Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

On The Road with the Nikon D70

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:51:35 PM

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

Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in progress:

http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005

(I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse to
learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on the
Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was in
motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).

(BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
point-and-shoot, not the D70)

More about : road nikon d70

Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:08:12 PM

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

Time Teamer wrote:
> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in
progress:
> >
> > http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
> >
> > (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse
to
> > learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on
the
> > Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was
in
> > motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
> >
> > (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
> > point-and-shoot, not the D70)
> >
>
> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.

Could be the kit lens or it could be just the fact that the photos and
JPEG quality (on some) have been reduced for web viewing. (When you're
paying X amount for web space you have to consider how many files it
can handle and how big you can afford to make them) .
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:37:46 PM

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

Yeah, the files were originally around 3 MB and over, and I had to
reduce them down to 100-200K for the site. Plus I could probably do
with better lenses. The lenses were included in a kit from Royal
Camera, and I asked them if the lenses were Nikon. The salesperson
said, "yes". Instead I got a Sigma and a Tamron lens. I've seen some
amazing D70 shots taken by others, so I know what the camera can do. I
called them back to complain, and they assured me these were decent
lenses. (Perhaps for the average snapshot-taker, but I'd have probably
wanted something better). Unfortunately I bought the kit last-minute
and suppose it's too late to get an exchange on these, because, after
all, I was told I was going to receive "Nikon" lenses. Live and learn.

Oh well, when you know your home town just got buried under a foot of
snow and you're in sunny California, just enjoying the trip is what
counts at the moment.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:52:59 PM

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

"Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in progress:
>
> http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
>
> (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse to
> learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on the
> Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was in
> motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
>
> (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
> point-and-shoot, not the D70)
>

if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:10:23 PM

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

"Time Teamer" <btc@yobtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D 4lv5r$71n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in progress:
>>
>> http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
>>
>> (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse to
>> learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on the
>> Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was in
>> motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
>>
>> (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
>> point-and-shoot, not the D70)
>>
>
> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.
>

And you make that decision based on web pictures. Yeah right. Keep your
950.

Best laugh I've had all day.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 1:04:27 AM

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

"Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114542492.923122.212160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Time Teamer wrote:
>> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in
> progress:
>> >
>> > http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
>> >
>> > (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse
> to
>> > learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on
> the
>> > Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was
> in
>> > motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
>> >
>> > (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
>> > point-and-shoot, not the D70)
>> >
>>
>> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.
>
> Could be the kit lens or it could be just the fact that the photos and
> JPEG quality (on some) have been reduced for web viewing. (When you're
> paying X amount for web space you have to consider how many files it
> can handle and how big you can afford to make them) .
>

why post them then...........
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 1:04:53 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:juvbe.31517$_t3.6976@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Time Teamer" <btc@yobtinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:D 4lv5r$71n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in progress:
>>>
>>> http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
>>>
>>> (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse to
>>> learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on the
>>> Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird was in
>>> motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
>>>
>>> (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
>>> point-and-shoot, not the D70)
>>>
>>
>> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.
>>
>
> And you make that decision based on web pictures. Yeah right. Keep your
> 950.
>
> Best laugh I've had all day.
>

why post them then..............wanker
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:34:03 AM

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

"Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114544266.517720.8130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, the files were originally around 3 MB and over, and I had to
> reduce them down to 100-200K for the site. Plus I could probably do
> with better lenses. The lenses were included in a kit from Royal
> Camera, and I asked them if the lenses were Nikon. The salesperson
> said, "yes". Instead I got a Sigma and a Tamron lens. I've seen some
> amazing D70 shots taken by others, so I know what the camera can do. I
> called them back to complain, and they assured me these were decent
> lenses. (Perhaps for the average snapshot-taker, but I'd have probably
> wanted something better). Unfortunately I bought the kit last-minute
> and suppose it's too late to get an exchange on these, because, after
> all, I was told I was going to receive "Nikon" lenses. Live and learn.
>
> Oh well, when you know your home town just got buried under a foot of
> snow and you're in sunny California, just enjoying the trip is what
> counts at the moment.

Alleycat,

You need to use a credit card to make those purchases. If something goes
wrong, you can get your money back by filling a complaint with the credit
card company and returning the merchandise.

