StevenVeit-Studio1476

Thanks for posting your diagnosis and repair tips, Bill. I had the same manual focus failure problem, and following your suggestion fixed it. I agree with your comments regarding the poor design. It's especially surprising to find such a careless design in an otherwise capable lens that's been in production for so long. I wonder if the spring tab attachment has been re-engineered in more recent samples. (Mine is about 10 years old).

Just returned from a month of off-the-Internet travel to discover that the new photo.net site is up, but I only see 3 of the 1,200 or so photos in my portfolio. I see posts on the Site Help Forum about numerous problems and updates, etc., but nothing regarding locating or viewing "missing" photos. Might anyone be able to offer a suggestion?

<p>I've been unable to "Drag the folders around to re-arrange them" on the page that I've used previously with no difficulty (http://www.photo.net/photodb/portfolio-reorder). I'm using current Java and updated, current versions of Safari and OSX, and have tried re-loading, re-starting, etc., to no avail. </p>

<p>Have you removed the ring at the base of the shutter speed dial? You may be able to loosen it with friction, but if not you can use a micro drill to notch the ring in two places 180 degrees apart and then remove it CCW with a spanner wrench. </p>

I used the 18-70 as the sole lens on a Himalayan trek a couple of years ago, and it was just fine. And with an old D70, no

less. Last year I used an 18-200 with a new D7100, and I don't think the results were any better. I've concluded that what

one points the lens at accounts for 99% of the variance in the resulting image, and the lens for only 1%. OK, maybe the

camera accounts for 1%, too.

Why would you want to lug any more weight than you've already got? You'll be able to do fine with the 24-70/2.8, I'm sure.

Trust your photographic vision. 24 on FF is plenty wide.

<p>I had a similar issue a few years ago with an F3 lcd which turned out to be due to poor contact between the lcd and and its flexibile printed circuit connector. If that's the problem, it's likely fixable by cleaning the contact surfaces, but I wouldn't suggest attempting DIY repair unless you're very comfortable working with tiny and delicate components. Good luck!</p>

<p>Just had the same experience about 10 days ago. I sent in my almost-out-of-warranty D600 noting some light oval marks in the upper left corner, and despite a reply stating "no oil spots" the shutter appears to have been replaced. </p>

<p>Ross, thank you for posting the photos of what must be the most hilariously goofy looking camera ever produced. I especially like the pop-up viewfinder thingy. Pete, you deserve an award, too, for identifying it!</p>

<p>One can certainly make an extraordinarily bad photograph. I'm sure I've made quite a few. But I'm just hoping they aren't the ones I've posted! You be the judge, though, as with any subjective aesthetic enterprise. Seems to me that the issue of a photo receiving a rating of "1" is different from whether a photo can be extraordinarily bad, though. So-called "Likert Scales" such as the one used in photo.net's rating system are typically difficult to interpret unless the rating values are "anchored" with descriptors that provide raters with a concept of what exactly is meant by a particular number value used for rating. The labels "low," "average" and "high" at the ends and middle of the rating scale are probably just fine for our purpose here but don't necessarily translate to "extraordinarily bad." Maybe a "1" just means way below average but still not extraordinarily bad in some raters' views. </p>

<p>Hmmm. Just curious if you mean your funds are limitless, or if by not having a budget you mean that you don't have any funds available or designated for purchasing a new camera. Perhaps you might wish to clarify. </p>

<p>Sure, the newest models are better technology in every way. But is there anything about the D70s that you've found to be a significant problem with your photography? A problem that's worth $1,000 to solve? In the past year I've used a D70 with the 18-70 lens for travel photography, and it did everything I needed. I'd agree with the first replies; save your money unless there's something about the D70s that's really holding back your creative development. </p>

<p>I used a D70 & 18-70 kit on a month-long trek through Nepal's high and remote Dolpo region last spring, mainly because the D70 was relatively lightweight, had decent battery life, wouldn't be a tragedy if damaged by the expected harsh conditions, and was easy to handle in the field. I had to laugh when reading some of the previous posts regarding the D70's viewfinder being less than ideal, though, since half-way through the trek the viewfinder on my D70 became completely non-functional when the daypack it was not-quite-securely-enough packed within landed on a rock a few inches short of some nice dense bushes on the opposite side of a tricky stream crossing. Well, at least the pack didn't land in the water. So, I managed without a viewfinder for the rest of the trip, just making do with the tiny lcd for the occasional image review. Unencumbered by the need to compose through a viewfinder, I ended up with what I thought were some of the more interesting images from the entire trip. What I learned from all this was that it's probably better to put a camera inside a watertight bag and carry it across a stream rather than toss it, and that it's sometimes possible to adapt one's photographic technique in surprising ways. Regarding the question of whether a D70 & 18-70 is worth $300 nowadays, I agree with the cumulative wisdom offered by all the previous posters. Whatever you decide, have fun making photos!</p>

