think photography is all about? Don't
ever quit your day-job, Mark.

Perhaps you find candy-coated renditions of nature's beauty attractive.
As for me, I think nature is quite beautiful as it was created. The
challenge is to capture it so that it can be appreciated for what it
s. -Not for some Photoshopped, pretend version from Disneyland.
If you found those other linked renditions of Haleakala "nicer" then you've
identified yourself as being of the Disneyland sort.

Doesn't do it for me.

Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms?
I'll try to make it a little more blurry, or perhaps throw in a bird
with his nose against a black wall for ya next time...
That ought to "do it" aye?

It's a photograph of an ugly spider climbing up a web to what I assume
is a hibiscus bulb. What's the photo of? The spider or the flower?
There is nothing technically difficult about the shot. Anyone could
have taken it.


You are really a boob, Dallas.
I'm really hoping you're just playing the villain--not for my sake, but for
yours.
Nobody should have to REALLY be the "you" you're presenting here, so I'm
hoping you're just playing around.
I have this sad feeling that you really are this dumb.


Again, the contrast should be increased. The picture looks flat.

You need a new monitor, bub.

IF that's the case then how come the other volvano photo you linked to
looks fine on my laptop screen?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Now THERE'S a standard we should all aspire to!
-Laptop screens!
Oh, Dallas.
You just lost it.
I am using a perfectly (or as close to perfect as I've ever seen) screen,
that renders perfectly matched prints and color rendition. If this looks
natural to you, you're either color blind, or you've been hanging in too
many pot-filled two-bit band joints.

All the photos on my site are shots I feel I accomplished something
with. There are technically demanding shots, simple but effective
shots, interesting shots, etc. There are also a few that could be
classified as snapshots, particularly in the "people" catagory, but
for the most part they are better than some of the "professional"
works I have seen from other photographers.

I'm glad you feel happy with them.

As was the original question, though, Dallas...
-What are you seeing in your shots that lead you to make claims
about Canon being somwhow inferior?

Er, that wasn't the question. If you had half a brain you would
realise that half the pictures on my site WERE taken with Canon
cameras and lenses! What you fail to understand is the fundamental
difference between Nikon and Canon as companies. One sucks and the
other sucks a lot less.

OK. Then show me via your Leica shots. Oops! Wasn't that the dog photo?
-Guess that option is already extinguished for you...

You are really too much.

That was the reason I ever mentioned your site to begin with.
What are you seeing/showing in your shots that offer insight into
Leica/Nikon superiority?
Again... I just don't see it.
What do you see?

I see a rabid dude who has more dollars than photographic skill.


I've never made any claims of greatness, Dallas.
In fact, I don't even feel a sense of greatness. I think some of my photos
are kind of boring too.
I don't have a problem with that thought at all. We all need to improve
things...
But at can at least cover basics I have yet to find on your site: focus,
framing, and clear images.
-Still looking for that on your site.

But lets analyse briefly why I believe Nikon and Leica are better than
Canon:

1. Canon sucks.

Ah! Such reasoning skills!
Who could ever argue such a litany of rational basis for opinion!

2. Nikon has a much bigger, better system.

Ah! Skillfully quantified!
Masterfully detailed answer, complete with factual information!
Marvelous!

3. Nikon cameras appear to require a lot less attention than Canons.

Hmmm... It does appear that you've paid significantly little attention to
your camera usage....


4. Canon sucks.

Another masterfully argued point.

5. Leica rangefinders allow you to take photos that you wouldn't
ordinarily get with an SLR and their lenses are all optomised to be
sharp when wide open.

Really? Where are these sharp images on your site?
Sure...you can't know fi they are *critically sharp* with a small
web-sample...but MAN!
I could only find ONE reasonably sharp image...and that was of a Whiskey
bottle.
This tells me that you have gear capable of sharp photos. -But it also
tells gives me a reference point to see just how poorly focussed most of
your other shots are. So again... Where are you hiding all the sharp Leica
photos??

6. Canon flash sucks (as evidenced by your photos).

Ah. By my shot-in-near-darkness snap-shots of birdies?


7. Canon photographers somehow think they're automatically better
using Canon.

You have never heard me state, suggest, or even hint at anything resembling
that in any form whatsoever, on this or any other forum.