I WOULD NEVER KEEP AFTER MARKET LENSES IF I PAID FOR NIKKOR OR CANON LENSES.
Their getting away with it reinforces their unscrupulous behavior.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 12:34:47 PM

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

"Time Teamer" <btc@yobtinternet.com> wrote in news:D 4macr$de7$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

>
> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114542492.923122.212160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Time Teamer wrote:
>>> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in
>> progress:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
>>> >
>>> > (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of
finesse
>> to
>>> > learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start on
>> the
>>> > Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird
was
>> in
>>> > motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
>>> >
>>> > (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
>>> > point-and-shoot, not the D70)
>>> >
>>>
>>> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better shots.
>>
>> Could be the kit lens or it could be just the fact that the photos
and
>> JPEG quality (on some) have been reduced for web viewing. (When
you're
>> paying X amount for web space you have to consider how many files it
>> can handle and how big you can afford to make them) .
>>
>
> why post them then...........
>
>
>

As an Aussie who has never been to the USA, I enjoyed the photo
story/trip. So thanks Alleycat for sharing. As far as the image
quality, after you reduce any digital image, and the very last thing you
do before uploading, give them a bit of Unsharp mask this should
increase the quality heaps.

Mick Brown
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:50:55 PM

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

Time Teamer wrote:
> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1114542492.923122.212160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Time Teamer wrote:
> >> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1114530695.215139.66320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in
> > progress:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005
> >> >
> >> > (I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of
finesse
> > to
> >> > learn, but I'm having a blast with it. The Nikon images start
on
> > the
> >> > Texas page, and the roadrunner picture was taken while the bird
was
> > in
> >> > motion. Also, the images seen actual size are impressive).
> >> >
> >> > (BTW, the "highway snapshots" were taken with a little Olympus
> >> > point-and-shoot, not the D70)
> >> >
> >>
> >> if that's the D70 then they can keep it, my 950 takes better
shots.
> >
> > Could be the kit lens or it could be just the fact that the photos
and
> > JPEG quality (on some) have been reduced for web viewing. (When
you're
> > paying X amount for web space you have to consider how many files
it
> > can handle and how big you can afford to make them) .
> >
>
> why post them then...........

1. Can you make a website while you're away from home and easily share
the pictures the same hour or day with a film camera? You're only
noticing the name brand part of the subject line but not the "On the
Road" part.

2. The website is just an adjunct to the fact that I'm using a camera
that is also capable of producing sharp prints and/or more clarity of
detail for slideshows on bigger monitor screens. The original size for
the files at 72 dpi could fit a large-screen television. Obviously you
wouldn't use a NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine page as the best example of
the quality of the expensive equipment their photographers use. But
the magazine gets the idea of the experience across. That's the point
of the website. Also, even in a reduction state, I'm still getting
more detail in the Nikon images than other cameras that are fine for
web use but not so much for print. It captures distant details (for
example, subtle shadows on mountains) better than the average consumer
camera.

Put yer thinking cap on, man. I'm just trying to give people an idea
of some additional cool things they can do. If I'm just an amateur,
think of what a better photographer can do.



(Usenet. Sheesh...)
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:01:29 PM

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

Thank you for the compliment; as for making the files more Web-friendly
I've been using an older version of Photoshop (not the Nikon software)
to reduce the images. I learned later that they seem to look better if
I reduced image size under the "bicubic" option. The "Save For Web"
feature also provides several quality/sharpness options that I use
depending on how the picture looks. There might be some other options
I'm overlooking (since I normally used Photoshop to do illustration
work). Perhaps the Nikon software would be a better choice to use, or
no?
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:27:19 PM

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

P.S. The roadrunner picture was my first-ever attempt at using a zoom
lens to photograph wildlife. I understand that professional wildlife
photographers often spend hours in the field trying to get that perfect
shot. This was just a spur-of-the-moment opportunity where I spent no
more than 15-20 minutes at this location. The bird was running when I
took the picture, which shows the camera's ability to freeze an object
in motion. In other words, this is what it can do even in the hands of
a beginner, but it wouldn't be fair to use a beginner's example as the
ultimate example of what the camera *can* do.
April 27, 2005 5:04:36 PM

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

Alleycat Studio wrote:

> P.S. The roadrunner picture was my first-ever attempt at using a zoom
> lens to photograph wildlife. I understand that professional wildlife
> photographers often spend hours in the field trying to get that perfect
> shot. This was just a spur-of-the-moment opportunity where I spent no
> more than 15-20 minutes at this location. The bird was running when I
> took the picture, which shows the camera's ability to freeze an object
> in motion. In other words, this is what it can do even in the hands of
> a beginner, but it wouldn't be fair to use a beginner's example as the
> ultimate example of what the camera *can* do.

