 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / July 2006Significant difference between Nikon D200 and Nikon D70 Image Quality?
G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. Anyone out there used both the nikon D200 and D70 that can give me their opinions re: image quality differences between them? Also is the viewfinder brighter than the terrible D70 viewfinder? Many thanks. Cheers Ron > G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. Anyone > out there used both the nikon D200 and D70 that can give me their opinions > re: image quality differences between them? Also is the viewfinder brighter > than the terrible D70 viewfinder? what's terrible about the D70 viewfinder? Isn't it an SLR? Isn't the viewfinder simply a mirror/prismatic view through the lense? and if so, what's terrible about that? it's those dicky lcd viewfinder things I find 'terrible' >> G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. >> Anyone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Isn't it an SLR? Isn't the viewfinder simply a mirror/prismatic view > through the lense? and if so, what's terrible about that? I can answer that with another question: Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed with the VF of a dSLR? -- Jeff R. > Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed with > the VF of a dSLR? What is *your* disappointment with the viewfinder of a dSLR? I use Nikon F90x & D50 regularly (and D70 & D100 less so), along with dSLRs of other brands. Going between the Nikons hasn't been an issue at all. I'm not disappointed with the viewfinders in any of my Nikons - perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I should consider a disappointment. I also use both a nikon F5 and a pentax MZ6 and I can assure you that both their viewfinders are much brighter and clearer than the nikon D70 viewfinder. Cheers Ron >> Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed >> with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I should consider a > disappointment. > I also use both a nikon F5 and a pentax MZ6 and I can assure you that both > their viewfinders are much brighter and clearer than the nikon D70 > viewfinder. same lense used between the f5 & the d70? Since you are used to D50, D70 and D100 VF , I would suggest you to try D1 or D2 VF and let us know what you think. I don't have 20-20 vision hence D1 and D2 VF helps me a lot when I am snipping my object. D50 and D70 VF OTOH are also quite good , but not upto the F90 or F5 standard that offers 92 to 100% viewing. [D50 and D70 only 82% iirc] And about the lenses, yes I use the same lenses. 17-35 / 2.8 , 28-70 /2.8 and 80-200 / 2.8 most of the time. =bob= >> I also use both a nikon F5 and a pentax MZ6 and I can assure you that >> both >> their viewfinders are much brighter and clearer than the nikon D70 >> viewfinder. > > same lense used between the f5 & the d70? >> Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed >> with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I should consider a > disappointment. Sure: 1) size of image. Constrained due to size of sensor (so I can't speak for the 5D etc.) Its not unlike looking down the wrong end of a telescope. 2) dull image. No doubt due to the modern fashion to produce you-beaut zooms which open up to (wow!) f/3.5 or so. When I was last "into" equipment, no manufacturer would have *dared* to produce a standard lens slower than f/2. f/1.8 or 1.4 was the standard. Zooms? Pahhh! Kiddy stuff. 3) lack of focussing aids. A split-image or a microprism wouldn't hurt - 'though it probably wouldn't work too well with the dismal slow lenes of today. (Yes, I know you can get them as "optional extras".) I know I'm just a grumpy old sod, and that AF is the "way to go", but I used to (still do) get a kick out of seeing the shimmering microprism go steady when the focus was pulled up right... (sigghhh) I have both Pentax and Nikon dSLRs, and despite the "common knowledge" that prism viewfinders are better than mirrored, I find the Nikon mirror markedly superior to the Pentax prism - even with similar speed lenses. Neither of them come within cooee of *any* of the twenty or so 35mm SLRs I have owned. They _work_ - the AF operates - but the view is dark and dismal compared to, say, my 35-year-old Pentax Spotmatic. (which cost $119 nearly four decades ago). ...and don't get me started on modern cameras making you wait until *they're* ready to shoot! -- Jeff R. (venting over for now.) > 1) size of image. Constrained due to size of sensor (so I can't speak for > the 5D etc.) Its not unlike looking down the wrong end of a telescope. What has the image sensor got to do with the viewfinder image, other than your lens choice? > 2) dull image. No doubt due to the modern fashion to produce you-beaut > zooms which open up to (wow!) f/3.5 or so. When I was last "into" > equipment, no manufacturer would have *dared* to produce a standard lens > slower than f/2. f/1.8 or 1.4 was the standard. Zooms? Pahhh! Kiddy stuff. Last time I looked, the big SLR/DSLR makers still had pretty