8. Canon has really bad QC.


Have you been reading the numerous Nikon advisory notices? I've seen three
major press releases inside 6 weeks. But here's the diference between you
and me, Dallas: I don't pretend that this makes Nikon a crappy company.
Nor do Sony's...or Canon's make them crappy.

9. Canon's cutting edge will leave you bleeding from the pockets.

Thank goodness you're not familiar with my pockets.


I could go on...but I think you get the message.

I'm getting a message, but you wouldn't like it.


You see, it really doesn't matter what you use to get the image. A
good photographer will be able to use anything to get the shot he
wants, however, he will also know his equipment and its limitations.

Right! Please lead me to your great photos.

An astute photographer will also see the value in being able to tap
into almost 50 years of lens designs and system interchangeability
offered at very good prices.

Only if you're not happy with your current lenses, etc. and feel the need to
keep buying other used stuff for cheap. I don't anticipate needing to
replace my lenses for a good long time.

He-heh. Mark, that B&W shot is a crop. A major crop.

Oops. "Crap" is spelled with an "a"...not an "o".


Where's your B&W output?

????

The original was
a portrait oriented colour Velvia slide.

I wanted to put something on
the site to show the beach where I grew up. The other shot you say
is poorly framed was taken about 4 years ago using a Nikon F80 and a
Tokina 19- 35mm zoom lens. The city skyline disects the blue of the
ocean and the sky into more or less equal halves.

I'll just leave that to you...
I think it looks rather like what most novices do--which is cut
horizon shots right at teh middle.

I was a novice at that point and IIRC that shot came off the first
roll of slide film I ever shot. I like the shot as it is, even with
its 1 degree horizon tilt.

The tilt wasn't the problem, Dallas.

You've done this in several horizon shots, which, as a group tend to
make it look amateurish.

Point taken. I'll go out and do better, safe in the knowledge that you
won't be able to follow suit.

Why do you say such silly things like that?
Take the point. What does it have to do with me?
I don't see a collection of mid-frame horizons in my little collection of
snaps.
There may be a couple here or there, but I guarrantee you'll not find a
whole collection.
I looked. There's only one, and the subject is well-placed (rowers,
Maui...Note the comment from a rowing-team photog...).


Poorly focussed?

Sure looks that way.

Maybe you need glasses? How sharp is your 70-200mm lens wide open?

The whole shot doesn't have to be tack... -The bird's head isn't even close
to sharp (not to mention that he's kissing the big black wall...)


Poorly framed?

Oh good gravy, Dallas...could you run his beak a little MORE into
the edge? -Heck, it almost looks as though you cloned in a bit of
extra background...just to the right of the beak, to try and salvage
the shot...? Or were you cropping something out to the right of the
bird? I can't think of any other reason for your placement. What
gives?

When you are sitting 5 meters away from a crested eagle that has the
ability to rip your eyes out within seconds, getting a shot (any shot)
is more important than framing.

Oh good grief.
Methinks perhaps you're not cut out for wild-life work.
Even if that wasn't a silly statement, I would think you'd avoid making such
a poorly framed shot represent your photography on your site.

Noisy??!!! That's FILM grain you nitwit!!! Some of us still use film
around here.

Why is that relevant?

You tell me. You brought it up.

Does the fact that it's film somehow make up for it being a very
boring picture of a run-of-the-mill dog, sitting there
being...well...a panting dog? Oh, wait! -Silly me. I forgot that
ANYTHING in B&W automatically = a good, artsy photo.

You catch on fast, Markie.

Good gravy, I hope you're kidding.

Uh...Dallas... When you state that "any of your photos are better
than my snapshots"...that's what is referred to in the
english-speaking world as bragging.

No, if I was going to brag I would say my photos are better than
anything else. I'm saying they are better than yours. And they are.
Maybe I should say they suck a lot less than yours?



Not too noisy for you? Seeing as it was shot with a Leica M3 and
XP-2.

Ooooh! WELL..gee! If it was shot with a (shudder) LEICA...then it
MUST be good!

What is "Leica-ish" about that photo?


Try and do that handheld with an SLR at 1/8sec. No IS allowed.

Hey, it's not my fault you didn't have the right tools at your disposal.
When you realize you've got a compromized shot, I just don't understand why
you'd post it to represent your professional work...unless it's the best
you've got...

