Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

Mark² wrote:
Skip M wrote:
"DD (Rox)" wrote in message
...
In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02,
says...

Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. 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.

The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with
the 24-105
f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try
for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the
local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much
diametrically opposed to those
of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me,
part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the
1Ds MkII.

I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at
those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by
the sales person.

There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would
like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from
people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the
true sense.

"Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as
the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first
place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will
ever see another cent of my hard earned dough.

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

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!!!!!"

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Skip M" wrote in message
newsor3f.1432$UF4.1026@fed1read02...

"sierra" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.

Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses

Porsche - profits


Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what saved
them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.

Chrysler-profits-|
|--DCX-losses.
Mercedes-losses-|

The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at
this point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are
largely mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.

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

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

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

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

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:ckD3f.1629$UF4.821@fed1read02...
Mark² wrote:
Skip M wrote:
"DD (Rox)" wrote in message
...
In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02,
says...

Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. 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.

The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with
the 24-105
f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try
for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the
local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much
diametrically opposed to those
of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me,
part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the
1Ds MkII.

I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at
those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by
the sales person.

There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would
like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from
people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the
true sense.

"Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as
the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first
place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will
ever see another cent of my hard earned dough.

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

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.

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

Skip M wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:ckD3f.1629$UF4.821@fed1read02...
Mark² wrote:
Skip M wrote:
"DD (Rox)" wrote in message
...
In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02,
says...

Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was
fiddling around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. 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.

The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with
the 24-105
f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try
for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the
local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much
diametrically opposed to those
of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like
me, part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost
of the 1Ds MkII.

I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look
at those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally
recommended by the sales person.

There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who
would like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken
are from people who can *afford* one, none of whom are
photographers in the true sense.

"Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as
the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the
first place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who
will ever see another cent of my hard earned dough.

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

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...

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

"Skip M" wrote in message
newsor3f.1432$UF4.1026@fed1read02...

"sierra" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.

Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses

Porsche - profits


Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what
saved them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.

Chrysler-profits-|
|--DCX-losses.
Mercedes-losses-|

The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company,
which, at this point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and
Renault/Nissan are largely mass market manufacturers, and very
profitable. --
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

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

That's what I thought, too...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:Lsl3f.1412$UF4.561@fed1read02...
wrote:
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

The Canon with similarly small sensors have similar issues with manual
focus...
But...
The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large,
bright viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also
accepts different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
$3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.

Hello, I don't know for sure about the D70 - but the D70s has a diopter on
it's eyepiece. I know because I have it set so I don't have to take my
glasses off.

The DX lenses are "autofocus" you don't need to worry about it. You can
also manual focus it by turning it off, as well as the camera switch for
manual focus.

I checked out both cameras before I purchased my D70s, the Nikon fit my had
better than any of the cannons. An added bonus is my Girlfriend has the
film version of my camera and our lenses are switchabel. We are going to
share the costs of a good telephoto lens next year, so that is a bonus, she
can use it, and I can use it. We like nature and outdoors shots so it works
out for us.

Monty

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:%bF3f.1647$UF4.1430@fed1read02...
"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Skip M" wrote in message
newsor3f.1432$UF4.1026@fed1read02...

"sierra" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.

Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses

Porsche - profits


Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what
saved them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.

Chrysler-profits-|
|--DCX-losses.
Mercedes-losses-|

The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at
this point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are
largely mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.

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

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

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

Well, I read that they were gradually buying VW stock, but the maximum they
can acquire will be 20%.
See:
http://us.ft.com/ftsuperpage/superpa...ampaign=NewsKW

Monty Bonner wrote:
my
Girlfriend has the film version of my camera and our lenses are
switchabel. We are going to share the costs of a good telephoto lens
next year, so that is a bonus, she can use it, and I can use it. We
like nature and outdoors shots so it works out for us.

Monty

Oh boy...
....I can just see the tug-o-war when you two break up--

Methinks you might want to consider a pre-pre-nuptual on the lens...

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

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.

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.

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

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