I would love to have one. Terminal toy lust. I think it’s pretty sneaky advertising to show the camera with the F1.4 50mm Nikkor, though. That is NOT the kit lens that comes with the camera! That big piece of glass makes the camera look so impressive. Probably costs as much as the camera!
Bert
Bert,
I agree with you. I already had a look at the camera in my local photo shop. In Holland you need to pre-order these cameras. I was advised to order asap as otherwise the longer you wait the longer it takes to deliver. Delivery period currently stands at two weeks. Instead of following the sales rep’s well meant advise it put me off ordering it. Talking about back firing. 🙂
Robert
Robert,
According to the review, some of the early models had some quality control problems. Unless you are desperate to have it immediately, it might be better to wait until the initial buying frenzy dies down.
I agree with you…when I feel sales pressure like that, I tend to walk away too. I don’t like to feel manipulated.
Bert
Bert,
I was not aware of quality control problems. Don’t know when the buying frenzy stops as all D70’s and rebels are on order only. I assume it is to try and maintain a high level of demand thus aiming to keep up the price as long as possible. After all what other DSLR competion is there for the consumer?
Robert
After all what other DSLR competion is there for the consumer?
I wish Olympus, Minolta, Fuji, etc. would give the "Big Two" a little competition. I guess there isn’t enough volume at those prices to interest them.
I just read about the quality problems in the dpreview review that Grant referenced. The reviewer said only that he had heard that early production models had some problems, but he had an early production unit and experienced no problems. Well, a minor software glitch which he said would be corrected with a download.
Bert
Bert
The 50 mm Nikkor f/1.4 sells just a little under the cost of the kit lens. In Canada the when bought as a kit the lens adds $450 to the package and the 50 mm sells for $420. Then the 50 mm Nikkor f/1.8 sells for $180. But you have to make the decision of which one to buy.
Grant
Quality control was a problem in the pre release models it is suppose to be under control now.
As far as supplies of this camera are concerned I would not worry as Nikon has committed to shipping 800,000 of these cameras this year. That will mean there will be more D70s than all other dSLRs by all camera companies since they started making dSLRs by the end of the year. I suspect this is the first of the new wave of dSLR that will ultimately make dSLR the camera of choice for the committed photo enthusiast.
Grant
Seems to me that if Olympus had traveled the same path they might be in a position to compete. Instead they elected to go the 4/3 path and opt for an entire new series of lenses.
Sigh…..
About a 50 mm Nikkor lens.
Some reviewers rate the 1.8/50 higher than the 1.4/50. And what is the difference, just only half a stop. Hardly worth the extra money in my opinion; $ 240 for such a tiny difference.
Today I did some portraiture on location. I had to -better: was allowed to- portray an extremely attractive black woman in her living room. I used the 1.8/50 at F3.3 and F2.8 with shutterspeeds of about 1/15 of a second from a tripod. On my camera this 50mm is the equivalent of 75 mm.
The images were of extremely high quality; I think this lens is very much underrated by most consumers who buy the zoomlens that comes with the kits.
The big advantage of this lens is the shallow depth of field at these apertures. I’m very pleased with these results as these images are to be part of the portfolio I am to submit in my attempt to qualify for the European qualification scheme.
April 25 will be D-Day to me. Please keep your fingers crossed for me. I suppose I will desperately need this support. ;-(
Leen
Leen,
Good Luck. what is the European qualification scheme?
It’s the same in the Canon world. The 50mm f1.8 Canon is optically similar but much less expensive than the f1.4. However, the ‘pros’ in the Canon forums all rate the 1.4’s ‘Bokeh’ much higher. I had never heard the term ‘bokeh’ before it refers to how nice the ‘out-of-focus’ elements of a picture look. Part of good bokeh has to do with the shutter blades (how many, what shape). I’ve seen comparisons which clearly show the ‘pentagonal’ bokeh of the cheaper f1.8. But, to me, it’s a really, really small part of what makes a good picture (I have a 50 f1.8 ).
The 1.5x of the Nikon will make a 35mm lens close to normal (52.5mm). The Nikkor 35mm f2.0 is a great lens, lightweight, reasonably fast and quite inexpensive. Start looking for some of these (the 50 and 35) used. I can tell you what happened shortly after the Canon Rebel came out there was a real run on the 50 f1.8, 35 f2.0, and even the 28 f2.8.
While the ‘crop factor’ makes wide angle a bit of a challenge, the telephoto range benefits. A 135mm f2.0, for example, becomes like a 200mm f2.0! And with Nikon’s ability to cache quite a few frames per second, it seems a natural for reasonably close sports.
It is a kind of examination of twelve images one has to submit for an international jury. The level is extremely high and I doubt if I have a chance to qualify. But it is worth a try.
The intention is to indicate to the customers they can expect work of high international standards from qualified photographers.
This was started a few years ago by the European Federation of national organisations of professional photographers.
It is based on the qualifications system of the British Institute of Professional Photography. The BIPP has three qualification levels, Licentiate, Associate and Fellow, the European organisation has two levels: the European Qualified Photographer and the European Master Photographer. The QEP level is somewhere between Associate and Fellow. Until now, nobody has been able to qualify for the Master title.
Leen Koper ABIPP ARPS
😉
Thanks to all of you for educating me. My problem is, I love zoom lenses! I love to point the camera and zoom in and out until I get the perfectly framed photo. I realize that zoom lenses are usually not as good resolution-wise as fixed-focal-length lenses.
After the discussion of f1.4 vs. f1.8 Nikkors, I really LUST for a D70 with the f1.8 50mm and a good zoom lens for my wildlife shots.
I need something longer than the 18-70 though. Suggestions? Bert
PS – This is all dream world fantasy. I can’t afford a new camera right now. I’m trying to pay for the May trip we have booked to Africa and the Mediterranean!
Does Nikon make any image stabilization lenses? I have one for my Canon (75-300) which seems to work pretty well, although I think it has an effect on battery life.
Bokeh seems to be the current "next greatest thing". I’m seeing references to it all over these days. FYI, (useless fact of the day) the standard romanized japanese spelling is actually boke but the final h was added because native english speakers were mispronouncing it. <lol>
As I understand it, bokeh IS the out-of-focus part of the photo. I’ve seen some examples where the bokeh portion is the dominant element so I wouldn’t necessarily call it background. My personal feeling is that minding the appearance of the background is part of composition and is something that good photographers do as a matter of fact — no special term needed. Kind of feels to me to be in the same category as calling ink-jet prints "gliclee". Just my two cents worth.