You brought this up, Mark. You said I had no room to talk,

Well, no, Dallas...that's not what I said.
I asked what it is about your images on your sight that give an
indication to you that your gear is somehow superior to Canon.
You've never mustered an answer on that one, and yet you continually
slam anything Canon. Can you help demonstrate these shortcomings in
your images? If so, I can't see it. 'Splain.

Well maybe I misunderstood


Yipe.

your slight of my photography as arrogance,
but as I have pointed out to you numerous times, a lot of my photos
were taken with Canon equipment. Why do I dislike the brand so much?
Because it sucks.

Get a new line, Dallas.
Repeating that one just makes you look dumb.

but as far
as I'm concerned my images are better than yours. I never brag.

L..O....L!!!!
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, Dallas!
In that *one line*, you have offered both proof of bragging, AND self
contradiction.
-You say "my images are better than yours......[then hilariously
followed by]...I never brag"(!!)

Stating a fact cannot be construed as bragging, my friend.

Try not to confuse facts with opinion.

We could
always take this to the Shoot In, you know (that is if Alfonse has the
mental wherewithall to not "lose" our pictures).

Why not just have a "your momma" contest?


Can I give you some advice? Learn how to use fill flash properly.
In
other words, either don't use it, or get something that works. Some
of those animal snapshots are ruined by too much flash...


There's a reason they are overtly "flashy."
-The majority of those birdie snap-shots were taken in near-darkness,
Dallas.

Fill flash??
OK. Next time I'm shooting birds in near darkness, I'll leave the
shutter open for oh...say, 30-60 seconds to capture mostly ambient
light...and then add a little fill. -Could you please train the
birds to stay motionless so that I only need fill flash? Thanks.

You could always use a Leica and fast film, but that wouldn't be seen
as being cool, would it?

It would to Leica posers. But you wouldn't...um...know about that, right?
RIIIIGHT.
LOL!


It looks far more impressive when you're
walking around with big white lenses and a monster flash on top. It
don't matter if the pictures you take suck, as long as they were
taken with a Canon and people know that.

Most of my shots were taken where only my wife could even see ME--much less
what camera I might be using.

It's been fun, Dallas....
-M2

ian lincoln wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02...

Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms?

Does anyone care?

No, but it's becoming rather amusing to watch Dallas at this point.

In article lI25f.2677$UF4.2601@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
ian lincoln wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02...

Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms?

Does anyone care?

No, but it's becoming rather amusing to watch Dallas at this point.

Amusing? You're the frikiing asshole who insists on having these dumb
exchanges. You even go so far as to accuse me of not responding
timeously!!

Get a life, Mark. And while you're at it, get a better camera too. Yours
sucks.

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

DD (Rox) wrote:
In article lI25f.2677$UF4.2601@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
ian lincoln wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
message news:6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02...

Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms?

Does anyone care?

No, but it's becoming rather amusing to watch Dallas at this point.

Amusing? You're the frikiing asshole who insists on having these dumb
exchanges. You even go so far as to accuse me of not responding
timeously!!

Get a life, Mark. And while you're at it, get a better camera too.
Yours sucks.

"Timously?"

I supposed that might be a word in Africa, but it isn't anywhere else...

Mark² wrote:
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article lI25f.2677$UF4.2601@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
ian lincoln wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
message news:6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02...

Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms?

Does anyone care?

No, but it's becoming rather amusing to watch Dallas at this point.

Amusing? You're the frikiing asshole who insists on having these dumb
exchanges. You even go so far as to accuse me of not responding
timeously!!

Get a life, Mark. And while you're at it, get a better camera too.
Yours sucks.

"Timously?"

Ah. Timeously.

In article ,
says...
1. Canon sucks.

Wow, the logic.

2. Nikon has a much bigger, better system.

Which is incompatible with a staggering portion of their digital SLRs.

3. Nikon cameras appear to require a lot less attention than Canons.

More nonsensical dribble from Dallas.

4. Canon sucks.
5. Leica rangefinders allow you to take photos that you wouldn't
ordinarily get with an SLR and their lenses are all optomised to be
sharp when wide open.

You can mount those lenses on Canons with an adapter.

6. Canon flash sucks (as evidenced by your photos).

I see a trend developing.

7. Canon photographers somehow think they're automatically better using
Canon.

They're just better than you are.

