Thinking about D70... Need advice

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

I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
kinda fuzzy to me,
and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
that's what a digital SLR is like. I've also heard complaints about dust
getting on the CCD. Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
give
fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
"outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
It
makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

Thanks

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net
28 answers Last reply
More about thinking advice
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Sheldon wrote:
    > I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at
    comparison
    > photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70
    look
    > kinda fuzzy to me,
    > and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up,
    and
    > that's what a digital SLR is like.

    Look at reviews on dpreview, luminous-landscape.com and megapixel.net.
    They are not totally unbiased but give you a fair idea.

    Also, it would help if you posted links to the reviews and photos you
    refer to in your original posting. Just might be that you are not
    looking at the right places.

    > Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews
    even
    > though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

    You are comparing apples to oranges. A P&S digital camera with a Leica
    lens might outperform the most expensive dSLR with an el-cheapo Tokina
    lens - the 28-80mm kit lens kind.

    Again, post links to reviews that rate a P&S higher than the Nikon D70.

    >
    > I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC
    World they
    > love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while
    they
    > give
    > fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews
    of
    > "outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that
    price?
    > It
    > makes no sense.

    PCWorld isn't a good place to look for camera reviews, IMHO. Pick a
    good photography magazine or look at the sites I listed above. They
    provide a more accurate and useful review of photo gear.

    > Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

    It does. Goto a store, try out the Nikon D70 and any P&S digital
    camera. You won't need to read a review after that to make your
    decision.

    I have a Canon 300D and another guy in my club has a Panasonic FZ20.
    The camera looked damn neat and pics looked fine from the Panasonic. I
    held the viewfinder of the Panasonic upto my eye and realised there was
    no way I was ever going back to P&S (hint: EVF). There simply is no
    comparing a P&S with a dSLR.

    - Siddhartha
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Owamanga wrote:
    > I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
    > never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
    > pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
    > review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
    > claims he hasn't picked on up).

    Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
    december' 04.
    -------------snip begin-----------------------
    Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
    played with one.

    16 megapixels is no big deal compared with 8 megapixels, see The
    Megapixel Myth.

    If you have work to shoot today by all means get one. It will give
    spectacular results. If you're not a full time pro just know that the
    photos you make with this are going to look the same as whatever else
    you're shooting today.

    Don't get one if you have to go out on a limb to afford it. It's not a
    big deal. You are paying a stiff premium over cameras with very similar
    performance.
    ------------snip end-------------------------

    The guy makes several assertions. If I made similar assertions, I would
    expect people to believe me if I tested a 16MP vs 8MP, posted some
    objective tests and parameters and then gave a conclusion.


    Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm posted on 16th december'
    04
    -------------snip begin-----------------------
    Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
    they HATE the poor flash exposure control. This means they always have
    to tweak with the flash settings to get a decent result. By comparison
    the Nikon D70 is extremely good. The one or two shots I made were fine.
    ------------snip end-------------------------

    Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
    sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.

    As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
    on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
    methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
    or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
    about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.

    - Siddhartha
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Owamanga wrote:
    > Okay, so the guy is honest, owns up to not having used one and
    > produces a very short review.
    Just being honest does not help if your review is worthless.

    > He is crazy, but makes a number of interesting points, therefore I
    > don't agree with you that just because of one rather shabby review
    > that everything else he says should be discounted. We all make
    > mistakes.
    Read the rest of the reviews. I agree that all comments made by a
    person should not be discounted because of some of the comments made by
    the person are baseless. But then the credibility of such a person
    isn't much either.

    > For example, on the 6th Jan you made a claim that digicams only use 8
    > bits per channel, and well, you were basically wrong. That doesn't
    > mean we should discount your further posts does it?
    Yes, and on being corrected, I readily owned up to making a mistake. Do
    you see any such retraction at Mr.Rockwell's site or postings?

    "RONKELI" made a reference to Mr.Rockwell's site as a basis for his
    assertion. I merely pointed out that the particular reviwer wasn't
    credible enough to be quoted any NG, in my opinion, given his rather
    unique testing methodology.

