D70 Firmware A/B Update 2.0 is here

[fnu_jeffrey_brawijaya]

Just to share that an updated firmware for D70 has just released. You

can find it here:<br><br>

 

<a

href=http://nikonasia-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikonasia_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php>http://nikonasia-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikonasia_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php</a>

<br><br>

What is new/Content Description<br>

Changes applied with the upgrade of A firmware version 1.01 and B

firmware version 1.03 to A and B firmware version 2.00<br>

 

* Performance of the 5-area AF system has been improved (Dynamic area

and Closest subjct AF-area modes).<br>

 

* Changes have been made to the design of menu displays.<br>

 

* Page-size settings can now be applied from the camera with direct

printing from a PictBridge-compatible printer.<br>

 

* The number of exposures remaining, displayed in the control panel

and viewfinder, when shooting at an image-quality setting of NEF (RAW)

or NEF+JPEG Basic has been changed (the number is calculated based on

the size of compressed RAW file).<br><br>

 

Maximum number of exposures displayed when a 256-MB CompactFlash

memory card is used:<br>

 

Version 2.00: NEF (RAW): approx. 44 exposures; NEF+JPEG Basic:

approx. 39 exposures<br>

 

Version 1.03 or earlier: NEF (RAW): approx. 23 exposures;

NEF+JPEG Basic: approx. 21 exposures<br><br>

 

* The default setting for camera clock has been changed from

2004.01.01 to 2005.01.01. Now you cannot set the clock back to a date

before 2004.12.31.<br>

 

* A problem that sometimes caused communication between the camera and

computer to be unexpectedly terminated when using Nikon Capture Camera

Control has been corrected. (Windows) <br>

[tholte]

I have had my D70 since a year ago last March and have not done any firm ware updates. Am I missing something worthwhile or should I just continue to ignore them? The above information does not seem like it would do anything that I care about. Anything in previous firm ware updates that could help the helpless like myself?

[terry_rory]

Not arrived on the Europe site yet.

[cabophoto]

Trevor,<br><br>

>>Not arrived on the Europe site yet.<br><br>

now why would that be important ? I live in Germany and downloaded from the US site this morning. I have already updated my two D70 cameras without problems.<br><br>

Regards<br><br>

Carsten<br><br>

<a href="http://www.cabophoto.com/">http://www.cabophoto.com/</a>

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Could someone who's running the 2.0 firmware on a D70 (not a D70s) provide a NEF file, shot with Auto WB? I'd like to verify that the raw converter and metadata viewer programs I use are still able to fully interpret the NEFs. I've seen indications elsewhere on the Web that the new firmware is not doing any sort of "encryption" of the white balance data, but I'd like to see that for myself.

 

Thanks in advance for any help,

 

--Bill

[scotth]

I made a NEF file in my D70 camera (with auto WB set), and downloaded it to my PC with PictureProject. I right clicked the image and opened it in Photoshop 6.0. The RAW adjustments box came up, and allowed me to change the white balance.<p>

 

I got the following information from "EXIF Reader":<p>

DSC_0368.NEF<p>

 