Where is the roadrunner pic? Here's my beginner attempt:
<http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-16-corral-hollow/more>
heavily cropped!
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:20:03 AM

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

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:04:36 -0700, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Where is the roadrunner pic? Here's my beginner attempt:
><http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-16-corral-hollow/more>
>heavily cropped!

Errrr. you can't post a link to localhost on the net and expect it to
work. My localhost doesn't have your stuff on it. Try again.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
April 28, 2005 12:20:04 AM

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

Owamanga wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:04:36 -0700, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Where is the roadrunner pic? Here's my beginner attempt:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
>>heavily cropped!
>
>
> Errrr. you can't post a link to localhost on the net and expect it to
> work. My localhost doesn't have your stuff on it. Try again.


oops, trying again...
not much to look at though, sorry
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:06:34 PM

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

paul wrote:
> Alleycat Studio wrote:
>
> > P.S. The roadrunner picture was my first-ever attempt at using a
zoom
> > lens to photograph wildlife. I understand that professional
wildlife
> > photographers often spend hours in the field trying to get that
perfect
> > shot. This was just a spur-of-the-moment opportunity where I spent
no
> > more than 15-20 minutes at this location. The bird was running
when I
> > took the picture, which shows the camera's ability to freeze an
object
> > in motion. In other words, this is what it can do even in the
hands of
> > a beginner, but it wouldn't be fair to use a beginner's example as
the
> > ultimate example of what the camera *can* do.
>
> Where is the roadrunner pic?

On this page: http://www.alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/03a.html

Oh, and did I mention that there's no shutter lag? It "feels" more
like a film camera. The shutter makes a nice "chunk" noise like an SLR
-- no delay at all.

(But it seems that Tamron lenses are about "binoculars" quality for
this kind of thing. Too bad, otherwise I might consider heading off to
the Channel Islands to try more wildlife shots.)

>Here's my beginner attempt:
>
<http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Livermore/2005-01-16-corral-hollow/more>
> heavily cropped!
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:38:04 PM

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

"Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> writes:
> Oh, and did I mention that there's no shutter lag? It "feels" more
> like a film camera. The shutter makes a nice "chunk" noise like an SLR
> -- no delay at all.

The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined SLR's.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 12:14:40 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xpswe3ipv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Alleycat Studio" <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> writes:
>> Oh, and did I mention that there's no shutter lag? It "feels" more
>> like a film camera. The shutter makes a nice "chunk" noise like an SLR
>> -- no delay at all.
>
> The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined SLR's.

Yeah, refined shutter sound is at the TOP of my comparison list for a good
dSLR. It makes ALL the difference in my images.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 12:14:41 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> > The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined SLR's.
>
> Yeah, refined shutter sound is at the TOP of my comparison list for a good
> dSLR. It makes ALL the difference in my images.

Silent operation is one of the big attractions of the Leica M system
and was a selling point of the EOS Elan. I believe the F5 also has a
silent mode. Perhaps more relevantly, the noisy shutter is indicative
of not-so-good damping, which means more vibration during exposure.
It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 12:34:05 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7x8y32wt5x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> > The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined
>> > SLR's.
>>
>> Yeah, refined shutter sound is at the TOP of my comparison list for a
>> good
>> dSLR. It makes ALL the difference in my images.
>
> Silent operation is one of the big attractions of the Leica M system
> and was a selling point of the EOS Elan. I believe the F5 also has a
> silent mode. Perhaps more relevantly, the noisy shutter is indicative
> of not-so-good damping, which means more vibration during exposure.
> It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
> D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.

Certainly interesting speculation and theory, but no actual facts. How do
you leap from sound to damping?
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:01:31 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7x8y32wt5x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> > The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined
>> > SLR's.
>>
>> Yeah, refined shutter sound is at the TOP of my comparison list for a
>> good
>> dSLR. It makes ALL the difference in my images.
>
> Silent operation is one of the big attractions of the Leica M system
> and was a selling point of the EOS Elan. I believe the F5 also has a
> silent mode. Perhaps more relevantly, the noisy shutter is indicative
> of not-so-good damping, which means more vibration during exposure.
> It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
> D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.

