D70 comment

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The 300 f4 AFS is sharp. The tripod mount is questionable. The D70 is fine.
But remember, the D70 is not exactly build for heavy Nikon lenses. Too much
torque might break the mount out the plastic. For the 300 f4, I would buy
the next generation of D100 or the D2H (once the price of the D2H is coming
down).

Gregor

"Paul Fedorenko" <pfedorenko@look.ca> wrote in message
news:nS8td.22664$dC3.453738@news20.bellglobal.com...
>I was browsing a camera shop earlier today and took a look at a D70.
>Talked to one of the sales people about it for a bit, too. I must say, the
>camera has a really good feel to it. Feels nice and solid. It gave the
>impression of being something that wasn't likely to fall apart the first
>time I sneezed on it too hard (got that from Canon's D Rebel).
>
> Then I put a fixed length 300mm f4 lens on the thing. I swear I could
> count the hairs in the nose of the guy across the room.
>
> I think that'll be my next camera once I get tired of my F717.
>
> If I'd had 3 grand on me, I would've bought the two (camera and telephoto)
> on the spot. Sweet.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AQatd.39516$6q2.34742@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The 300 f4 AFS is sharp. The tripod mount is questionable. The D70 is
fine.
> But remember, the D70 is not exactly build for heavy Nikon lenses. Too
much
> torque might break the mount out the plastic.

Anybody heard of this actually happening to a D70? The 80-400mm VR is a very
popular lens for the D70.

Besides, you should always support the camera by the lens whenever you use a
telephoto. While it is true that thirty years ago it was possible to damage
cameras with the weight of long lenses, modern lenses are lighter and the
cameras are stronger nowadays, so I wonder if it is as common a problem as
it used to be.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

no. i believe it is a myth. then again i don't think that the digital
rebel has cheap construction either. i have heard of lots of stories of
them being dropped and surviving. i think it is conditioning that makes
people believe that a light weight product is a cheap product. it is the
reason why many cheap products have weights inside of them (ie. desk
phones). but just because something is light does not mean it is poor
construction.

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H6adnbbvjcVjxyjcRVn-iQ@wavecable.com...
>
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:AQatd.39516$6q2.34742@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> The 300 f4 AFS is sharp. The tripod mount is questionable. The D70 is
> fine.
>> But remember, the D70 is not exactly build for heavy Nikon lenses. Too
> much
>> torque might break the mount out the plastic.
>
> Anybody heard of this actually happening to a D70? The 80-400mm VR is a
> very
> popular lens for the D70.
>
> Besides, you should always support the camera by the lens whenever you use
> a
> telephoto. While it is true that thirty years ago it was possible to
> damage
> cameras with the weight of long lenses, modern lenses are lighter and the
> cameras are stronger nowadays, so I wonder if it is as common a problem as
> it used to be.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>no. i believe it is a myth. then again i don't think that the digital
>rebel has cheap construction either. i have heard of lots of stories of
>them being dropped and surviving. i think it is conditioning that makes
>people believe that a light weight product is a cheap product. it is the
>reason why many cheap products have weights inside of them (ie. desk
>phones). but just because something is light does not mean it is poor
>construction.

I even read a message from a guy who was afraid the Nikon F6 might
break. He felt it was too light.

Peter

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"you know who maybe" <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:Lrktd.9914$_3.117063@typhoon.sonic.net...

> One grand for the camera? OK. Two grand for a 300mm f4? Canon's is half
> that.

Well... about $1500 (Cdn) for the camera and $1009 for the lens (used). So
about $2500, plus taxes...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Extra battery, 2Gig microdrive, warranty, etc.

Paul Fedorenko wrote:
> "you know who maybe" <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
> news:Lrktd.9914$_3.117063@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>
>>One grand for the camera? OK. Two grand for a 300mm f4? Canon's is half
>>that.
>
>
> Well... about $1500 (Cdn) for the camera and $1009 for the lens (used). So
> about $2500, plus taxes...
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B829F78F4AELessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> "Paul Fedorenko" <pfedorenko@look.ca> wrote in
> news:nS8td.22664$dC3.453738@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> Then I put a fixed length 300mm f4 lens on the thing. I swear I could
>> count the hairs in the nose of the guy across the room.
>
> You choose to focus on some -odd- things

Yes... with my 300/4 I've managed to photograph a nebula in another galaxy
(NGC 604 in M33). Much more interesting than a nose hair. The picture is
somewhere on www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/exhibit.html.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AQatd.39516$6q2.34742@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The 300 f4 AFS is sharp. The tripod mount is questionable. The D70 is
> fine. But remember, the D70 is not exactly build for heavy Nikon lenses.
> Too much torque might break the mount out the plastic. For the 300 f4, I
> would buy the next generation of D100 or the D2H (once the price of the
> D2H is coming down).

Or simply support the lens with one hand all the time.

There is an earlier version of the 300/4 with a sturdier tripod mount. It's
the one I have, and have used extensively for astrophotography.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote
in message news:41b5c7ab$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:Vfitd.4937$Wy.2507@trndny06...
> > no. i believe it is a myth. then again i don't think that the digital
> > rebel has cheap construction either. i have heard of lots of stories of
> > them being dropped and surviving. i think it is conditioning that makes
> > people believe that a light weight product is a cheap product. it is
the
> > reason why many cheap products have weights inside of them (ie. desk
> > phones). but just because something is light does not mean it is poor
> > construction.
>
> Well said. And remember, the heavier they are, the harder they hit when
> dropped!
>
>
>

Was in Qebec early September and sheltering from the rain when a man next to
me dropped his older Pentax (K model I think) onto the pavement.
One horrible sounding thud.
Glass of the lens cracked and lens mechanism didn't work on manual anymore.
Reinforced to me the necessity to always keep a strap around wrist or neck.

Gerrit - Oz

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote
>> Yes... with my 300/4 I've managed to photograph a nebula in another
>> galaxy (NGC 604 in M33). Much more interesting than a nose hair. The
>> picture is somewhere on
>> www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/exhibit.html.
>
> What did you use to guide your camera steadily?

A Meade LX200 telescope (8-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain) and an SBIG STV
autoguider making constant corrections. The latter may have been overkill,
but I have it, so I use it.

> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
My daughter was on Neopets as "cathyc"... see also her web site
www.alifepets.info where you can find other artificial-life games to play.


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html