Filename : DSC_0368.NEF<p>

Main Information<p>

NewSubFileType : 1<p>

ImageWidth : 160<p>

ImageHeight : 120<p>

BitsPerSample : 8,8,8<p>

Compression : Uncompressed<p>

PhotometicInterpretation : RGB<p>

Make : NIKON CORPORATION<p>

Model : NIKON D70<p>

StripOffset : 29078<p>

Orientation : left-hand side<p>

SamplesPerPixel : 3<p>

RowsPerStrip : 120<p>

StripByteCounts : 57600<p>

XResolution : 300/1<p>

YResolution : 300/1<p>

PlanarConfiguration : chunky format<p>

ResolutionUnit : Inch<p>

Software : Ver.2.00<p>

DateTime : 2005:05:17 10:34:02<p>

SubIFDs : 86678,898612<p>

ReferenceBlackWhite : 0/1,255/1,0/1,255/1,0/1,255/1<p>

ExifInfoOffset : 468<p>

DateTimeOriginal : 2005:05:17 10:34:02<p>

TIFF/EP StandardID : 1.0.0.0<p>

SubIFD(0)<p>

NewSubFileType : 1<p>

Compression : OLDJPEG<p>

XResolution : 300/1<p>

YResolution : 300/1<p>

ResolutionUnit : Inch<p>

JPEGInterchangeFormat : 131072<p>

JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 767537<p>

YCbCrPositioning : co-sited<p>

SubIFD(1)<p>

NewSubFileType : 0<p>

ImageWidth : 3040<p>

ImageHeight : 2014<p>

BitsPerSample : 12<p>

Compression : Unknown (34713)<p>

PhotometicInterpretation : CFA<p>

StripOffset : 898852<p>

Orientation : left-hand side<p>

SamplesPerPixel : 1<p>

RowsPerStrip : 2014<p>

StripByteCounts : 4297405<p>

XResolution : 300/1<p>

YResolution : 300/1<p>

PlanarConfiguration : chunky format<p>

ResolutionUnit : Inch<p>

CFARepeatPatternDim : 2,2<p>

CFAPattern : 02010100<p>

SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor<p>

Sub Information<p>

ExposureTime : 1/10Sec<p>

FNumber : F1.8<p>

ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority<p>

DateTimeOriginal : 2005:05:17 10:34:02<p>

DateTimeDigitized : 2005:05:17 10:34:02<p>

ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0<p>

MaxApertureValue : F1.7<p>

MeteringMode : Division<p>

LightSource : Unidentified<p>

Flash : Not fired<p>

FocalLength : 50.00(mm)<p>

MakerNote : Nikon COOLPIX Format : 28090Bytes (Offset:996)<p>

UserComment :<p>

SubSecTime : 10<p>

SubSecTimeOriginal : 10<p>

SubSecTimeDigitized : 10<p>

SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor<p>

FileSource : DSC<p>

SceneType : A directly photographed image<p>

CFAPattern : 8 Bytes<p>

CustomRendered : Normal process<p>

ExposureMode : Auto<p>

WhiteBalance : Auto<p>

DigitalZoomRatio : 1/1<p>

FocalLength(35mm) : 75(mm)<p>

SceneCaptureType : Standard<p>

GainControl : None<p>

Contrast : Normal<p>

Saturation : Normal<p>

Sharpness : Normal<p>

SubjectDistanceRange : Unknown<p>

 

I hope that helps.

[terry_rory]

Carsten, I thought as a registered D70 user on the Europe site, that that would be where I have to download from. That is all. Nothing meant.

 

My user logon does not work on the Asia site and I have not tried the USA site at all.

 

I think I will wait a few days to see what the feed-back is. (Hopefully good)

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Scott,

 

Thanks, but I would like to get a copy of a NEF from firmware version 2.0 to try with the software I use. The metadata reader that I use (exiftool) extracts more fields than are shown in the "EXIF Reader" output you provided, and I use a different raw decoder (dcraw / ufraw).

 

Ugh, maybe I'll have to wade through the mire and ask on the dpreview forums.

 

--Bill

[ShunCheung]

It is a good idea to wait a few days and let other people perform the upgrade first. There are always those who cannot wait. When the Canon 20D was brand new, Canon provided a firmware upgrade that would lock up some cameras and those unlucky ones had to ship their 20D back to Canon for repair. Canon quickly provided a new patch in a couple of days to prevent the problem, but that was too late for some people. It is not the end of the world but certainly frustrating.

 

I'd like to point out again that image attachments here in the photo.net forums are supposed to be within 100K bytes. If you have NEF files to share, please use your own server or FTP sites.

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Shun,

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have made it clear in my request, rather than assuming that people would know not to try to post a whole NEF here.

 

--Bill

[klix]

have had my D70 since a year ago last March and have not done any firm ware updates. Am I missing something worthwhile or should I just continue to ignore them? -- Tim

 

I could be wrong, but I think firmware upgrades are incremental updates that build on previous versions. They don't replace previous versions. Thus, to get ver. 1.9, you'd have to load 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc... (and there's an A and a B portion)

 

So, if that's true, if at some point you want ver 1.9, you'd have to go back and load all previous increments. Much easier to do it when they come out.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[lukas_kisiel]

I believe new updates also contain any previously released updates as well. Doing it otherwise doesn't make sense from the end user support's point of view. It's also a standard practice with any software industry updates, service packs, etc.

 

I think the new updates are worth it because besides the advertised sets of "new and improved" features there is always room for small improvements (bug fixes) which don't get advertised. Manufacturer might choose not to engage in marketing "explain it to us" game so they call those new features "other minor improvements". You bet, it's common to push stuff undercovers as long as it doesn't affect any other functionality or features.

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Scott Hirsch sent me one of his firmware version 2.00 NEF files (thanks, Scott!), and things look good for us users of open-source software. The dcraw and ufraw raw converters gave no complaints or errors when processing the file, and they produced reasonable colors when told to use the camera's white balance data (the photo was taken with Auto WB).

 

I also looked at the values of the 118 metadata (EXIF) tags reported by the exiftool program. Compared to what gets reported for firmware version 1.03 NEFs, almost everything looked good. In particular, exiftool reported reasonable values for the Red Balance and Blue Balance multipliers. I was unable to check the Focus Distance information because the lens used for the photo was not a D or G lens. Also, the photo was taken in Aperture Priority mode, so the Vari Program value was blank. Of course, because I've examined only one NEF, I can't say for sure that all the possible tag values for all the possible camera settings are still the same as they were with earlier firmware, but I'd be surprised if they're now different.

 

The only thing that stood out as strange was the value for the Serial Number tag. This appears to be a serial number for the camera, although it's not a simple match with the number stamped on the camera body. For Scott's NEF, exiftool reported a blank value. So, perhaps the encoding of the Serial Number has changed. Fortunately, that's not a critical piece of information.

 

--Bill

[ilkka_nissila]

Yes, the firmware upgrades may fix unpublished bugs. They may also introduce bugs, of course, but that's not the idea. :-)

[scotth]

Bill, a second NEF is on its way. I used a D-type lens, so you can see that info. And you can see if the serial number is in fact that of the camera.