    - Siddhartha
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
    news:vJidnR3mR6ktwXrcRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    > I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    > photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    > kinda fuzzy to me,

    Very strange. While I can't say much for the sharpness of digital pictures
    in general, I think the D70 does very well. Digital photos are generally not
    as sharp as film -- I think Nikon said it would take a 19Mp camera to
    achieve even the resolution of ISO 100 film. Nevertheless, digital has much
    greater color depth than film, which can give the appearance of a very sharp
    image at normal viewing distances.

    I have a tough time imagining any P&S that could compete with the D70. The
    D70 has a bigger sensor than any P&S and it has far better lenses. I suspect
    that the reviewer didn't know what he was doing. How much can PC World know
    about cameras, anyway? Check out www.dpreview.com for some real test
    pictures.

    Dust on the sensor is a problem with all digital SLRs, but not a big one. It
    is easily removed with a blower bulb. If you get dust during a shoot it will
    show up on your pictures, but it is easily corrected in post processing.
    People talk argue about what to do with "hard to remove" dust or stains, but
    honestly, if you don't go poking your fingers around in there you are not
    going to get anything like that on your sensor. Sure, you might get salt on
    your sensor -- if you change lenses while standing on the bow of a pitching
    fishing boat with spray flying all over you and the camera pointed directly
    into the spray. So don't do that.

    On the whole, I don't think you are ready for a digital SLR. It sounds to me
    like you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Digital is not
    better or worse than film, but it is different. If you perceive these
    differences as worse, you are not going to like digital. If you are not
    willing to take the time with post processing or you don't like regaining
    the creative control that photographers used to enjoy with black and white,
    digital is not for you.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Sheldon wrote:
    > I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    > photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    > kinda fuzzy to me,
    > and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
    > that's what a digital SLR is like. I've also heard complaints about dust
    > getting on the CCD. Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
    > professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
    > like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)
    >
    > Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
    > though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.
    >
    > I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
    > love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
    > give
    > fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
    > "outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
    > It
    > makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Sheldon
    > sheldon@sopris.net
    >
    >
    >
    This is what i think: If you need the camera now and cant afford Canon
    20D, then get the D70. If you dont need it now, wait to see what is the
    replacement for eos 300D, because it probably has 8MP sensor and what
    more important, Digic II processor which seems to be effective.

    The only problem i see in the image quality with d70 is the móire you
    probably have heard already, but that seems to occur only in extremely
    rare situations and to my thinking it is not a big problem.

    Usability seems to be a huge plus to D70 and it includes a lot of
    options and settings even though lacking the setting for exact color
    temperature. And to my liking D70's continuous shooting is very cabable.
    I found this site which compares D70 and 20D:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
    Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not beat
    the Nikon D70 completely.

    I have also been thinking to get D70, but i heard speculations about a
    model replacing 300D, so i want to see what that is like before i make
    my decision.

    -Ari Nevalainen
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    RONKELI wrote:
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
    > Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not
    beat
    > the Nikon D70 completely.

    <cough> As has been discussed earlier on the NG, Ken Rockwell is a guy
    with the magical power to review cameras without ever touching them. So
    his reviews are worth almost ______ </cough>
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 14 Jan 2005 02:38:28 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >RONKELI wrote:
    >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm
    >> Even though Canon 20D costs a few hundreds more, it still does not
    >beat
    >> the Nikon D70 completely.
    >
    ><cough> As has been discussed earlier on the NG, Ken Rockwell is a guy
    >with the magical power to review cameras without ever touching them. So
    >his reviews are worth almost ______ </cough>

    I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
    never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
    pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
    review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
    claims he hasn't picked on up).

    If this is the case, the claim is floored.

    Ken has some strong opinions, and his reviews would be more acceptable
    if he saw the world in shades of gray instead of black & white. He's a
    man with pure caffeine running through his veins.

