rob_malkin

<p>Morning guys,</p>

<p>While I was sleeping you have all been busy giving me ideas to think about!</p>

<p>i am pleased to hear that the current generation of DSLR's [D300, D700] has a wider dynamic range, better colours than the D70.</p>

<p>My feet are already a little moist from the digital pond. But all I am saying is that in my experience of using the D70, I was not impressed to put down the film. It's ok for certain things, but it was not good enough. </p>

<p>Thanks so much guys, I will write a better post once I come back from the dentist!!!!</p>

<p>Thanks again guys, I really appriciate your input. Guess it may be time to start saving the money for a D700. Just a shame I live in the UK at the moment!!<br>

<br /> Rob</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input guys, its very appreciated.</p>

<p>I do sometimes see D2X cameras come up on the used market for £1000. Half of what they were when they were relased. Sometimes with as few actuations as 600. I guess thats the good thing about digital kit, its always going down in value.<br>

Who knows, maybe I will be able to get my hands on a D700 in a year or so for under half its current price. I guess the D70 was not good enough, but now the digital format has gotten to the point where I can say "yes please thanks"</p>

<p>Like I am sure that there are still a lot of people who use large format as 35mm is not enough.</p>

<p>Will it do what you need? Yes. Then buy it.</p>

<p>Maybe I have answer my own guestion.<br>

And Ross, I agree. Its like its a camera, camcorder, gps positioning satelite, tape recorder in one.</p>

<p>Good point Frank.</p>

<p>From my experience of suing the D70, it didn't have the range that I was hoping for. Maybe this is down to my use of the camera, but I just found it too narrow.</p>

<p>As for photoshop, not an expert by any measure. I have seen some beautiful prints from the D70, but I dont really want to spend hours on each image.</p>

<p>Maybe I am just lost and the D700 would give me nothing new.</p>

<p>Hey Shun,</p>

<p>I know this is being really picky, but when I have held a D700 it was a bit too big and I didnt like it having a flash (a somewhat illogical thing I know).</p>

<p>I guess I was just hoping that there would be a F100 size dSLR</p>

<p>Thanks guys, didn't expect an answer so soon!</p>

<p>Jorgen, I love the F100 as a camera and as a thing that keeps film in a dark box. The camera for me, is perfect for the camera side of photo's. Ie, exposure, AF, build, speed, battery life, viewfinder etc.<br>

I have been out of the loop for a couple of years and I dont know what the current state of digital is. I was not impressed by the D70. I know that it was a very cheap camera but anyway...</p>

<p>I guess the question is this...<br>

Would a D700 give me the camera quality I have in the F100, and more importantly, will it give me image quality that will meet my requirements?<br>

Oh and Ellis, you say that the D700 has better dynamic range that print film. Is this really true? The D70 is not even close in this aspect.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input guys</p>

<p>R</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Its been a long old while since I have posted on here! I have just finished my physics degree and have finally been feeling happy and taking pictures again. Nothing like maths to turn you off being creative.<br>

Anyway,<br>

Just for background;<br>

I own;<br>

Nikon F100 (F80 for when in the bad part of town)<br>

Nikon D70<br>

20mm, 50mm, 85mm, 180mm, 17-35mm</p>

<p>I mostly shoot people/street and print up to 10*15" with a rare print going to 20*30". I am not a pro.</p>

<p>Anyway, I used to get all my film and printing free (long story). And my favourite film was Kodak C41 B&W print film, and Fuji Superia 400 print film. For my print size, it was more than enough. And the "feel" of the Superia was beautiful.</p>

<p>Resolution is not very important to me. Colour, dynamic range and low light performance is. So, I am sure its no real surprise that the D70 did not really turn me into digital.<br>

Now that I am paying for my printing moving to a digital format makes financial sense to me. But, should I wait?</p>

<p>I have been looking at the D700, but would like to know if it would do what the F100 could (the F100 to me is one of the best cameras I have ever used, even over an F5).</p>

<p>I know this question is a little irregular, but should I wait till I have a D5 or what have you, that will do what I need it to do?</p>

<p>Hope that this all makes sense.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

I am overwhelmed guys! I did not expect so much input so quickly. Thank you very very much. It really is appreciated.

Im touched. I am still at work at the moment, so cant play around with the image till I get home. But really, thanks guys.

Rob

And here is the b&w one.

Thanks again

r<div></div>

Hello everyone.

Hope you are all well. I am a little bit new to Photoshop and similar software

but would like to ask for a little help and or guidance.

I took this picture with a Nikon D70. I have made minor adjustments to the

levels and the curves. But the picture feels a little flat.

I tried making it black and white but it too looks flat.

I was wondering if maybe some of you may be kind enough to give me a few

pointers or ideas.