To stay closer on topic, I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens and my feeling is that the f/1.8 is crisper. If I were to do it over again, I would get the f/1.8. I was into available light at the time I bought it and thought the extra light gathering capability was worthwhile as it would allow me to catch some low-light shots hand-held or with a "chain tripod" (cord attached to camera and held down with foot to stabilize) for those times when I just didn’t want to lug around the heavy tripod. Turned out, I usually had enough light to stop down and if it was darker than that, I used the tripod anyway; I didn’t really need the f/1.4 much after all .
The depth of field is minimally shallower with the lens wide open but I don’t know that I’d want to go around shooting everything that way. As for better bokeh, it kind of reminds me of the guys with the golden ears who claim to be able to hear the difference between the $5000 set of speakers and the $3000 ones.
Bob
Bert,
I know what you mean about the zoom and framing your shot but sometimes the best zoom is your own two feet. I use my zooms all the time but I seem to get my best shots with my standard lens (I’ve got the same 50mm f1.8 that John mentioned)
CR
John
You suggested that people start looking for used 35 and 50 mm lenses should have a bit of a warning. Early Nikkor f/2.0 35 mm lenses had a problem with oil leaks. The lubricant would seep out onto the iris blade and eventually onto the glass. Any photographer worth their salt knew that you had to store these lenses vertically. Unfortunately these lenses were not always sold to salty photographers. Acquiring a second hand one does come with some risk. The 50 mm are reasonably risk free as a second hand piece of equipment.
*********************************************
Robert
I always thought Bokeh was a term developed by people who seemed to know more about how may angels could dance on the head of a pin than in those that knew how to take good photographs. I doubt that poor Ansel Adams ever heard of the term Bokeh. Also he never had multicoated autofocus "D" type lenses no wonder he couldn’t take good photographs.
If Bokeh is a result of iris blades I suspect both Nikkors 50 mm will have similar Bokeh as the have the same number of blades.
******************************
Grant
I know what you mean about the zoom and framing your shot but sometimes the best zoom is your own two feet
Chris,
Good point, and that’s what I like to do too. For Africa game drives, though, the zoom is almost essential. I’m sitting in a Land Rover, and there’s a lion out there. Even if I COULD get out of the Land Rover to get closer…um…well…I might become dinner if I did!
Bert
Bert,
Feets zoom out, too. 🙂
CR
Leen,
I wish you success with your qualification on the 25th.
Let us know how you got on. I am very qurious about the images you are submitting. These must be of a very high standard. Any chance of posting them for us to see?
Robert
An interesting review. I like the feature set. And the price difference between the D70 and the 300D isn’t that great in Australia. It’s going to make a decision very hard if I ever make one as it’s a committment to a whole camera system, not just a body. At the moment I have old Pentax mount SLR lenses (not AF -and not particularly high quality – I suspect they wouldn’t work with the Pentax digital anyway) but I do havea Canon EX flash unit. And I use external flash quite a lot….it’ s lucky that any decision is hypothetical at the moment as I can’t afford either!
Susan,
That’s kinda how I view it right now…an interesting intellectual exercise.
And Chris,
Those guys are a whole lot faster than my old legs! You oughta see how fast some of those big animals like elephants can cover the ground. Of course, the cats are really unbelievable. Especially the cheetahs. They are so beautiful when they run!
Bert
Grant,
Poor Ansel, he never had a chance 😉
It’s too bad Ansel couldn’t have seen today’s digital imaging technologies. I remember reading in his autobiograpy that he anticipated a time when electronic techniques would be developed that could coax more subtlety from his negatives and perhaps even get more out of them than in traditional printing. He was talking about scanners because digital cameras weren’t on anyone’s radar back then, but I would suspect he would be as active in his digital darkroom today as he was in his chemical one then. And, who knows, he may have even bought one of the dSLRs.
Bob
Robert, if it’s a pass, the images will be on my website. Some all ready are, but not as a series.
RobertH, Ansel would have used a Hassy H-1 and Imacon back.
Bert, I cannot recommend zooming with your feet between lions, but at home, zooming this way makes you aware of changes in perspective, an often overlooked item.
Leen
Bert, I cannot recommend zooming with your feet between lions, but at home, zooming this way makes you aware of changes in perspective, an often overlooked item.
Leen,
Yes, I think I am lazy that way. My current camera (Oly E-20) does not have interchangeable lenses, only a 35-140 zoom which I think is of quite high quality for a zoom. But my next camera will be a "true" DSLR with interchangeable lenses, and I would like to have a good 35 or 50mm lens along with a zoom for wildlife.
Bert
Does Photoshop Elements 2 support RAW images from a Nikon ?D-70? I have seen forum comments elsewhere that suggest it has some problems?
Thanks
No, Elements doesn’t support Nikon RAW or Canon RAW.
No, Elements doesn’t support Nikon RAW or Canon RAW.
But there are plugins supplied by the manufacturers, aren’t there, Chuck?
Bert I think Nikons NEF plugin will work with Elements and the old Adobe plugin will work with most Canon cameras as is and with all with a little tweaking.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
No, Elements doesn’t support Nikon RAW or Canon RAW.
But there are plugins supplied by the manufacturers, aren’t there,
Chuck?
My Oly E-20 came with a RAW plugin which works fine with PSE.
Anyone see any guesstimates of when dSLRs might come down to US$499 or so? Next year? 2 years? 3 years?
Of course, at the rate things are going, our jobs might be offshored by then so it might not matter. 🙁
Lou,
I think it’s surprising that Minolta, Olympus, Fuji…even Sony and Kodak and probably a lot of others haven’t jumped in. I suppose part of the problem is interchangeable lenses. If you get into the SLR business, you’re gotta have a whole line of lenses, which means big development costs to join the club.
Olympus tried a different approach with the E-10 and E-20…SLR-type cameras but with a fixed 35-140mm zoom lens. Seems like that approach could lead to a another sizeable niche in the camera market below the high-end Canons and Nikons, with similar features and optical performance, but without interchangeable lenses.
I suppose the lens mount designs are patented, so nobody else could design a camera to use Canon or Nikon lenses.
Nobody is making a digital SLR with the Pentacon Thread lens mount, are they? I had two 35mm SLRs with that mounting system back in the 70’s. Simple and reliable. There are probably still a lot of lenses around with that design.
Food for thought…
Bert
Bert, Minolta has announced that the D7 SLR will be out next fall sometime.
Bert, this Minolta will be based on the Dynax/Maxxum 7, a wonderful camera, probably the most advanced SLR in the market.
Olympus launched the four/thirds system and it seems many manufacturers are to follow, like Fuji, Kodak, Sigma, Panasonic and several others.
