Minor/Major 'Complains' abt D70 (All fall in)

[justarius]

yup I'll probably get an eyecup.
I'm fine with the size of the lens, I just think that the size of the body itself is a pain in the ass because once I take it out people notice it straight away, compared to my pentax film SLR
good for showing off, bad for going around inconspicuously.
It would be great too if someday some genius designer decided to do away with a mirror in a digital camera body. what better way to let someone know you're taking a photo of htem than to have a nice loud mirror slap?
.

In this case, you might want to consider a rangefinder type camera or prosumer digicam instead if you are extremely interested in unobtrusive street photography. A mirror is inherent in an SLR... that's why in called Single Lens Reflex , thus don't think it's possible to do away with the mirror in this type of camera yet. Rangefinders are extremely compact due to the lack of a mirror, silent (no loud mirror slap) and boosts some of the best lenses in the market (think Leica Summilux, Summicron etc).

 

[wjk1919]

I bought my D70 on the first day they were available in the NY-NJ area. I own 2 35 mm manual cameras and I own the Coolpix 4300 and an older Nikon. I have been a videographer, lighting director for much of my 18 year career, and am the son of a film and technical rep.

I basically like this camera, but let me strongly advise you to use the Raw format - it is only there you will see its glory. I bought the 800 flash - and find it nice, and the 17-70 zoom - which I have mixed feelings about. I have been searching for a 50mm 1.4 and actually was high bidder on one on e-bay last week (guys been slow to finalize the deal)

As far as downsides, I sure wish I could shoot on RAW with smaller sizes like the Kodak. I was unable to get several shots off in Atlantic City in a restaurant becasue it said "no good" t my white balance attempts. There was enough of a light level, I believe, and I slowed the shutter down to 2 and 3 seconds - still no luck. Unlike a video camera, it may not be able to do an ideal white balance, but it will get close and you can use that close setting.

I appreciate the comments of the other members here, from Australia, Hoong Kong, the Far East - you guys got this camera first.

I will leave you for now. However I would like to share with you a conclusion, but not my reasons (it is 1 am here) at this time. Given what I learned in the last few days about Canon, both on the lenses... and on some other current and historical factors... I believe I would have bought their model 10 ($1,400 US). The Nikon lenses which are sold for this camera will not work on 35 mm chips (in the future), or on 35mm film cameras. They are made for this 24mm imaging sensor.

Bill K

 

[ken00]

I bought my D70 on the first day they were available in the NY-NJ area. I own 2 35 mm manual cameras and I own the Coolpix 4300 and an older Nikon. I have been a videographer, lighting director for much of my 18 year career, and am the son of a film and technical rep.

I basically like this camera, but let me strongly advise you to use the Raw format - it is only there you will see its glory. I bought the 800 flash - and find it nice, and the 17-70 zoom - which I have mixed feelings about. I have been searching for a 50mm 1.4 and actually was high bidder on one on e-bay last week (guys been slow to finalize the deal)

As far as downsides, I sure wish I could shoot on RAW with smaller sizes like the Kodak. I was unable to get several shots off in Atlantic City in a restaurant becasue it said "no good" t my white balance attempts. There was enough of a light level, I believe, and I slowed the shutter down to 2 and 3 seconds - still no luck. Unlike a video camera, it may not be able to do an ideal white balance, but it will get close and you can use that close setting.

I appreciate the comments of the other members here, from Australia, Hoong Kong, the Far East - you guys got this camera first.

I will leave you for now. However I would like to share with you a conclusion, but not my reasons (it is 1 am here) at this time. Given what I learned in the last few days about Canon, both on the lenses... and on some other current and historical factors... I believe I would have bought their model 10 ($1,400 US). The Nikon lenses which are sold for this camera will not work on 35 mm chips (in the future), or on 35mm film cameras. They are made for this 24mm imaging sensor.

Bill K

hi wjk1919,
i hope you can share with us the advantage of RAW(apart from wb control, constrast and so on).. the difference in quality of the jpeg counterpart with RAW from what i've seen seems minor. Sometimes the hazzle of converting all RAW to jpeg is rather daunting too..

Then again if i shoot more RAW, i might be able to duplicate what you had problems with.

Anyhow pls continue to contribute the findings and so on.

