reflux wrote: Spot on. And it has a slow (especially in low light) AF and not very good viewfinder(according to French magazine Chasseur d'Images). Plus, it's ugly... .gif) It features the interesting anti-dust system, though... |
Bought a Nikon D70 today \o/ • Page 2
-
jaa 962 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years ago -
jaa 962 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years agoAfaik, the D70 has no anti-dust system... Both Olympus have a "supersonic wave filter" that vibrates each time the camera is turned on or when lenses are changed. Link to dpreview E300 review (bit about this maybe 80% down the page). -
urban 13,148 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoi've always simply disliked nikon since their ....urrr f5's probably heh its been that long since i had any interest in their stuff...
they simply got the digital thing all wrong and all their electronics are poofy -
jaa 962 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years agoEh, software doesn't count... The dust is still there!
Edit: Uh-oh. The Canon fanboys have arrived. And they're as bad as any PS2/Xbox/GG fanboys, I'm telling you...
Edited by jaa at 22:21:40 11-01-2005 -
Ah, the dust problem is overrated. I give it a 5 out of 10. -
jaa 962 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years agoUncleLou wrote:
Ah, the dust problem is overrated. I give it a 5 out of 10.
Clearly, you haven't seen the inside of any of my 3 Pentaxes, all bought in the 90's. Through the viewfinder of my MZ5, I can see tiny bugs walking around... -
reflux 1,804 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 20 years agoUncleLou wrote:
Yeps, never had that problem. Oh. Erh, wait. I only have the kit lens :I
Ah, the dust problem is overrated. I give it a 5 out of 10. -
jaa wrote:
UncleLou wrote:
Ah, the dust problem is overrated. I give it a 5 out of 10.
Clearly, you haven't seen the inside of any of my 3 Pentaxes, all bought in the 90's. Through the viewfinder of my MZ5, I can see tiny bugs walking around...
Slob!.gif)
-
jaa 962 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years agootto wrote:
Hahaha, for God's sake man, take it in and get it cleaned!
What?! And kill a happy family of harmless little bugs?!... They're the only pets I have, besides wife...
UncleLou: at least I'm not a lawyer...
-
jaa wrote:The Canon fanboys have arrived. And they're as bad as any PS2/Xbox/GG fanboys, I'm telling you...
Damn right. Just wait until the Fujifilm/Kodak fanboys come around...
@urban: thanks for the insightful feedback, I'll go and sell all my Nikon equipment now cause it's "poofy". And the F5 is only considered the best film SLR ever by thousands of professionals around the world, but I'll listen to you! -
jaa wrote:
UncleLou: at least I'm not a lawyer...
(T)ouch(é)! -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agocyk wrote:
UncleLou wrote:
Great, great fun though, and, don't be surprised, I have to thank the two of you, cyk and valli - you and your threads here and the online galleries have certainly played a big part in my reawakened interest in photography!
Edited by UncleLou at 22:16:04 22-08-2004
Glad to help.gif)
RAW mode is very very cool, but does take up 4 times the space of a JPEG, but its sooo worth it.
Agree 100%. I'm shooting more and more in Raw coz I love the ability to choose different WB/settings in Photoshop in post processing. If you scew up you can nearly always fix the pic if you shoot in RAW. I don't mind the space so much as I've got a couple of 1GB cards but I have noticed you can't shoot as fast in RAW, compared to Jpeg. It's hardly noticeable most of the time though. -
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoI don't get this. You can fix WB just as easily with a Jpeg. -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agodeem wrote:
bivith wrote:
I don't get this. You can fix WB just as easily with a Jpeg.
Except a Jpeg treats an image for you, so it's not as easy to correct.
iirc
Correct.
You have far more options in post processing when shooting in RAW. You can virtually start all over again when editing.
Explained
Edited by pistol at 16:50:18 12-07-2006 -
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoI've never had a jpeg I couldn't white balance correct in a matter of seconds, and I don't have time to be pissing around with raw files. I agree with this pro on the subject.
edit: this is just my opinion, i'm sure raw editing is worth it for those who do it
Edited by bivith at 12:49:15 13-07-2006 -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
bivith wrote:
I've never had a jpeg I couldn't white balance correct in a matter of seconds, and I don't have time to be pissing around with raw files. I agree with this pro on the subject.
edit: this is just my opinion, i'm sure raw editing is worth it for those who do it
Edited by bivith at 12:49:15 13-07-2006
Ken Rockwell is quite entertaining, but not exactly the most reliable source...
I am with you though, I am too lazy to shoot in RAW most of the time.
Edited by UncleLou at 12:54:58 13-07-2006 -
HoraceGoesSquiffy 1,563 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI found that if you want to convert to b/w later and you're shooting colour, RAW is better as when you convert a JPG to greyscale you get more noticeable spotting artifacts in large gradient areas like sky. If you convert to greyscale while still working with a RAW, you avoid this problem.
This is from my personal experience and I may well be talking bollocks, but I found it to be useful.
Most colour work I find the JPG compression fine in my 350D, but I'm no pro.
(btw I know that digital greyscale is no match for true b/w film, but you pays yer money etc) -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agobivith wrote:
I've never had a jpeg I couldn't white balance correct in a matter of seconds, and I don't have time to be pissing around with raw files. I agree with this pro on the subject.
edit: this is just my opinion, i'm sure raw editing is worth it for those who do it
Edited by bivith at 12:49:15 13-07-2006
I'm kind of somewhere in the middle. If I'm shooting loads of pics I'll usually just shoot in JPeg Fine. If it's just a few I'll go with RAW. I'm just enjoying playing around with Photoshop at the moment. -
Thanks valli!
I bought an SB-600 speedlight yesterday, delighted with it so far. What a difference. -
Hyoushi wrote:
I was going to go for the D7 for the same reason, until I realised that the price difference was such that I could afford to replace all my Minolta lenses with Nikon ones and still have money left over.
My GF is contemplating buying a Digi SLR too, she's aiming for a D70 or the somewhat pricier Konica-Minolta Dynax D7. She already has an analogue Minolta... -
All good points. -
No, SB-600, it's about half the price for almost all the same features. -
valli wrote:
From the manual: "High-speed flash synchronisation is possible exceeding your camera's sync shutter speed up to your camera's highest shutter speed."
What's the shortest sync time on it otto? -
How does it differ from the D70's anti-dust system? -
D70 indeed does have anti-dust, but it's software, and you need the option Nikon Capture for it. If memory serves. -
LOL! /regrets D70 purchase -
jaa wrote:
Hahaha, for God's sake man, take it in and get it cleaned!
Clearly, you haven't seen the inside of any of my 3 Pentaxes, all bought in the 90's. Through the viewfinder of my MZ5, I can see tiny bugs walking around...
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
