 |
 | 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 / General Topics / April 2005New D-70 - Lots of problems
Being a tech junkie, I'm on my third digital camera since they came out. I have a Nikon 5700 that I have been pretty happy with, but I missed the manual settings I always used on my film camera. Especially the manual focus as I was missing those quick candid shots while waiting for the 5700 to get into focus. Now I have the new D-70, and I have to say I am totally underwhelmed. I've had it a week, and shot a few hundred photos of everything under the sun, inside and out. What I wonder is - do I simply have a dud for a camera, or are my problems common for the D70? Here's what they are: The camera refuses to focus, sometimes even in bright light. About 90% of the time I cannot take a photo unless I manually focus. That's OK, but the camera should focus in automatic mode, since that is the mode when many photos are taken. I can take one photo and it will auto focus. Without moving the camera and immediately trying to take another shot of exactly the same area, it will not focus for the second shot. The auto focus will sometimes not respond at all and remain completely dead until I turn the camera to a different area of the room. Then it will respond and I can return to the original shot and it will try to focus. The flash does not seem to work properly. It appears to be out of sync with the shutter, because the flash is completely inadequate, even inside of 8 or feet. The photos are always underexposed and never sharp and clear. The auto focus assist makes no difference whatsoever. The light comes on but the camera still will not focus. I have tried to take the exact same photo, once without the assist and the next time with the assist. Sometimes it will focus with the assist off, but not with it on. That seems rather backwards. Photos are not crisp and colors are muddy. I have seen photos on the Internet taken with this camera, and they are much crisper and color correct. The images taken with my Nikon 5700 are far crisper and more color correct. There are spots on the image. They are consistent and on all of the images. Three in particular stand out, toward the top of the image and just left of center. Either there is some drop out areas on the sensor, or there is dirt in there. For a brand new camera this should not be. I continuously get "Err" messages in the display. It is not the card as the images transfer OK. Look at page 199 of the manual. It instructs the owner to take the camera in for service if this happens. It seems to happen more as the battery runs lower, but as explained in the next paragraph, I can't tell if the battery is running low or not. The battery indicator does not seem to work properly. I will look at it and it has about ? of its charge left. The next moment it indicates a full charge. I can see where it might deviate a little, but to jump from full charge to no charge makes no sense. Since this camera is brand-new, and has only taken a few pictures, I believe it is a faulty camera and would prefer to have it replaced rather than sent in for repair. I am not comfortable with it, and would prefer to exchange for another, new D-70. Opinions and experience will be much appreciated. I think the dealer is going to exchage the camera for me, but I am now psyched out. Herm This is great! I love it! > Being a tech junkie, I'm on my third digital camera since they came out. I > have a Nikon 5700 that I have been pretty happy with, but I missed the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > The battery indicator does not seem to work properly. I will look at it and > it has about ¼ of its charge left. The next moment it indicates a full > charge. I can see where it might deviate a little, but to jump from full > charge to no charge makes no sense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Herm I think you have answered your own question. There is something seriously wrong with your camera. This is not causing the spots on the pictures, though. Those are caused by dust on the sensor, a problem common to all digital SLR cameras. They are shipped with the lenses off and you are likely to find dust right out of the box. I am not sure that there is anything wrong with your autofocus, either. Since the spots appear in all your pictures, I suspect you are taking lots of pictures with a bright, featureless background. Your autofocus will not work consistently, especially at its default settings. This is not a toy pocket camera which does all the work for you. Study the autofocus and recognize both its power and its limitations and when to use each setting. The Err message is definitely an indicator that the camera is broken. It should not do that. If you are shooting raw NEF files, the pictures may well look muddy. This is because many color corrections such as saturation and white balance are applied in software. The raw data is not nearly so pretty. On the other hand, if you are willing to put the effort in post processing your pictures, shooting raw will reward you with a richness of detail that you would never get otherwise. Do not use AUTO mode on the D70 (or any other DSLR). You lose complete control over the final product and you have no idea what any of the settings are. It is suitable only for quickie snapshots such as you would take with a disposable camera. Most people prefer the P setting; I generally shoot either A or S; either I want total control over depth of field or I want an extremely fast or slow shutter speed. Many people are disappointed with SLRs (both digital and non-digital) because these cameras do not