donald_choi

"If you choose the wrong WB and blow out highlight details then it may be impossible to recover...."

 

I didn't realize white balance affected exposure. I always thought that WB adjustments were applied to the image AFTER the shot was taken and hence doesn't affect the RAW file. Can someone clarify?

"Who uses flash any more? Oh yeah, Point and Shooters"

 

That's pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever heard in this website. Congratulations!

In response to the Canon fanatic (aka Edward H):

 

YES. D70 flash sync speed of 1/500 is better than D2H and D2X's 1/250. DUH. Who wouldn't like 1/500?

Nikon's i-TTL flash system is really wonderful. One of the reasons why I bought a D70/SB800. I also stuck with Nikon because their glass is awesome, even though they may not have as much selection as Canon.....but Nikon does have the 17-55mm 2.8 which kicks ass.... I don't believe Canon has the equivalent range at 2.8 (not yet, I guess).

 

If you are going to choose a system from scratch, I would place more importance on the lenses rather than the body (assuming you are willing to invest in good quality glass). Digital bodies change frequently, but glass is forever....

Oh. OKAY Thanks!

My D70 hits the mark 90% of the time (for wide and tele). My 13x19 prints can prove that. If your D70 does not achieve this, i.e. it is off the mark all the time, then you better get another D70.

 

It's true that it is unreasonable to expect autofocus to be perfect, but it is REASONABLE to expect it to work MOST of the time. Remember to make sure you turn off your dynamic focus mode.

Just a quick question on the D70 and the compact flash capacity.

 

I have a 1GB Lexar Pro (32x) card. I when I shoot in RAW, the camera

tells me that, on an empty card, I get 95 shots. When I do the math,

a NEF file is typically 5 to 6 MB in size. For a 1GB card, that

should translate into AT LEAST 150 images. So.....WHAT GIVES?

 

I used the camera to format the card.....so I don't think formatting

is the problem. Any help or revelations will be appreciated!

 

Donald

Ilkka, you are way cool. I, too, am tired of cry-babies who complain about Nikon not having FF sensors. They "say" that FF is the way to go and the ditch their Nikon equipment (just like a couple of people I know). So....what do they get? Canon. Do they buy the 1Ds? Absolutely not (can't afford one). What they do end up doing is buying a 10d.... SO WHAT'S THE POINT?

 

Well, these two people I know are hoping that one day, the pricing on the FF DSLRs will come down to more affordable levels. That is wishful thinking. Canon would probably rather discontinue their 1Ds models before pricing them sub-$3000 (which would probably make these cameras below cost and profitless).

 

The FF cameras are for pro's with too much money.

This seems to be a not-so-rare problem in D70's. My friend had the exact same problem. He would use autofocus to focus in on an object and take the shot, but upon viewing the image at 100%, he would find that the object is slightly out-of-focus, thus making the image appear "less sharp". It turned out to be a problem with the D70 itself. You should exercise your warranty rights and take it in for an adjustment. Now, my friend's D70 produces wonderfully sharp images, even wide open.

 

Just remember, you didn't put down your hard earned money on an autofocus DSLR just so you can manually focuss it... you deserve a perfect working machine!

I don't think there would be many people who owns both these lenses and can make a good comparison between the two. Like Shun says, there's no point owning two digital lenses of the same focal range...especially from two different manufacturers.

 

Although I cannot speak to the Sigma, I can say that the Nikon 17-55mm is an outstanding lens. Very similar to the performance of my previous Nikon 28-70 F2.8 lens (which I traded in for the 17-55). It's great to have the mid zoom range back without having to constantly switch lenses.

 

At the end of the day, I would say your deciding factor should be cost and affordability. If you can afford it, get the Nikon. If not, get the Sigma. Usually though, in photography, you get what you pay for... especially in terms of build quality.

 

Good Luck!

As was mentioned earlier, image stabilizers really do work, but whether or not it's worth the extra money is a different question. In my opinion, though, nothing beats good technique and a good tripod. Image stabilization is a convenience that is too rich for me.

My camera store also says they expect the first shipments of S3's in by the 2nd or 3rd week of December.... but then again, he also said call first before coming in to see one.

