 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2007Bottom 20-percent D70s image dark
I have a D70s and recently encountered a problem whereby the bottom 20% of the frame of some shots were dark. What I did was I set the camera on a tripod, set the self-timer and got the shot. I saw in the LCD panel the darkened bottom and, leaving all settings the same, I set the self-timer again and got another shot and then the pic came out OK. Then the next shot was fine and then I saw the dark band at the bottom again on the shot after that. No fingers and no lenses and no filters and no hoods, etc. were in the way. And no flash was used. The camera had been sitting in a house (on a table instead of in a closed camera bag) all day where the humidity reached 60%. I don't know if that could have been a culprit or what. Any insight on this? Thanks. Kevin > I have a D70s and recently encountered a problem whereby the bottom > 20% of the frame of some shots were dark. What I did was I set the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no filters and no hoods, etc. were in the way. And no flash was > used. does this happen at all shutter speeds or certain ones? can you post an example somewhere? > In article <1190896474.736984.142...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > does this happen at all shutter speeds or certain ones? can you post > an example somewhere? I don't know whether it happens on other shutter speeds. The problem appeared on two pics yesterday and both were taken at ISO 200, 1s, f/ 16, 12mm. I posted pics to: http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ Thanks. Kevin >>In article <1190896474.736984.142...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I posted pics to: > http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ I believe the shutter moves the other direction so yeah, maybe the mirror isn't locking up properly. Take the lens off & try a few shots at multi-second exposures to see if it's jamming. I never heard of that happening though it does look like a physical obstruction not a sensor failure.  SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > I have a D70s and recently encountered a problem whereby the bottom > 20% of the frame of some shots were dark. What I did was I set the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks. > Kevin Could be due to light leakage though the eyepiece, off the prism and onto the sensor. My D50 came with an eyepiece cap for just such shooting. Doc > > I have a D70s and recently encountered a problem whereby the bottom > > 20% of the frame of some shots were dark. What I did was I set the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Doc Light leaking? To me, that would cause an "over-exposed" band, which would be white, not dark. It seems like the mirror was in the way of the exposure. > I have a D70s and recently encountered a problem whereby the bottom > 20% of the frame of some shots were dark. What I did was I set the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks. > Kevin I posted example pics to: http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ > http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a mirror-flipping problem. Remember the image is upside down in the camera. >> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Remember the image is upside down in the camera. That's exactly what it is; a sticky mirror. SignatureSlack On Sep 28, 1:25 am, Slack <dont_even_th...@bout.it> wrote: > >>http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Slack I agree. Thank you. Kevin > >http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ > > The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a mirror-flipping > problem. > > Remember the image is upside down in the camera. A mirror problem seems about right. I remember the camera sounding funky during the shot. Something sounded prolonged and it was probably the mirror taking too long to flip up. Through the black band, you can still see part of the image, suggesting that the obstruction was only in the way for part of the exposure. I tried to replicate it last night but couldn't get it to do it again -- WHICH IS A GOOD THING. :) Thank you. Kevin >>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a mirror-flipping [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I tried to replicate it last night but couldn't get it to do it again > -- WHICH IS A GOOD THING. :) Yeah, but what happens if it starts happening again when you really, REALLY want to get a good shot? Greg SignatureTicketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky >>>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >>> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Greg Which brings up a question.. Most cameras have shutters that are rated for X number of pictures.. I assume most people who've owned cameras for a bit have gone past this number? Is this something that can simply be replaced by techs? I assume you can replace *anything* on a camera, but does the procedure cost outweigh the possibility of simply moving up in model? I've not had to take my D70 in for servicing yet so I'm not sure on the pricings for various procedures. TIA P. >>>>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >>>> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I've not had to take my D70 in for servicing yet so I'm not sure on the > pricings for various procedures. AFAIK there isn't a specific rating for the D70. There seems to be an expectation that shutter life is in the range 50,000-100,000 actuations. It will almost certainly cost more to repair a shutter than the camera body is worth. 50,000 exposures is a lot. I'm guessing that a "keen amateur" might typically shoot something like 5-10,000 exposures a year, many casual users much less than that. My guess would be that shutter failures in amateur dslrs would also be from dirt/dust/foreign object in the shutter, or accidental abuse rather than mechanical wear and tear. There was a D70 user in the UK posting on DPReview who "used up" cameras very fast. For some inexplicable reason, he took many thousands of photos of handbag-sized dogs. I think he "averaged" just over 100,000 exposures per D70 body, and moved on to D2x bodies on the theory that the longer shutter life and possibility to replace the shutters made the economics viable. You needed to see his portfolio to see that eccentric englishmen still truly exist in the 21st century. >>>>>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >>>>> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > You needed to see his portfolio to see that eccentric englishmen still > truly exist in the 21st century. Wow.... See, I'm a dog lover (um, that just sounds wrong.. I like dogs...) but that seems a tad excessive.. Thks for the info :) P. > 50,000 exposures is a lot. Not really. I was planning on using a digital still camera to scan movie film frames, until I realized the digital camera shutter lifetime amounted to less than an hour's worth of movie film. >>50,000 exposures is a lot. > > Not really. I was planning on using a digital still camera to scan movie > film frames, until I realized the digital camera shutter lifetime amounted > to less than an hour's worth of movie film. I do (short) time lapse movies & got 33,360 shots on my D70 in less than 2 years before dropping it. The D200 is up to 48,076 in 1-1/2 years. Still not 100K/year. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >>>>>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >>>>> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > It will almost certainly cost more to repair a shutter than the camera > body is worth. I don't know about the Nikon's, but I did a search on Canon 10d/20d shutter replacements and they seem to be in the $150-200 range. I would think a Nikon D70 repair is around the same price and isn't a good working one worth more than that used? Dennis > 50,000 exposures is a lot. I'm guessing that a "keen amateur" might > typically shoot something like 5-10,000 exposures a year, many casual [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You needed to see his portfolio to see that eccentric englishmen still > truly exist in the 21st century. Dennis' Newsgroups wrote: >>>>>>> http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ >>>>>> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Nikon D70 repair is around the same price and isn't a good working one worth > more than that used? If you could get it replaced for that price, then yes it'd be worth it I guess. I'd heard that it was about US$300. I doubt that my well used D70 body is worth much more than that. A Canon 20d body is worth a bit more than a D70. > >>>http://bikeoften.com/photoproblem/ > >> The shape, position, and intermittent appearance suggests a mirror-flipping [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dethink to survive - Mclusky Well, a never-been-flaky camera can just happen to finally fail and do so on that shot, too. I guess it's an odds game, where the odds of a new camera breaking are less than the odds of an older camera breaking -- in very generic theory, of course. I guess what I'll do is run around the yard this weekend and take numerous shots and try to get a "feel" for whether what I experienced was a glitch or whether it's time to consider getting the camera serviced. I've taken over 10,000 shots with it and have taken it in all sorts of environments. I should probably get a backup (besides my little P&S). But some shot opportunities come only once. If your main camera fails, then, if that was it and the shot is now gone, having a backup would be of no use. I like your Ticketmaster quote. Kevin |
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.