D70 is sold as an amateur machine...........your OK with this then Tom
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:01:32 AM

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

"Saints 4 Ever" <stclause@hohobtinternet.com> writes:
> > It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
> > D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.
>
> D70 is sold as an amateur machine...........your OK with this then Tom

Well, the D70 would be more attractive if it were quieter and had a
more durable shutter. At about $800 and with a 50k frame designed
shutter life, that's about 1.4 cents per shot if the shutter wears out
and is not repairable. I have a project in mind that may involve
taking 50k shots over a fairly short period, so that might very well
kill a D70.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:27:30 AM

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

Alleycat Studio <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote:

>Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in progress:

>(I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse to
>learn, but I'm having a blast with it.

Some very nice shots. I like this one:
http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/images/sanfe4...
And these sky images are impressive:
http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/santafe4.html
As is the exposure in these (among others):
http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/bandelier2.ht...

What kind of settings are you using? Are you shooting JPG?
Auto modes? Colour/contrast adjustments? Looks to me like
you've got the hang of the D70 well.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:06:31 PM

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

"Saints 4 Ever" <stclause@hohobtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D 4sf3b$kel$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7x8y32wt5x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>>> > The D70 shutter is actually rather noisy compared with more refined
>>> > SLR's.
>>>
>>> Yeah, refined shutter sound is at the TOP of my comparison list for a
>>> good
>>> dSLR. It makes ALL the difference in my images.
>>
>> Silent operation is one of the big attractions of the Leica M system
>> and was a selling point of the EOS Elan. I believe the F5 also has a
>> silent mode. Perhaps more relevantly, the noisy shutter is indicative
>> of not-so-good damping, which means more vibration during exposure.
>> It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
>> D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.
>
> D70 is sold as an amateur machine...........your OK with this then Tom
>
>

Ah, you're back from trolling in the Dell group, huh? Went over there
because I hurt your feelings here.

The D70 is an amateur camera, sure, that's fine if that is what you want to
call it. Lots of professionals getting paid well to use it; bet they don't
mind.

What's my D2X then?

Tom
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:08:07 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xu0lqjh6x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Saints 4 Ever" <stclause@hohobtinternet.com> writes:
>> > It also likely means a shutter that will wear out faster, though the
>> > D70 is sold as an amateur machine, not intended to last so long.
>>
>> D70 is sold as an amateur machine...........your OK with this then Tom
>
> Well, the D70 would be more attractive if it were quieter and had a
> more durable shutter. At about $800 and with a 50k frame designed
> shutter life, that's about 1.4 cents per shot if the shutter wears out
> and is not repairable. I have a project in mind that may involve
> taking 50k shots over a fairly short period, so that might very well
> kill a D70.

What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?

Oh, and once again, can you please provide a reference to your 50,000
number? A link to the Nikon page would be perfect.

Tom
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:08:08 PM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> > Well, the D70 would be more attractive if it were quieter and had a
> > more durable shutter. At about $800 and with a 50k frame designed
> > shutter life, that's about 1.4 cents per shot if the shutter wears out
> > and is not repairable. I have a project in mind that may involve
> > taking 50k shots over a fairly short period, so that might very well
> > kill a D70.
>
> What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?

The FM3A comes to mind, though I don't know if its shutter is that
much more durable. There aren't any really sturdy pro cameras in that
price range any more. In the old days a new F3 cost about as much (in
constant dollars) as a new D70S costs today, and its shutter was much
more durable. On the other hand, it had no AF, no digital sensor, no
built-in motor drive, etc.

> Oh, and once again, can you please provide a reference to your 50,000
> number? A link to the Nikon page would be perfect.