M42 mount lenses didnot allow exchange of information between lens and CPU in the body. Indeed, all lens mounts are patented with exception of the Pentax bayonet.
Leen
Kodak also offers the 14n professional model that uses a Nikon mount and they recently announced a version that will use a Canon mount.
Richard, the new Kodak camera is not the 14n (with Nikon mount) but a new camera, based on a Nikon camera. The recently at PMA announced one with Canon mount is slightly different and built by Sigma.
But I suppose Kodak will have to pay a decent fee to either Nikon and Canon. Nevertheless this will always be cheaper than designing ones own mount and lenses. As Nikon and Canon lenses are readily available I suppose this is a nice move; probably much smarter than Sigma with its own mount.
Leen
Barbara,
Is the Minolta D7 going to be under $1K? Or is it high-end?
Leen,
Two comments…the new Oly is really expensive, isn’t it? I was talking about low-end SLR’s. Also, did you mean "Pentax bayonet?" The Pentax lens mount that I used was a simple thread…called the Pentacon Thread mount, I believe.
Richard,
The 14n is really expensive, though. I was talking about low-end DLSRs. Aha, Kodak is really smart to work a deal with Canon to use their lenses. I’m surprised Canon would do that…It’s gonna mean direct competition for their cameras. Must be a big piece of change involved…
Bert
Leen,
Simultaneous posts! How did we do that?
🙂
Bert
Bert,
Bodies come and go, but the real money is in the glass. If they can get people hooked in their system of lenses, it is to their long term advantage.
Rich
Bert, both the Olympus and the Minolta will be priced in the middle segment.
Leen
Is the Minolta D7 going to be under $1K? Or is it high-end?
Bert, Leen doubtless knows more about this than I do–Konilta USA has been mum about it. All the info has been cropping on their other sites around the world. I would guess it’s going to be around the $1000 mark, myself, although the feature set isn’t totally definite yet so it’s hard to say exactly. KM reps have been giving pretty widely varied responses at the various shows about the target market.
Ah, very interesting. THanks to you all for enlightening me. I will be in the market for a new DSLR next year (if my wife turns her back on the checkbook). Right now, I am lusting for a D70 and a coupla lenses. By next year, who knows what the new hot thing will be.
But I must admit, I have a lot of brand awareness when it comes to cameras. I really would like a Nikon SLR…sorta like owning a Ferrari, I guess. Everyone should do it at least once in their life.
🙂
Bert
I got to see (but not use) this week the professional-grade DSLR’s from Canon (1DS) and Nikon (D2H, I think). They are huge and extremely complicated; I did not desire to own one. The lenses, on the other hand (some very large glass), were something to behold and in some cases were more expensive than the camera boides. These were used to take pictures of people at a business meeting – what a waste…..
Chuck
Ah, Grant, you tantalize us so….
Should one decide on a D70, what about a lens. I don’t think this one is available with a kit lens like the 300d. Might it be a reasonable idea to look around for a good used Nikon lens, or should one look at the aftermarket?
Dick
Chuck
I can’t talk for Canon as I have no experience with their high end cameras but the D2H is an awesome camera. It is based on the F5 body and it has an optional wireless transmitter so you could be at say a hockey game (go Habs go) and have you photos beamed back to the press box and from there shipped over the net to anywhere in the world. While I don’t have the D2H I do have an F5 and it is the type of camera that you could use to beat an attacking grizzly into submission and all the while taking its photograph. Now if this camera was in my price range then maybe, just maybe, I would have to submit. Oh yes and while those big lenses really look impressive ask me what I think of them after a day of shooting…. talk about heavy weights.
Grant
Dick
The review just posted was of the opinion that the kit lens with the D70 (Nikon DX NIKKOR AF-S 18-70MM F3.5-4.5 lens) is far superior to the one supplied with the Rebel.
G.
Opps, missed that entirely 🙁
Grant, if it makes you feel any better, one of the reasons I decided to hold off on a real SLR is that I’ve read several complaints about how slow the kit lens on the D70 is.
Since it is a comparison of a $399.00 lens to a $99.00 lens I would hope it would be superior. You really should go shopping tomorrow Grant.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Dick
The review just posted was of the opinion that the kit lens with the
D70
(Nikon DX NIKKOR AF-S 18-70MM F3.5-4.5 lens) is far superior to the
one
supplied with the Rebel.
G.
Barbara
I have all the high end Nikkor glass so it doesn’t make me feel any better.
James
Bite you tongue i don’t need to spend anymore money on camera equipment … of course i may want to.
For what it is worth my long time shooting partner just sold it all and bought a new D70.
Grant
Since it is a comparison of a $399.00 lens to a $99.00 lens I would hope t would be superior.
James,
The prices I have seen for the D70 are $999 body only, $1299 with the kit lens. That’s $300 for the lens. Still more than the Rebel kit lens, though. I have been trying to decide if I should just buy the D70 body and then shop around for some used glass or bite the bullet and buy some really good new ones as a long-term investment. The kit lens might be handy to have, though, as a sort-of general purpose lens.
Bert
I was quoting retail prices found in a quick Google search. Anyway, 3x’s or 4x’s the price it’s not apples and apples. From the reviews I’ve read it’s a pretty decent lens and I would think it would be nice to have though I would want more reach before heading to Africa. That’s four of you here on the forum now in the market for one, maybe that group discount Grant was joking about isn’t a bad idea.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Since it is a comparison of a $399.00 lens to a $99.00 lens I
would hope
t would be superior.
James,
The prices I have seen for the D70 are $999 body only, $1299 with the
kit lens.
That’s $300 for the lens. Still more than the Rebel kit lens, though.
I have been trying to decide if I should just buy the D70 body and then shop around for some used glass or bite the bullet and buy some really good new ones as a long-term investment. The kit lens might be handy to have, though, as a sort-of general purpose lens.
Bert
That’s four of
you here on the forum now in the market for one, maybe that group discount Grant was joking about isn’t a bad idea.
There are more than 4. (Well one may not be in the market yet but watching and thinking).
Pete
Profits on cameras, especially when sold in kits, are extremely low, so I doubt about a substantial rebate when buying 4 cameras. Buying 400 cameras might make some difference, but add the cost of sending and insuring cameras to every participant and I still doubt wether there is any profit left.
And, just a reminder, an expensive body usually produces the same results as a low priced one. To my surprise, most people using the expensive ones, switch it to automatic and never change this setting. Most professionals, just like me, set the aperture, when appropriate, set the correction, and let the camera do the rest. Just only in exceptional circumstances I switch to another setting. Any low priced camerabody would produce exactly the same results.
The main reason for buying these cameras is they usually won’t let you down technically when confronted with moisture and dust.
About 98% of my work could as well be done with a camera like the Minolta A2, the Sony 828 etc. Just only for the other 2% I need an SLR. Moreover, these cameras have some of the best lenses in the market, often a lot better than many extremely expensive ones. One might consider what’s the real need for buying a more expensive SLR camera, isn’t it often "keeping up with the Joneses"?
I know, toys for the boys…
Nevertheless, if I was to retire right now, I would go for one of these cameras and use the money left over to invest in a either additional software, a better monitor or printer.
Leen
Leen
Leen – I can take about 90 – 95 per per cent of the shots that I want to with my G3 – but the per cent that I miss really irritate me – and the A2 and the 828 would I believe also miss many of the same shots as they have pretty much the same (slow) focus technology and the same (high) noise levels at higher ISOs… (although they probably have better manual focus – it certainly couldn’t be worse). This girl likes her toys too!
My wish list for an SLR body/SLR system is as follows –
They all seem to have fast AF and low noise levels so I’m taking that as given. It has to have Aperture priority, Shutter priority, and Exposure compensation. I suppose it had better have full Auto so my husband can use it. Flash exposure compensation (in camera would be better as my flash doesn’t have it). Spot metering would be cool – I use it a fair bit on the G3, but I can live without it. And the ability to lock focus and exposure separately to allow metering on an off centre subject or something that isn’t the subject.
A single central AF focus point is fine (that way I know what the thing is focusing on) A really bright clear optical viewfinder that allows accurate manual focusing – an old fashioned split prism would be really nice.
Displays the histogram after taking a picture..
I can’t think of anything else
Hi I’m Grant and I am addicted to photography.
Ok seeing we are telling what we expect from a camera here is my needs. They are not all that great, first the ability to change aperture and shutter, the ability of focus, and I need to be able to use off camera flash. I want an accurately framing system. The lenses or lens have to cover only 35 – 85 mm but they have to be reasonably fast and produce 1/2 life-size macro, colour neutral, and be able to produce better resolution that the chip or film. If the camera has have auto focus auto expose these features must be accurate and predictable. If it is a digital camera I want the chip to produce accurate colour and the noise should be no worse than comparable ISO negative film (I rarely shoot over ISO 200 and never over ISO 400). I always try to crop in the camera so if I am shooting for the web anything over a 1 meg camera is good, if shooting for prints I want a camera that will produce an 8"x10" that yields 100 lines/mm resolution. While the list is not long my expectations of these features are very high. Anything else is icing and I am not really interested in paying lots for them. The strange thing is there are dam few cameras there that will do this.
g.
A really bright clear optical viewfinder that allows accurate manual focusing – an old fashioned split prism would be really nice.
Do you mean instead of a mirror? The only camera I know that has a split-prism viewfinder is the Olympus E-10/E-20 series. The prism diverts some of the light from the lens through a prism to the viewfinder, so it is a "true" SLR, in that you are viewing through the lens, but it doesn’t have the "clack-clack" mirror mechanism.
I have had 35mm SLR’s and I now have an Oly E-20. I really appreciate the nice SLR TTL view, and the quiet shutter release. But, it has the little 2/3" CCD sensor and no interchangeable lenses. That’s why I want a D70. The sensor in the D70 is five or six times bigger than mine, and should yield much better noise performance.
Bert
Bert
I think Barbara is referring to a focusing mechanism used on some reflex cameras. But I could be wrong.
g.
Woops that was Susan not Barbara … the mind is a terrible thing…
g.
Grant,
I remember my Pentax Spotmatic had a "microprism"…I think it was called that. A little spot in the center of the viewfinder that popped into focus when you focused the lens. It was a great little focusing aid. But Susan said "split prism." That’s what confused me. You’re probably right, she meant the microprism. The beamsplitter prism in the E-20 is a nice feature, but there must be some drawbacks to it. No other camera manufacturer that I know of has ever used that design. I have always felt that the "clack-clack" mirror in conventional SLR’s was a real kluge, adding noise and vibration during exposure.
Bert
Bert,
I used a camera once that had a "split" in the viewfinder, kind of two halves of a circle that would slide back and forth and snap into focus, like the microprism but without all the little lens in it.
Can’t remember the camera make, however! Could have been a long ago Nikon used for process work.
Dick
Microprism and split-image were once the two main focusing aids on viewfinder screens. The split-image had a tendency to ‘black out’ on one-half with big slow telephoto lenses. Some focusing screens had both: a split-image center with a microprism ‘collar’.
I have a Nikon FG that has both focusing aides. There’s a ring in the center that I think is the "microprism" variety. It’s kind of grainy looking, almost like small crystals, and it’s very obvious when it’s in focus. Inside of this ring is a smaller "split image" ring that Dick referred to. It functions like a rangefinder, if anyone remembers those. As I recall it was pretty standard to have both focusing mechanisms in SLR’s from the 70’s and 80’s.
The split-image had a tendency to ‘black out’ on one-half with big slow
telephoto lenses. Some focusing screens had both: a split-image center with a microprism ‘collar’.
I just looked through the old Minolta X700 and all the above is true for it.
I did indeed mean the sort of viewfinder that had a split image and a microprism…My Pentax and my defunct OM10 have both of them. I was probably using the wrong term.. they make manual focussing extraordinarily quick and easy unless you have a very slow lens when as Juergen said the split image did indeed tend to black out.
Susan, the 10D has no optical focusing aids; it just has an (annoying) array of squares spaced along a crosswise pattern. One or more of them become outlined in red to indicate the part of the image where the exposure value has been chosen. No telling where the focus point is….
Chuck
Chuck as I understand it the boxes light up in red when focus is achieved in that area. The area that is metered for exposure is chosen ahead of time by the photographer. While you have more control over it with the 10D this part is the same I believe.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Susan, the 10D has no optical focusing aids; it just has an (annoying)
array
of squares spaced along a crosswise pattern. One or more of them
become
outlined in red to indicate the part of the image where the exposure
value
has been chosen. No telling where the focus point is….
Chuck
James, thanks – I was going to look it up after I realized I didn’t know whether the squares were for exposure or focus; I guessed wrong… The are indeed the AF point indicators.
Chuck
Chuck,
Does your cannon have several focus options in the menu?
My 35mm has different settings for focusing modes. Is the Cannon similar?
I think the split image focus was called "rangefinder".
I remember a Leica in the 60’s that had this system.
pete
The 10D has 7 different focus points (5 across, one top and one bottom), and has 3 focusing modes (one shot, pre-emptive, and automatic). The focusing points may be used together or one may be set as the registered point. I usually set the center one, but I can change it on the fly, if I want to.
Ray
Ah yes, the neurons finally clicked into place. I remember the "split-image" rangefinders. I had an Agfa 35mm that had that feature. My Pentax only had the microprism, which I really liked.
Bert
Nobody commented on my heretical statement that the mirror mechanism in SLR cameras is a kluge. I expected some static from defenders of the grand tradition of SLR’s. Can’t I get a rise out of anybody?:)
It seems incredible to me that nobody has come up with an elegant solution to this problem. Why isn’t the Olympus beamsplitter solution better? Or is it just that camera makers are as locked into old design traditions as car manufacturers with their incredibly archaic and primitive Infernal Combustion Engines.
Bert
Hmph! Whassa matta wit youse guys? Nobody wants to take a shot at me? 🙂
Bert
Okay, I ‘ll take the challenge.
Camera makers make cameras that sell.
Olympus knows people want to hear the sound of the mirror. That’s why even Olympus had to introduce a feature that mimics te sound of a real SLR on a camera that doesnot sound like a SLR.
Would you buy a Harley Davidson without the typical (patended) HD sound but with the sound of an electrical lawn mower instead?
Sometimes the sound of the shutter/mirror is essential. Especially in noisy circumstances a pro photographer has to know the picture has been taken. In catalogue and fashion shots photographers often use long telephoto lenses of 300mm and longer. Sometimes there is a microphone near the camera and a loudspeaker near the model. This way she can hear the sound of the camera. She needs to hear this too for an optimal performance.
That’s one of the reasons why professional photographers prefer "traditional" SLR cameras.
When professional photographers use traditional SLR cameras, most consumers like to buy traditional SLR cameras too. just like they prefer to buy the makes professionals use. Not because these makes are better, but they prefer to identify with professionals.
That’s why excellent cameras like Miranda and Topcon disappeared. Olympus once probably produced the best SLR system, but professionals bought Nikon or Canon.
Leen
I’m sure that mimicry has a lot to do with it, but….the good old mirror slap sure did call attention to the photog, didn’t it?
I think I went to a TLR for wedding work because of it. Lots less noise in church.
I could handle a split prism without any difficulty, the real key, IMO, is a good quality set of optics that will allow transmission of the image both to the sensor and the viewfinder.
Not much of an argument, eh? Oh well….
That’s why excellent cameras like Miranda and Topcon disappeared.
In the ’60s, the Miranda had a reputation of being fragile. Bessler Topcon didn’t have very many lenses, and they looked goofy.
Nobody commented on my heretical statement that the mirror mechanism in SLR cameras is a kluge.
It’s a horrible kluge, but in the 20th century, it was a good enough solution, waiting for something better to come along–much like cars dropped carburetors as soon as fuel injection became cheap and reliable.
The semi-silvered, beam-splittor mirror (actually, often two pieces of glass stuck together at a 45-degree angle, often called a pellicle(sp?)) has been done. 16mm Bolex Rex movie cameras used them for years–I have one, and you have to flip the prism out every now and then to clean it, since the split is right at the wrong place in the backfocus part of the lens, so it’ll make muddy pictures if it’s dirty. It even affects where all but telephoto lenses come into focus. It also decreases the amount of light reaching the film. Simply flipping the mirror out of the way wouldn’t work (like old movie cameras, where you would rack the lens over to the side for focussing), unless you changed to "non-Rex" lenses.
In the late ’70s, Canon did the Pellix, with a fixed, semi-silvered mirror. I think it was supposed to be based on the F1, however it looked more like an old FT, but with a titanium shutter (it had to be metal–a cloth shutter would burn-through if you pointed the camera at the sun. The viewfinder was a little dark, because I think the mirror was about 70-percent transparent. I think it had an extra-fast 50mm lens, with some magic to try to make it sharper than you’d expect under the circumstances–but it still wasn’t. It was sharper with long lenses.
For the 1976 or 1980 Olympics, Canon did a Pelix/F1 with a permanent motor drive, that would do at least 10 f.p.s. I think Canon loaned the bodies to a few select photographers.
So, beam splitters: dingy, change focal plane, fuzzy, expensive, don’t like dirt.
That’s about all I remember on the subject without digging through boxes of books.
So, wait–you guys are saying that modern $1000+ digital SLRs don’t have some of the most basic things like split-image viewfinders with microprism collars? Things that $249 film cameras used to have? And what about those aperture stop-down preview buttons that allowed you to preview depth of field–are those gone, too?
I just looked at my old Pentax P5. It has both the split image and the microprism, as well as the aperture stop-down preview. It wasn’t terribly expensive 18 years ago. The lens might’ve been more expensive than the camera (Tokina ATX 28-85 f/3.5-4.5). The camera was a replacement for my trusty Pentax ME-Super that was stolen.
So maybe what I really want is a 6 megapixel digital back for my P5? 🙂
My wife & I just came back from an outing at a state park. I took a bunch of pictures with my digicam (Canon A70–it’s not a dSLR) and the only ones that came out halfway decent are ones where I manually set the exposure and that had very simple focusing requirements. (Closeups of flowers were inevitably out of focus; complex images with components at different lengths from the camera inevitably end up with the wrong component in focus; white flowers in shady areas are inevitably overexposed; shady woods inevitably come out overexposed and washed out and low contrast.) So why have autofocus or autoexposure if you’re really serious about photography? I’d rather have a camera with a manual focus lens and the *option* of autoexposure. (Of course, sports photographers and press photographers have other needs.) I just want it digital so I don’t waste a lot of film and chemicals.
But it sounds like a simple, mostly manual, high-quality digital SLR will probably never happen….
Lou,
I’ve only had experiance with Canon’s Rebel, but everything that you mentioned in your last two paragraphs can be easily done.You can be as manual as you want or take advantage of the different shooting modes. I shoot in program, aperture and shutter modes for the most part and have even been known to switch my auto-focus to the little M. There’s even a Manual shooting mode but I’m too lazy to do all the work. 🙂
CR
Chris,
That’s good to hear about the manual modes. Actually, my little A70 can do everything manual too. The problem is that without the manual focus/exposure aids (the split image with microprism collar, and the aperature stop-down preview), the manual features on dSLRs become very difficult to use. Or maybe they have electronic doo-dads that accomplish the same things.
Maybe I should tote my vintage 1987 Pentax P5 into a camera store and compare it to a new dSLR.
