Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The D70 is that Good

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 6:15:16 PM

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

See samples from first week with the D70....comments welcome, but be nice.
Little Thomas is almost as new as the D70!

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/50tom2.jpg

and

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/boobaby22.jpg

More about : d70 good

Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:22:48 PM

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

Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.

The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening in
Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping the
ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.

I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
(granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).

The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that the
programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
matched.

I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this camera
will fetch on EBay next year.
December 15, 2004 7:22:49 PM

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

Both pictures are fantastic! In it's price range no camera can come close to
the image quality and the many options that the D70 can give you. I also
own 300D Rebel which also has outstanding image quality for it's price
range. It takes longer than a week to fully understand the Nikon D70.That's
what makes this camera so great for it price range, the many options you
have over image control.

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:sxZvd.59959$QJ3.21239@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>
> The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
> manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
> sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
> almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening
in
> Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
> setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping
the
> ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
> many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>
> I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
> scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
> (granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>
> The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
> experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that
the
> programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
> matched.
>
> I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this
camera
> will fetch on EBay next year.
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:22:49 PM

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

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:sxZvd.59959$QJ3.21239@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>
> The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
> manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
> sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
> almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening
in
> Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
> setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping
the
> ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
> many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>
> I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
> scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
> (granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>
> The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
> experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that
the
> programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
> matched.

Wow. I don't see any of this stuff in my D70. Perhaps you have a bad sensor?
I would return it under warranty.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:22:49 PM

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

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> writes:

> Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.

Yeah, that's probably a sampling error, alright.

>SNIP<
> I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this camera
> will fetch on EBay next year.

Just send it to me, hon. I'll give you what you think it's worth. :->

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:22:50 PM

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

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abSdncyvtZEP7V3cRVn-uw@wavecable.com...
>
> Wow. I don't see any of this stuff in my D70. Perhaps you have a bad
sensor?
> I would return it under warranty.

Maybe he just doesn't like Nikon, period? I find my D70 to be a great
camera that is feature packed and easy to use. I can safely say that any of
my poor quality pictures are attributed to poor techniques and/or not using
proper techniques in poor lighting conditions. I may be wrong, but most
people experience these problems by not using proper settings and
techniques?

Rita
December 15, 2004 7:22:51 PM

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

I totally agree with you, maybe he works for Canon. Good luck with your D70.


"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote in message
news:10s0sorp44kln3f@news.supernews.com...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:abSdncyvtZEP7V3cRVn-uw@wavecable.com...
> >
> > Wow. I don't see any of this stuff in my D70. Perhaps you have a bad
> sensor?
> > I would return it under warranty.
>
> Maybe he just doesn't like Nikon, period? I find my D70 to be a great
> camera that is feature packed and easy to use. I can safely say that any
of
> my poor quality pictures are attributed to poor techniques and/or not
using
> proper techniques in poor lighting conditions. I may be wrong, but most
> people experience these problems by not using proper settings and
> techniques?
>
> Rita
>
>
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:22:51 PM

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

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote in message
news:10s0sorp44kln3f@news.supernews.com...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:abSdncyvtZEP7V3cRVn-uw@wavecable.com...
> >
> > Wow. I don't see any of this stuff in my D70. Perhaps you have a bad
> sensor?
> > I would return it under warranty.
>
> Maybe he just doesn't like Nikon, period? I find my D70 to be a great
> camera that is feature packed and easy to use. I can safely say that any
of
> my poor quality pictures are attributed to poor techniques and/or not
using
> proper techniques in poor lighting conditions. I may be wrong, but most
> people experience these problems by not using proper settings and
> techniques?


Heck, any of the newer digital SLRs are wonderful. Whenever someone
complains about reds bleeding and similar problems, my first suspect is his
computer monitor.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:10:48 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:22:48 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>
>The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
>manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
>sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
>almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening in
>Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
>setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping the
>ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
>many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>
>I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
>scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
>(granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>
>The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
>experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that the
>programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
>matched.
>
>I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this camera
>will fetch on EBay next year.

You'll be wanting to back this up with samples of course. In
particular I'd like to see the red bloom, and color noise on a RAW at
ASA 200. You may indeed have a defective camera.

As for sharpening, little or lots, it's the same number of mouse
clicks, so who cares?

Accurate manual focusing? Just look for the green light ;-)

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:12:01 PM

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

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtr0s0l5aebjuq6vol3vebrq5s7jf964ts@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:22:48 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>>
>>The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
>>manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
>>sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
>>almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening
>>in
>>Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
>>setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping
>>the
>>ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
>>many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>>
>>I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
>>scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
>>(granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>>
>>The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
>>experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that
>>the
>>programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
>>matched.
>>
>>I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this
>>camera
>>will fetch on EBay next year.
>
> You'll be wanting to back this up with samples of course. In
> particular I'd like to see the red bloom, and color noise on a RAW at
> ASA 200. You may indeed have a defective camera.

I took these two pix with my D70 today. The first is through a back door
window, so it's not quite as sharp as it could've been (Tamron 28-200 lens).
http://www.trupin.com/photos/Squirrel.jpg

The second is with the kit lens and a flash. If you zoom in beyond 200% or
so, you can see a bit of chromatic aberration around the letters on the
money. I took it at ISO 200, but there's still some noise in the blue candle
thing on the left. It's still there a bit in the RAW file, but you'd have to
be printing a humongous poster to notice.
http://www.trupin.com/photos/Twenty.jpg (Each pic is about 750K, by the
way.)
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 8:18:04 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:58:08 -0500, "Rainy" <golfcouple@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Both pictures are fantastic! In it's price range no camera can come close to
>the image quality and the many options that the D70 can give you. I also
>own 300D Rebel which also has outstanding image quality for it's price
>range. It takes longer than a week to fully understand the Nikon D70.That's
>what makes this camera so great for it price range, the many options you
>have over image control.
>
>"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:sxZvd.59959$QJ3.21239@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>>
>> The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
>> manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
>> sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
>> almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening
>in
>> Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
>> setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping
>the
>> ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
>> many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>>
>> I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
>> scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
>> (granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>>
>> The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
>> experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that
>the
>> programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
>> matched.
>>
>> I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this
>camera
>> will fetch on EBay next year.
>>
>>

AGGH, Threads got tangled, *and* you top-posted.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:10:44 PM

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

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Heck, any of the newer digital SLRs are wonderful. Whenever someone
> complains about reds bleeding and similar problems, my first suspect
> is his computer monitor.

That's a good point. I still haven't calibrated my monitor yet and I know
it's a bit off.

Rita
--
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:02:21 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:54:53 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Heck, any of the newer digital SLRs are wonderful. Whenever someone
>complains about reds bleeding and similar problems, my first suspect is his
>computer monitor.

Actually it's a known issue as the green channel is used to meter and the
histogram only shows luminance. My first shot with mine was of a gardenia
hanging on the front porch up close and this was quite evident. Knowing
this one can compensate. The other problem I had initially was remembering
the minimum focus distance of the kit lens being used to the macro features
of a CP-990 and 5700.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:35:47 PM

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

Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.

The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
almost like a bad VHS tape>>>>

You got a bad camera for sure. Reds on the D70 are the most controlled I've
seen, compared to a Canon 20D and Pentax *st. If you can't manually focus the
D70, you probably can't do it with any camera. Send it back though. I think you
have a bad one.

Good luck,

RB
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:36:27 PM

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

Images require amazing amounts of sharpening in
Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
setting) to get any kind of useful print.>>>


Oh...I get it. He's a troll. My bad.

RB
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:41:12 PM

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

I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this camera
will fetch on EBay next year.>>>


If it's THAT bad you would either:
A) Send it back for repair since online photos don't support your experience.
B) Sell it now on ebay.
C) Not do anything because you don't have a D70 or Sony 828 and can't afford a
dispoable digital.

