Questions on Nikon D70

LO
Posted By
Luis ORTEGA
May 15, 2004
Views
2367
Replies
38
Status
Closed
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?
I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I have always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful, but I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that will feel old in a few years.
I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.

Powered by Creative Market

DH
Desert Heat
May 15, 2004
THIS newsgroup says PHOTOSHOP not NIKON check the yahoo groups for Nikon Digital

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
: Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s : worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models? : I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except : for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I have
: always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful, but
: I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that will
: feel old in a few years.
: I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as : the day I got it.
: Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality : like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like : with computers?
: Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next : generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? : As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. : Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any : way?
: Thanks a lot for any advice.
:
:
:
M
Marsupilami
May 15, 2004
Luis ORTEGA wrote:
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?

You ought to look at something, pixels are pixels, size of each pixels is important too,
A 8 Mpixels camera with less than 7micrometers pixel size is crap, that means that you must look at the size of the sensor, signal treatment(?), brand of this sensor, too. I guess some shopassistants will say exactly the contrary…but. Lenses are not a problem for you, if you stay on Nikon, but the size of the "target" (film or sensor) is not the same a unextraordinary lens will not fit the digital as it was on films (due to the "squarity" of pixels, micro-lenses upon the target etc…)
the obsolescence is a thing that is Completely subjective, a good lens is a good lens, a good lens fitted with ITS target will always make good shot, just one thing, when you buy your camera, buy bunch of memory (obsolescence might be there), and keep the computer to deal with.

HTH


+++++++++++
Houba houba.
Marsu.
"ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba"
The Troggs "I can’t control myself"
++++++++++
LC
Larry CdeBaca
May 15, 2004
Others have contributed opinions over the last few years whether digital will ever be equal or better than film. And it has also been said that it’s not the equipment you own but how you use it. One of the regulars says he gets great prints from a 2 mp digicam. What is left unsaid is — given a "great shot," what link in the chain do you want to improve?

If you stick with film, do you enjoy manipulating images in the chemical darkroom? Scanning negs/photos and spending gazillions on electronic equipment that will be obsolete before you can get it home from the store? You still have all those choices which affect the image on the film — camera, lens, developer, paper, film brand/speed/sensitivity/grain. You either invest oodles on equipment for your home darkroom, or pay someone else to develop/print your photos.
camera –>film –> negative/slide –> print
Prints not good enough for you? Get a better camera, use different film, better lenses, learn skills, use a different darkroom. Analog means knowing what kind of equipment you need to get the print you want.

Digital leaves out the analog link (film), but you still have the same issues of proper exposure, cropping, printing, resolution. camera –> digital film –> image –> print/final image Digital prints not good enough for you? Get a better camera, better lenses, learn skills, learn to use the digital darkroom. Digital means taking a shot and having the freedom to manipulate it in myriad ways to get the output you want.

Tomorrow will bring a better camera. Buy as much camera as you can afford, then stop shopping. Wring as much out of that camera until you break even, until you feel you’ve gotten your money’s worth.

I wonder if anyone has ever compared the costs of film vs digital — film camera + equipment + developing + printing vs
digital camera + equipment + digital darkroom + printing

Spending more does not necessarily guarantee better photos.

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?
I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I
have
always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful,
but
I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that
will
feel old in a few years.
I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.

FZ
Fred Zafran
May 15, 2004
I think you were looking for a straightforward answer. I own a D70 having traded up from a 5 MP Dimage 7i. The value and benefit of a DSLR over an electro-optical system is significant and I would seriously consider the Nikon D70. This is an excellent camera and a joy to use.

If you haven’t done so, check out the reviews of the D70 on the major Web sites:

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Also take a look at the "Nikonians" D70 user group forum.

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list &forum=DCForumID86&archive=

My recommendation… the Nikon D70 6 + MP DSLF is far superior in form and function to the 8 MP electro-optical systems.

Take a look.

– FAZ

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?
I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I
have
always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful,
but
I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that
will
feel old in a few years.
I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.