    --
    Owamanga!
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1105711258.738317.315070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    | Owamanga wrote:
    | > I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
    | > never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
    | > pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
    | > review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
    | > claims he hasn't picked on up).
    |
    | Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
    | december' 04.
    | -------------snip begin-----------------------
    | Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
    | played with one.
    | | ------------snip end-------------------------
    |


    | -------------snip begin-----------------------
    | Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
    | they HATE the poor flash exposure control.
    | ------------snip end-------------------------
    |
    | Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
    | sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.
    |
    | As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
    | on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
    | methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
    | or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
    | about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.
    |
    | - Siddhartha
    |

    Mr. Rockwell sounds like the Bill Murray character on "Saturday Night Live"
    from way back when--the movie reviewer who reviewed movies that he hadn't
    seen.

    Rick
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 14 Jan 2005 06:00:58 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Owamanga wrote:
    >> I haven't investigated this yet, but that last claim I saw about Ken
    >> never having touched the equipment he reviewed assumed that different
    >> pages of Ken's website were written in a particular order (ie, the
    >> review of a camera page was *OLDER* than the different page that
    >> claims he hasn't picked on up).
    >
    >Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/1dsii.htm posted on 20th
    >december' 04.
    >-------------snip begin-----------------------
    >Like most things from Canon I'll presume it works great. I have not
    >played with one.
    >
    >16 megapixels is no big deal compared with 8 megapixels, see The
    >Megapixel Myth.
    >
    >If you have work to shoot today by all means get one. It will give
    >spectacular results. If you're not a full time pro just know that the
    >photos you make with this are going to look the same as whatever else
    >you're shooting today.
    >
    >Don't get one if you have to go out on a limb to afford it. It's not a
    >big deal. You are paying a stiff premium over cameras with very similar
    >performance.
    >------------snip end-------------------------
    >
    >The guy makes several assertions. If I made similar assertions, I would
    >expect people to believe me if I tested a 16MP vs 8MP, posted some
    >objective tests and parameters and then gave a conclusion.
    >
    >
    >Snip from http://kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm posted on 16th december'
    >04
    >-------------snip begin-----------------------
    >Watch the flash performance. My friends own several Canon 1D-MkIIs and
    >they HATE the poor flash exposure control. This means they always have
    >to tweak with the flash settings to get a decent result. By comparison
    >the Nikon D70 is extremely good. The one or two shots I made were fine.
    >------------snip end-------------------------
    >
    >Ok, so we are to believe what your friends say? And you took a large
    >sample of "one or two shots" to come to conclusion about the flash.
    >
    >As a reader, I am interested in conclusions of various reviews posted
    >on the net. What I am more interested is in is your testing process and
    >methodology. If your process and methodology consists of hearsay, one
    >or two shots and having never touched the camera then I wouldn't go
    >about quoting this guy's reviews on any NG, in the least.

    Okay, so the guy is honest, owns up to not having used one and
    produces a very short review.

    I've never posted a link to this review of Ken's, and I agree, it's
    fairly worthless. I don't believe I have ever posted a link to any of
    Ken's reviews without also providing a number of alternatives.

    He is crazy, but makes a number of interesting points, therefore I
    don't agree with you that just because of one rather shabby review
    that everything else he says should be discounted. We all make
    mistakes.

    For example, on the 6th Jan you made a claim that digicams only use 8
    bits per channel, and well, you were basically wrong. That doesn't
    mean we should discount your further posts does it?

    <g>

    ... and I am not perfect either ..

    --
    Owamanga!
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dunfu01b3j0cbovru60rm9tlkm450996dv@4ax.com...
    >
    > .. and I am not perfect either ..

    But good enough for government work.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Sheldon wrote:
    >
    > Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
    > though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

    The 8MP cameras are sharper and they automatically include a lot of
    sharpening & image contrast in-camera. A DSLR is going to look fuzzy &
    washed out until you work on it in photoshop some but it's going to take
    more rich photos ultimately with the larger sensor plus it has a really
    advanced metering & flexibility to add lenses. If you've done geeky
    photography before you probably will have the patience to learn the
    digital darkroom techniques. If you dread computers, I'm not sure a DSLR
    is all that great.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

    > I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
    > love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
    > give fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
    > "outstanding."

    Good lord, don't pay attention to a camera review in PC World! What in the
    world do they know? Read what *photographers* have to say about it; they
    realize you can't review a camera like you would review a computer.

    I've even found the picture quality "results" at places like dpreview.com
    to be mostly worthless. They always, in some vague attempt to "objectify"
    the results, choose some arbitrary combination of unfortunate settings
    and go with it. I don't *care* what the pictures look like shooting JPEGs
    with medium sharpness and color saturation; I will never use that setting.

    What I want to see in terms of quality results is the best that an
    experienced photographer can get out of the equipment without any
    restriction on settings or technique. That's what matters. Anything
    else is not only a review of the camera, it's a review of the image
    processing and everything else under particular conditions with those
    specific settings. It doesn't mean anything.

    > It makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

    It absolutely does. Don't worry about it.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:47:19 -0700, "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net>
    wrote:

    >I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    >photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    >kinda fuzzy to me,

    Don't look at photos on the net! Look at photos out of the camera... I can
    Email you something if you like... un-touched...

    >and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
    >that's what a digital SLR is like.

    Bull. I've owned lots of cameras, and the other day I was re-cataloging all of
    my photos, and I wanted to bring my older directories up to a new standard, and
    one thing I noticed right away was all of the folders marked "originals" because
    the photos all needed sharpening or brightening or something - there are NO
    folders in my Nikon partition that have 'originals' directories - all the photos
    are un-edited! This is the first camera I've owned where I don't have to play
    will all the shots!

    > I've also heard complaints about dust
    >getting on the CCD.

    ALL cameras with openable lenses can have this problem. It can also be fixed
    easily.

    > Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
    >professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
    >like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

    There you go! The Nikonian web site can tell you what lenses are compatible.

    >Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
    >though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.

    I LOVE my D70! I took 1000 pics the first month!

    >I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
    >love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
    >give fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
    >"outstanding."

    I'd say these people are BLIND as BATS! I have a Dimage 7i, and the D70 beats
    it up quite severely... remember that fixed P&S cameras are limited to ISO 100
    for noise - I shoot at ISO 1000 all the time... Maybe they are getting
    kick-backs from their advertisers...

    > Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
    >It makes no sense.

    Because it's a lie.

    > Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

    It does.

    >Thanks

    You're welcome

    >Sheldon
    >sheldon@sopris.net
    >

    Bob
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    >>I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    >>photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    >>kinda fuzzy to me,
    >
    > Don't look at photos on the net! Look at photos out of the camera... I
    > can
    > Email you something if you like... un-touched...

    Well, I used to work with all black and white and do all my own processing
    and printing of 16x20 and 20x24 prints, so I was definitely a camera geek,
    and miss the "hobby" part of the equation. I also did a lot of my own color
    processing and mixed up my own developers for pushing film speed. I'm going
    to call Nikon and see if my older lenses will fit, that will probably make a
    difference, but what I like about the D70 is the fact that I can take action
    photos with it (one of the few digital cameras that will), and I used to do
    that professionally. I also don't mind getting out a light meter now and
    then.

    I would love to see a jpeg image from your D70. Could you send me a macro
    of a flower or something that has a lot of detail in it? That would be
    great. I'll also try to hit the camera store and see if they'll let me fire
    off a few shots with a D70 and some high-end P&S cameras I've been looking
    at.

    Thanks for your insight.

    Sheldon
    sheldon@sopris.net
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
    news:vJidnR3mR6ktwXrcRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    > I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    > photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    > kinda fuzzy to me,

    it's a matter of photographer and lens used as well - but i don't have to
    tell you that. i am pretty new to photography and am really really happy
    with my d70.

    > and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
    > that's what a digital SLR is like.

    did you never do any darkroom work with your 35mm equipment?