I'm going with "C"
Here's another pic from the D70. 1/500th of a sec, ISO at 500 (Tried just to
see how good this camera was with noise control!)

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/water444.jpg

RB
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:41:13 PM

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

bobsprit@aol.com (Bobsprit) writes:

> Here's another pic from the D70. 1/500th of a sec, ISO at 500 (Tried just to
> see how good this camera was with noise control!)

Yeah, but this photo proves his point! See how screwed up the reds are?

:->
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:41:14 PM

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

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3q4qinuya6.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> bobsprit@aol.com (Bobsprit) writes:
>
> > Here's another pic from the D70. 1/500th of a sec, ISO at 500 (Tried
just to
> > see how good this camera was with noise control!)
>
> Yeah, but this photo proves his point! See how screwed up the reds are?
>
> :->

ROFL
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:07:06 AM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:22:48 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>
>The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
>manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
>sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
>almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening in
>Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
>setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping the
>ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise visible in
>many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
>
>I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
>scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
>(granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>
>The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
>experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that the
>programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image quality
>matched.
>
>I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this camera
>will fetch on EBay next year.
>
>
>
I am beginning to believe you have never seen a D70.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:22:05 AM

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

"Rainy" <golfcouple@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Vs2dnan_fuu28F3cRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Both pictures are fantastic! In it's price range no camera can come close
to
> the image quality and the many options that the D70 can give you. I also
> own 300D Rebel which also has outstanding image quality for it's price
> range. It takes longer than a week to fully understand the Nikon
D70.That's
> what makes this camera so great for it price range, the many options you
> have over image control.

You mean it takes that long to understand the menu? =)

Just joking - it's a nice piece of bits
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:52:59 AM

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

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:sxZvd.59959$QJ3.21239@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a week.
>
> The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists accurate
> manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues (including
> sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to bloom
> almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of sharpening
> in Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the default
> setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely keeping
> the ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise
> visible in many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in
> PS.
>
> I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a comparable size
> scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my Sony 828
> (granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
>
> The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera my
> experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit that
> the programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image
> quality matched.
>
> I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what this
> camera will fetch on EBay next year.
>
>
>


I usually go "trolling" in a boat. Others choose this forum...

Cheers!
Kevin
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:37:14 PM

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:12:01 -0500, "Cynicor"
<j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gtr0s0l5aebjuq6vol3vebrq5s7jf964ts@4ax.com...
>
>> You'll be wanting to back this up with samples of course. In
>> particular I'd like to see the red bloom, and color noise on a RAW at
>> ASA 200. You may indeed have a defective camera.
>
>I took these two pix with my D70 today. The first is through a back door
>window, so it's not quite as sharp as it could've been (Tamron 28-200 lens).
>http://www.trupin.com/photos/Squirrel.jpg

My first thought is you should dump that lens, and secondly that you
should avoid shooting through windows, thirdly that you should clean
the window first. It just isn't a good photo, everything seems to
'glow'.

You used a cheap 200mm lens at it's fullest zoom (effective 280mm) and
shot 1/125th sec, If you hand-held this, you can't get a way with it.
If you didn't, then something moved.

>The second is with the kit lens and a flash. If you zoom in beyond 200% or
>so, you can see a bit of chromatic aberration around the letters on the
>money. I took it at ISO 200, but there's still some noise in the blue candle
>thing on the left. It's still there a bit in the RAW file, but you'd have to
>be printing a humongous poster to notice.
>http://www.trupin.com/photos/Twenty.jpg (Each pic is about 750K, by the
>way.)

I can see something in the blue, but you say the noise isn't so
noticeable in RAW? Which leads me to believe this is being made worse
by in-camera sharpening or jpeg artifacts. Turn that stuff off and
shoot RAW.

As you touch on the subject of enlarging, looking at a shot on-screen
at 200% is extreme - the image is effectively 6ft wide! This isn't
realistic for 35mm, and if you have this requirement I suggest you
investigate medium format.