What the hell is your problem? There's nothing controversial about
that number. Google for ("shutter life" D70).
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:42:16 PM

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

Ken Tough wrote:
> Alleycat Studio <alleycatstudio1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Nikon D70 meets the desert landscape. Watch a travel blog in
progress:
>
> >(I just got this camera recently, so there's still a bit of finesse
to
> >learn, but I'm having a blast with it.
>
> Some very nice shots. I like this one:
> http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/images/sanfe4...
> And these sky images are impressive:
> http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/santafe4.html
> As is the exposure in these (among others):
> http://alleycat-sojourns.com/RoadTrip2005/bandelier2.ht...
>
> What kind of settings are you using? Are you shooting JPG?
> Auto modes? Colour/contrast adjustments? Looks to me like
> you've got the hang of the D70 well.
>
> --
> Ken Tough

Thanks, and yes, I'm shooting JPG for now (what's compatible with the
old laptop I took along for the trip). These are all on the "auto"
settings -- there are several to offer on the dial (landscape,
portrait, closeup, etc.) I need a refresher course in SLR since it's
been years since I used one, but I figured I'll just re-learn as I go
along. However, I also have some experience with Photoshop, so a few
of the sky shots were adjusted under the "Curves" setting.

Originally I'd been planning just to get a fixed lens mount
point-and-shoot like one of the Olympus Super Zooms, but I was sold on
this after doing more research and considering what I eventually might
want to do.

(Also, forgot to add that it's probably not the best idea to post
super-high-quality files on the Web due to the possibility of theft.
I've seen lesser quality files on sites of professional photographers,
probably for that reason.)
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:42:33 PM

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

> What the hell is your problem? There's nothing controversial about
> that number. Google for ("shutter life" D70).
>

Not sure what you call controversial, but there isn't a shred of factual
evidence to support the 50,000 number or any other number. Prove me wrong.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 11:44:47 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xy8b15z7p.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> > Well, the D70 would be more attractive if it were quieter and had a
>> > more durable shutter. At about $800 and with a 50k frame designed
>> > shutter life, that's about 1.4 cents per shot if the shutter wears out
>> > and is not repairable. I have a project in mind that may involve
>> > taking 50k shots over a fairly short period, so that might very well
>> > kill a D70.
>>
>> What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?
>
> The FM3A comes to mind, though I don't know if its shutter is that
> much more durable. There aren't any really sturdy pro cameras in that
> price range any more. In the old days a new F3 cost about as much (in
> constant dollars) as a new D70S costs today, and its shutter was much
> more durable. On the other hand, it had no AF, no digital sensor, no
> built-in motor drive, etc.
>
>> Oh, and once again, can you please provide a reference to your 50,000
>> number? A link to the Nikon page would be perfect.
>
> What the hell is your problem? There's nothing controversial about
> that number. Google for ("shutter life" D70).

My problem is you make things up and people will take them as fact.

I asked for a comparable camera and you quote the FM3A.

Is that the digital FM3A?

You really think that is comparable.

I ask again. Prove it.

Tom
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:15:39 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> >> What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?
> My problem is you make things up and people will take them as fact.
>
> I asked for a comparable camera and you quote the FM3A.
>
> Is that the digital FM3A?
>
> You really think that is comparable.

You said what comparably priced body. You didn't say digital body.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:17:56 PM

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

On 30 Apr 2005 01:15:39 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> >> What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?
>> My problem is you make things up and people will take them as fact.
>>
>> I asked for a comparable camera and you quote the FM3A.
>>
>> Is that the digital FM3A?
>>
>> You really think that is comparable.
>
>You said what comparably priced body. You didn't say digital body.

Last time I looked this was rec.photo.DIGITAL.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 2:57:03 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xmzrgvfx0.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> >> What comparably priced body has a longer shutter life?
>> My problem is you make things up and people will take them as fact.
>>
>> I asked for a comparable camera and you quote the FM3A.
>>
>> Is that the digital FM3A?
>>
>> You really think that is comparable.
>
> You said what comparably priced body. You didn't say digital body.

Give it a rest. You got caught making up statistics and can't prove a thing.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 2:57:04 PM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> > You said what comparably priced body. You didn't say digital body.
>
> Give it a rest. You got caught making up statistics and can't prove a thing.

I didn't make up any statistics and I never claimed to prove anything.
I quoted some other people's statistics that I consider credible, is
all. Nobody insists that you believe them. You can find some similar
ones yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+life%22

I named some 35mm SLR's because the mechanisms in them are similar to
DSLR mechanisms except for the digital electronics, and it's perfectly
reasonable to compare the shutters directly.