JW
JP White
May 15, 2004
I remember reading somewhere (sorry can’t remember where) that serious amateurs and pros value their lens collection above all else with the attitude that bodies will come and go.

I believe you are correct to protect your investment in lenses. The major problem with digital SLR’s in my book is not the
quality/technology issues, it’s the price. $1200 for a low end digital SLR will buy you a great film camera and some other goodies to boot.

Most studio photographers where I live have gone totally digital. Of course they bought high end stuff, but I say this to make the point that digital is good enough for prime time, if you can afford it.

JP
P
patrick
May 16, 2004
Not to be facetious, but . . . . If you wait until the day you die, you’ll get the lataest equipment at the best price. Buy it now and use it! Good luck! . . . .patrick
"Life is uncertain. Eat the dessert first."

"JP White" wrote in message
I remember reading somewhere (sorry can’t remember where) that serious amateurs and pros value their lens collection above all else with the attitude that bodies will come and go.

I believe you are correct to protect your investment in lenses. The major problem with digital SLR’s in my book is not the
quality/technology issues, it’s the price. $1200 for a low end digital SLR will buy you a great film camera and some other goodies to boot.
Most studio photographers where I live have gone totally digital. Of course they bought high end stuff, but I say this to make the point that digital is good enough for prime time, if you can afford it.
JP
H
Hecate
May 16, 2004
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:48:34 +0100, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?

From the comparative reviews I’ve seen, you get as good, if not better images with the D70 (or the Canon 300D) than with *any* of the 8MP bridge cameras.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
B
Bruce
May 16, 2004
First, you should post to rec.photo.digital instead of this group Second, to answer your question it depends on your intended usage, whether your existing set of slr lenses (i.e. zoom/telephoto) will minimize the need to enlarge, aside from the megapixels, does it have all the features you want (it is the low end model), etc.

–bruce

Luis ORTEGA wrote:

Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?
I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I have always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful, but I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that will feel old in a few years.
I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.
S
Stephan
May 16, 2004
"Fred Zafran" wrote in message
I think you were looking for a straightforward answer. I own a D70 having traded up from a 5 MP Dimage 7i. The value and benefit of a DSLR over an electro-optical system is significant and I would seriously consider the Nikon D70. This is an excellent camera and a joy to use.
If you haven’t done so, check out the reviews of the D70 on the major Web sites:

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Also take a look at the "Nikonians" D70 user group forum.
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list &forum=DCForumID86&archive=
My recommendation… the Nikon D70 6 + MP DSLF is far superior in form and function to the 8 MP electro-optical systems.

Take a look.
I use Nikon professionally but I needed a little digital camera to carry around all the time and to use on jobs were I need a 28mm, I was about to purchase the D70.
Thanks to Dpreview I was able to compare the output of other cameras and ended up buying the Olympus C8080.
I am glad I did. Open the shots side by side in PS and compare. I give Nikon a year to come up with a full size sensor in a pro body, after that all my nice Nikon lenses go on eBay and I switch to another brand.

Stephan
S
Stephan
May 16, 2004
"Desert Heat" wrote in message
THIS newsgroup says PHOTOSHOP not NIKON check the yahoo groups for Nikon Digital

Did you know Photoshop is also a photographers tool?
Photo…shop
Besides nobody forces you to read.

Stephan
DH
Desert Heat
May 16, 2004
STEPHEN

I believe if you look at the questions asked, they are about the FUNCTION OF THE CAMERA and the whether digital can or has reached the quality of film. I do not think either of these types of questions pertain to the use of PHOTOSHOP. I think the questions are valid but NOT in these forums. I believe others have made similar comments about the question being asked here.

Have a nice day.

"Stephan" wrote in message
:
: "Desert Heat" wrote in message
: : > THIS newsgroup says PHOTOSHOP not NIKON check the yahoo groups for : > Nikon Digital
:
: Did you know Photoshop is also a photographers tool?
: Photo…shop
: Besides nobody forces you to read.
:
: Stephan
:
:
LO
Luis ORTEGA
May 16, 2004
thanks, yes, I’ve read that too, but I wonder why?