Here is my method of black and white, thanks google 

? Convert to Lab Color (Image > Mode > Lab Color)

? Select the ?Lightness? channel (Channels palette > ?Lightness? channel)

? Convert to Grayscale (Image > Mode > Grayscale)

? Make the new channel the selection (Control-click the thumbnail in the new

?Gray? channel)

? Invert selection (Select > Inverse) (Leave this selection active for the next

steps)

? Fill the selection with black (Layer > New Fill Layer > Solid Color? > Select

color #000000)

? Tweak the opacity of the fill layer (Layers palette > select ?Color Fill 1″ >

set opacity to ~50%)

? Create a new Levels (or Curves if you prefer) adjustment layer (Layer > New

Adjustment Layer > Levels)

Thank you<div></div>

thanks for the feedback guys

im at work at the moment so cant have a proper look, will have a look when i get home

thanks again

r

Hello

I took this photo a few weeks ago and I think that its a good one. But i feel

like it could have a bit more bite.

I am used to shooting film and this is one of my first digital pictures i took

with my Nikon D70.

Would someone please give me a few hints what I could do with it.

Thanks very much

Rob<div></div>

robert,

you should do. but as is normal for 99.99% of shops in the uk, they dont even know the law themselves. Its all about a little persistance and knowing that the law is on your side.

r

its what my dad and i did.

we just went to the shop and told them that we were going to take it to the small claims court if they did not fix it.

and,

they did.

just wanted to try and shine a little light on a not so well known law.

from my understanding it would be up to a court to decide if 2000 shots per month is a normal number to take.

r

i still use a nikon f3, and thats much more then 5 years old.

the same works for lenses. do you expect your 17-35 afs to die in under 5 years. i dont either.

its worth noting that this is not a very well known fact. when i worked at jessops, i never knew this either.

robert, the point is that if a camera stops working in a few years the inherent fault is that, well its not working and it should. all you have to prove is that you did not break it.

After looking up for some info for my father who was having some

problems with a broken tv, i found this.

Sale of Goods Act 1979, states

in very boring wording that...

If you buy a product in the UK that is expected to function for 5

years and it breaks that it is the retailers responsibility to replace

or fix it.

ie.

You buy a camera from Jessops, on the 1st of Jan 2000.

In the shop they tell you that you get a one year guarantee with it. Fine.

On the 5th of May 2002, the camera breaks. You take it to jessops and

they say...

"im sorry but its out of its one year guarentee and we are going to

have to charge you"

you pay up and and nice and angry for a while.

well, it looks like this is not only illegal but also not necessary.

Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that,

you expect the camera to work for more than just one year. and if it

breaks in under 5 years its up to the retialer (in this case jessops)

to fix or replace it for you.

This applies to all products in the uk.

the only time that it would not work is if you purchased something

that the courts would not tihnk should work for more than a year, ie.

a oil filter in your car.

i know i have not worded this very well.

but do some research and you will be very surprised with that you find

and just how much money you can save.

r

ps,

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/facts/salegoodsact.htm

point 5 is what i am talking about

question 3 towards the bottom of the page too!

(note: this is a slim version of the original act, which is rather big

and dull)

It would look a lot better on film :-)

I remember when i put a 50mm f1.4 on a D2h and did some portraits of a friend. When i got home and had a look at them and was surprised at how much less Dof there was then when I mounted the lens on a F100. In my opinion the whole point of getting a f1.4, or f2 lens (aka 50mm f1.4 85mmf1.4, 105mm f2, 135mm f2, 200 f2) is to shoot wide open.

I have found that when I get my D70 prints and my film print that a greater percentage of the ones that go on the wall are from the film.

I am talking baout portraits here. I just think that having 1.5x less dof is a shame. Its the one thing Canon really has that Nikon does not.

r

I would imagine that your workflow will be radicaly different when using digital. It might be an idea to get a D70 and see how you get on with that.

As far as the dof goes, its one of the main reasons I dont do any portraits that I am bothered about on my D70. F100 all the way for that.

r

There is no way that is an 800mm. Its a 400mm for sure.

I once used the Sigma 800mm, and i could hold it for about a minute. Its so so heavy and very long. (and yes i do appreciate the zero gravity)

If you read the nasa page he tells you that he uses an 400mm with a 2X. And if you think that to carry just an extra kilo of eqipment cost thousands and thousads of dollars it makes much better sense to take a 400mm and a 2X.

From a budget point of view it would be stupid to take a 800mm.

r

Sorry, I didnt read the nasa page. Looks like the use the 400mm and add a 2X for 800mm.

r

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4725179.stm

"Just before docking, Discovery performed a three-quarter-of-a-degree per second, 360-degree backflip to allow Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and US astronaut John Phillips - the ISS crew - a good view of its belly.

The men photographed the orbiter's thermal shield using digital cameras and 400mm and 800mm lenses."

An 800mm is a hell of a lot of glass to get into space. I would guess that its very very bright in space, and so maybe a 2X would have of saved them about a million in fuel costs.

R

I guess you may want to give the suspension bridge a shot. Im sure that the bridge as foreground interest would be awazing.

That is if the show is anywhere close to the bridge.

r