Lou (who’s starting to sound like a Luddite, but who’s actually a computer geek)
Harv,
Thanks for that very informative post! I wondered about the fact that the beamsplitter has to take some of the light away from the detector. I notice my E-20 has an ISO 50 setting. The new Nikon D70 has a lowest setting of 200! Part of that may be that the sensor is about five times larger than the 2/3" sensor in my E-20.
You and Leen have probably enumerated most of the reasons why the infernal SLR mirror survives. Like bicycles, they may be primitive, but nobody has come up with a better idea!
Thanks to you both for your comments.
Bert
Lou,
My wife has a Canon A70, and I have been pleasantly surprised with the picture quality…both resolution and exposure. It’s a point-and-shoot camera primarily, even though it has some manual settings. I wouldn’t expect to do sophisticated spot metering…but I never do that with my E-20, even though it has the capability. I just shoot and then worry about fixing it in Photoshop. I’m not saying my technique is better…it’s just that I never seem to have time to fool around much when I’m taking pictures on a trip. I guess photography doesn’t dominate my travels…rather the other way around.
Bert
Oh, don’t get me wrong, Bert. The A70 is perfect for point and shoot.
I was just using it as an example of an all-electronic camera that, technically, has all sorts of manual and semi-manual modes but has serious shortcomings in the ability to use those modes.
If dSLRs have the same limitations–and don’t have simple features that even middle-of-the-road film SLRs had 20+ years ago–then maybe dSLRs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
Maybe I just need to try a dSLR to set myself straight on this.
Lou.
Lou, you are right; the A70 is a perfect point and shoot. Nothing more, nothing less. Both my son and my wife used an A70 on wintersports in Switzerland this year and all images came out almost perfect. Some little tweaking in Elements and it couldnot have been done better with any other camera, printed at 5×7".
One cannot compare a 1980 SLR to a 2004 dSLR. Todays cameras are feature rich and SLR cameras of 20+ years ago were pretty uncomplicated ones with usually just only TTL metering and sometimes shutter or aperture automatics.
Todays cameras are quite different; one might compare it with a feature rich 1970 Japanese Honda and an monstruous Detroit car of the same age. What has become of Detroit?
Leen
Lou,
For some Canon models, you can buy a prism that will do what you want (split image). But, there’s a better way around this.
On the 10D, there’s a focus indicator at the bottom of the screen (a small dot). It works with the focus points in the viewfinder. When you set your camera on manual focus, first, you know the image will be in focus because it’s crystal clear in the viewfinder (it has a -3 +1.5 dioptric adjustement) But, if you happen to have, say, a very bad vision, then here’s the trick.
You move the focus ring until the dot (the indicator) lights up. When it does, it also flashes which of the seven focus points is actually the one in focus. So you know what in focus on your image. Further, you can register the central point (or any other focus point) as the default, so that the focus indicator will only blink when the element under that focus point is ok.
The way I remember this, the prism was in the middle of the viewfinder and would cover a small area. In a sense, using manual focus, and doing a manual adjustment until the focus indicator + the center focus point lights up, it’s about the same.
Ray
What has become of Detroit?
Actually, in the US, the gas-guzzling Lincoln Continental and Cadillac de Ville of the 1970’s have transmogrified into the equally profitable gas-guzzling Lincoln Navigator and Cadillac Escalade of 2004. (11-12 miles per gallon: <
http://www.carhaven.com/lincoln/2003_lincoln_navigator.html)> I myself drive a European 4-cylinder car with a manual transmission, though. I’m a certified nut, er, tree-hugger. 🙂
So the Detroit example is like the dSLR example in that technology can be put to great use (think Smart car in Europe or Japan’s latest electric hybrids; think of dSLRs that don’t use film or chemicals and have truly useful features such as flash exposure compensation) or technology can be used inappropriately (think gas guzzling SUVs with built-in seat coolers or automatic car starters that warm up your car for 15 minutes to heat up or cool off the interior before you get inside; think focusing aids in dSLRs that don’t seem to be as effective as visible aids of yore).
Not really wanting to turn this into a political discussion (!), I’m just trying to show that technology and advertised features often don’t solve problems well. It’s up to us–consumers–to think about what we want and to spend our money appropriately.
I’m saying this because of real experiences I keep having with my A70, and I was hoping a dSLR would be better but now I’m not so sure.
There have been countless times where the A70’s focusing aid (one or more green rectangles) misleads me into believing my shot should be in focus, and I come home to find out that it’s not. 🙁
Most often this manifests itself in the focus being on an small or thin object (tree branch, for example) that is near the subject (in the x/y plane) but closer or further from the camera (in the z plane) than the subject. The green rectangle looks like it’s over the subject’s face, for example, but it’s really covering that darn branch!
Maybe the red dot that Raymond talks about with Canon dSLRs is more specific than the A70’s green rectangle. Like I said, maybe I just need to play around with a couple of dSLRs in person.
But I’m not going to buy a dSLR just because it’s the latest and greatest. It has to solve my photography problems, no?
Lou,
There are two issues here :
First, have you updated the firmware of your camera? If not, try to see if there’s one available. For my (now gone) Powershot A20, a firmware upgrade solved the issues of the camera focusing on the furthest object, when contrast wasn’t high enough between the main subject and the background.
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/BeBit-e.html Second, I know of no camera (but someone will most undeniably prove me wrong) that has a 100% accurate focus point area coverage, in the sub professional market (that is, under the Canon 1D, for example). For my 10D, the focus points indicated in the viewfinder are actually 5% (I believe) lower than what the camera will use. So it’s important that the subject entirely covers the desired focus point.
You might want to log on to www.dpreview.com and check for your own camera. There are something nice printouts of what the camera sees and what you see, in the viewfinder.
If let alone, the camera (my Powershot A20) would always choose the closest object on its path. I learned to live with that, using the focus lock option (gently press the shutter release to mid course, then recompose and completely press the button). Same thing for the 10D.
That being said, with a dSLR (or an SLR), you’re always free to use manual focus, and forget about the focus dot at the bottom of the screen, and the focus point in the viewfinder. With a dioptric adjustment in the viewfinder, it’s fairly easy to see what you want in focus on, so you know the picture will be in focus as well.
Ray
Even the Minolta A1 I recently bought can be set to play an "SLR mirror slap" sound when the picture is taken. I haven’t the foggiest idea why someone would want to do that. 😉
My Olympus E-20 has two programmable shutter sounds. I turned it off. It also has an autofocus beep in addition to a green light in the viewfinder indicating autofocus/autoexposure. The Canon A70 also has the beep, which I believe is programmable. For wildlife photography, you want as little noise as possible. The animals have very acute hearing, and the whole idea is to appear as invisible as possible. Any sound they might hear is a disruption of their natural state.
Bert
Thanks for the info, Ray. I’ll have to check out firmware update for my A70.
But I’m not complaining about my A70–I love it. In fact, I just got a waterproof enclosure for it so I can take it with me kayaking. I wouldn’t do that if I thought it was a bad camera.
[a couple of hours later]
I just got back from an electronics store, where I looked at modern film SLRs and digital SLRs. Hmmm… made me feel like a dinosaur, or at least Rip van Winkle. 🙂 Leen, you were absolutely right: they’re nothing like what they were 20 years ago!
Lou.
RE: DSLR focusing. Despite a rather dim finder on the 300D and really no ‘manual’ focusing aids, I looked in my camera bag the other day and realized that ALL of my lenses were set on manual focus. If I were trying to shoot ‘action’, I’m sure things would be different. But the majority of my shooting is tripod-mounted, with the focus point somewhere other than the centre, and often either in front or in back of the majority of the frame. Yes, I know you can change the focus point in the DRebel. I guess I haven’t gotten used to doing that yet (seems like a PITA).
In addition to mirror slap, the A1 can be set to do everythin that’s been discussed here except DOF preview. (The A2 can do that.) While it doesn’t have a the old-fashioned focus cues, it has several different focus modes including total manual. You can zoom the view to check what you want to be in focus, but I haven’t had time to play with that yet, as all my photos show.
Anyway, I think the main problem with most prosumer/slrs these days is not so much lack of features as a surfeit of them.
You do have the manual focusing aids with the Rebel just as Ray described for the 10D and once you start changing the focus points it becomes second nature like any other often used feature. Look at it as a temporary PITA until it becomes routine.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ "John_Burnett_ (JNB)" <@adobeforums.com> wrote in message
RE: DSLR focusing. Despite a rather dim finder on the 300D and really
no ‘manual’ focusing aids, I looked in my camera bag the other day and realized that ALL of my lenses were set on manual focus. If I were trying to shoot ‘action’, I’m sure things would be different. But the majority of my shooting is tripod-mounted, with the focus point somewhere other than the centre, and often either in front or in back of the majority of the frame. Yes, I know you can change the focus point in the DRebel. I guess I haven’t gotten used to doing that yet (seems like a PITA).
You and Leen have probably enumerated most of the reasons why the infernal SLR mirror survives.
Another issue about fixed, semi-silvered mirrors: you have to keep your eye close to the viewfinder during exposure, or flip a little switch to close the viewfinder, otherwise you’ll let stray light in during the exposure.
One cannot compare a 1980 SLR to a 2004 dSLR. Todays cameras are feature rich and SLR cameras of 20+ years ago were pretty uncomplicated ones with usually just only TTL metering and sometimes shutter or aperture automatics.
I mostly use a Canon F1 that’s about 23 years old. It works just fine without any battery. With 50mm f/1.4, high-eyepoint viewfinder, and motor is just shy of four pounds. I suppose by today’s standards, it’s pretty primitive–but I wonder how many of today’s cameras will still work in 23 years.
I wonder how many today own light meters or tripods.
For some Canon models, you can buy a prism that will do what you want (split image). But, there’s a better way around this.
The prism angle causes one side to darken at some focal lengths or lens speeds. In addition to personal preferences, you can get focus screens that are optimized for fast or slow lenses–I use one optimized for slow lenses.
The split image isn’t in the prism, but in the focussing screen.
R, I am one of the many people owning -and using- tripods and a handheld light meter. I worked until recently with a 30 years old Mamiya 645, a newer one and a Bronica, all without any metering system. Moreover, although working with a very modern auto everything dSLR, I still use my handheld meter very often.
I am convinced that whatever system one will be using, good photographers will be able to produce good images and bad photographers will continue to produce bad images. New developments in the industry haven’t produced better photographers but more opportunities to good photographers- and enabled bad photographers to produce somewhat less bad images.
Having said that, I am convinced modern technology is a blessing to photographers. Nowadays I can produce images I would never have been able to record without autofocus, auto exposure, TTL flash metering etc.
Leen
Ok, I misunderstood the posting. You are right.
Leen
In fact the split prism in a SLR is in fact two Fresnel lens ground in different directions on top of the focusing screen that is just below the pentaprism. In fact if the truth be known, because of cost, is a replicate of a Fresnel lens Now if you are a photographer you will probably pronounce the Fresnel lens as a frezz-nell but if you are a physicist or a linguist you will pronounce it Fray-nell These are very similar to the lenses that you see on lighthouses but much more finely machined.
Grant
Another issue about fixed, semi-silvered mirrors: you have to keep your eye close to the viewfinder during exposure, or flip a little switch to close the viewfinder, otherwise you’ll let stray light in during the exposure.
Harv,
in practice, I have not found this to be a problem normally. The proximity of your eye to the viewfinder blocks out the light. I have only used the curtain when doing time exposures on a tripod. but you are right, it is a potential problem with the beamsplitter design.
Bert
Anyway, I think the main problem with most prosumer/slrs these days is not so much lack of features as a surfeit of them
Barb,
I think this is so true! I bet most of the people who buy high-end cameras never take them off Auto. I don’t use a lot of features on my E-20. It’s kinda like car stereos. The one in my car has a jillion controls for bass, treble front-to-back balance, right-to-left balance…and on and on. I never touch most of those controls. They could leave most of them off and save a lot of panel space and complexity. Same with cameras. I read the dpreview reviews, and they wring their hands over some obscure feature that is missing, and I say, "So what? Most people, including me, would never use it anyway." Sometimes I think the reviewers are a little anal in their obsessions. Like car reviewers who get REALLY excited about a car that does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds…instead of a competitor that does 5.0.
Bert
One more comment and I’ll quit.
The really important things about a camera for me are:
1. Quality of lens…resolution, color fidelity, etc.
2. Ease of use…logical layout of controls
3. Build quality, durability
4. I’ll just say "balance"…the way it feels in my hand. After the above, everything else is icing on the cake.
Not that I don’t like icing…
Bert
In fact the split prism in a SLR is in fact two Fresnel lens ground in different directions on top of the focusing screen that is just below the pentaprism. In fact if the truth be known, because of cost, is a replicate of a Fresnel lens Now…
We were discussing the little focussing aids in the middle of the screen. Look closely through the viewfinder, and you may be able to see the concentric circles of fresnel lenses–outside of the focussing aids. A few screens, in an attempt to get as much light as possible, are little more than aerial images–which makes the little prisms in the middle even more important. I don’t think I’ve seen a plain ground glass since an old East-German Exa… maybe that Russian TLR of the ’70s.
in practice, I have not found this to be a problem normally.
You’re using a camera with a fixed mirror? What kind?
Yes I am also talking about the "little focussing aid".
Below the pentaprism on 35 mm cameras is the focusing screen which comes in two parts. One part is a condenser lens and this is the always, as far as I know, a Fresnel lens. The other part is the focusing screen proper. This screen can take on may forms, ground glass, clear glass with etching on it, micro prisms or a split prism and any combinations and permutations of these forms. The split prism part is simply two opposing prism. The important part is that they are opposing while the condenser is not. These prisms are Fresnel prisms. I called them lenses because they are use for light transition not reflection but in truth they are Fresnel prisms, having a liner step as opposed to a curved step. The steeper the angle of the prism the more accurate the focusing. Unfortunately the steeper the angle the more likely that half the prism will go black when stopped down or using slow lenses. I believe in an attempt to avoid this problem some manufactures use a double prism system, a complex grind so you have two prisms, of say 5 and 11 degrees, occupying the same space. While the split prisms have their supporters I favoured the microprism system.
The advantage of using Fresnel lenses and prism is that the camera’s height can be kept low and there is also a savings in weight.
I am not the one with a fixed mirror camera (beam splitter?)… well my TLR has a fixed mirror but that is another story.
g.
You’re using a camera with a fixed mirror? What kind?
Olympus E-20N. I’m not sure it’s actually a mirror. They call it a "beamsplitter prism" I think. But it’s an SLR-type camera without a conventional SLR pivoting mirror…and it has a small curtain, as you described, which can be rotated over the viewfinder for time exposures or where light could enter…i.e., when your head is not blocking it out.
Bert
I’m not sure it’s actually a mirror. They call it a "beamsplitter prism" I think.
A semi-silvered thing, anyway. It looks like the lens isn’t removable, so I guess dirt isn’t a problem.
From the Olympus E-20N <
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbyp age.asp?l=1&p=16&bc=3&product=714> Web page:
Main power source: 2 x lithium battery CR-V3 / Optional LBS30 or LBS32 LiPo Battery with Grip Kit / 4 x AA Ni-MH batteries / 4 x AA Ni-Cd batteries/ 4 AA Alkaline batteries can be used for emergency power Optional 7AU-AC adapter Manganese and
How significant is the battery issue with digital cameras? You’re saving on film and processing, but now you have batteries to change, and probably a collection of 128MB cards. I know it’s not just a cost comparison–film and digital have their advantages. I wonder about the logistical issues–like having to carry lots of batteries and cards if you are on a trip for a week. At least you don’t have to carry around an ice chest for the film.
Batteries aren’an issue any more; just buy high power rechargeables. They will last longer than alkalines (BTW, wasn’t Al Kaline a baseball player? I think I remember a baseball bat with his name on it, although I prefered the 32 inch "Jackie Robinson") and they are pretty cheap nowadays.
The same applies to cards. Prices have fallen considerably and 128Mb has become a pretty small card. Next week I ‘ll be on holidays and I will take over 2 Gb with me.
Leen
Harv,
You’re right, the lens is not removable. It’s a 4x zoom…35-140mm. Did you scroll down the page to see the optical system? It’s very complex. But it does give TTL viewing without the "clack-clack" mirror. I’ve had the camera for about two years…bought it used from a guy whom I "met" in this forum. He sold me a whole package which included the FL-40 flash, Li-Po battery pack with two batteries and charger (list price on that is about $900!) plus 4-128MB SM cards and a 1GB IBM Microdrive. I’ve since added a lot more CF cards…the camera has slots for both SM and CF.
The battery pack adds a lot of size and weight to the camera, but I have come to prefer it. There is also a holder for 4-AA cells if I want to travel light. Battery life is exceptional…I have used the camera heavily for several days without exhausting the Li-Po cell.
Bert
Leen,
I loved your reference to Al Kaline! I watched him play at Tiger Stadium in Detroit many times In the off season he used to work out at the high school where I was teaching. He is one of the "age of gentlemen" in sport. Funny you mentioned it in relation to batteries…everyone used to refer to hime as "alkaline!"
Dick
Dick, I hardly know anything about Al. Probably I should do a Google on his name. I know quite a lot more about Jackie Robinson. I wrote an obituary when he died for the official Dutch baseball magazine. I happen to know it has even been translated to Russian.
😉
Leen
…everyone used to refer to hime as "alkaline!"
Dick,
That’s really funny! I never heard that about his name, and I grew up in southwest Michigan and saw him play in Tiger Stadium a few times. Along with a lot of other old Tigers like "Dizzy" Trout, Harvey Kuenn, Johnny Lipon, George Kell and "Hoot" Evers.
The "three K’s"…Kuenn, Kaline and Kell…were my heroes back then. Bert
Bert,
I think it came for the same source as the city of Saline (sa-leen) being pronounce say-line!
Oh well. When I was a little kid in Detroit, we lived right across the street from Hal Newhauser’s parents. Used to get a glimpse of him every now and then when he’d visit. George Kell was a great tv announcer for the Tigers for many years.
Ah, the old days…
I think I better go now.
Dick
I think it came for the same source as the city of Saline (sa-leen) being pronounce say-line!
I remember Saline, I think. Isn’t it southwest of Ann Arbor?
Yes, it’s on US12. Usually thought of as the first city on the road through the Irish Hills.
Yes, it’s on US12. Usually thought of as the first city on the road through the Irish Hills
Dick,
US12 used to be my regular hitchiking route when I went home from school in Ann Arbor for the holidays. With an "M" on my suitcase, I never had to worry about getting a ride. Times were sure different then…nobody would pick up a hitchiker today, I bet.
Home was clear over on the other side of the state, so my US12 route went through Jackson, Albion, Marshall, Battle Creek, and Kalamazoo…about 150 miles.
Bert
EDIT: Obviously, that was LONG before I-94…
Yes it was! Liz and I used to use the US12 route from Royal Oak to South Bend. At least part of it. We’d go through Coldwater and work our way down to the Turnpike.
Brings back memories.
Yes it was! Liz and I used to use the US12 route from Royal Oak to South Bend
I have a sister in South Bend and a sister in Kalamazoo, so I frequently drive some pieces of old US12 when I visit them. It’s a very pretty drive during fall color season. Much of the road still goes through wooded areas. If I’m not in a hurry, I’d rather drive roads like that instead of the Interstates.
Bert
Bert,
It certainly seems the more you and I talk the more we have in common!
And I do agree with you on the backroads.
Dick
It certainly seems the more you and I talk the more we have in common!
I’ve thought the same thing.