"Hecate" wrote
From the comparative reviews I’ve seen, you get as good, if not better images with the D70 (or the Canon 300D) than with *any* of the 8MP bridge cameras.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
LO
Luis ORTEGA
May 16, 2004
Thank you, I was!
I will follow up your review links.

"Fred Zafran" wrote
I think you were looking for a straightforward answer. I own a D70 having traded up from a 5 MP Dimage 7i. The value and benefit of a DSLR over an electro-optical system is significant and I would seriously consider the Nikon D70. This is an excellent camera and a joy to use.
If you haven’t done so, check out the reviews of the D70 on the major Web sites:

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Also take a look at the "Nikonians" D70 user group forum.
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list &forum=DCForumID86&archive=
My recommendation… the Nikon D70 6 + MP DSLF is far superior in form and function to the 8 MP electro-optical systems.

Take a look.

– FAZ

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models?
I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great,
except
for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I
have
always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful,
but
I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that
will
feel old in a few years.
I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today
as
the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal
megapixel/quality
like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some
next
generations that would be more mature and stable in features and
quality?
As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for
me.
Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in
any
way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.

P
patrick
May 16, 2004
An article in the current PCMAG points out that picture quality depends on a lot more than mere pixel count. (Which is often a marketing spec rather than an engineering one.)
Besides the obvious factors of lens, flare, SW processing, shake induced by "shutter" release mechanism, etc., there are other features of the CCD (or whatever) sensor such as saturation, bleeding, blur, or what have you.

On a lesser level, I blew up two images to 700x zoom in PS CS, one from a 3M and the other from a 2.1M camera. I cheated by placing the 2.1M camera on a tripod and using time delay shutter relase. The 2.1M was much sharper both at the zoom and normal viewing settings.

Personally, I’m headed for the Nikon D70 if only to protect my investment in a bushel of lenses ;>)

Good luck! . . . . patrick
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
thanks, yes, I’ve read that too, but I wonder why?

"Hecate" wrote
From the comparative reviews I’ve seen, you get as good, if not better images with the D70 (or the Canon 300D) than with *any* of the 8MP bridge cameras.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

JW
JP White
May 16, 2004
Desert Heat wrote:
STEPHEN

I believe if you look at the questions asked, they are about the FUNCTION OF THE CAMERA and the whether digital can or has reached the quality of film. I do not think either of these types of questions pertain to the use of PHOTOSHOP. I think the questions are valid but NOT in these forums. I believe others have made similar comments about the question being asked here.

Have a nice day.

Desert H. I believe it would have been appropriate for Luis type a title like

OT: Questions on Nikon D70.

But I’m splitting hairs.

Since many photoshop users (arguably the majority) that partake in these NG’s are also photographers then it is reasonable to expect that someone here may know the answer to Luis question. I don’t think he’s out of line at all. I myself am interested in the input several people have provided, but I’m not about to go to a Nikon forum, because it is of peripheral interest to me. We can’t subscribe to every forum under the sun and also get some photography done as well!

JP
JC
James Connell
May 16, 2004
Desert Heat wrote:

STEPHEN
<snip>

:
: Did you know Photoshop is also a photographers tool?
: Photo…shop
: Besides nobody forces you to read.
:
: Stephan
:
:

don’t mind him, he’s just mad he didn’t get to bitch about it first.

stephan is almost ready to achive troll status – he’s not worth reading.
J
Jim
May 16, 2004
One reason is that the noise level is much better in cameras which employ larger sensors (such as all of the Nikon D series and the equivalent Canon models). The bane of film is the grain, but the bane of digital is noise. Jim
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
thanks, yes, I’ve read that too, but I wonder why?