much the same lenses available. If *YOU* choose to buy a slower lens, don't blame the manufacturer. They are happy to sell you a body and YOUR choice of lens. If you need *exactly* the same lenses, then buy a full frame DSLR obviously. > 3) lack of focussing aids. A split-image or a microprism wouldn't hurt - > 'though it probably wouldn't work too well with the dismal slow lenes of > today. (Yes, I know you can get them as "optional extras".) Yep, the better SLR/DSLR's have interchangeable focusing screens as always. > They _work_ - the AF operates - but the view is dark and dismal compared to, > say, my 35-year-old Pentax Spotmatic. (which cost $119 nearly four decades > ago). How funny, I always hated the old Spotmatic for it's dismal viewfinder compared to the Olympus OM1 for example. > ...and don't get me started on modern cameras making you wait until > *they're* ready to shoot! Yes, that 0.15 seconds can be a real bitch :-) Not to worry, they're getting faster all the time. MrT. >> 1) size of image. Constrained due to size of sensor (so I can't speak for >> the 5D etc.) Its not unlike looking down the wrong end of a telescope. > > What has the image sensor got to do with the viewfinder image, other than > your lens choice? Well, one would hope that the viewfinder screen would closely match the size of the sensor - if it doesn't you'll find you have one hell of a time framing images. So.. Given that the viewfinder screen matches the sensor size, an APS camera (ie almost all DSLR's) has a viewfinder screen that is 1.5x smaller than the screen in a 35mm camera. There are 2 ways this can be handled - a perceptibly smaller screen (which makes manual focus harder, and also framing to some extent harder), or they can use the optics in the viewfinder to make the screen to appear the same size. However doing this means that the screen is roughly 1 stop darker. All else being equal then, the viewscreen in a 35mm camera (or fullframe DSLR) will be either bigger or brighter (or some combination of both) compared to an APS camera. >> 1) size of image. Constrained due to size of sensor (so I can't speak for >> the 5D etc.) Its not unlike looking down the wrong end of a telescope. > > What has the image sensor got to do with the viewfinder image, other than > your lens choice? You're serious? Ask yourself what determines the size of the flip mirror, and hence the mirror/prism, and hence the focus screen, and hence the overall VF appearance. >> 2) dull image. No doubt due to the modern fashion to produce you-beaut >> zooms which open up to (wow!) f/3.5 or so. When I was last "into" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are > happy to sell you a body and YOUR choice of lens. No they're not. Both of my dSLRs did not make available decent fast compatible lenses at time of purchase. I asked when I bought both of them for a body-only price, and they either refused, or quoted "$5 less." Seriously. > If you need *exactly* the same lenses, then buy a full frame DSLR > obviously. Uh huh. $5k is such a reasonable price, too. >> 3) lack of focussing aids. A split-image or a microprism wouldn't hurt - >> 'though it probably wouldn't work too well with the dismal slow lenes of >> today. (Yes, I know you can get them as "optional extras".) > > Yep, the better SLR/DSLR's have interchangeable focusing screens as > always. Yes - I said that. ...and SLRs (35mm) don't need interchangable screens to get decent focussing aids. They're built in. >> They _work_ - the AF operates - but the view is dark and dismal compared > to, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How funny, I always hated the old Spotmatic for it's dismal viewfinder > compared to the Olympus OM1 for example. Not my recollection (from 2 minutes ago), but hey - YMMV. How was the OM1 compared to a dSLR? (my original point) >> ...and don't get me started on modern cameras making you wait until >> *they're* ready to shoot! > > Yes, that 0.15 seconds can be a real bitch :-) Har de har. I'm referring to the modes which will not allow the shutter to trip until the camera is convinced that focus is OK - even when it *is* OK. I'd rather make that judgement call myself. > Not to worry, they're getting faster all the time. > > MrT. > No they're not. > Both of my dSLRs did not make available decent fast compatible lenses at > time of purchase. I asked when I bought both of them for a body-only price, > and they either refused, or quoted "$5 less." Seriously. strange - my Nikon dSLRs accept all my Nikkor & Tokina lenses, even my fast ones. And I've since purchased additional Nikkor lenses. I suspect they _were_ available, but you didn't want to pay for them. The lense that comes with the dSLR is a freebie that 'does the job', but if you want performance you can pay for it. Simple concept really :) >>If you need *exactly* the same lenses, then buy a full frame DSLR >>obviously. > > Uh huh. $5k is such a reasonable price, too. No, "same lense" is available for both film, full-frame and 'part-frame' dSLRs. The body doesn't change the lense. >>>3) lack of focussing aids. A split-image or a microprism wouldn't hurt - >>>'though it probably wouldn't work too well with the dismal slow lenes of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ...and SLRs (35mm) don't need interchangable screens to get decent focussing > aids. They're built in. not always. >>>...and don't get me started on modern cameras making you wait until >>>*they're* ready to shoot! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the camera is convinced that focus is OK - even when it *is* OK. > I'd rather make that judgement call myself. How selective you are in what you want to pick on. If YOU set it to such a setting, then you expect the wait. If you set your camera to manual focus, then YOU can make that 'judgement call' yourself. From your post, I doubt any dSLR will satisfy you - perhaps go back to your box brownie. > From your post, I doubt any dSLR will satisfy you - perhaps go back to > your box brownie. OK. Thanks for your friendly, informative, helpful input. -- Jeff R. (at least my dictionary works) >>From your post, I doubt any dSLR will satisfy you - perhaps go back to >>your box brownie. > > OK. > Thanks for your friendly, informative, helpful input. no problem. Andrew :) > Both of my dSLRs did not make available decent fast compatible lenses at > time of purchase. I asked when I bought both of them for a body-only price, > and they either refused, or quoted "$5 less." Seriously. Had no such problem with my Canon, but your standard lens may only be worth $5, that's the problem. Simply buy another lens anyway, instead of bitching about the crappy standard lens. Keep the crap lens for whenever you wish to sell the camera and get a better body. Or sell the lens on ebay, you will get more than $5 for it for sure. > > If you need *exactly* the same lenses, then buy a full frame DSLR > > obviously. > > Uh huh. $5k is such a reasonable price, too. You can still use film if you prefer then. Some good bargains in S/H film SLR's too. Or just use your Spotmatic and sell the DSLR! > ...and SLRs (35mm) don't need interchangable screens to get decent focussing > aids. They're built in. Decent focussing aids are those designed to suit certain lenses, *THAT's* why they're interchangeable. I have several. > > How funny, I always hated the old Spotmatic for it's dismal viewfinder > > compared to the Olympus OM1 for example. > > Not my recollection (from 2 minutes ago), but hey - YMMV. Yep, I still have both and there's not the slightest doubt in my mind. > How was the OM1 compared to a dSLR? (my original point) Better than some of course, just as some current DSLR's are better than my old Spotmatic, which was *my* point. > I'm referring to the modes which will not allow the shutter to trip until > the camera is convinced that focus is OK - even when it *is* OK. > I'd rather make that judgement call myself. Why buy such a crippled camera then? (or simply change modes?) Plenty of cameras that have no such limitations. MrT. >>>Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed >>>with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > equipment, no manufacturer would have *dared* to produce a standard lens > slower than f/2. f/1.8 or 1.4 was the standard. Zooms? Pahhh! Kiddy stuff. agreed... but then that's the lens... not the viewfinder isn't it! > 3) lack of focussing aids. A split-image or a microprism wouldn't hurt - > 'though it probably wouldn't work too well with the dismal slow lenes of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to (still do) get a kick out of seeing the shimmering microprism go steady > when the focus was pulled up right... (sigghhh) why include something redundant in an AF camera..... while I prefer it, it is noetheless redundant.... and only us old pureists would know what to do with it. > I have both Pentax and Nikon dSLRs, and despite the "common knowledge" that > prism viewfinders are better than mirrored, I find the Nikon mirror markedly > superior to the Pentax prism - even with similar speed lenses. 1. deprogrma yourself about pentax being the best... many other brands have had equally good or better models. 2. it is called a porroPRISM for a reason.... as they are a prism. 3. in respect to a later posting stating mirrors reflect and prisms refract... check out a ray diagram of houw a porroprism works... you will find this is a process taking advantag of Total Internal REFLECTION. > Neither of them come within cooee of *any* of the twenty or so 35mm SLRs I > have owned. as in the old day... you got to spend money to get quality.... sensor costs meean other parts of cameras often need to be comporomised to keep costs down... check out the high end stuff... you'll be impressed. > They _work_ - the AF operates - but the view is dark and dismal compared to, > say, my 35-year-old Pentax Spotmatic. (which cost $119 nearly four decades > ago). with an F1.4 lens... nay prism will appear relatively bright. > ...and don't get me started on modern cameras making you wait until > *they're* ready to shoot! did you remember to wind your film to the next frame???? same issue, different flavour. what about not setting every aperture and shutter speed... no more manual focus.... auto flash compared to no flash and a distance table to calculate your aperture.... seems like rose coloured glasses syndrome to me! This said... I am an ex-Leica user... I do know where you are coming from, but there are many positives compared to the negatives of where cameras have gone. what I have seen is instant feedback to even your snapshooters who are generally improving in their photography as they don't process the roll 6 months later...... I see mor eimages being shared and more moments captured than ever before..... ok, so we live a more diposable society.... but are we here for the equipment... or to capture the decisive moment? kosh > -- > Jeff R. > (venting over for now.) >>>G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. >>>Anyone [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Yes, after a series of SLRs (Mamiya, Minolta and Pentax) I`m not the least bit disappointed with the viewfinder in a Pentax ist DS. Simmo >>> G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. >>> Anyone [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Jeff R. I find my Pentax D-SLR pretty much as good as my film Pentax cameras, having a PentaPrism helps of course. :-) >>> G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. >>> Anyone [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is there *anyone* who grew up using film SLRs who is _not_ disappointed > with the VF of a dSLR? Yep... me! Nothing wrong with the 1DS2's VF. ;-) Larger VF Faster speed [+ bigger buffer too] More solid body Better AWB Lower noise @ high ISO Optional vertial grip [MB-D200] D200 and D70 sits in a different class as D200 is D100 sucessor. Try waiting for the D80 that will be announced in a few days. MAYBE Nikon already sort out their strategy and actually sells the camera within few days after announcement. > G'day all. I currently own a nikon D70 and am thinking of upgrading. > Anyone out there used both the nikon D200 and D70 that can give me their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Cheers > Ron And what lens do you think will be the kit lens for the new camera? The hard-to-find 18-200? Maybe that's why they've been kept in short supply.  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Larger VF : Faster speed [+ bigger buffer too] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : > Cheers : > Ron Extremely doubtful I would think. > And what lens do you think will be the kit lens for the new camera? > The hard-to-find 18-200? Maybe that's why they've been kept in short [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > : > Cheers > : > Ron There is a reason. While I can't tell you *how much* better.. the D70 uses a mirror 'prism' ie, it is an empty space with mirrors doing the reflecting. The D200 uses a real glass prism, and the quality is MUCH better by all accounts. Why the mirror-prism system doesn't work well, I'm not sure, and would be happy to be enlightened. I've looked down the D70 vf, and while it isn't terrible, it's certainly not a viewfinder to be very proud of. > Also is the viewfinder brighter > than the terrible D70 viewfinder? > There is a reason. While I can't tell you *how much* better.. the D70 > uses a mirror 'prism' ie, it is an empty space with mirrors doing the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've looked down the D70 vf, and while it isn't terrible, it's > certainly not a viewfinder to be very proud of. Mirrors bend light by reflection which exhibit some loss each time the light changes direction. Prisms bend light by refraction which, when the angles are correct, is lossless. >>There is a reason. While I can't tell you *how much* better.. the D70 >>uses a mirror 'prism' ie, it is an empty space with mirrors doing the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Prisms bend light by refraction which, when the angles are correct, is > lossless. 1. prisms take advantage of Total Internal REFLECTION not refraction of light. 2. no interaction with light is lossles.... that's computer jargon! .... unless of course you are interacting with a vacuum..... then I would call it a loosless transmission of light. kosh > > There is a reason. While I can't tell you *how much* better.. the D70 > > uses a mirror 'prism' ie, it is an empty space with mirrors doing the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Prisms bend light by refraction which, when the angles are correct, is > lossless. A 'pentaprism' as used in viewfinders is not really a prism, and there is no refraction in a pentaprism (except perhaps at the exit surface which may be a component of the eyepiece power). Light is internally reflected from the silvered surfaces of the glass in exactly the same way and path as it would be reflected from a pentamirror. Any (small) difference in brightness is due to the losses in an air/mirror interface versus a glass/mirror interface. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.