<p>Ray, I can say that in my experience a DX camera with an 18-70 was as much as I was willing to carry in the mountains on a couple of trips to the Himalaya I did in 2012. The zoom range was a good compromise, and there was little I thought would have been significantly aided by a wider angle or longer tele. I thought that kit worked OK for the city and village touring parts of the trips, too. Of course I could have used something with more range a few times, but it just wouldn't have been worth lugging more gear around, so I was happy with the choice of just the one medium range zoom. If you're hiking in the mountains, you'll be happiest if you're not loaded down with gear that you'd hardly ever use. </p>

<p>Setting aside the cost difference, which was certainly the largest factor in choosing between the 2 cameras, I'd say the remaining factors were that the D600 was a bit lighter and smaller, and still looked like it would do pretty much everything I would need, which in the 3 weeks I've had it, so far seems to be the case. </p>

<p>I returned a couple months ago from a Nepal trip that included a 31-day trek through the Upper Dolpo region. Some members of the group brought along solar chargers with appropriate voltage outputs which worked reasonably well. I managed OK for the month with 2 spare batteries. Since battery life depends on quite a few variables, though, it's difficult to predict. One thing you should check before you pack extra batteries are the current TSA guidelines. As I recall, TSA wants batteries in carry-on, while Asian domestic airlines preferred that spare batteries go in checked bags. Not that they'll necessarily even care, but you might want to look into that before you head off to Nepal. I'd also echo the comment about multi-plug outlets, which I saw in the various lodgings pre- and post-trek. You'll want to bring a flat-to-round (European) adapter, though. </p>

<p>The Oregon coast has many scenic spots that offer some great photo opportunities, if the light and the weather happen to cooperate. Oregon Caves is a bit off the beaten track, but also great if you're interested in that kind of photo environment. I second the recommendation for Lassen, but don't forget to bring along your bug repellant!</p>

<p>I've used the G2 with the 28, 45 and 90mm lenses for a couple of years now and have found it to be a great travel kit. It's light, compact, quick and accurate (in both exposure and focus). I've also taken it cross-country skiing with just the 35mm lens with good results. After reading Jens' very excellent review linked above, I think I'll even use it more in 2012! If a compact AF analog rangefinder with top quality lenses suits your style of photography, you'll do well with the G2. </p>

<p>The T3 and T4 can both serve you well, but you should be prepared to deal with the battery conversion issue and, as with any camera of this vintage, the usual cleaning and seal replacement issues. As far as the light meters are concerned, they're all definitely well past warranty at this point, so I wouldn't have particularly high expectations in this regard. Since the shutters are mechanical, though, you can always use them with an external meter. If the built-in meter works, consider it a bonus feature! I keep a reconditioned T4 in the car as my always handy manual camera, and it's worked fine. I've also enjoyed using a T3. The battery-dependent FT-1 can be a good camera if you like the built-in motor drive feature, provided you can find one with a clean battery holder. Also, old FT-1's (well, I guess that would be all of them!) are very likely to require cleaning and reconditioning of several fpc's (flexible printed circuit) connectors under the top cover that are prone to corrosion. </p>

<p>I've been able to fully revive several electronically marginal or completely dead FT-1's by cleaning the 3 flexible printed circuit connectors under the top cover and replacing the deteriorated compression pads in the clamps that hold the connectors together. It will take an hour or perhaps 2 to do the job, but if you're comfortable with this level of repair it's not too difficult. I've posted a set of photos with instructions at this site: <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15235665@N04/sets/72157623203627474/<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Just saw your post searching for something else, but in case you're still curious about this question after a year, you should use the reading on the lens. These models have a linkage from the lens to the viewfinder indicator that easily slips out of adjustment. It's not a difficult repair, but not necessary if you don't mind the discrepancy. <br>

-Steve</p>

<p>I agree with Goldsmith's first post, and also with many of the subsequent thoughtful comments. But what I would add is that the question itself, in excluding from consideration the viewer's assumptions about the image's origins, is a bit off the mark. I would argue that the viewer's judgement of "how it was made" is always going to be an important factor in determining whether that viewer will experience the image in question as a photograph, or not, and that excluding the possibility of this judgement leaves only an empty question. Certainly, "how it was made" isn't the only criterion (other factors would include the nature of the image being represented, the mode of presentation, etc.) on which viewers might base a judgement of photograph-ness, but it's usually pretty central, whether explicit or implicit, whether acknowledged by the viewer or not. For example, most viewers reading this note on the screen would probably not regard it as a photograph, but rather just as some digitally-displayed text. If one were to see the same text, however, as an image of letters and words against a textured background, perhaps with cues of depth and 3-dimensionality, although reproduced on a flat surface, and presented as a framed object, one would more likely judge it to be a photograph. A major factor in determining the viewer's perception of photograph-ness in these two cases, I believe, would be in the viewer's judgement about how the image had been made. But, anyway, thanks for stimulating some discusson by tossing the question out there!</p>