"Hecate" wrote
From the comparative reviews I’ve seen, you get as good, if not better images with the D70 (or the Canon 300D) than with *any* of the 8MP bridge cameras.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

S
Stephan
May 16, 2004
"James Connell" wrote in message
Desert Heat wrote:

STEPHEN
<snip>

:
: Did you know Photoshop is also a photographers tool?
: Photo…shop
: Besides nobody forces you to read.
:
: Stephan
:
:

don’t mind him, he’s just mad he didn’t get to bitch about it first.
stephan is almost ready to achive troll status – he’s not worth reading.

Thank you.
Would you mind telling us what a troll is?
BTW your Caps Lock key is not working anymore.

Stephan
H
Hecate
May 17, 2004
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:50:59 +0100, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

thanks, yes, I’ve read that too, but I wonder why?

Well for a start, the sensors are physically smaller.

Then, just looking at the numbers, 6MP v 8MP is misleading. A 6MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3008×2000 pixels. An 8MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3264×2448 pixels.

If you print both these images you get at 300 dpi you get a 10.88 by
8.16 inch print from the 8MP camera and a 10×6.7 inch print from the
6MP camera. I.e. along the longest edge you’re getting less than an inch larger. And, most 6MP cameras are capable of good quality A3 prints.

I saw a blow up in a magazine of an image taken from a 6MP and an 8MP camera and without looking at the caption, you couldn’t tell the difference.

Finally, with a bridge camera, which is what all the examples on the market are, you’re limited to the lens they give you. And they are not always the best quality. With a DSLR you can choose which lenses you use.

As far as I’m concerned, apart from the "let’s have a camera to shoot images when I don’t want to carry anything heavy" photographer, the use of bridge cameras is really limited to the not-so-serious amateur.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
JC
James Connell
May 17, 2004
Stephan wrote:

I use Nikon professionally but I needed a little digital camera to carry around all the time and to use on jobs were I need a 28mm, I was about to purchase the D70.
Stephan

you claim to be a pro and don’t have a 20mm???
what a dipshit!
P
patrick
May 17, 2004
Interesting points, Hecate!
Would you please define or explain what is meant by a "bridge camera"? Thanks . . . . patrick
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:50:59 +0100, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

thanks, yes, I’ve read that too, but I wonder why?

Well for a start, the sensors are physically smaller.

Then, just looking at the numbers, 6MP v 8MP is misleading. A 6MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3008×2000 pixels. An 8MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3264×2448 pixels.
If you print both these images you get at 300 dpi you get a 10.88 by
8.16 inch print from the 8MP camera and a 10×6.7 inch print from the
6MP camera. I.e. along the longest edge you’re getting less than an inch larger. And, most 6MP cameras are capable of good quality A3 prints.

I saw a blow up in a magazine of an image taken from a 6MP and an 8MP camera and without looking at the caption, you couldn’t tell the difference.

Finally, with a bridge camera, which is what all the examples on the market are, you’re limited to the lens they give you. And they are not always the best quality. With a DSLR you can choose which lenses you use.

As far as I’m concerned, apart from the "let’s have a camera to shoot images when I don’t want to carry anything heavy" photographer, the use of bridge cameras is really limited to the not-so-serious amateur.


Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
S
Stephan
May 17, 2004
"James Connell" wrote in message
Stephan wrote:

I use Nikon professionally but I needed a little digital camera to carry around all the time and to use on jobs were I need a 28mm, I was about
to
purchase the D70.
Stephan

you claim to be a pro and don’t have a 20mm???
what a dipshit!

You are funny.Yes I am a pro in the sense that I live from my photography. Do you have another definition of "pro"?
Why would I have a 20mm for what I usually shoot
Do you have a 300mm f: 2.8?

Stephan
S
Stephan
May 17, 2004
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:50:59 +0100, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, apart from the "let’s have a camera to shoot images when I don’t want to carry anything heavy" photographer, the use of bridge cameras is really limited to the not-so-serious amateur.