8. Canon has really bad QC.

Not according to the latest PC Magazine reader's poll or Consumer
Reports. They're ahead of Nikon, but certainly the gap isn't even worth
mentioning.

Yes, the United States actually makes an effort to actually track
product reliability.

9. Canon's cutting edge will leave you bleeding from the pockets.

Or will have clients running to you.

It's funny you're picking on Mark's photography now. Didn't you try a
similar approach with me a month or two back? Worked wonders.

Dallas, I suggest you get your head out of your ass and realize that:

#1: Nobody hates Nikon cameras or equipment. They're nice and more or
less work the way they are supposed to... like Canon or any other major
brand. They don't have a FF sensor camera, but that isn't something to
get snippy about - nobody outside of Canon is making FF dSLRS right now.

#2: The hypocrisy arises when you accuse perfectly normal and level-
headed posters (who happen to use Canon) of Nikon/Leice bias is
hilarious when you're the one with the bias.

So please, keep the hilarity up. Makes you look dumber than I ever
could.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ,
says...

No, but it's becoming rather amusing to watch Dallas at this point.

Amusing? You're the frikiing asshole who insists on having these dumb
exchanges. You even go so far as to accuse me of not responding
timeously!!

No one has a problem with Mark except you, Dallas.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Brian Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...

snip some realy silly stuff

5. Leica rangefinders allow you to take photos that you wouldn't
ordinarily get with an SLR and their lenses are all optomised to be
sharp when wide open.


You can mount those lenses on Canons with an adapter.

If you want to use them as macro lenses only.
A flange to film distance of 28.8mm (Leica screwmount) is just way too
short for simply "slapping an adapter in" an using for normal photography.

6. Canon flash sucks (as evidenced by your photos).

I see a trend developing.

He doesn't like Canon products?

7. Canon photographers somehow think they're automatically better using
Canon.


I've noticed this myself, as though using a particular brand will make
you a better photog! ;-)

They're just better than you are.

By your opinion, that is the yardstick by which the Universe must be
measured ;-)

8. Canon has really bad QC.

Not according to the latest PC Magazine reader's poll or Consumer
Reports. They're ahead of Nikon, but certainly the gap isn't even worth
mentioning.

Yes, the United States actually makes an effort to actually track
product reliability.

The "many" complaints that appear on the 'net are a result of lots of
people using them, eventually faults will be found.
The more users, the more likely that is.

Although, it is disconcerting when Canon's flagship DSLR camera (EOS 1Ds
M2) has needed 14 (!) firmware upgrades since it was released.

9. Canon's cutting edge will leave you bleeding from the pockets.

Or will have clients running to you.

It's funny you're picking on Mark's photography now. Didn't you try a
similar approach with me a month or two back? Worked wonders.

It is funny how some camera companies develop new technology, license it
out and not bother to use it themselves.
Pentax and Minolta are (unfortunately) good examples of this.

In article 43559aca$0$28003$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...
You can mount those lenses on Canons with an adapter.

If you want to use them as macro lenses only.
A flange to film distance of 28.8mm (Leica screwmount) is just way too
short for simply "slapping an adapter in" an using for normal photography.

That's not the case, do a google search for Leica to EOS adapters.
You'll find several, and the lenses work just peachy from most accounts.

6. Canon flash sucks (as evidenced by your photos).

I see a trend developing.

He doesn't like Canon products?

He has an irrational dislike of them, yes.

The "many" complaints that appear on the 'net are a result of lots of
people using them, eventually faults will be found.
The more users, the more likely that is.

Very true, you need to look at percentages, not the sheer number of
reports.

Although, it is disconcerting when Canon's flagship DSLR camera (EOS 1Ds
M2) has needed 14 (!) firmware upgrades since it was released.

That simply is not true.

See:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/bebitarchive-e.html#03

The 1Ds Mark II has had five firmware upgrades since 12/21/2004:
1.0.3
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

"Brian Baird" wrote:
01.iinet.net.au, says...
You can mount those lenses on Canons with an adapter.

If you want to use them as macro lenses only.
A flange to film distance of 28.8mm (Leica screwmount) is just way too
short for simply "slapping an adapter in" an using for normal
photography.

That's not the case, do a google search for Leica to EOS adapters.
You'll find several, and the lenses work just peachy from most accounts.

The Leica SLR lenses work. The Leica rangefinder lenses only work on the
Epson RD-1.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan