Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D70 vs D70s?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:35:11 PM

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

Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?

Thanks.

More about : d70 d70s

Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:57:37 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xwtr7k7ao.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
> a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
> larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
> socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
> foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
> really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
> have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
> its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?

This question is above my experitise, but I will make one comment. BTW I
own a D70. I really think, that as a holdover from film days, the
manufacturers give you a small lcd and think you'll be thrilled, since you
had none in film days. BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
digital times it really should be larger! Especially if your over 40 yrs
old. You certainly can't tell on the D70 lcd if your moderately out of
focus and I think you should be able to tell. I think the value of a bigger
lcd is huge and can't be overemphasized. My son is 13 and has eagle eyes,
so maybe not for him, but if your thirty - you'll be 40 in ten years and
maybe you'll still have the camera and your eyes will be older. Then again
in 10 years you'll want a 100MP camera.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:57:38 PM

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

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> writes:
> had none in film days. BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
> digital times it really should be larger! Especially if your over 40 yrs
> old. You certainly can't tell on the D70 lcd if your moderately out of
> focus and I think you should be able to tell. I think the value of a bigger
> lcd is huge and can't be overemphasized.

Thanks, yes, an increase from 2" to say 4" would be a big help with that.
But the D70s increase is something like 2" to 2.1", not that big a deal.
You have to use the zoom function to check focus either way.

I've had a series of small point/shoot digicams and am already
reasonably comfortable with the lcd sizes for quick review purposes.
For closer inspection I think it's best to use a computer monitor.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:53:07 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
> a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
> larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
> socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
> foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
> really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
> have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
> its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?
>
> Thanks.
>

Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable itself
is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about its price.
It might be $100 or more.

D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
aren't.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:53:08 AM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
> Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable itself
> is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about its price.
> It might be $100 or more.

Does it give a part number for the remote cable? I hope they weren't
crazy enough to make a special remote cable for the D70, instead of
using the same MC30 cable that the D1 and so forth use. It's around
$50.

> D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
> camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
> aren't.

What colorspace does the D70 use? Is that different from what typical
p/s digicams use? Do you mean the D50 doesn't do RAW? I don't have
anything against SD, but good point, I have several CF cards and it
would be nice to be able to keep using them.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:59:27 AM

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

On 12 Apr 2005 14:35:11 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
>a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
>larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
>socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
>foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
>really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
>have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
>its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?
>
>Thanks.

It would depend on whether the minimal new features are worth the
extra $200 or so a D70s is likely to cost you. My guess is that the
update will be sold at the old, no-rebate price.


-------------------------------------
Everything I know, and then some:
http://www.auctionmyths.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:59:28 AM

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

Dave Busch <moc.seimmud4latigid@eriafresal> writes:
> It would depend on whether the minimal new features are worth the
> extra $200 or so a D70s is likely to cost you. My guess is that the
> update will be sold at the old, no-rebate price.

I wonder if they can keep that price where it is. Note that the D70
no longer has a rebate, but the regular price seems to have fallen some.
There's still a $100 rebate for the D70 kit with the 18-70 zoom.
I really, really, prefer to not deal with rebates though.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:50:02 PM

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

: D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
: camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
: aren't.

The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG. If shooting
RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

WRT SD cards, they are the small form factor that has won. They're the same
cost per meg as CF, and they're physically small enough to be useful in other devices
(mp3 players, cell phones, etc, etc). The formats to avoid are one-off standards
invented by money-grubbing companies trying to lock you into their stuff (read: Sony
MemoryStick, xD, etc).

-Cory

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:50:03 PM

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

papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
> The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
> If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
want the standard one?
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:17:09 PM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
: papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
: > The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
: > If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

: If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
: want the standard one?

It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB colorspace
specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of working colorspace. You can
think of AdobeRGB space being capable of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not
all devices can display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an average PC monitor.

With RAW, all of that colorspace conversion is done in the RAW conversion
post-processing step. You can map the output into any working space you want,
including sRGB or AdobeRGB.

-Cory

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:17:10 PM

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

papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
> It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
> colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
> working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
> of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
> display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
> denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
> average PC monitor.

I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 7:42:25 PM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
>> Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable
>> itself is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about
>> its price. It might be $100 or more.
>
> Does it give a part number for the remote cable? I hope they weren't
> crazy enough to make a special remote cable for the D70, instead of
> using the same MC30 cable that the D1 and so forth use. It's around
> $50.
MC-DC1 is the remote cable for the D70s. I'm not familiar with it.

>
>> D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its
>> a camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
>> aren't.
>
> What colorspace does the D70 use? Is that different from what typical
> p/s digicams use? Do you mean the D50 doesn't do RAW? I don't have
> anything against SD, but good point, I have several CF cards and it
> would be nice to be able to keep using them.
>


The D70 uses sRGB color space AND Adobe RGB98.

I don't recall if the D50 shoots RAW. I don't have a copy of the manual
and probably won't download one as I'm not even slightly interested in
downgrading to one.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:21:03 PM

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

In article <7x8y3m8ym9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
>> It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
>> colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
>> working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
>> of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
>> display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
>> denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
>> average PC monitor.
>
>I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
>that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
>all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
>and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?

Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.

IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth, which means
shooting raw, but colourspace is irrelevant in raw-mode, because it gets
assigned during conversion.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:21:04 PM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
> Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
> example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
> stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.

OK, let me ask it again, is AdobeRGB good or bad for the 99.9% of us
(well maybe 98%) who aren't using Macs and aren't using Adobe products?

> IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
> best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
> wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
> different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
> posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth, which means
> shooting raw, but colourspace is irrelevant in raw-mode, because it gets
> assigned during conversion.

JPEG supports 16 bit color though I don't know how much software
actually knows about this. Adding that support sounds like a better
plan than trying to move towards a different RGB standard.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:45:12 PM

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

papenfussDIESPAM@juneaudotmedotvt.edu wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
> : papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
> : > The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
> : > If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

> : If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
> : want the standard one?

> It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
> colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
> working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
> of representing "redder reds" than sRGB,

You'd be wrong, though -- the blue and red primaries of Adobe RGB and
sRGB are the same. The larger space is entirely due to the use of a
different green primary.

Bruce Lindbloom said "I have heard the rumor that the green primary
for Adobe RGB came about by the accidental use of the NTSC green
primary, used incorrectly since NTSC is defined relative to Illuminant
C while Adobe RGB is defined relative to D65. After the mistake was
discovered, Adobe decided to keep it since their experiences with this
accidental reference space were favorable."

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:52:40 PM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
: You'd be wrong, though -- the blue and red primaries of Adobe RGB and
: sRGB are the same. The larger space is entirely due to the use of a
: different green primary.

: Bruce Lindbloom said "I have heard the rumor that the green primary
: for Adobe RGB came about by the accidental use of the NTSC green
: primary, used incorrectly since NTSC is defined relative to Illuminant
: C while Adobe RGB is defined relative to D65. After the mistake was
: discovered, Adobe decided to keep it since their experiences with this
: accidental reference space were favorable."

OK... I stand corrected. I was supposed to be a general-purpose comment.

-Cory
--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:56:47 PM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
> best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
> wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
> different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
> posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth

IMO, if you have a scene that needs a wide gamut it's better to risk a
little posterization than to clip colours, but it's a tradeoff. Adobe
RGB jpegs are usually OK.

Besides, Adobe RGB isn't much bigger than sRGB -- I agree that wide
gamut spaces (like ProPhoto RGB) shouldn't be used with 8 bit images.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:00:58 PM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
: papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
: > It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
: > colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
: > working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
: > of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
: > display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
: > denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
: > average PC monitor.

: I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
: that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
: all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
: and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?

I think you're getting confused on file type vs. color profile. In all these
cases, the images are (at least eventually) recorded as RGB values. A tiff/jpeg/bmp,
etc record just that and define the file type. Anything that can read those should be
able to load and display them.

Now, add on *top* of that, a small additional piece of information. That is
the color profile that describes (generally) small adjustments in the definition of
what "red, green, and blue" mean in an absolute sense. It's not limited to small
adjustments, just that it usually is. Now, it's up to the display device whether or
not it is going to honor this profile.

Think of it like the EXIF information in the JPEG from a camera. It's there
in addition to the image. If an application looks at it, great.... if not then it's
ignored. Embedded color profiling works similarly, except that if the image has been
"pre-corrected" into a different colorspace, using an application downstream that
doesn't honor it will result in slightly different color rendition.

-Cory
--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:25:35 PM

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

In article <7xekdefvxp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
>> Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
>> example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
>> stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.
>
>OK, let me ask it again, is AdobeRGB good or bad for the 99.9% of us
>(well maybe 98%) who aren't using Macs and aren't using Adobe products?

AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the gamut
of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.

>JPEG supports 16 bit color though I don't know how much software
>actually knows about this.

There is much more software that supports AdobeRGB than >8 bit/ch jpeg.
On the other hand, in most cases, 8 bit/ch works fine with AdobeRGB.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:36:27 PM

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

> BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
> digital times it really should be larger!

Yes, but to be realistically useful for focus checking it would need to be
larger than the form factor of the camera could handle. The more MP you
have the less of the image detail you can see on the LCD. Even "zooming in"
on playback isn't much use for checking focus of shots on my 20D. The
quality of the LCD screen, especially in daylight, really isn't enough to
display that sort of detail.

The screen is useful for composition checking, the histogram, and checking
to see if a subject blinked, etc. Making it a bit bigger, even quite a bit
bigger, won't make it a lot more useful IMHO.

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:27:08 AM

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

Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the gamut
> of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
> should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
> of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.
>
And you need a good printer that has equipment to support the AdobeRGB
colorspace for you to use this. Walmart won't cut it ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:27:09 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> writes:
> > AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the gamut
> > of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
> > should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
> > of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.
> >
> And you need a good printer that has equipment to support the AdobeRGB
> colorspace for you to use this. Walmart won't cut it ;-)

So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
getting some large prints made.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:27:10 AM

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

On 13 Apr 2005 13:34:33 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the gamut
>> > of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
>> > should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
>> > of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.
>> >
>> And you need a good printer that has equipment to support the AdobeRGB
>> colorspace for you to use this. Walmart won't cut it ;-)
>
>So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
>getting some large prints made.

The Epson R1800 does.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:37 AM

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

papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:

> WRT SD cards, they are the small form factor that has won. They're the
> same cost per meg as CF, and they're physically small enough to be
> useful in other devices (mp3 players, cell phones, etc, etc).

But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
while the small size of SD does not.

(SD size is valuable in making small pocketable cameras, but that's not
what we're talking about here).

Dave (who has both CF and SD cards)
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:38 AM

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

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
> But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
> significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
> SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
> DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
> while the small size of SD does not.

True. CF cards are available up to 8GB. SD cards are available up to
2 GB which is quite a lot even for a DSLR, though. Microdrives don't
seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
are 6GB.

SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
camera breaking off. CF seems to be going out of style in consumer
cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.

It's really really stupid that they didn't put USB2.0 high speed in
the D70S, since that would lead to a lot less card removal.
April 14, 2005 5:44:38 AM

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

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 3khu5$9jd$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
>
> > WRT SD cards, they are the small form factor that has won. They're the
> > same cost per meg as CF, and they're physically small enough to be
> > useful in other devices (mp3 players, cell phones, etc, etc).
>
> But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
> significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
> SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
> DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
> while the small size of SD does not.
>
> (SD size is valuable in making small pocketable cameras, but that's not
> what we're talking about here).
>
> Dave (who has both CF and SD cards)

But what does SD cards have to do with D70 vs. D70s? The D50 is the
lightweight Nikon dSLR that takes SD cards.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:38 AM

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

Dave Martindale wrote:
> papenfussDIESPAM@juneauDOTmeDOTvt.edu writes:
>
>
>>WRT SD cards, they are the small form factor that has won. They're the
>>same cost per meg as CF, and they're physically small enough to be
>>useful in other devices (mp3 players, cell phones, etc, etc).
>
>
> But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
> significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
> SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
> DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
> while the small size of SD does not.
>
> (SD size is valuable in making small pocketable cameras, but that's not
> what we're talking about here).
>
> Dave (who has both CF and SD cards)

My current camera uses the SD cards, which have worked well, and the
capacity is more than adequate for my needs. I still prefer the CF
format for technical, and practical, reasons.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:39 AM

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

" Darrell" <dev/null> writes:
> But what does SD cards have to do with D70 vs. D70s? The D50 is the
> lightweight Nikon dSLR that takes SD cards.

One of the possibilities raised in the D70 vs D70s question is "what
about the D50?". So far I haven't seen any really strong arguments
against the D50. There are a couple of moderately strong ones, one
of which is the CF vs. SD issue.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:57 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:


> I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
> that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
> all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
> and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?
>

They will display but the colors will have less saturation and the contrast
(actually the gamma) will be lower than you wanted. There will be relative
color errors as well as absolute ones.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:44:58 AM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
> They will display but the colors will have less saturation and the contrast
> (actually the gamma) will be lower than you wanted. There will be relative
> color errors as well as absolute ones.

Thanks. From everything I've heard, I want to stay away from AdobeRGB
and use sRGB for normal jpg's, or RAW for situations where color
accuracy is important. I guess I'd deliver the files to printing
shops as TIFFs with 16 bit color, made from the RAW images.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:49:01 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> writes:
>> Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff,
>> for example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render
>> AdobeRGB stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.
>
> OK, let me ask it again, is AdobeRGB good or bad for the 99.9% of us
> (well maybe 98%) who aren't using Macs and aren't using Adobe
> products?
>
If you don't have Photoshop, you have no way to see what you're doing in
any other colorspace but sRGB. You're stuck in the minor leagues of
color.

> JPEG supports 16 bit color though I don't know how much software
> actually knows about this. Adding that support sounds like a better
> plan than trying to move towards a different RGB standard.

Only JPEG 2000 supports 16 bits. Ordinary jpeg has an 8 bit limit.
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:53:22 AM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:


>
> Bruce Lindbloom said "I have heard the rumor that the green primary
> for Adobe RGB came about by the accidental use of the NTSC green
> primary, used incorrectly since NTSC is defined relative to Illuminant
> C while Adobe RGB is defined relative to D65. After the mistake was
> discovered, Adobe decided to keep it since their experiences with this
> accidental reference space were favorable."
>
> Andrew.
>

NTSC 1953 (which isn't used anywhere for anything these days) was
Illuminant C based. The modern NTSC standard is very definitely based on
D6500.

Interesting rumor.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:10:19 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Thanks. From everything I've heard, I want to stay away from AdobeRGB
> and use sRGB for normal jpg's, or RAW for situations where color
> accuracy is important. I guess I'd deliver the files to printing
> shops as TIFFs with 16 bit color, made from the RAW images.
>

There's no such thing as a 16 bit printer. Convert to 8 bit as the last
step.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:26:25 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xy8bm1kme.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the
gamut
> > > of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
> > > should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
> > > of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.
> > >
> > And you need a good printer that has equipment to support the AdobeRGB
> > colorspace for you to use this. Walmart won't cut it ;-)
>
> So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
> getting some large prints made.

I believe the canon i9900 does.
You can read about it here:
http://www.a-digital-eye.net/canon_i9900.html
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:29:43 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xk6n6gm52.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
> > But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
> > significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
> > SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
> > DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
> > while the small size of SD does not.
>
> True. CF cards are available up to 8GB. SD cards are available up to
> 2 GB which is quite a lot even for a DSLR, though. Microdrives don't
> seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
> are 6GB.
>
> SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
> removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
> camera breaking off. CF seems to be going out of style in consumer
> cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.
>
> It's really really stupid that they didn't put USB2.0 high speed in
> the D70S, since that would lead to a lot less card removal.

I think many who own large CF cards (2GB) and up own fast card readers and
use them for transfer, but I could be wrong. So usb 2 camera may not be
that helpful. With camera connected to computer there's risk of sudden
movement knocking the camera off a table.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:30:27 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xr7he12mr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> " Darrell" <dev/null> writes:
> > But what does SD cards have to do with D70 vs. D70s? The D50 is the
> > lightweight Nikon dSLR that takes SD cards.
>
> One of the possibilities raised in the D70 vs D70s question is "what
> about the D50?". So far I haven't seen any really strong arguments
> against the D50. There are a couple of moderately strong ones, one
> of which is the CF vs. SD issue.

Especially if you've invested is several large cf cards.
April 14, 2005 12:27:41 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xr7he12mr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> " Darrell" <dev/null> writes:
> > But what does SD cards have to do with D70 vs. D70s? The D50 is the
> > lightweight Nikon dSLR that takes SD cards.
>
> One of the possibilities raised in the D70 vs D70s question is "what
> about the D50?". So far I haven't seen any really strong arguments
> against the D50. There are a couple of moderately strong ones, one
> of which is the CF vs. SD issue.

SD seems to work in the Pentax *ist DS, however, I think many will find the
grey (silver) D50 to be too lightweight.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:09:48 PM

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

larrylook wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7xk6n6gm52.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>
>>davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
>>
>>>But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
>>>significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
>>>SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
>>>DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
>>>while the small size of SD does not.
>>
>>True. CF cards are available up to 8GB. SD cards are available up to
>>2 GB which is quite a lot even for a DSLR, though. Microdrives don't
>>seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
>>are 6GB.
>>
>>SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
>>removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
>>camera breaking off. CF seems to be going out of style in consumer
>>cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.
>>
>>It's really really stupid that they didn't put USB2.0 high speed in
>>the D70S, since that would lead to a lot less card removal.
>
>
> I think many who own large CF cards (2GB) and up own fast card readers and
> use them for transfer, but I could be wrong. So usb 2 camera may not be
> that helpful. With camera connected to computer there's risk of sudden
> movement knocking the camera off a table.
>
>
My camera connect to a 'dock', so there is little chance of knocking it
off the desk, but before getting the dock, a couple of close calls as
you describe sent me to the store for a card reader. If I need to read
in three or four pictures, I download from the dock. If I have a lot to
transfer, I plug the card into my wifes computer with the internal
multi-format USB 2.0 card reader, and then move them across to my
computer on the network. LOTS faster for more than 8 or 10 pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:17:55 PM

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

Darrell wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7xr7he12mr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>
>>" Darrell" <dev/null> writes:
>>
>>>But what does SD cards have to do with D70 vs. D70s? The D50 is the
>>>lightweight Nikon dSLR that takes SD cards.
>>
>>One of the possibilities raised in the D70 vs D70s question is "what
>>about the D50?". So far I haven't seen any really strong arguments
>>against the D50. There are a couple of moderately strong ones, one
>>of which is the CF vs. SD issue.
>
>
> SD seems to work in the Pentax *ist DS, however, I think many will find the
> grey (silver) D50 to be too lightweight.
>
>
>
Too light? For what purpose? Boat anchor? Or do you use your camera
for a doorstop when not taking pictures? I certainly would NOT call a
camera that weighs in at a pound and a half with batteries 'too light'.
But maybe you are fond of 8x10 view camera, plus tripod. I guess it
depends on what you are used to.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:11:22 PM

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

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
>> getting some large prints made.
>
> The Epson R1800 does.

Several HP models do as well. Definitely the Photosmart models and 7960.
From what I can tell, HP has been doing it longer than Epson.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:01:54 PM

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

On 13 Apr 2005 18:52:41 -0700, Pavl Rvbin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>davem@cs.vbc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
>> Bvt the largest amovnt of memory yov can get in SD is still
>> significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
>> SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For vse in a
>> DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
>> while the small size of SD does not.
>
>Trve. CF cards are available vp to 8GB. SD cards are available vp to
>2 GB which is qvite a lot even for a DSLR, thovgh. Microdrives don't
>seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
>are 6GB.
>
>SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
>removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
>camera breaking off. CF seems to be going ovt of style in consvmer
>cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.

Any nvmbers for this or does it jvst sovnd good.


>
>It's really really stvpid that they didn't pvt USB2.0 high speed in
>the D70S, since that wovld lead to a lot less card removal.

Why wovld any one want to do the transfer from the camera?
*******************************************************

"With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of
loyalty and dvty of an American citizen, I have not
been able to make vp my mind to raise my hand against
my relative, my children, my home. I have, therefore,
resigned my commission in the Army..."

Robert E. Lee to his sister,
Anne Marshall April 20, 1861
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:01:55 PM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2005 18:52:41 -0700, Paul Rubin
> <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
>
>>davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
>>
>>>But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
>>>significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
>>>SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
>>>DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
>>>while the small size of SD does not.
>>
>>True. CF cards are available up to 8GB. SD cards are available up to
>>2 GB which is quite a lot even for a DSLR, though. Microdrives don't
>>seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
>>are 6GB.
>>
>>SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
>>removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
>>camera breaking off. CF seems to be going out of style in consumer
>>cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.
>
>
> Any numbers for this or does it just sound good.
>
>
>
>>It's really really stupid that they didn't put USB2.0 high speed in
>>the D70S, since that would lead to a lot less card removal.
>
>
> Why would any one want to do the transfer from the camera?
Politics snipped

I have used CF cards many times, and the only way I can see that a
person could break a pin, or bend one is to let some foreign material
get into the slot, or insert the card with a hammer... I don't see it
as a problem as one can abuse anything, and complain about failures.

On the other hand, neither have I had problems with the SD card, which
my current camera uses, unless you could finding the darn things after
the eject mechanism throws one across the room.





--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:57:41 PM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
: > But the largest amount of memory you can get in SD is still
: > significantly smaller than CF (last time I looked anyway). There are no
: > SD microdrives, nor are there likely to be any time soon. For use in a
: > DSLR, the larger capacity of the CF format still seems like an advantage
: > while the small size of SD does not.

: True. CF cards are available up to 8GB. SD cards are available up to
: 2 GB which is quite a lot even for a DSLR, though. Microdrives don't
: seem to be worth the hassle anymore, and anyway the largest of them
: are 6GB.

: SD apparently is considered more reliable against repeated card
: removals and reinsertions. CF has a problem with the pins inside the
: camera breaking off. CF seems to be going out of style in consumer
: cameras for this reason: too many warranty repairs.

: It's really really stupid that they didn't put USB2.0 high speed in
: the D70S, since that would lead to a lot less card removal.

Right... if it were an appreciable tradeoff in size, I might agree. At this
point, with 6-8 MP DSLRs, using a 1-2gig card yields 100-300 RAW shots. It takes
awhile to shoot that many, so the additional 10 seconds to swap in another card is a
pretty small additional time requirement. It's rather silly (financially) to use
memory cards for prolonged storage (say, an entire vacation, etc) when they can be run
off onto a portable HD or burned to DVD easily.

Until the "sweet spot" in memory size (as far as $/GB) is larger than what's
available in SD, it's not really a significant drawback.

-Cory

--

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:36:54 PM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
>
> So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
> getting some large prints made.

I am not sure what printers MPIX.com uses, but they support AdobeRGB.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:36:55 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425eb846$0$196$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>
>> So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
>> getting some large prints made.
>
> I am not sure what printers MPIX.com uses, but they support AdobeRGB.

I sent them a CMYK file and it was printed as RGB. In other words, a
blue-green Golden Gate Bridge. Make SURE to send them RGB.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:01:58 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:58:13 -0400, "Cynicor"
<j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>
>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:425eb846$0$196$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
>> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid&gt; wrote:
>>>
>>> So do better printers support AdobeRGB? I do have some interest in
>>> getting some large prints made.
>>
>> I am not sure what printers MPIX.com uses, but they support AdobeRGB.
>
>I sent them a CMYK file and it was printed as RGB. In other words, a
>blue-green Golden Gate Bridge. Make SURE to send them RGB.

I don't see anything about them supporting AdobeRGB on their website
either. It does say "Mpix printers output in sRGB color space."
however.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:27:26 AM

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

Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see anything about them supporting AdobeRGB on their website
> either. It does say "Mpix printers output in sRGB color space."
> however.

My point wasn't that they print aRGB, it was that they properly
interpret it; they convert it I assume. Walmart on the other hand seems
to ignore the profile altogether and colors [and greys] are
inappropriately printed. I pick on walmart only because they are the
only local company that I can upload pictures and pick them up 60
minutes later (so kudos to them).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:27:27 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> writes:
> My point wasn't that they print aRGB, it was that they properly
> interpret it; they convert it I assume. Walmart on the other hand seems
> to ignore the profile altogether and colors [and greys] are
> inappropriately printed. I pick on walmart only because they are the
> only local company that I can upload pictures and pick them up 60
> minutes later (so kudos to them).

I have an old HP inkjet printer that I use for the occasional snapshot
print at home. I don't foresee going to places like Wal-Mart for
prints. I might want to get some large prints made, like 20x30, which
means finding a place that can make them. I don't expect Wal-Mart to
be able to do that. The Adobe RGB issue is of some interest for that
kind of print. But I suspect the kind of place that can make those
prints, can also deal with 16-bit TIFF files, avoiding the JPEG issue
altogether.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 9:34:17 AM

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

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> But I suspect the kind of place that can make those
> prints, can also deal with 16-bit TIFF files, avoiding the JPEG issue
> altogether.
>

The first thing they'll do to deal with them is convert them to 8 bits.
There are no 16 bit printers.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 9:34:18 AM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
> > But I suspect the kind of place that can make those
> > prints, can also deal with 16-bit TIFF files, avoiding the JPEG issue
> > altogether.
>
> The first thing they'll do to deal with them is convert them to 8 bits.
> There are no 16 bit printers.

Well sure, but they can handle the color space conversion in whatever
way is best for their specific setup. The Adobe RGB thing just seems
like a crock by comparison.
!