Just made $1500 with my not"pro" Oly c8080 today! 😉

Stephan
H
Hecate
May 18, 2004
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:32:19 GMT, "patrick" wrote:

Interesting points, Hecate!
Would you please define or explain what is meant by a "bridge camera"? Thanks . . . . patrick

A bridge camera:

Looks like an SLR, has controls like an SLR, but has a fixed lens i.e the lens in not interchangeable like an SLR. The name "bridge" came about because it "bridges" the gap between compact cameras and true SLRs.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
May 18, 2004
On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:31:09 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:50:59 +0100, "Luis ORTEGA" wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, apart from the "let’s have a camera to shoot images when I don’t want to carry anything heavy" photographer, the use of bridge cameras is really limited to the not-so-serious amateur.

Just made $1500 with my not"pro" Oly c8080 today! 😉
Notice the bit where I said "apart from" 😉

I always carry a camera, but I don’t want to always carry an SLR and lenses. I always have with me an old Pentax compact with a 35-90 lens and I use that (usually) to take reference shots for places etc that I want to go back to. But I have sold images from that camera. 🙂



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
JC
James Connell
May 18, 2004
Stephan wrote:
"James Connell" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

I use Nikon professionally but I needed a little digital camera to carry around all the time and to use on jobs were I need a 28mm, I was about

to

purchase the D70.
Stephan

you claim to be a pro and don’t have a 20mm???
what a dipshit!

You are funny.Yes I am a pro in the sense that I live from my photography. Do you have another definition of "pro"?
Why would I have a 20mm for what I usually shoot
Do you have a 300mm f: 2.8?

Stephan

yes and a 600 f/4 – oh and instead of the 20mm i might use my 17-35 ( if the reduced contrast wouldn’t be a factor)
S
Stephan
May 18, 2004
"James Connell" wrote in message
Stephan wrote:

yes and a 600 f/4 – oh and instead of the 20mm i might use my 17-35 ( if the reduced contrast wouldn’t be a factor)

Good for you, you beat me, you have more lenses than me, big deal.

Stephan
W
Waldo
May 18, 2004
Then, just looking at the numbers, 6MP v 8MP is misleading. A 6MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3008×2000 pixels. An 8MP camera is producing an image of approx. 3264×2448 pixels.

The numbers are not misleading, they are certainly true, but the fact is that the resolution of 8 MP is not that much higher than the 6 MP as you’ve shown above.

The thing is the size of the sensor and the number of "pixel" sensors that the sensor contains. The DSLR sensors are often (always?) bigger than the DSLR-alikes are, which means that each "pixel" sensor receive more light (and thus there is less noise).

A last thing is that a DSLR producing 6 MP images does NOT contain 6 million RGB value pairs, so interpolation is needed to get the final 6 MP image. That is actually the same for the 8 MP other cameras. There are a few exceptions like the Sigma DSLR family.

Don’t focus too much on megapixels. Look at your budget and the features that you want. If you own already good Nikon lenses, you can use them on the D70. In the product specs the lens compatibility is mentioned. Some older lenses might not work or the metering and/or autofocus will not work. You’ll find on their website or manuals.

I think that the reviews on www.dpreview.com will help you to make a decision.

Waldo
P
patrick
May 18, 2004
Thanks, Hecate. I had not run into that usage before — like the Leica M3? ;>)

Can’t help but be amused by the contradiction of terminology here, however: *Single lens* reflex, to me, ought to refer to a camera with a single lens and the SLR would more properly be designated a PLR (poly-) or MLR (multi-) or somesuch. I presume it comes from the fact that there is a single lens, both for viewing and filming as opposed to the range-finder camera (another careless term?).

For the curious: there is a class of words which come under the coined term, "antagonym," meaning a word which has two opposite meanings. They are fun to try to ferret out. "Sanction, apparent, buckle, clip," etc. I could only come up with seven of them before encountering
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html
(for those who might be intrigued).

(Thanks for your many contributions to the group!) . . . . patrick

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:32:19 GMT, "patrick" wrote:
Interesting points, Hecate!
Would you please define or explain what is meant by a "bridge camera"? Thanks . . . . patrick

A bridge camera:

Looks like an SLR, has controls like an SLR, but has a fixed lens i.e the lens in not interchangeable like an SLR. The name "bridge" came about because it "bridges" the gap between compact cameras and true SLRs.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
MH
Mike Hide
May 18, 2004
True but there are a group of expert photographers here that use that type of equipment and can offer expert practical advice ….mjh —
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Desert Heat" wrote in message
THIS newsgroup says PHOTOSHOP not NIKON check the yahoo groups for Nikon Digital
MR
Mike Russell
May 18, 2004
Luis ORTEGA wrote:
Do people with experience with the 6 megapixel Nikon D70 think that it’s worth buying over the newer 8 megapixel non-slr models? I’ve have a 5 megapixel Sony 717 for about 2 years which is great, except for the few limitations in visual quality and enlargement limits, but I have always wanted to get an slr to make the Nikon lenses I have more useful, but I’m worried about the obsolescence of locking into a digital model that will feel old in a few years. I have a Nikon F4 that is going on 15 years and it is as capable today as the day I got it.
Do you folks think that digitals will reach some optimal megapixel/quality like good film cameras or will it forever be an upgrading treadmill like with computers?
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me. Also, does using my other AF Nikon lenses limit what the D70 can do in any way?
Thanks a lot for any advice.

It’s a treamill. You won’t see designs stabilizing any time soon. My prediction is that digital will finsih trying to emulate 35mm SLR’s, and then things will take off in a completely new direction.

So pick something you’ll like for the next several years, then figure on being lured into spending some more money on something even more fantastic.

BTW – more discussion of this sort at alt.comp.periphs.dcameras. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
O
Odysseus
May 19, 2004
In article <Vxnqc.5222$>,
"patrick" wrote:
For the curious: there is a class of words which come under the coined term, "antagonym," meaning a word which has two opposite meanings. They are fun to try to ferret out. "Sanction, apparent, buckle, clip," etc. I could only come up with seven of them before encountering
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html
(for those who might be intrigued).
A somewhat more common term for such words is "contronym".


Odysseus
H
Hecate
May 19, 2004
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "patrick" wrote:

Thanks, Hecate. I had not run into that usage before — like the Leica M3? ;>)

Can’t help but be amused by the contradiction of terminology here, however: *Single lens* reflex, to me, ought to refer to a camera with a single lens and the SLR would more properly be designated a PLR (poly-) or MLR (multi-) or somesuch. I presume it comes from the fact that there is a single lens, both for viewing and filming as opposed to the range-finder camera (another careless term?).
Yes. You can also get TLR’s (Twin Lens Reflex – a taking lens and a viewing lens). CF the old Mamiya C330 or MF cameras from Seagull for example.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
S
Stephan
May 19, 2004
"Luis ORTEGA" wrote in message
snip<
Is the D70 good enough to satisfy for years or should I wait for some next generations that would be more mature and stable in features and quality? As I have Nikon lenses, another digital slr brand is not an option for me.

Next month, next season or next year will bring something better. Digital is new and growing fast.
Get the D70, take good care of it and put it for adoption on eBay in six month.
If you wait longer you won’t sell it for much.
Getting the latest and reselling it quick is the only way to stay on top without spending fortunes.
The good part is these strange people on eBay getting kicks from winning auctions.
They’ll end up giving you more than you expected to get.:-)

Stephan
P
patrick
May 19, 2004
Right! I had a Yashica (sp?) TLR in the late 40’s and carried it all through Korea with great results. There were even models with matched attachment lenses, one for the viewing lens and the other for the taking lens. They were coupled with a gear to keep viewing sharp as focus was changed. I’m drawing a mental block on the most famous (and most expensive) one but they were great mid-size media. It was the Leica or Hasselbad of TLR’s. .. . . . patrick

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "patrick" wrote:
Thanks, Hecate. I had not run into that usage before — like the Leica
M3?
;>)