You are the one who seems to have something to prove. If you are
claiming something is wrong with those statistics, it would be much
more persuasive for you to provide some evidence instead of accusing
people of making stuff up.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 11:42:41 PM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xfyx8i5p2.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> > You said what comparably priced body. You didn't say digital body.
>>
>> Give it a rest. You got caught making up statistics and can't prove a
>> thing.
>
> I didn't make up any statistics and I never claimed to prove anything.
> I quoted some other people's statistics that I consider credible, is
> all. Nobody insists that you believe them. You can find some similar
> ones yourself:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+life%22
>
> I named some 35mm SLR's because the mechanisms in them are similar to
> DSLR mechanisms except for the digital electronics, and it's perfectly
> reasonable to compare the shutters directly.
>
> You are the one who seems to have something to prove. If you are
> claiming something is wrong with those statistics, it would be much
> more persuasive for you to provide some evidence instead of accusing
> people of making stuff up.

Until you can back up these 'numbers' that you quote, they are not of any
value to anyone. You state them and can't back them up. Because they're
not true.

I will be the first to apologize if you post a link proving your claims.

Tom
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 11:42:42 PM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> Until you can back up these 'numbers' that you quote, they are not
> of any value to anyone. You state them and can't back them up.

I consider them credible. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed true,
but I believe them until I see evidence that they're false. I haven't
seen such evidence. I believe the numbers enough to be willing to
make personal buying decisions based on them (for one or two DSLR's,
say) so in that sense they're of value. If I were buying a thousand
DSLR's for some high volume industrial imaging application, obviously
I'd pursue the shutter life question a lot more intensively before
making a decision.

> Because they're not true.

That's a statement I don't see YOU backing up.

> I will be the first to apologize if you post a link proving your claims.

Exactly what have I claimed that I need to prove? What the hell is
your problem, anyway?

Look, there's one way to settle this. I can go out and buy, say, a
dozen D70's and a dozen D2Hs's, connect them all up to a computer
programmed to cycle all the shutters til they fail, and then post the
results. I'm willing to do that for you on a contract basis. I'd
need a retainer up front and you'd have to pay for all the cameras in
advance, of course. It would be expensive, but if you absolutely need
reliable data, this is the best way to do it.

If you're looking for lower expenditure and are willing to accept
numbers based on research rather than experiment, and you don't feel
like doing the research yourself, I can do that for you too. I can
get on the phone with some professional camera repair shops and with
Nikon Professional Services, and I can dig up old Popular Photography
articles that quoted camera manufacturers mentioning similar cycle
counts to the ones in the hits for the Google search I posted. That
would take just a few hours and be a lot less expensive than burning
out two dozen DSLR's, but still, I'd need you to pay me a retainer
before I did the work, since I don't value the data so much as to
spend that much time on it for free.

If you want free research, what you get is the Google url I posted.
That takes me just a few seconds and I'm willing to spend THAT much
time. Here, I'll post it again:

http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+life%22
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:26:22 AM

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

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

> I consider them credible. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed true,
> but I believe them until I see evidence that they're false. I haven't
> seen such evidence.

A rational person disbelieves until he sees evidence of truth, not the
other way around. You're practicing Magical Thinking. The Church and The
Government love that in people.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:26:23 AM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
> A rational person disbelieves until he sees evidence of truth, not the
> other way around. You're practicing Magical Thinking. The Church and The
> Government love that in people.

What are you talking about? Let's say you want to know the height of
the Eiffel Tower. If you don't know off the top of your head, you
might spend half a minute doing a Google search and find a dozen web
sites that all gave the same number (984 feet). Would you consider
believing that number instead of measuring it yourself to be Magical
Thinking?

I'd say those dozen web sites are not 100% guaranteed to be correct
(they might all be copying the same mistake from somewhere), but
chances are they are correct, and I don't have a problem believing the
number, at least for casual purposes. If I had to base a high-value
decision on the number, I'd pursue the question more deeply.

It's the same with this shutter life stuff.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:10:26 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xmzrgowio.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> Until you can back up these 'numbers' that you quote, they are not
>> of any value to anyone. You state them and can't back them up.
>
> I consider them credible.

This is the exact statement that defines what I am struggling with.

You consider WHAT credible?

I'm just asking where you got your information? Posts on dpreview? Articles
in Pop Photo? Comments from your barber?

The internet is full of baseless and useless information. I'm done with
this conversation, because I don't see you as an authority worth listening
too. Unless you've done scientific tests (and your suggestion isn't
scientific), then you're just quoting rumors and innuendo.

Glad you believe it.

I believe that there are aliens walking our streets. I am sure I read it on
the internet. It must be true, right?