    > I've also heard complaints about dust
    > getting on the CCD.

    this is not a nikon or d70 specific problem - there are cams that are known
    for performing far worse in terms of dust bunnies - afaik there isn't a
    single dslr that has a solution for this problem yet. still, i started
    cleaning my sensor myself with the copper hill equipment and following the
    instructions here: http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning - dust on
    the sensor or not would be something to decide whether to go with digital
    slrs or not, not which model to go with i think.

    > Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a
    > professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR
    seems
    > like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)

    if you have a bunch of nikon lenses already, why not rent a d70 for a
    weekend and see how its preforming for you?

    > Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
    > though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.
    > I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World
    they
    > love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they
    > give
    > fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
    > "outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that
    price?
    > It
    > makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

    well - like others pointed out already, this is comparing apples and
    oranges. popphoto may not be the mag of choice for all photographers, yet it
    probably is the most widely accepted and respected photography magazine i
    know of - and the d70 was their camera of the year 2004 - you can find
    plenty of info in last years' issues. i think the d70 review was in the
    march or april issue.

    sid
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> wrote in message
    news:34r2hkF4b9fh4U1@individual.net...
    > "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
    > news:vJidnR3mR6ktwXrcRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    >> I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    >> photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70
    >> look
    >> kinda fuzzy to me,

    You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer screen) at
    full resolution. Anything you see on the Web has been downsampled to less
    than a megapixel.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 14 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Sheldon wrote:

    > I would love to see a jpeg image from your D70. Could you send me a
    > macro of a flower or something that has a lot of detail in it? That
    > would be great. I'll also try to hit the camera store and see if
    > they'll let me fire off a few shots with a D70 and some high-end P&S
    > cameras I've been looking at.

    Take a Compact Flash card for the D70 and whatever the P&S use when you
    do this. If you really like to tinker, also make sure you fire off a
    couple in Raw mode. D70 raw files take up just under 6 meg; large basic
    ..jpgs are about 750K.

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Thanks for the advice.


    "Joe Makowiec" <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns95DEED40A7214makowiecatnycapdotrE@24.24.2.166...
    > On 14 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Sheldon wrote:
    >
    >> I would love to see a jpeg image from your D70. Could you send me a
    >> macro of a flower or something that has a lot of detail in it? That
    >> would be great. I'll also try to hit the camera store and see if
    >> they'll let me fire off a few shots with a D70 and some high-end P&S
    >> cameras I've been looking at.
    >
    > Take a Compact Flash card for the D70 and whatever the P&S use when you
    > do this. If you really like to tinker, also make sure you fire off a
    > couple in Raw mode. D70 raw files take up just under 6 meg; large basic
    > .jpgs are about 750K.
    >
    > --
    > Joe Makowiec
    > http://makowiec.org/
    > Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:47:19 -0700, "Sheldon"
    <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

    >I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    >photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70 look
    >kinda fuzzy to me,

    Here is a shot of a Day Lilly in our yard last Summer.
    http://www.rogerhalstead.com/DayLilly.htm
    this was a hand held shot.

    There is a link to a crop to show the limits of that particular shot.
    It would be sharp even if 2 or 3 screens wide and mine is set at 1280
    X 1024. Again the crop was from the TIFF saved as a JPG.
    I see no remarks as to post processing so this should be pretty much
    an unretouched, or post processed image. It was shot with the 18-70
    kit lens.

    There are also links to a lot of shots with on Oly E-20N.
    BTW, I do normally use the E-20N in the JPG mode (highest quality) as
    I now use it for most ly recording images for my "builder's diary".
    That and when used with TIFFs the files from the 5 megapixel E20N are
    several times larger than those from the D-70. And...that e-20 N is
    unbelievably slow compared to the D-70 which is almost like shooting a
    35 mm SLR. It's instant on and is almost instantaneous when shooting
    except for the focus time.