Can’t help but be amused by the contradiction of terminology here,
however:
*Single lens* reflex, to me, ought to refer to a camera with a single
lens
and the SLR would more properly be designated a PLR (poly-) or MLR
(multi-)
or somesuch. I presume it comes from the fact that there is a single
lens,
both for viewing and filming as opposed to the range-finder camera
(another
careless term?).
Yes. You can also get TLR’s (Twin Lens Reflex – a taking lens and a viewing lens). CF the old Mamiya C330 or MF cameras from Seagull for example.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
May 20, 2004
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:47:08 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

Next month, next season or next year will bring something better. Digital is new and growing fast.
Get the D70, take good care of it and put it for adoption on eBay in six month.
If you wait longer you won’t sell it for much.
Getting the latest and reselling it quick is the only way to stay on top without spending fortunes.
The good part is these strange people on eBay getting kicks from winning auctions.
They’ll end up giving you more than you expected to get.:-)
All true. However, I tend to keep my cameras until I have no use for them. I only got rid of an old Pentax P30 manual (one of my earliest cameras) a couple of years ago. Donated it, in fact to a young photographers club. It still worked fine and I’d had approximately 16 years. And the Pentax lenses were superb. 🙂

It’s just another way of getting value for money out of your purchases. And, having worked in computing for quite I while I’m not about to feed into the manufacturers "buy this cause it’s the best but there’ll be a better one along soon" methods of selling. I buy what does the job for me and then keep it until it no longer does the job. Basically, I’m an advertisers nightmare 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
JM
Jerry McG
May 20, 2004
One school of thought is that it is stupid to waste money on costly "pro" D-SLRs, as they’ll be obsolete way before they wear ouit. Its cheaper to work with a D100 or D70 (which may be an even better body than the older D100) than a D1x or D2h, toss it the next time another advance takes place on the low end. IMHO, the D70 has every capability of the D1x for 1/4 the cost. (I’m a D1x owner, btw.)
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:47:08 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

Next month, next season or next year will bring something better. Digital is new and growing fast.
Get the D70, take good care of it and put it for adoption on eBay in six month.
If you wait longer you won’t sell it for much.
Getting the latest and reselling it quick is the only way to stay on top without spending fortunes.
The good part is these strange people on eBay getting kicks from winning auctions.
They’ll end up giving you more than you expected to get.:-)
All true. However, I tend to keep my cameras until I have no use for them. I only got rid of an old Pentax P30 manual (one of my earliest cameras) a couple of years ago. Donated it, in fact to a young photographers club. It still worked fine and I’d had approximately 16 years. And the Pentax lenses were superb. 🙂

It’s just another way of getting value for money out of your purchases. And, having worked in computing for quite I while I’m not about to feed into the manufacturers "buy this cause it’s the best but there’ll be a better one along soon" methods of selling. I buy what does the job for me and then keep it until it no longer does the job. Basically, I’m an advertisers nightmare 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
S
Stephan
May 21, 2004
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Wed, 19 May 2004 00:47:08 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

Next month, next season or next year will bring something better. Digital is new and growing fast.
Get the D70, take good care of it and put it for adoption on eBay in six month.
If you wait longer you won’t sell it for much.
Getting the latest and reselling it quick is the only way to stay on top without spending fortunes.
The good part is these strange people on eBay getting kicks from winning auctions.
They’ll end up giving you more than you expected to get.:-)
All true. However, I tend to keep my cameras until I have no use for them. I only got rid of an old Pentax P30 manual (one of my earliest cameras) a couple of years ago. Donated it, in fact to a young photographers club. It still worked fine and I’d had approximately 16 years. And the Pentax lenses were superb. 🙂

It’s just another way of getting value for money out of your purchases. And, having worked in computing for quite I while I’m not about to feed into the manufacturers "buy this cause it’s the best but there’ll be a better one along soon" methods of selling. I buy what does the job for me and then keep it until it no longer does the job. Basically, I’m an advertisers nightmare 😉

Digital is different.
A 15 year old F3 is as good as a new F5 but a three year old digital camera is just good to let the kids play with

Stephane

Powered by Creative Market

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections