D70 2.0 firmare update (yes or no?)

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

On 16 May 2005 10:06:43 -0700, "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net>
wrote:

>How stable are Nikon firmware updates? I ask because this is the first
>update I've ever wanted to make on anything other than a desktop
>computer.
>
>Should I wait a week or a month to let problems surface or does Nikon
>generally get this sort of thing right the first time?
>
>I just don't know; so I thought I'd ask...

Well, I'm going to wait. The new menus look cool and I'd like to see
what they've done to improve the AF stuff, but I'm in no hurry.
Nothing it fixes is giving me grief today, so I can wait.

Laziness I guess, but I'll let others be the guini-pigs on this one.

OTOH, It's not like they are banging releases and patches out like
Microsoft, so they have had a good chance to test this stuff out
before we get to try it.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

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

Seems perfectly stable to me.
It works.
It certainly is an improvment in the menu system.
This is the second firmware for the dx70 that I have applied to my
camera.
Nikon seems to be very very careful about sending theese updates out.
They do not every camera comming back because of a failed or bad
update.
This is a good update bringing the camera up to the new 70s level
firmware.
It is a good thing. Just do it.
Yaesumofo

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

"Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
news:1116263203.115824.179780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> How stable are Nikon firmware updates? I ask because this is the first
> update I've ever wanted to make on anything other than a desktop
> computer.
>
> Should I wait a week or a month to let problems surface or does Nikon
> generally get this sort of thing right the first time?
>
> I just don't know; so I thought I'd ask...
>
> Best,
> Avery

Well, Nikon sold a lot of D70s, and they know all of them will get upgraded.
The last thing they need is all these people calling up with problems, so I
suspect they've got the bugs out of it. I assume you could put the old one
back if you have problems. Also, watch for an update to the new update to
fix any problems once everybody upgrades.

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

My 1Gig card went from 94 to 178

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

In article <d6bsf5$4bh$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
> I have just downloaded the firmware upgrades and installed them,
> and I have a few comments:
>
> 1) The firmware does change the number of reported shots
> remaining with NEF or NEF+BASIC modes, but it does not change
> what you get in Fine/Medium setting. I know from experience
> that the latter setting, which promises 522 shots on a 1GB CF
> card in actuality let me get 705 shots on a trip where I did not
> have sufficient CF cards to do everything in RAW.

This is expected behavior with JPEG. Different images will compress to
different sizes. For example, sky will compress very well; plants and
trees with a lot of detail won't compress nearly so much. So the
picture count in Fine and Medium are approximations, and conservative
ones at that. Without knowing what you plan to photograph, they can't
be more accurate without risking being overly optimistic. And this is a
situation where underestimating (i.e. overestimating the size of the
pictures you haven't taken) is a feature.

--
Hank Shiffman http://www.disordered.org
Have Opinion, Will Travel hank@disordered.org
Mountain View, California

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

DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> I have just downloaded the firmware upgrades and installed them,
> and I have a few comments:
>
> 1) The firmware does change the number of reported shots
> remaining with NEF or NEF+BASIC modes, but it does not change
> what you get in Fine/Medium setting. I know from experience
> that the latter setting, which promises 522 shots on a 1GB CF
> card in actuality let me get 705 shots on a trip where I did not
> have sufficient CF cards to do everything in RAW.
>

Unlike RAW, which was way off in estimated size, JPEG is close. JPEG
files do vary much more per shot than do RAW due to the compression
algorithm and the image content stored in them. A picture of a solid
red wall at JPEG fine would result in a very small file, but it would
still be a pretty large RAW file (> 5MB). Thus, the estimated shots
will likely vary more with JPEG than with RAW (now that the RAW estimate
is fixed).

> 2) I'm not sure that I really like the change in apperance of the
> menus. I think that the previous colors gave me better visual
> contrast. We'll see how I like them in daylight.
>
> 3) I'll find out what I think of the changes to the AF behavior
> when I get into my next shooting spree. A couple of quick shots
> shows it to be at least focusing on what I expect -- the hair
> when I just shot one of my wife from the side, and the "FGHJK"
> row on the keyboard at an angle, with the next rows up and down
> being about equally soft by comparison. Both handheld in fairly
> low light with a 50mm f1.4 lens. The keyboard was f1.4 &
> 1/125th at ISO 200.

I have not noticed a change yet, but I haven't done any serious
photography since yesterday's upgrade.

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

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

In article <428a3cd2$0$1956$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> I have just downloaded the firmware upgrades and installed them,
>> and I have a few comments:
>>
>> 1) The firmware does change the number of reported shots
>> remaining with NEF or NEF+BASIC modes, but it does not change
>> what you get in Fine/Medium setting. I know from experience
>> that the latter setting, which promises 522 shots on a 1GB CF
>> card in actuality let me get 705 shots on a trip where I did not
>> have sufficient CF cards to do everything in RAW.
>>
>
>Unlike RAW, which was way off in estimated size, JPEG is close. JPEG
>files do vary much more per shot than do RAW due to the compression
>algorithm and the image content stored in them. A picture of a solid
>red wall at JPEG fine would result in a very small file, but it would
>still be a pretty large RAW file (> 5MB). Thus, the estimated shots
>will likely vary more with JPEG than with RAW (now that the RAW estimate
>is fixed).

O.K. This makes sense. A large percentage of the shots where I
got the 705/522 benefit were in fairly dark conditions, where the
built-in flash did not reach very well (after I switched over from no
flash while there was enough light to manage it). I so far have not
filled up a CF card with high detail shots. But there always seems to
be a bit of extra, as the sum of the number of shots taken plus the
number remaining always tends to be higher than the 522 starting
estimate.

>> 2) I'm not sure that I really like the change in appearance of the
>> menus. I think that the previous colors gave me better visual
>> contrast. We'll see how I like them in daylight.

I have noticed one benefit to the new menu design -- especially
in the "pencil icon" and "wrench icon" menus. That is the small color
bit to the right of the status. It shows your percent of travel through
the menu, and I don't remember seeing it with the previous set of
firmware.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---