    For the price, "I think" the D-70 is a very good value. OTOH I also
    like the new Canon 20D. I happen to have a pretty good set of Nikor
    lenses and the 20 D was not available when I purchased the D-70 to
    that made it an easy choice. The D-70s are now available at a pretty
    good discount which makes them even more appealing. The new DX lenses
    appear to be of good quality as well.


    >and the reviews all say you can do this or that to sharpen them up, and
    >that's what a digital SLR is like. I've also heard complaints about dust
    >getting on the CCD. Yet, this camera is very highly rated. (I used to be a

    Dust on the sensor is a problem with any dSLR. You learn to be
    careful when changing lenses. I shoot a lot of action, outdoor
    photography and often around crowds which creates a lot of dust. I
    have only had dust on the sensor once since I purchased the camera and
    I took delivery the first week or two they were available.

    >professional photographer, so the idea of trading up to a digital SLR seems
    >like a great idea since I have a bunch of Nikon lenses.)
    >
    >Convince me why I should by the D70, as it seems to get rave reviews even
    >though other fixed lens cameras get better marks on picture quality.
    >
    >I guess what scares me is that when you look at the reviews in PC World they
    >love the D70, but they give the picture quality a "very good," while they

    I'd read some reviews from dpreview and others. Just do a search on
    "Nikon D-70 reviews". You should find lots of them. Remember there
    are reviews and then there are reviews.

    >give
    >fixed lens (zoom) cameras, costing far less, picture quality reviews of
    >"outstanding." Why would someone "settle" for lesser quality at that price?
    >It
    >makes no sense. Shouldn't the Nikon blow away the lesser cameras?

    I think you will find it pretty much does (in most cases) with the
    larger sensor and larger lenses.

    There are only two things I'd change if I had the choice. I'd prefer
    to be able to lock up the mirror for shooting and to have a cable
    release.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com

    >
    >Thanks
    >
    >Sheldon
    >sheldon@sopris.net
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    mc wrote:
    []
    > You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
    > screen) at full resolution.

    You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
    resolution.

    David
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
    > mc wrote:
    > []
    > > You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
    > > screen) at full resolution.
    >
    > You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
    > resolution.
    >
    > David

    if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...

    sid
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    sid derra wrote:
    > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
    > news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
    >> mc wrote:
    >> []
    >>> You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
    >>> screen) at full resolution.
    >>
    >> You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
    >> resolution.
    >>
    >> David
    >
    > if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...
    >
    > sid

    Oh, a 6MP image could easily compress down to under 1MB - I've downloaded
    plenty of files that big! I would make a point of avoiding any Web site
    that had such an image as a regular feature of its pages, though.

    But it was the computer screen to which I was referring. The IBM T221-DG5
    22.2 inch Flat Panel Monitor is 9.2 megapixels!

    http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=-840&langId=-1&partNumber=9503DG5&storeId=1

    Cheers,
    David
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:39:35 -0500, "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

    >"sid derra" <ng_NO_@_SPAM_emolife.net> wrote in message
    >news:34r2hkF4b9fh4U1@individual.net...
    >> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
    >> news:vJidnR3mR6ktwXrcRVn-ow@comcast.com...
    >>> I'm seriously thinking about getting a D70, but when I look at comparison
    >>> photos on the Net I'm not impressed. Most of the photos from the D70
    >>> look
    >>> kinda fuzzy to me,
    >
    >You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer screen) at
    >full resolution. Anything you see on the Web has been downsampled to less
    >than a megapixel.

    That's a very over-simplified sweeping statement, to the point where
    it's wrong.