 

[leonzhu]

I basically like this camera, but let me strongly advise you to use the Raw format - it is only there you will see its glory.
*snip*
I believe I would have bought their model 10 ($1,400 US). The Nikon lenses which are sold for this camera will not work on 35 mm chips (in the future), or on 35mm film cameras. They are made for this 24mm imaging sensor.
Bill K

i hope you can share with us the advantage of RAW(apart from wb control, constrast and so on).. the difference in quality of the jpeg counterpart with RAW from what i've seen seems minor. Sometimes the hazzle of converting all RAW to jpeg is rather daunting too..

Bill, I believe that you have mistaken the DX series lenses and their purpose. On the D70, you can still mount Full Frame 35mm lenses. The DX range of lenses was designed to provide DSLR users a slightly lower priced, and lighter and more compact, series of lenses. As such, it was never designed to last them all the way to 35mm sized sensors (which Nikon has said it would not produce for some time) The advantage is that for DSLR users, they get light, good quality glass at lower prices. Tests by some of our forum mebers have shown that above certain focal lengths, some of the DX series lenses can be used on 35mm with almost no vignetting.

Remember, Canon, too has such a series of lenses, known as the EF-S mount. This mount (as of now) is only available on the Canon 300D, and only one lens is available in this mount. It cannot be mounted on other Canon cameras.

Ken00, RAW is 12bit. JPEG is 8bit. The bit-depth affects the detail that the camera can save. The CCD is 12bit, and RAW saves ALL the data. JPEG saves only 8bits. As such, details are lost. For example, you might lose the details in a leaf, or the petals of a flower.

 

[ken00]

Bill, I believe that you have mistaken the DX series lenses and their purpose. On the D70, you can still mount Full Frame 35mm lenses. The DX range of lenses was designed to provide DSLR users a slightly lower priced, and lighter and more compact, series of lenses. As such, it was never designed to last them all the way to 35mm sized sensors (which Nikon has said it would not produce for some time) The advantage is that for DSLR users, they get light, good quality glass at lower prices. Tests by some of our forum mebers have shown that above certain focal lengths, some of the DX series lenses can be used on 35mm with almost no vignetting.

Remember, Canon, too has such a series of lenses, known as the EF-S mount. This mount (as of now) is only available on the Canon 300D, and only one lens is available in this mount. It cannot be mounted on other Canon cameras.

Ken00, RAW is 12bit. JPEG is 8bit. The bit-depth affects the detail that the camera can save. The CCD is 12bit, and RAW saves ALL the data. JPEG saves only 8bits. As such, details are lost. For example, you might lose the details in a leaf, or the petals of a flower.

yes i know that, however numbers meant nothing to me when i can't see the differences... perhaps i shall explore more on this 1
thanks for the enlightenment tho

 

[leonzhu]

yes i know that, however numbers meant nothing to me when i can't see the differences... perhaps i shall explore more on this 1
thanks for the enlightenment tho

i would be glad to show you the difference. (images linked because of the size of the TIFFs)

This is a crop from a 12bit RAW
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~leonzhu/12bit.tif

And this is a crop from a 8bit JPEG
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~leonzhu/8bit.tif

see if you can tell the difference.

 

[ken00]

i would be glad to show you the difference. (images linked because of the size of the TIFFs)

This is a crop from a 12bit RAW
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~leonzhu/12bit.tif

And this is a crop from a 8bit JPEG
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~leonzhu/8bit.tif

see if you can tell the difference.

oh yes the difference is there.. but will only be visible when we do large prints..
the results of more details also meant more noisy picture as evident from the pictures.

Thanks for the pictures

 

[leonzhu]

oh yes the difference is there.. but will only be visible when we do large prints..
the results of more details also meant more noisy picture as evident from the pictures.

Thanks for the pictures

errr...
not too sure about the noise. there shouldn't be a difference. in the noise level. RAW and JPEG are just as clean. in the 8bit image the color noise is blended into the neighboring colors, so it doesn't look so apparent. the noise is there, but all it does is blur the details further.

 

[ken00]

errr...
not too sure about the noise. there shouldn't be a difference. in the noise level. RAW and JPEG are just as clean. in the 8bit image the color noise is blended into the neighboring colors, so it doesn't look so apparent. the noise is there, but all it does is blur the details further.

ic
thanks for the enlightenment