The problem with Canon is that they have 3 different sensor sizes for their digital system. Although the 10-22mm lens may be a decent performer, it only works on the 1.6x sensor size and not on any of the pro models. To me, this lens would be a risky investment.... who knows when Canon will change their mind on their "digital standard"?

 

With regards to the Canon 17-40/4L, 16-35/2.8L and the 20mm.2.8, in my books, these are not wide-angle in the digital world (unless, of course you go full frame, or 1.3x).

 

And the 14mm 2.8, well, you will need to sell your car to get this one.

 

I don't want to sound too negative on Canon, however, I just want to see them settle on one standard (preferably 1.3x), and then dedicate their products to that standard for the next 5 years at least. Canon makes great products, but their strategy leaves me a little nervous.

Am I the only one who is deterred by Canon's lack of true wide angle options for digital? This is a serious omission and I hope Canon has plans in the works to rectify this. I know there are third-party lenses out there to resolve this, but some of us prefer the better build quality of the mainstream brands and would rather stick with them.

 

If you like to shoot in wide-angles, then you really only have one choice: Nikon... unless you are willing to go to more inferior third party lenses.

I will have to agree with Bob on this one.

 

Definately looks like leaves...

I own a Fuji S2 and regularly make sharp 19X13 prints (with no sharpening done in photoshop). As was mentioned earlier, you have to make sure you have good exposure and spot-on focus if you want to regularly blow up that big. An investment in good lenses will also do the trick. Also, shooting in RAW will help.

 

But 20x16 enlargements should certainly be possible with the S2 (better than 35mm film enlargements, if shot in RAW).

Frank,

 

 

If the D70 was 8MP, I would have bought it already.

I currently own the S2 pro. Although I am quite happy with it, it

does have its limitations. If I were to move to another DSLR, the

following 5 features (in order of importance) would be the factors

that describe my next ideal (and realistic) upgrade:

 

 

1) flash sync speed of 1/500 or better

 

2) fast and accurate autofocus lock (especially in low light)

 

3) 4 fps or better for at least 10 frames (in RAW)

 

4) almost instantaneous startup time

 

 

5) resolution of 8MP or better

 

 

When I was thinking about this list and ranking them, I was surprised

that resolution was at the bottom.... I guess it really wasn't as

important to me as I once thought.

 

I am interested to find out how others would rank the features of

their next "upgraded" DSLR. I bet I'm not the only one to view

resolution with less importance...

 

Thanks for sharing!

I agree with Greg. I've had similar problems as well with my S2, but all was solved by running the AA's solo, or putting in fresh cr123's. Also, for some reason, I find I have sharper images when using the AA's solo. The dual battery setup is just a bad idea from the start, I guess.

Like what was said in the previous post, there is no such thing as a perfect paper. You didn't mention if you prefer glossy or matte. You should probably tell us what printer you are relying on also.

 

As for me, I make prints using an i9100 Canon printer and use primarily glossy paper. I have consistently "wowed" everyone using Pictorico's High-Gloss White Film and Canon's High Gloss Film (HG201). It would be hard to exceed the print quality of these "film papers" with any other glossy type paper. The trade off is the cost and poor longevity, but these can be tempered if you know what you are doing.

at 1:1.

David,

 

This is a press release, which is widely available to the public. The fact that the original poster did NOT modify or relay the information in such a way that the original intent of the press release is altered means that he has adhered to and respected all laws and ethics.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy a.....

Try to think of it in terms of angle-of-view as opposed to focal length.

"That's hardly a way to gague a product's viability. How many people do you know that own a Ferrari Maranello? Certainly if you move in the right circles you can know many. I don't know a single one, so that must mean they're a failed product, right?"

 

Rob, you just proved Ellis' point. Do you actually believe that the Ferrari Maranello is a huge money maker for the Ferrari? Canon is the GM of the camera industry in terms of profitability....do you really think they really want to be a "Ferrari"?

 

To me, the 1Ds gives Canon bragging rights......that's all. They may even keep the 1Ds alive, just for that purpose. But that's just my opinion.