    Many good camera review websites have full-sized samples for you to
    download and see for yourself.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/nikon_d70_samples.html

    --
    Owamanga!
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:34vpniF4gdcheU1@individual.net...
    > sid derra wrote:
    > > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
    > > news:34vitmF4fg8vqU1@individual.net...
    > >> mc wrote:
    > >> []
    > >>> You can't put a 6-megapixel image on a web page (or a computer
    > >>> screen) at full resolution.
    > >>
    > >> You can with the right display - IBM make some approaching that
    > >> resolution.
    > >>
    > >> David
    > >
    > > if you ask me it's a bw issue rather than one of displays...
    > >
    > > sid
    >
    > Oh, a 6MP image could easily compress down to under 1MB - I've downloaded
    > plenty of files that big! I would make a point of avoiding any Web site
    > that had such an image as a regular feature of its pages, though.
    >
    > But it was the computer screen to which I was referring. The IBM T221-DG5
    > 22.2 inch Flat Panel Monitor is 9.2 megapixels!
    >
    >
    http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=-8
    40&langId=-1&partNumber=9503DG5&storeId=1
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David

    i suppose you have broadband? i had to live out in kansas for a year and
    there was no cable provider - you would be surprised how many areas still
    have to go with lo-speed internet - and those folks have a helluva hard time
    downloading 1mb files on regular sites.

    sid
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    sid derra wrote:
    []
    > i suppose you have broadband? i had to live out in kansas for a year
    > and there was no cable provider - you would be surprised how many
    > areas still have to go with lo-speed internet - and those folks have
    > a helluva hard time downloading 1mb files on regular sites.
    >
    > sid

    I keep trying to remind people about this, but I still find many slow Web
    sites due to graphics which are too large or needless. I try and keep my
    own downloads down to a few hundred KB for just the reason you mentioned,
    and graphics down to 10 -30KB.

    Presumably, people in Kansas could use a satellite connection?

    Cheers,
    David
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:26:15 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "David
    J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

    >I keep trying to remind people about this, but I still find many slow Web
    >sites due to graphics which are too large or needless. I try and keep my
    >own downloads down to a few hundred KB for just the reason you mentioned,
    >and graphics down to 10 -30KB.

    Agreed.

    >Presumably, people in Kansas could use a satellite connection?

    Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted. :-)
    Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
    back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
    still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
    limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
    http://hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
    U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.
    ----------
    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.html
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ed Ruf wrote:

    > Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted. :-)
    > Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
    > back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
    > still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
    > limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
    > http://hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
    > U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.

    What I find odd, is that as the years go by, my cable modem service is getting
    faster (not slower due to subscriptions as the ADSL proponents would have it).

    In 1999 when I got cable-modem, I was getting long DL's at 300 KBytes/sec tops.
    Now it is not unusual to get 500 KBytes/sec sustained for 30 seconds or more
    and some movie clips have sustained over 600 Kbytes/sec. Upload has gone from
    20 Kbytes/sec to over 100 Kbytes/sec. Monthly DL limit is 20 GB, UL limit is 10
    GB. DL'd Mandrake 10.1 a couple weeks ago at a sustained 275 KBytes/sec from
    U-Indiana ... eg: 2 hours for a 2 GB iso file. No checksum errors.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:40:09 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
    Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

    >Ed Ruf wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, but only as the absolutely last resort for the severely addicted. :-)
    >> Even though DirecWay finally went to true two-way satellite ops a while
    >> back it still isn't anywhere as quick as a good cable modem, expensive and
    >> still there is a quota on your dls under their "Fair Access Policy" You're
    >> limited to 169 MB after which your connection can get throttled to 47 kpbs.
    >> http://hns.getdway.com/fap.html Cost is U$600 up front for hardware and
    >> U$60/month for 15 months or U$99/month. Pretty steep.
    >
    >What I find odd, is that as the years go by, my cable modem service is getting
    >faster (not slower due to subscriptions as the ADSL proponents would have it).

    That's only when they pull the old it's a shared connection mantra. Cox has
    done a good job by me of subdividing their network pretty good to keep up
    with that. But what DSL has done with it's own increasing speeds and
    prices is for the cable companies to increase there speeds and/or drop
    prices. I've had Cox for years, but without cable TV service, I have
    DirecTv instead. In the last several months they dropped their 9.99/month
    surcharge for not subscribing to even their most basic TV.
    ----------
    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.html
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Reviews Cameras