Chromatic aberration galore in the corners, I need to repeat this test
on my D70, but I am certain mine isn't that bad. The RAW importer lets
you kill this stuff anyway, under the advanced lens tab. It also looks
under-exposed (that was the built-in flash right?). I note also you
shot at f4.5 which isn't the lens's sharpest aperture, move towards
f5.6 or f8.

Did you hand-hold this shot too...? 1/60sec at 70mm is breaking the
rule, and in mixed-light situations the use of flash doesn't let you
ignore it (a rule I might add, that is based on viewing a 6x4 print,
not a 3ft wide 100% screen preview). Even though the image is sharp at
the focus point (due to the flash), you will be muddying (and I am
sure this doesn't help with the noise problem) the colors during the
rest of the exposure. Remember, a 70mm setting on the D70 is
effectively 100mm.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 12:06:42 PM

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

Cynicor wrote:
> "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gtr0s0l5aebjuq6vol3vebrq5s7jf964ts@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:22:48 GMT, "bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe its a sampling error but I have been using a D70 for about a
week.
> >>
> >>The viewfinder is a real disappointment: small, dark and resists
accurate
> >>manual focusing. Color is not very accurate, particularly blues
(including
> >>sky) regardless of format (RAW or jpeg). Solid red surfaces tend to
bloom
> >>almost like a bad VHS tape. Images require amazing amounts of
sharpening
> >>in
> >>Photoshop (whether RAW or processed in Camera as jpeg at the
default
> >>setting) to get any kind of useful print. I have been purposely
keeping
> >>the
> >>ISO at 200 to minimize noise but there are random bits of noise
visible in
> >>many large blocks of color when enlarged even to just 200% in PS.
> >>
> >>I would grade the image qulity at several notches below a
comparable size
> >>scan (e.g. 1800dpi) of 200 speed negative film as well as from my
Sony 828
> >>(granted the ISO is less than 100 for the 828).
> >>
> >>The images are not unusable, but after all the hype for this camera
my
> >>experience so far has been underwhelming, to say the least. I admit
that
> >>the
> >>programming flexibility of the D70 is marvelous: I wish the image
quality
> >>matched.
> >>
> >>I hope Nikon gets it right in the next generation. I wonder what
this
> >>camera
> >>will fetch on EBay next year.
> >
> > You'll be wanting to back this up with samples of course. In
> > particular I'd like to see the red bloom, and color noise on a RAW
at
> > ASA 200. You may indeed have a defective camera.
>
> I took these two pix with my D70 today. The first is through a back
door
> window, so it's not quite as sharp as it could've been (Tamron 28-200
lens).
> http://www.trupin.com/photos/Squirrel.jpg
>
> The second is with the kit lens and a flash. If you zoom in beyond
200% or
> so, you can see a bit of chromatic aberration around the letters on
the
> money. I took it at ISO 200, but there's still some noise in the blue
candle
> thing on the left. It's still there a bit in the RAW file, but you'd
have to
> be printing a humongous poster to notice.
> http://www.trupin.com/photos/Twenty.jpg (Each pic is about 750K, by
the
> way.)

So you are blaming the digital camera for poor lens performance?

Chromatic aberration seems to be more of an issue with Digital sensors,
probably because of the small imaging sensors used in these cameras.

I am not seeing any of the Red Bloom or color noise that you are
talking about with my D70.

Ron
December 20, 2004 7:45:20 PM

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

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in
news:D c2dnUDj8JYvK13cRVn-rw@speakeasy.net:

> I took these two pix with my D70 today. The first is through a back
> door window, so it's not quite as sharp as it could've been (Tamron
> 28-200 lens). http://www.trupin.com/photos/Squirrel.jpg
>

That looks more like a soft lens to me. Have you tried it on a detail-type
subject, with a tripod, and no window?

Bob
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 8:48:28 PM

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

I am not seeing any of the Red Bloom or color noise that you are
talking about with my D70. ><>>

Neither was he. Notice he has not responded. He's a troll.
Probably doesn't even own a camera.

RB
!