[ShunCheung]

Scott and Bill, thanks a lot for sharing this information with the rest of us. I don't use the D70 myself, but I am sure a lot of people are happy to know that the firmware upgrade works (at least for one person) and apparently there is no encryption on the WB data. Hopefully we'll have additional information and confirmation in the next few days.

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Scott,

 

For the second NEF you sent me, exiftool shows a Lens ID of "Nikkor AF-S 18-70/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED DX". It reports a Focus Distance of 0.40 m. Looking at the photo, and seeing that it was shot with an 18 mm focal length, I'd say the Focus Distance value is believable.

 

As for the Serial Number, exiftool is still showing blank, as with the first NEF you sent me. The files (both NEF and JPG) from my D70 (firmware 1.03) always show the same, non-blank value for the Serial Number. Files from a friend's D70 (firmware 1.01) show a different, non-blank value. Maybe Nikon received complaints that D70 files could be traced to individual cameras, so now for the sake of privacy the 2.00 firmware doesn't record a serial number! :-)

 

By the way, the value of the Software tag in the first NEF that Scott sent was "Ver.2.00" as I expected (it's the firmware version), but for the second NEF it was "PictureProject Transfer 1.1 W"

 

--Bill

[scotth]

Scott,

 

>For the second NEF you sent me, exiftool shows a Lens ID of "Nikkor AF-S 18-70/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED DX". It reports a Focus Distance of 0.40m.

Looking at the photo, and seeing that it was >shot with an 18 mm focal length, I'd say the Focus Distance value is believable.

 

Yes that is correct. I was shooting my 6 week old girl while she was sleeping in her crib with the kit lens. I like shooting her with my 50mm f1.8, but as you noted before it's non-D (interestingly in the EXIF data on the first file it was reported that the lens has a max aperture of f1.7--which is news to me). I wasn't about to blast the flash in her face, and I wanted all the light I could get so that it wouldn't be a total blurry mess. I zoomed the lens out and leaned in. A foot and a half is about right.

 

>By the way, the value of the Software tag in the first NEF that Scott sent was "Ver.2.00" as I expected (it's the firmware version), but for the second NEF it was "PictureProject Transfer 1.1 W"

 

That's weird. I used PictureProject to download both pictures. I moved the pictures (but didn't open them) to a new folder. I then emailed them.

[fnu_jeffrey_brawijaya]

I just would like to remind everybody to UPDATE the firmware ONE BY ONE. You can either update A first and B, or vice versa as long as you do it one by one.

 

You can copy A to the CF, and install.... reformat the CF, copy B and install. It is just a friendly reminder to all of us. Hope it helps. ~Jaya.

[scottconners]

Here's a .NEF I just shot a minute ago, auto WB, Sigma 70-200 2.8 at 200. <BR><BR>

 

I'll host it as long as I can, I'd prefer that it weren't linked to other forums/sites. If I run out of bandwidth I have another server I'll put up, but I'd rather not have it being leeched everywhere.<BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.s92096987.onlinehome.us/DSC_1269.nef">D70 w/ Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, rainy feild, NEF file (5,262 KB)</a>

[bill_chiarchiaro]

I really should be out making photos, but I couldn't resist taking a look at the NEF from Scott Conners. For what it's worth, exiftool shows a non-blank serial number from that file. Perhaps PictureProject, used by Scott Hirsch, deletes the serial number for some reason.

 

It's interesting to look at the data that exiftool reports for Scott Conners's Sigma 70-200mm lens. The Lens Type tag shows "D" and the Lens tag shows "70-200mm f/2.8". Other tags related to the max and min focal lengths and apertures look good, but the Lens ID shows "Nikkor AF-S 300/2.8 D IF-ED". I don't know if the Sigma sends the same ID as that Nikkor lens or if exiftool is somehow confused.

 

The Focus Distance value is 37.58 m, which looks believable.

 

--Bill

[scottconners]

Forgot to mention - my 1GB Ultra II card went from showing 94 in RAW to now showing 178. Pretty big difference! I'm happy about it.<BR><BR>

<em>It's interesting to look at the data that exiftool reports for Scott Conners's Sigma 70-200mm lens. The Lens Type tag shows "D" and the Lens tag shows "70-200mm f/2.8". Other tags related to the max and min focal lengths and apertures look good, but the Lens ID shows "Nikkor AF-S 300/2.8 D IF-ED". I don't know if the Sigma sends the same ID as that Nikkor lens or if exiftool is somehow confused.</em>

<BR><BR>

Just as a note, Sigma had issues with this lens in the early serial numbers, when Nikon changed something in the camera, which caused lockups. They re-chip old ones, and they have fixed it in new ones. Perhaps this affects the ID? I only own the one Sigma, the rest are Nikons.

[scottconners]

Also forgot - I FTP'd that file direct from a card reader, no programs opened it at all.

[nikonboy]

Wasn't there some mention that the processing software was changed to better handle highlights and the transition to highlights???

[asaf_tzadok]

From my first impression, I feel that there is a big improvement of the focusing system, especially in low light when it used to move the focusing distance back and forth.