Tom
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:11:09 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7x7jik6kpc.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
>> A rational person disbelieves until he sees evidence of truth, not the
>> other way around. You're practicing Magical Thinking. The Church and The
>> Government love that in people.
>
> What are you talking about? Let's say you want to know the height of
> the Eiffel Tower. If you don't know off the top of your head, you
> might spend half a minute doing a Google search and find a dozen web
> sites that all gave the same number (984 feet). Would you consider
> believing that number instead of measuring it yourself to be Magical
> Thinking?
>
> I'd say those dozen web sites are not 100% guaranteed to be correct
> (they might all be copying the same mistake from somewhere), but
> chances are they are correct, and I don't have a problem believing the
> number, at least for casual purposes. If I had to base a high-value
> decision on the number, I'd pursue the question more deeply.
>
> It's the same with this shutter life stuff.

Great, then post dozens of links from google. You're the one making the
claim. Back it up.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:11:10 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> Great, then post dozens of links from google.

I did already. Here it is again:

http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+life%22

> You're the one making the claim. Back it up.

I am claiming I find those numbers credible. I don't need to back
that up. It's just a statement of my personal reaction to seeing the
same numbers from dozens of sources over many years. Maybe that
reaction is unjustified by the facts and might turn out to be wrong,
but that's besides the point.

You on the other hand are saying those numbers are false. Not just
that you don't believe them, but that they are false.

YOU are the one making a claim that you need to back up.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:24:55 AM

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

Tom Scales wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7x7jik6kpc.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
>>> A rational person disbelieves until he sees evidence of truth, not
>>> the other way around. You're practicing Magical Thinking. The
>>> Church and The Government love that in people.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Let's say you want to know the height
>> of
>> the Eiffel Tower. If you don't know off the top of your head, you
>> might spend half a minute doing a Google search and find a dozen
>> web
>> sites that all gave the same number (984 feet). Would you consider
>> believing that number instead of measuring it yourself to be
>> Magical
>> Thinking?
>>
>> I'd say those dozen web sites are not 100% guaranteed to be correct
>> (they might all be copying the same mistake from somewhere), but
>> chances are they are correct, and I don't have a problem believing
>> the number, at least for casual purposes. If I had to base a
>> high-value decision on the number, I'd pursue the question more
>> deeply. It's the same with this shutter life stuff.
>
> Great, then post dozens of links from google. You're the one making
> the claim. Back it up.

To satisfy some contentious thin-brain on Usenet? Must be better ways
to spend time and energy.

Hmph.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:30:50 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:
> > Great, then post dozens of links from google. You're the one making
> > the claim. Back it up.
>
> To satisfy some contentious thin-brain on Usenet? Must be better ways
> to spend time and energy.

FWIW, I put in a tech support question with Nikon saying I was
thinking of doing a big technical imaging project with a D70 and
asking how long I should expect the shutter will last. They're
supposed to respond within a business day. We'll see.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:42:47 AM

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

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> writes:

Some otherbody said this:
>>> Great, then post dozens of links from google. You're the one
>>> making
>>> the claim. Back it up.

I said this:
>>
>> To satisfy some contentious thin-brain on Usenet? Must be better
>> ways
>> to spend time and energy.
>
> FWIW, I put in a tech support question with Nikon saying I was
> thinking of doing a big technical imaging project with a D70 and
> asking how long I should expect the shutter will last. They're
> supposed to respond within a business day. We'll see.

And this: Just to make it clear. er.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:33:04 AM

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

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


>
> You on the other hand are saying those numbers are false. Not just
> that you don't believe them, but that they are false.
>
> YOU are the one making a claim that you need to back up.
>

Not false, but unfounded.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:33:05 AM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
> > You on the other hand are saying those numbers are false. Not just
> > that you don't believe them, but that they are false.
> >
> > YOU are the one making a claim that you need to back up.
>
> Not false, but unfounded.

I don't think they are unfounded. Just check some of the hits for
that Google search I posted. Not rigorously proven, perhaps, but
certainly not unfounded. What Tom Scales said, on the other hand, was:

Until you can back up these 'numbers' that you quote, they are
not of any value to anyone. You state them and can't back them
up. Because they're not true.

"Not true" doesn't mean "unfounded". It means "false". Where is his
proof?
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 8:01:01 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xacnf4zoi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
>> Great, then post dozens of links from google.
>
> I did already. Here it is again:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+life%22
>
>> You're the one making the claim. Back it up.
>
> I am claiming I find those numbers credible. I don't need to back
> that up. It's just a statement of my personal reaction to seeing the
> same numbers from dozens of sources over many years. Maybe that
> reaction is unjustified by the facts and might turn out to be wrong,
> but that's besides the point.
>
> You on the other hand are saying those numbers are false. Not just
> that you don't believe them, but that they are false.
>
> YOU are the one making a claim that you need to back up.

OK.

First link - D70 = 40,000 - forum post, no credibility
Second link = D70 = ? - no mentioned at all - forum pst, no credibility
Third link = D70 = 120,000 - Actual experience, but still not statistically
valid
Fourth link = D70 = ? - Not mentioned, page for a shopper's guide, no
credibility
Fifth link = D70 = ? - Reference to another forum post, but no actual
number, no credibility
Sixth link = D70 = ? - not mentioned in the forum post
Seventh link = D70 = ? - not mentioned in the forum post

I'm getting bored with looking at them.

Exactly which one do you find credible? Nothing from a manufacturer. Only
one actual experience, at almost 120,000.

So, where did the 50,000 you quote come from?

Tom
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 8:06:34 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xzmvf1yzj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
>> > You on the other hand are saying those numbers are false. Not just
>> > that you don't believe them, but that they are false.
>> >
>> > YOU are the one making a claim that you need to back up.
>>
>> Not false, but unfounded.
>
> I don't think they are unfounded. Just check some of the hits for
> that Google search I posted. Not rigorously proven, perhaps, but
> certainly not unfounded. What Tom Scales said, on the other hand, was:
>
> Until you can back up these 'numbers' that you quote, they are
> not of any value to anyone. You state them and can't back them
> up. Because they're not true.
>
> "Not true" doesn't mean "unfounded". It means "false". Where is his
> proof?

Semantics. I find it credible that your 50,000 number is not true. My
google search can beat your google search.

I did a search on +d70 +shutter +mtbf

Not one hit with an actual number for the D70. Nikon doesn't publish it. A
search for the term mtbf on the Nikonusa site gets 0 hits.

So, I believe I have successfully proven that your number is not
statistically valid, has no basis in fact, and cannot be substantiated. Even
on your own posted google search, there were not numbers matching your
claim.

I go back to 'made up'.

Tom
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 8:06:35 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:
> I did a search on +d70 +shutter +mtbf
>
> Not one hit with an actual number for the D70. Nikon doesn't publish
> it. A search for the term mtbf on the Nikonusa site gets 0 hits.

Nonetheless that 50k figure appears all over the place, and has been
attributed to Nikon representatives in some of them. Remember that
the D70 is a digitalized N75 and it's reasonable to believe (though
not proven) that the D70 shutter is similar to the N75 shutter and
that the N75 shutter is similar to that of other 35mm SLR's in its
market class (midrange amateur SLR).

> So, I believe I have successfully proven that your number is not
> statistically valid, has no basis in fact,

You have proven nothing of the sort. Here's another Google search for
you by the way:

http://www.google.com/search?q=d70+%22shutter+failure%2...

> I go back to 'made up'.

You said more than made up, you said made up BY ME. If those numbers
were made up by someone, it wasn't me, I'm repeating what I heard.

I don't see a published number by Nikon for the D70 either. I do see
a published number of 150k for the F6. Canon similarly publishes a
figure of 150k for the EOS-1DS and 200k ("improved") for the 1DS mark
II. Do you think the D70's number is going to be higher, lower, or
the same as the F6? What is your best estimate and what is your basis
for it? Does it occur to you that they publish the F6/EOS-1 numbers
and not the lower-end numbers because the lower-end ones are less
impressive?

There was a French magazine test a few years ago that trashed an N60
shutter after around 30k cycles while an F100 lasted something like
130K. (Chasseur d'Images, Aug-Sep 2000, per http://tinyurl.com/8zd9x
and some other pages that cite the same or similar tests).

My best estimate based on its known N75 heritage, is that the D70 is
comparable to other midrange SLR's including film SLR's. The number
50,000 has been cited as typical for that level of camera for decades.

If you're saying that's incorrect, tell us what your own best estimate
is. You're not expected to have perfect knowledge of anything. Just
make your best estimate based on available information.
!