Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D70 or Rebel?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:15:16 PM

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

I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:

a.) D70
b.) Rebel

Thank you.

More about : d70 rebel

Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:15:17 PM

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

Westcoast Sheri <sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> writes:

> I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:

I have neither kind nor inspired thoughts. My unkind thought is that you
have not provided any information upon which useful suggestions can be
made.

My uninspired thinking is that you should consider yourself as not buying
"a camera," but a system. Once you have bought a body from Nikon or Canon,
you have locked yourself into their system of lenses, flashes, and
accessories -- even if you choose to buy less expensive gear from other
makers. So look at the entire range of accessories and lenses and see if
either Canon or Nikon offers gear which suits your intended uses.

If you don't have intended uses, that's another problem. See my first
paragraph.
--
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 16, 2004 9:38:37 PM

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

These two have been compared, dissected, commented upon and thrashed in this
newsgroup- look back at previous posts for every man and his dogs view!.


> I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>
> a.) D70
> b.) Rebel
Related resources
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:39:01 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:15:16 GMT, Westcoast Sheri
<sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:

>I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
>and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>
>a.) D70
>b.) Rebel

Same answer as Bush vs Kerry. Whatever you decide, you will be right
but a big portion of the world will be convinced you were wrong.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:31:42 PM

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

Ok, OK, a direct answer. Go for the Nikon D70,

Its advantages over the Rebel are many and the disadvantages of the Rebel
over the D70 are few.
By this I mean that they are both capable units in diferent areas, the D70
has more areas!!

Check out the direct comparison here :
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page20.asp


"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjl3s013vvdvqfg93puuejge97nir4gatu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:15:16 GMT, Westcoast Sheri
> <sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
>>and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>>
>>a.) D70
>>b.) Rebel
>
> Same answer as Bush vs Kerry. Whatever you decide, you will be right
> but a big portion of the world will be convinced you were wrong.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:40:52 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:42 -0000, "Nick Beard"
<nick@superchop.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Ok, OK, a direct answer. Go for the Nikon D70,
>
>Its advantages over the Rebel are many and the disadvantages of the Rebel
>over the D70 are few.
>By this I mean that they are both capable units in diferent areas, the D70
>has more areas!!
>
>Check out the direct comparison here :
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page20.asp
>

Alright, I went for the D70 because I had existing Nikon kit, and it
looks a bit like the N80, so my wife wouldn't notice that I just spent
$1200.

...that... didn't work, by the way.

But there is no answer. Canon's cost less to run. Nikons are used on
CSI, Canon has a bigger market share, Nikons are used on CSI, Canon
makes photocopiers too, Nikons are used on CSI, Canon sounds like a
big gun, Nikons are used on CSI.

See?

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 12:03:22 AM

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

Westcoast Sheri wrote:

> I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>
> a.) D70
> b.) Rebel

I'd opt for the D70 for several reasons including the very fast flash sync. But
the Canon can do longer, quieter exposures. Damned.

Here's what you do: instead of buying both, get a Maxxum 7D.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:26:22 AM

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

Wait for the next generation of cameras if your are in no hurry
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:28:46 AM

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

"Westcoast Sheri" <sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:

> I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>
> a.) D70
> b.) Rebel

Neither: 20D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:28:47 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cpt8rv$qp4$2@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Westcoast Sheri" <sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> > and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
> >
> > a.) D70
> > b.) Rebel
>
> Neither: 20D.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I disagree, David. I have both the D70 and the 20D. I bought the D70 first
because I thought it was a better camera than the DR. It takes great
pictures and is very easy to use. I know the DR takes great pictures, too,
because I've seen them posted on pbase. I bought the D70 because it was
built more rugged. Then I ran into the 20D. I think it is more rugged than
the D70, and I do not believe it takes as good of pictures. Yes, it has a
bigger sensor, but the pictures are no better than the D70 pictures, which
are no better than the DR pictures. All three cameras take great pictures.

My opinion is this: buy the most you can afford. I know people who are
actively using all three cameras, and all are happy with them.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 12:15:37 PM

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

bmoag wrote:
> Wait for the next generation of cameras if your are in no hurry

That way you'll never buy anything!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:09:31 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> Westcoast Sheri wrote:
>
> > I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> > and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
> > a.) D70
> > b.) Rebel
>
> I'd opt for the D70 for several reasons including the very fast flash
> sync. But the Canon can do longer, quieter exposures. Damned.

Did you see my shootin shot for reflections? A 52 second exposure on a
D70 with the in-camera anti-noise stuff.

B>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:09:32 PM

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

In article <m2wtvhfzfo.fsf@greybat.rattus.net>,
Bruce Murphy <pack-news@rattus.net> wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
> > Westcoast Sheri wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> > > and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
> > > a.) D70
> > > b.) Rebel
> >
> > I'd opt for the D70 for several reasons including the very fast flash
> > sync. But the Canon can do longer, quieter exposures. Damned.
>
> Did you see my shootin shot for reflections? A 52 second exposure on a
> D70 with the in-camera anti-noise stuff.
>
> B>

I've taken 45 minute exposures with my Rebel. There are many speckles
but nothing that can't be filtered.

I took a picture of my computer room illuminated only by beams of light
from LEDs on the electronics. It turns out that one of the brightest
objects was an old macally mouse that leaks a whole lot of IR. Weird.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:11:30 PM

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

I'm buying a D70, for three reasons:-

A friend has one, and I respect his opinion.
Another friend, a professional, has five. He's also a dealer and can get me a
good price.
I already have some Nikon accessories. (2 lenses and a flash)

Here's a short article by the first friend:
http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/cameras/d70.html
It explains why he chose the D70 over the rebel.

You pays your money and you makes yer choice.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:11:31 PM

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

"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:5cj4s094ksvrf0j7v65cumsllos03108m8@4ax.com...
>
> I'm buying a D70, for three reasons:-
>
> A friend has one, and I respect his opinion.
> Another friend, a professional, has five. He's also a dealer and can get
> me a
> good price.
> I already have some Nikon accessories. (2 lenses and a flash)
>
> Here's a short article by the first friend:
> http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/cameras/d70.html
> It explains why he chose the D70 over the rebel.

4. As long as I have one, you will never be the worst photographer using a
D70!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:24:42 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:15:37 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>bmoag wrote:
>> Wait for the next generation of cameras if your are in no hurry
>
>That way you'll never buy anything!

But he's got a point, I waited 5 years before finally investing in
Digital. In my opinion, it's only this last year that the technology
has achieved the right mix of being good enough and cheap enough to
warrant the purchase. That breakthrough is represented by both these
cameras. (It was also prompted by a sudden hike in the number of rolls
I was shooting of my daughter, which was getting expensive)

If he doesn't *need* it this year, wait until next year and take
another look.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:24:43 PM

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

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:60k5s0dtodcvotgi57c6bl172t6tko7i9r@4ax.com...
>
> But he's got a point, I waited 5 years before finally investing in
> Digital. In my opinion, it's only this last year that the technology
> has achieved the right mix of being good enough and cheap enough to
> warrant the purchase. That breakthrough is represented by both these
> cameras. (It was also prompted by a sudden hike in the number of rolls
> I was shooting of my daughter, which was getting expensive)

I agree. If it weren't for the features, specs, and low price of the D70 I
probably wouldn't have upgrade to it from my old DC280 that I used
exclusively for eBay. After getting the D70, I liked it so much and found
it to be so much better than expected that I had to start collecting lenses
again. I'm glad that I moved to full digital even though I still have the
older AI series lenses and an FE body from my 35mm days.

> If he doesn't *need* it this year, wait until next year and take
> another look.

Good advice. I'm guessing/hoping I can get a good 5-years out of the D70
body before I have to upgrade since I now have a good collection of the new
AF lenses.


Rita
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:37:38 PM

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

Owamanga wrote:
[]
>> That way you'll never buy anything!
>
> But he's got a point, I waited 5 years before finally investing in
> Digital. In my opinion, it's only this last year that the technology
> has achieved the right mix of being good enough and cheap enough to
> warrant the purchase. That breakthrough is represented by both these
> cameras.

Well, perhaps that's right if you don't want to move outside the SLR
format - but there have been plenty of cameras capable of producing
excellent prints or digital slide-shows for many years now - since the 3MP
cameras of 2000 I would have said.

> (It was also prompted by a sudden hike in the number of rolls
> I was shooting of my daughter, which was getting expensive)
>
> If he doesn't *need* it this year, wait until next year and take
> another look.

It's always a difficult balance - no kit means no photos, or having to
scan grainy analogue images which is very time-consuming.

David
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:48:17 PM

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

> Alright, I went for the D70 because I had existing Nikon kit, and it
> looks a bit like the N80, so my wife wouldn't notice that I just spent
> $1200.
>
> ..that... didn't work, by the way.

That's hilarious! I have the same two cameras. Most people say that it's
good because a F80 user will feel at home with the controls. But I never
heard it put that way before! Certainly when I showed my wife the D70 she
said "Oh, but that looks just like your old camera!"
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 4:40:51 PM

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

"Nick Beard" wrote
> ... Go for the Nikon D70 .. Its advantages over the Rebel are many and the
> disadvantages of the Rebel over the D70 are few.

Did you really mean what is in the second half in the above sentence?

Sounds a bit like "heads I win, tails you lose".

Regards - JW
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 4:40:52 PM

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

"John Wright" <notprovided@something.com> wrote in message
news:41c24735$0$4534$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Nick Beard" wrote
> > ... Go for the Nikon D70 .. Its advantages over the Rebel are many and
the
> > disadvantages of the Rebel over the D70 are few.
>
> Did you really mean what is in the second half in the above sentence?
>
> Sounds a bit like "heads I win, tails you lose".
>
> Regards - JW

Nothing wrong with a 50/50 chance of winning or losing.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:01:13 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:37:38 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>[]
>>> That way you'll never buy anything!
>>
>> But he's got a point, I waited 5 years before finally investing in
>> Digital. In my opinion, it's only this last year that the technology
>> has achieved the right mix of being good enough and cheap enough to
>> warrant the purchase. That breakthrough is represented by both these
>> cameras.
>
>Well, perhaps that's right if you don't want to move outside the SLR
>format - but there have been plenty of cameras capable of producing
>excellent prints or digital slide-shows for many years now - since the 3MP
>cameras of 2000 I would have said.

Agreed. I should have mentioned I was only looking at SLRs. Non-SLR
digicams have been acceptable & reasonably priced for many years now.
Maybe in another 5 years we can see the same thing happen to medium
format. What's stopped me using medium format before is the specialist
enlargers / scanners you need to process the print. (it's my hobby
after all).

>> (It was also prompted by a sudden hike in the number of rolls
>> I was shooting of my daughter, which was getting expensive)
>>
>> If he doesn't *need* it this year, wait until next year and take
>> another look.
>
>It's always a difficult balance - no kit means no photos, or having to
>scan grainy analogue images which is very time-consuming.

Weirdly enough, I've done more scanning since having had the D70 than
before. Because new negatives are no-longer stacking up, I can now see
an end to the project, so it's easier to cope with.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:03:00 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:15 -0500, "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>4. As long as I have one, you will never be the worst photographer using a
>D70!

Heh, don't count on it... :-)

What I don't have is the eye to see a good shot. A typical example of this is
when I wsa in Paris once, walking down the banks of the Siene (SP?) with some
friends. As we passed under a bridge, my friend called out, "hey, nice photo
there". I looked, and sure enough, if I looked across the river, under the
bridge, I was looking through three arches, all perfectly aligned.

I took the picture,and it came out really nice (before digital, this was my
Olympys XA). I just hadn't seen the shot when I was walking around.


--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:03:01 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:03:00 +0800, Christopher Pollard
<xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:15 -0500, "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>4. As long as I have one, you will never be the worst photographer using a
>>D70!
>
>Heh, don't count on it... :-)
>
>What I don't have is the eye to see a good shot. A typical example of this is
>when I wsa in Paris once, walking down the banks of the Siene (SP?) with some
>friends. As we passed under a bridge, my friend called out, "hey, nice photo
>there". I looked, and sure enough, if I looked across the river, under the
>bridge, I was looking through three arches, all perfectly aligned.

...but were you looking for one?

I make a mental effort to do this whenever I am walking about, or
driving to/from work. The identical journey every day usually holds
several good opportunities. I am usually (almost always) too lazy to
actually stop the car and take the photo, but that's not the point.

It's something you can learn, just takes a bit of effort to make it a
habit.

>I took the picture,and it came out really nice (before digital, this was my
>Olympys XA). I just hadn't seen the shot when I was walking around.

At Disney World FL, Kodak have put little signs where the 'photo-ops'
are. But everybody ignores them. If I'm bored, I'll try and find 5
other places those signs should be when I'm walking around the park.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:55:39 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:50:09 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>I took a picture of my computer room illuminated only by beams of light
>from LEDs on the electronics.

That sounds cool, is it online anywhere?

> It turns out that one of the brightest
>objects was an old macally mouse that leaks a whole lot of IR. Weird.

Heat is also IR, maybe the heat from your hand had warmed it up a little.


--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:03:21 PM

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

Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> writes:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:50:09 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I took a picture of my computer room illuminated only by beams of light
> >from LEDs on the electronics.
>
> That sounds cool, is it online anywhere?
>
> > It turns out that one of the brightest
> >objects was an old macally mouse that leaks a whole lot of IR. Weird.
>
> Heat is also IR, maybe the heat from your hand had warmed it up a little.

Hand-temperature objects emit a tiny fraction of bugger-all light[1]
in Si-detectable wavelengths.

B>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:52:30 PM

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

>My opinion is this: buy the most you can afford. I know people who are
>actively using all three cameras, and all are happy with them.

It's an interesting question, actually. With film cameras, money
spent on lenses is always a better investment than money spent on
cameras. I cheap camera with an excellent lens will you give you
better pictures than a good camera with a mediocre lens.

But is this true for DSLR's? At what point does the quality of the
lens exceed what the camera can capture?

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:52:31 PM

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

> It's an interesting question, actually. With film cameras, money
> spent on lenses is always a better investment than money spent on
> cameras. I cheap camera with an excellent lens will you give you
> better pictures than a good camera with a mediocre lens.
>
> But is this true for DSLR's? At what point does the quality of the
> lens exceed what the camera can capture?

While I'm not an expert, my opinion is that with digital, the camera
becomes much more important, as the sensor is roughly equivlanet to all of
the film you would have bought. While with a film camera you could simply
use ISO 100 (or lower) for less grain, if your camera has a sensor with lots
of noise, you're stuck with it.

steve
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:04:25 AM

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

Thats exactly what i meant, Both have equal no of pros and cons depending on
varied factors. I personaly like the professional feel of the D70. I feel
Cannon's are like their owners, Flashy and in your face!!!

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:juswd.121983$8G4.15228@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "John Wright" <notprovided@something.com> wrote in message
> news:41c24735$0$4534$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Nick Beard" wrote
>> > ... Go for the Nikon D70 .. Its advantages over the Rebel are many and
> the
>> > disadvantages of the Rebel over the D70 are few.
>>
>> Did you really mean what is in the second half in the above sentence?
>>
>> Sounds a bit like "heads I win, tails you lose".
>>
>> Regards - JW
>
> Nothing wrong with a 50/50 chance of winning or losing.
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:27:45 AM

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

In article <s445s0phbk1vaoulcakdj7tt360k3kilru@4ax.com>,
Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:50:09 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I took a picture of my computer room illuminated only by beams of light
> >from LEDs on the electronics.
>
> That sounds cool, is it online anywhere?

It's blurry. I think the tripod sunk into the carpeting during the
exposure. I'll try it again after I give it some time to settle.

>
> > It turns out that one of the brightest
> >objects was an old macally mouse that leaks a whole lot of IR. Weird.
>
> Heat is also IR, maybe the heat from your hand had warmed it up a little.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:49:44 PM

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

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@hotmale.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> > "Westcoast Sheri" <sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> > > and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
> > >
> > > a.) D70
> > > b.) Rebel
> >
> > Neither: 20D.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> I disagree, David. I have both the D70 and the 20D. I bought the D70
first
> because I thought it was a better camera than the DR. It takes great
> pictures and is very easy to use. I know the DR takes great pictures,
too,
> because I've seen them posted on pbase. I bought the D70 because it was
> built more rugged. Then I ran into the 20D. I think it is more rugged
than
> the D70, and I do not believe it takes as good of pictures.

Of course it takes better pictures: read the reviews. The 20D has lower
noise, higher resolution, less Moire than the D70.

The Rebel has the problem that startup and CF card read/write times are
painfully slow, so if one can afford it, the 20D is more pleasant to use in
addition to its other advantages.

> Yes, it has a
> bigger sensor, but the pictures are no better than the D70 pictures, which
> are no better than the DR pictures. All three cameras take great
pictures.

The differences may be subtle, but they're real.

Canon also has the advantage that Canon is committed to producing full-frame
sensor cameras, so there will be an upgrade path to quality imaging. Packing
12MP into a 1.5x sensor based on technology that's already higher noise than
Canon's strikes me as a horrendously bad idea.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:45:00 PM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:27:45 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>It's blurry. I think the tripod sunk into the carpeting during the
>exposure. I'll try it again after I give it some time to settle.

Fit the tripod with spikes, like you see on speaker stands. They are designed to
go right through the carpet( withoug damaging it) and rest on whatever is
unterneath.

And hang something heavy from the tripod.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:45:01 PM

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

In article <6tn7s09l259n870pc2uett0osm1bksjh0r@4ax.com>,
Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:27:45 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's blurry. I think the tripod sunk into the carpeting during the
> >exposure. I'll try it again after I give it some time to settle.
>
> Fit the tripod with spikes, like you see on speaker stands. They are designed
> to
> go right through the carpet( withoug damaging it) and rest on whatever is
> unterneath.
>
> And hang something heavy from the tripod.

It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
a while and I got a sharp photo.


http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Tech_Glow%202.JPG
Tv 2422 seconds (40m 22s)
Av 4.5
ISO 100
10mm
~ 67F
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:45:02 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:51 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>In article <6tn7s09l259n870pc2uett0osm1bksjh0r@4ax.com>,
> Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:27:45 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's blurry. I think the tripod sunk into the carpeting during the
>> >exposure. I'll try it again after I give it some time to settle.
>>
>> Fit the tripod with spikes, like you see on speaker stands. They are designed
>> to
>> go right through the carpet( withoug damaging it) and rest on whatever is
>> unterneath.
>>
>> And hang something heavy from the tripod.
>
>It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
>a while and I got a sharp photo.
>
>
>http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Tech_Glow%202.JPG
> Tv 2422 seconds (40m 22s)
> Av 4.5
> ISO 100
> 10mm
> ~ 67F

You *really* need to figure out how to resize your posted pics.
Even with broadband that crawls. A much smaller image file would work
just as well in this instance.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 18, 2004 6:45:02 PM

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

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
DC1D94.01015118122004@corp-radius.supernews.com:

>
> It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
> a while and I got a sharp photo.
>
>

You could make spikes with small blocks of wood and nails.

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 8:22:22 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:51 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
>a while and I got a sharp photo.
>
>
>http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Tech_Glow%202.JPG

Yeah, I saw your other post. Pity I can't see the photo, it always times out.
I'll try again later.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 8:22:23 PM

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

In article <dkt7s01hscpmdfjfhdbt9b64eu221jgp5b@4ax.com>,
Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:51 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
> >a while and I got a sharp photo.
> >
> >
> >http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Tech_Glow%202.JPG
>
> Yeah, I saw your other post. Pity I can't see the photo, it always times out.
> I'll try again later.

It may be a firewall issue if you're in the Philippines. I need to work
on my blocks for Asia and Latin America. It's hard to keep track of
which networks there are legitimate and which are rogue. I actually
lose 1/2 to 3/4 of my bandwidth to hacking attempts, that's hundreds a
second, without the firewall.


# Asia, Latin America, parts of Japan, parts of Australia
# Fixme
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 202.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 210.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 200.0.0.0/8 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 61.0.0.0/8 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 168.95.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 218.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 220.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 222.0.0.0/8 to 66.159.230.140

# Abovenet - Pro-spam
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 208.184.0.0/15 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 64.124.0.0/15 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.126.96.0/19 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 208.184.0.0/15 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 209.66.64.0/18 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 209.133.0.0/17 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 209.249.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 216.200.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140

# C I Host - Pro-spam
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 63.249.128.0/17 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 66.34.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 66.221.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 69.13.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 209.164.64.0/18 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 216.97.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 216.221.160.0/19 to 66.159.230.140

# Bell Canada - Hackers, abuse bounces
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 64.228.0.0/14 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 65.92.0.0/14 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 67.68.0.0/14 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 69.156.0.0/15 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 69.158.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 138.82.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 142.112.0.0/12 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 192.75.163.0/24 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 192.75.164.0/24 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 198.235.210.0/23 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 198.235.212.0/22 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 198.235.216.0/22 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 199.243.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 199.243.226.0/24 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 204.101.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 206.47.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 206.172.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.35.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.61.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.164.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.164.41.0/24 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 207.236.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 209.226.0.0/16 to 66.159.230.140
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 216.208.0.0/15 to 66.159.230.140

#Hansenet - SSH Hackers, auto-ignore at abuse address
/sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 62.109.64.0/18 to 66.159.230.140
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:04:56 PM

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

> There are lots of functional differences between the D70 and 300D, but
> reflections off the 300D's silver paint is not one of them. Tell your
> friend to stop smoking crack and then show him which way to aim the
> lights.

.... or if he still won't be convinced, to just buy one of the black-bodied
Rebels to make himself feel better. : )

I don't know how long they've been available for (certainly not since the
introduction of the line), but they're certainly available now.

steve
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:48:16 PM

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

John Wright wrote:

> "Nick Beard" wrote
>
>>... Go for the Nikon D70 .. Its advantages over the Rebel are many and the
>>disadvantages of the Rebel over the D70 are few.
>
>
> Did you really mean what is in the second half in the above sentence?
>
> Sounds a bit like "heads I win, tails you lose".
>
> Regards - JW
>
>

This is where it is now. The D70 is all around better than the Digital
Rebel. The Canon 20D is better than the D70. Canon and Nikon Lenses
are so close it is difficult to tell the difference. You need to choose
which system you want to stay with in the future. I need to make the
same choice. If you think that Nikon will hold more advantages in the
future go with that. But if you think Canon will be the digital leader
as they are now go with Canon. I do not think you will get better
results with one over the other. However, one may hold a psychological
advantage over the other depending who or what influences you.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:29:17 PM

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

In article <41C1D0B7.47C0CFE7@nospamun8nospam.com>, Westcoast Sheri
<sheri_deb88@nospamun8nospam.com> wrote:

> I'm in no hurry.... but I need to know sometime immediately your kind
> and inspired thoughts on these 2 cameras:
>
> a.) D70
> b.) Rebel

Many, varied, and oderous will be some of the opinions found here. I
have a Rebel and love it. I've never tried a D70 (or any Nikon). I
recommend reading the reviews of each on www.dpreview.com as they are a
popular site with well-crafted reviews. The technical data will tell
you what the personal opinions don't. And you'll find probably an equal
number of do/don'ts for each model when you ask for opinions.

Just my $0.02 ...

--
--Chip
remove dots in prefix to fix email address
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:55:22 PM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> In article <dkt7s01hscpmdfjfhdbt9b64eu221jgp5b@4ax.com>,
> Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:01:51 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >It's a $49 tripod. No spikes :)  It settled in after sitting there for
> > >a while and I got a sharp photo.
> > >
> > >
> > >http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Tech_Glow%202.JPG
> >
> > Yeah, I saw your other post. Pity I can't see the photo, it always times out.
> > I'll try again later.
>
> It may be a firewall issue if you're in the Philippines. I need to work
> on my blocks for Asia and Latin America. It's hard to keep track of
> which networks there are legitimate and which are rogue. I actually
> lose 1/2 to 3/4 of my bandwidth to hacking attempts, that's hundreds a
> second, without the firewall.
>
> # Asia, Latin America, parts of Japan, parts of Australia
> # Fixme
> /sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 202.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
> /sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 210.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140

That's it, then. My isp at 202.27.184.. is blocked. What a bugger that you have
to go to these lengths to get away from the bastards.

Colin
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:55:23 PM

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

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:55:22 +1300, Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>> # Fixme
>> /sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 202.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
>> /sbin/ipfw add deny ip from 210.0.0.0/7 to 66.159.230.140
>
>That's it, then. My isp at 202.27.184.. is blocked. What a bugger that you have
>to go to these lengths to get away from the bastards.

And mine is
202.133.xxx.xxx
:-(
--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
December 20, 2004 7:14:58 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in news:cpt8rv$qp4$2
@nnrp.gol.com:

> Neither: 20D.
>

She stipulated a budget of $1000. If she bought the 20D she couldn't afford
a lens for it.

Bob
December 20, 2004 7:19:38 PM

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

bob <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote in news:Xns95C37ED182397bobatcarolnet@
216.196.97.142:
>
> You could make spikes with small blocks of wood and nails.
>

I'm having a more creative day, today. You can make spikes even easier with
long nails and electrical tape!

Bob
December 20, 2004 7:40:36 PM

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

Christopher Pollard <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:tct4s054qdukte73r9irn14qr9ordbt79k@4ax.com:

> friends. As we passed under a bridge, my friend called out, "hey, nice
> photo there". I looked, and sure enough, if I looked across the river,
> under the bridge, I was looking through three arches, all perfectly
> aligned.
>
>

When I walk with my wife, she points out shots that I don't see, and she
never sees what I see, until it's in a print. Over the years I've noticed
that she sees telephoto shots, and I see wide angle shots.

I have also noticed that I often see a shot, set up, and take it, and then
other photographers come and take a similar shot, which leads me to believe
I see things better than the "average" photographer.

I think it's like any other skill. Some people have more natural ability,
but everyone can improve through practice and study.

Bob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:31:52 AM

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

"bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > Neither: 20D.
>
> She stipulated a budget of $1000. If she bought the 20D she couldn't
afford
> a lens for it.

Yes, I realize that the 20D is overbudget for a lot of people. But whereas I
prefer the 300D to the 10D (really!), the 20D has enough real advantages
over the 300D that people should seriously consider it. IMHO. Better spend
an extra $600 now than an extra $1500 later.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 4:31:53 AM

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

The choice is obvious. If you can scrounge up the money the 20D.

Assuming you cannot, then the logic is not to choose between the D70 and
the Rebel but to analyze your future needs and where you think Nikon and
Canon are going. The lenses are close. The color rendition may be
different so you need to analyze prints from each system. Enough of
them to compensate for the differences between printer, inks, and paper.

The D70 is better than the Rebel but obviously is not as good as the
20D. Check the bodies for balance and the user friendliness of the menu
systems and see what you like.

If you think you really want the 20D or its successor later on and like
the Canon Lenses and system go with the Rebel. It is a few hundred
dollars cheaper and you might like a second lens.

If you feel that this is going to be your last camera for a long time
and like the D70 today, buy and build the Nikon system.

Remember this, the camera system you like the best and enjoy using the
most will yield you better results irrespective of which may be
marginally better in the hand of someone else.

Personally, I like the 20D, then the D70 and finally the all black (yes
it is available) Digital Rebel. I seem to perceive from looking a
results that Nikon results are somewhat more muted in color than Canon.
That Canon results appear somewhat more vivid.

I own a Nikon film system, the F2A (granddaddy of the F5) In those days
it was a no brainor to choose Nikon. The lenses were better, the body
had more interchangeable features, and the construction was in a
different class.

Today it is a different ball game. I do think that Nikon lens
construction (forget the expensive L lenses) is somewhat heftier (forget
the plastic lens construction from each mfg) but if you take care of
your stuff it should not make much difference.

The choice you make today should be based on what you want tomorrow.
One can get good results with all of them. Probably even the new
digital Minolta, however, I would stick with Nikon or Canon.



David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "bob" <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Neither: 20D.
>>
>>She stipulated a budget of $1000. If she bought the 20D she couldn't
>
> afford
>
>>a lens for it.
>
>
> Yes, I realize that the 20D is overbudget for a lot of people. But whereas I
> prefer the 300D to the 10D (really!), the 20D has enough real advantages
> over the 300D that people should seriously consider it. IMHO. Better spend
> an extra $600 now than an extra $1500 later.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:34:23 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

Lots of good, sensible stuff that's been ruthlessly snipped.

> Remember this, the camera system you like the best and enjoy using the
> most will yield you better results irrespective of which may be
> marginally better in the hand of someone else.

Really!

> The choice you make today should be based on what you want tomorrow.

But this is the most sensible<g>. And why Canon won hands down for me. Nikon
is so far refusing to admit that full frame is the way to go. If both the
1Dsmk2 and the still-on-paper Nikon 1.5x 12MP sensor were both available in
affordable liftable bodies, it would be a total slam dunk for Canon. Nikon's
approach isn't interesting in the slightest. (This is because I don't do
extreme telephoto work. A lot of people will prefer Nikon's approach.)

Of course, the 1Dsmk2 sensor won't be appearing in an affordable liftable
body for a long long time, and Nikon may persuade Sony to make them a full
frame sensor and change their tune and beat Canon to the affordable liftable
full-frame body punch.

But at least for now, Nikon's not even in the game.

> David J. Littleboy wrote:

> > Yes, I realize that the 20D is overbudget for a lot of people. But
whereas I
> > prefer the 300D to the 10D (really!), the 20D has enough real advantages
> > over the 300D that people should seriously consider it. IMHO. Better
spend
> > an extra $600 now than an extra $1500 later.

By the way: this is from personal experience. I like my black 300D a lot,
but the slow startup time and slow CF card read/write times are really
irritating. And the twits at Canon came out with the 20D barely 3 months
after I bought the 300D. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Roadkill on the high-tech superhighway in
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:34:24 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Lots of good, sensible stuff that's been ruthlessly snipped.
>
>
>>Remember this, the camera system you like the best and enjoy using the
>>most will yield you better results irrespective of which may be
>>marginally better in the hand of someone else.
>
>
> Really!
>
>
>>The choice you make today should be based on what you want tomorrow.
>
>
> But this is the most sensible<g>. And why Canon won hands down for me. Nikon
> is so far refusing to admit that full frame is the way to go. If both the
> 1Dsmk2 and the still-on-paper Nikon 1.5x 12MP sensor were both available in
> affordable liftable bodies, it would be a total slam dunk for Canon. Nikon's
> approach isn't interesting in the slightest. (This is because I don't do
> extreme telephoto work. A lot of people will prefer Nikon's approach.)
>
> Of course, the 1Dsmk2 sensor won't be appearing in an affordable liftable
> body for a long long time, and Nikon may persuade Sony to make them a full
> frame sensor and change their tune and beat Canon to the affordable liftable
> full-frame body punch.
>
> But at least for now, Nikon's not even in the game.
>
>
>>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes, I realize that the 20D is overbudget for a lot of people. But
>
> whereas I
>
>>>prefer the 300D to the 10D (really!), the 20D has enough real advantages
>>>over the 300D that people should seriously consider it. IMHO. Better
>
> spend
>
>>>an extra $600 now than an extra $1500 later.
>
>
> By the way: this is from personal experience. I like my black 300D a lot,
> but the slow startup time and slow CF card read/write times are really
> irritating. And the twits at Canon came out with the 20D barely 3 months
> after I bought the 300D. Sigh.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Roadkill on the high-tech superhighway in
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
And yes, You sound like a REAL LITTLE BOY!
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:01:41 PM

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

I don't think the two are as night and day as you might think. They're
both lower-end SLRs. I can't speak for or against the DR, 'cause I've
never used one. I went with the D70 because of numerous problems I'd
had with the last three digi-cameras I owned (all Canon). I'm actually
considering "upgrading" to the N80, though I love my Nikon, because
'megapixels' will never supercede film.
!