take simple, pretty pictures with no fuss the way a much less expensive point and shoot does. The SLR has much higher quality lenses which show the flaws in your pictures more readily, have far more settings and require that you use them judiciously, and are subject to all kinds of problems, like dust on mirrors and sensors, etc. On the other hand, they give you far more creative control, if you are willing to work for it. They just don't take the picture for you. > This is not causing the spots on the pictures, though. Those are caused by > dust on the sensor, a problem common to all digital SLR cameras. They are > shipped with the lenses off and you are likely to find dust right out of the > box. I beg to differ. They may be shipped without lenses attached, but they do have a plastic cover. It is not as if the sensor is exposed to outside air to any significant degree. You should be able to go a long time without dust problems with proper care.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. Go to a tore that carries Leica. Buy an M7 and load it with Kodachrome 64. When you get you slides back, you'll never think about digital again. > Being a tech junkie, I'm on my third digital camera since they came out. I > have a Nikon 5700 that I have been pretty happy with, but I missed the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > The battery indicator does not seem to work properly. I will look at it and > it has about ¼ of its charge left. The next moment it indicates a full > charge. I can see where it might deviate a little, but to jump from full > charge to no charge makes no sense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Herm > Being a tech junkie, I'm on my third digital camera since they came out. I > have a Nikon 5700 that I have been pretty happy with, but I missed the [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Herm The first time I bought a D70 at bestbuy store, it looked a brand new box, but once I open it, it was missing the battery and then I notice "written notes all over the manual with highlighted text on some pages". Took it back to bestbuy right away and demanded a new one and they keep saying that it was brand new, (yeah right) so finally the store manager told them to give me a "Brand NEW one" ! Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is bound to have trouble. They are as bad as Radio Shack....or as we use to say at Radio Shack "We Sell Crap at Radio Shack." If you are going to buy any good electronic equipment, cameras, TV's anything...go to a good non-discounter. (Sears is also just as bad) Tom >> Being a tech junkie, I'm on my third digital camera since they came out. >> I [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > that it was brand new, (yeah right) so finally the store manager told them > to give me a "Brand NEW one" ! >Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is bound to >have trouble. You can have problems anywhere if you don't know what you're doing. Sometimes, but not always, you'll get more knowledgable assistance at a local camera store, but I've also heard some amazing bullshit from them too. >They are as bad as Radio Shack....or as we use to say at Radio Shack "We >Sell Crap at Radio Shack." If you are going to buy any good electronic >equipment, cameras, TV's anything...go to a good non-discounter. (Sears is >also just as bad) So the D70 from B&H or buydig is different from one I buy at a non-discounter? >Tom >> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> that it was brand new, (yeah right) so finally the store manager told them >> to give me a "Brand NEW one" ! >>Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is bound to >>have trouble. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So the D70 from B&H or buydig is different from one I buy at a > non-discounter? The salesman at a local camera shop claimed B&H's prices are lower than their cost from the manufacturer and that's because they get only factory reconditioned returns. I suppose if they've been back to the factory that should be OK. I don't know if this is true. This place is a big reputable shop (national chain) with reasonable prices, not outrageously more than B&H. >>>Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is bound to >>>have trouble. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >big reputable shop (national chain) with reasonable prices, not >outrageously more than B&H. Then the salesman at the local store is a liar and not worthy of your business. The only reason to buy locally is if the value added by the personal service, information, and support is worth the difference. Obviously this guy isn't worth it. My D70 Kit (w/18-70mm lens) will cost me $905 after rebate. It was purchased from One Call, which has a reseller rating of 9.32/10, higher than 99% of on line sellers. They are an authorized Nikon dealer (and have to be to give you the rebate form with their name preprinted on it), and had been in businese over 80 years. I on't know what chain you are talking about but Ritz/Wolf in my area is not much better than Best Buy for info and sells at list price. >>The salesman at a local camera shop claimed B&H's prices are lower than >>their cost from the manufacturer and that's because they get only [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I don't know what chain you are talking about Calumet > but Ritz/Wolf in my area > is not much better than Best Buy for info and sells at list price. > Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is > bound to have trouble. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > electronic equipment, cameras, TV's anything...go to a good > non-discounter. (Sears is also just as bad) I don't understand this line of reasoning. Best Buy (unlike Radio Shack) doesn't sell its own brand of merchandise. If I buy a Canon camera there, it's the same Canon camera I might buy somewhere else. As for Radio Shack, you could argue that their own manufactured products are inferior (and I'd agree), but again, if they're selling a brand name, it's the same brand name as any other store. Can you elaborate on your logic here, or is it just an irrational bias? Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I don't understand this line of reasoning. Best Buy (unlike Radio Shack) > doesn't sell its own brand of merchandise. If I buy a Canon camera there, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as any other store. Can you elaborate on your logic here, or is it just an > irrational bias? Mike, I bought a camera in RS a little over a week ago. From long experience with nearly a dozen RS stores in this area I asked to see the contents of the box first. It was missing the CD, but the salesman assured me, pointing to the way the camera was packaged that it was brand new and had never been used. The original Panasonic batteries were still wrapped and unused, but when I got the camera home I found that the camera contained totally dead RS batteries. And the memory card wasn't where it should have been. It was installed in the camera. Turning on the camera, the display showed a picture of an RS employee smiling at the camera (the date was over a year ago). I couldn't advance forward or back to see other pictures due to a "card error" message on the display. Using a card reader I was able to transfer several other pictures to the computer. There were some pictures on the card that by their filenames and the directories they were in couldn't have been put there by the camera. I don't know of any cameras that create files with names like "phonedisplaycontest.JPG" and "pic for millicent3.JPG". They had to have been copied back to the card from a computer. Most were taken inside the RS store. One was taken inside a supermarket. I know of one very nice RS way out in the boonies of northwestern NJ that I'd have confidence in, but in general, when you buy something in Radio Shack you might get a new, totally unused item. But too many times you won't. That camera was promptly returned, and they didn't want the CD that I copied the pictures to or even see what was on it. They were more concerned about the memory card, being relieved when I told them it had been reformatted. I wouldn't be surprised if you have had better experiences with RS's in your area. >> I don't understand this line of reasoning. Best Buy (unlike Radio >> Shack) doesn't sell its own brand of merchandise. If I buy a Canon [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > reformatted. I wouldn't be surprised if you have had better > experiences with RS's in your area. rofl...that's a hilarious story. ;) Of course, my original statement assumed you actually got a product new out of the box. In cases like yours, the negative bias is totally warranted. ;) (And no, the RS's in my area share the Radio Shack Rep for good reason. The only reason I ever go there is if I need a cord or connector I can't easily find anywhere else, usually for my stereo, TV or video game system.) Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is >> bound to have trouble. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >as any other store. Can you elaborate on your logic here, or is it just an >irrational bias? Actually some RS branded products are quite good. The problem is finding out which ones those are. > Actually some RS branded products are quite good. The problem is > finding out which ones those are. Yes, and for an example they used to sell very good Sangean radios that were disguised only by a different logo and a color change. Unfortunately they were replaced by Grundig radios that weren't changed in any way. They're still Grundigs, and come in a Grundig box. But they're inferior in many ways and some, really old. Designed several years before the Sangean models that they replaced. I haven't seen a camera yet with an RS label. Let's get Realistic! > Anyone who buys a camera at Best Buy, or almost anything there, is bound to > have trouble. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equipment, cameras, TV's anything...go to a good non-discounter. (Sears is > also just as bad) While I also have had problems with Best Buy over the years, I would not knock them as a place to buy a camera if all things align correctly. First, I bought my D-70 at Best Buy? Why? 1. It was local. 2. It was the same price as National Camera Exchange ... the best local retailer around the Twin Cities. 3. They offered me 0% financing for 18 months ... better than paying CASH! 4. A great coverage plan. So ... there were good reasons to use them rather than a better retailer like National Camera Exchange. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. Thank you to those that answered my questions seriously. Especially to C.J. Campbell. I appreciate anyone that has the class and generosity to answer the question seriously. I very much appreciated your take on the difference between the SLR and the more common point and shoot cameras. There's a bit of a learning curve with this, that's for sure. The camera is being replaced, by the way. As for you, "UC" or whoever the hell you are. I didn't ask whether or not I should be using film or digital. I do have a film camera, and I don't, frankly, give a sh.t about your bias toward one or the other. I want to be able to use both of them when I want to. And get a life and some balls. Stop posting anonymously. > Thank you to those that answered my questions seriously. Especially to C.J. > Campbell. I appreciate anyone that has the class and generosity to answer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And get a life and some balls. Stop posting anonymously. Digital sucks. Your auto-focus, auto-exposure digital piece of sh.t can't hold a candle to a Leica film image. You're a sucker, plain and simple. There's a sucker born every minute, and most of them grow up to be photographers. > There's a sucker born every minute, and most of them grow up to be > photographers. The immature ones don't grow up at all - they become trolls. I'm no troll, I'm an uncompromising bastard. > > There's a sucker born every minute, and most of them grow up to be > > photographers. > > The immature ones don't grow up at all - they become trolls. > I'm no troll, I'm an uncompromising bastard. > >> > There's a sucker born every minute, and most of them grow up to be >> > photographers. >> >> The immature ones don't grow up at all - they become trolls. You are a complete fuckwad and a crappy phoographer. Leica should sue you for you touting their name and being so horrible. For some reason, "Uranium Committee" (UC) is much nicer at French website 1001newsgroups.com. I found him courtesy Google. rec.photo.film+labs > Thank you to those that answered my questions seriously. Especially to > C.J. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And get a life and some balls. Stop posting anonymously. >For some reason, "Uranium Committee" (UC) is much nicer at French website >1001newsgroups.com. I found him courtesy Google. Apparently it doesn't take much to seem nice when you're in with the French :-) >rec.photo.film+labs > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> And get a life and some balls. Stop posting anonymously. Please find him and kick his a.s. >For some reason, "Uranium Committee" (UC) is much nicer at French website >1001newsgroups.com. I found him courtesy Google. > >rec.photo.film+labs You morons who buy some digital piece of crap because you want 'new technology' make me want to puke. You don't have any business doing so. You're fools. Digital is inferior to film. Get it? Auto-focus is inferior to manual focus. Get it? Auto-exposure is inferior to manual exposure. Get it? I can take better picutes, quicker, with my ALL-MANUAL Leicaflex than you EVER will with that piece of sh.t. Get it? > Please find him and kick his a.s. > > >For some reason, "Uranium Committee" (UC) is much nicer at French website > >1001newsgroups.com. I found him courtesy Google. > > > >rec.photo.film+labs > I can take better picutes, quicker, with my ALL-MANUAL Leicaflex than > you EVER will with that piece of sh.t. Get it? I was out the other night shooting a concert. Conditions were rather poor. I had to hold the camera up above my head and shoot blindly. Took 60 or 70 photos, and out of those, got a few that pleasantly surprised even my boss ;-) That would have been tricky to do without auto focus and auto exposure, and expensive without digital. (Having said that, I do prefer to set everything manually when possible.) Point being: there's a time and a place for everything. --HC >You morons who buy some digital piece of crap because you want 'new >technology' make me want to puke. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I can take better picutes, quicker, with my ALL-MANUAL Leicaflex than >you EVER will with that piece of sh.t. Get it? You really are an arsehole. Film and digi both have a place in the world. Get used to it. Pete S. > You morons who buy some digital piece of crap because you want 'new > technology' make me want to puke. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I can take better picutes, quicker, with my ALL-MANUAL Leicaflex than > you EVER will with that piece of sh.t. Get it? UC is inferior to all the real shooters here......got it. Suppressing maniacal laughter.... > > You morons who buy some digital piece of crap because you want 'new > > technology' make me want to puke. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > UC is inferior to all the real shooters here......got it. Well, this has been an interesting discussion, apart from UC. I found it most enlightening to see his photos, because I took back the D-70 due to pictures that weren't even out-of-focus as bad as his. HC and C.J. Campbell, thank you for your responses. You are exactly right in that there is a time and place to use certain features, which is why I wanted the D-70 with all of it's manual capabilities. The camera was exchanged, and I got the new D-70 yesterday. The first camera was definitely damaged somewhere, because the new one is an absolute marvel. Right out of the box, I took about 15 pictures all around a fairly dark room in very quick succession. All the photos were sharp and clear and the colors exact and rich. Same thing out-of-doors. No spots. I am REALLY going to enjoy this camera. Thanks again. Herm "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111686784.134650.201280 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Suppressing maniacal laughter.... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > >> UC is inferior to all the real shooters here......got it. > Well, this has been an interesting discussion, apart from UC. I found it > most enlightening to see his photos, because I took back the D-70 due to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I am REALLY going to enjoy this camera. You want to really, REALLY enjoy it? Get the 50mm f/1.8 lens for $100. > You want to really, REALLY enjoy it? Get the 50mm f/1.8 lens for $100. Where? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > Well, this has been an interesting discussion, apart from UC. I found it > most enlightening to see his photos, because I took back the D-70 due to > pictures that weren't even out-of-focus as bad as his. What ever are you talking about? > HC and C.J. Campbell, thank you for your responses. You are exactly right > in that there is a time and place to use certain features, which is why [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >> > > >> UC is inferior to all the real shooters here......got it. On the rugby photos, in the print I can see the sweat on the tip of the nose of the guy pitching the ball. We all know that scans suck. So shut the f.ck up, a.shole. > On the rugby photos, in the print I can see the sweat on the tip of the > nose of the guy pitching the ball. We all know that scans suck. So shut > the f.ck up, a.shole. Har de har, har, har! Mr. Urine Commentator is offended? How sweet. Uh, hey dumb sh.t.. what an advertisement you are for film. Shoot shitty, scan shitty and then make endless excuses with your fingers in your ears while giving us all a hum job. I'm glad I didn't take everybody's advice and plonk your dead a.s. This is more entertainment than I've had in months. Is there a moron of the year award for Usenet? You sure deserve it, hands down. The next time there's a war, will you promise to fight for the other side? Now tell Dwight that scans suck. You just destroyed his whole argument for film. > > On the rugby photos, in the print I can see the sweat on the tip of > the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > will you promise to fight for the other side? Now tell Dwight that > scans suck. You just destroyed his whole argument for film. Hey, fuckface, I don't NEED scans. I make prints optically. The scans are just to show stuff on the internet, where fuckwits like you can see them. Were you to see the prints, your jaw would drop and your daddy's dick would fall out. UC... one word: spotting. If you're going to advocate print over digital, learn how to spot. Or go digital like the rest of the modern world. You may even go wild and try one of those nutty new "horseless carriages" you keep hearing the kids talk about. >Were you to see the prints, your jaw would drop and your daddy's dick >would fall out. These were proof prints, and unspotted. As I said, I didn't make these for anybody else's benefit. > UC... one word: spotting. If you're going to advocate print over > digital, learn how to spot. Or go digital like the rest of the modern [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Were you to see the prints, your jaw would drop and your daddy's dick > >would fall out. > These were proof prints, and unspotted. As I said, I didn't make these > for anybody else's benefit. Obviously! > > UC... one word: spotting. If you're going to advocate print over > > digital, learn how to spot. Or go digital like the rest of the modern > > world. You may even go wild and try one of those nutty new "horseless > > carriages" you keep hearing the kids talk about. > > > > >Were you to see the prints, But wasn't that the whole point? We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in it's intended form, you've failed. Prints of my digital images are just lovely and I don't have to scan them to post them on a web site. Now, we all know that digital is superior and it's thanks to you who proved it with your scuzzy scans . Anymore excuses, worthless one? "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in it's intended form, you've failed." You meant 'its intended form', right? How so? I WANT prints, that's my intended medium. A print is far, far better than an internet image will show, and it's far, far better than a digital capture can be. I don't give a sh.t what you think. I put those images up only as rough samples, not as 'fine work', simply because I haven't got the time or interest to make prints just for internet imbeciles like you. I see COUNTLESS boring crappy photos that people put on the internet. These people could not make a print to save their lives. NO auto-focus, auto-exposure digital camera could do this: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919 The lag time is too great. The Leicaflex cameras have the shortest lag time of any SLR ever made (except the Canon models with a fixed semi-silvered mirror). In the print (taken with a 560mm lens), sweat droplets on the nose of the man pitching the ball are clearly visible. No auto-focus system could have focussed this scene as perfectly as I did manually. It's a shame that the small file size necessary for internet viewing does not permit sufficient resolution to show the clarity of this photograph. > > These were proof prints, and unspotted. As I said, I didn't make > these [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > superior and it's thanks to you who proved it with your scuzzy scans . > Anymore excuses, worthless one? > "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in > it's intended form, you've failed." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > time of any SLR ever made (except the Canon models with a fixed > semi-silvered mirror). it is not that great a shot........in fact it is not great at all. Good, yes.....not great. The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long lenses. > > "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in > > it's intended form, you've failed." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > NO auto-focus, auto-exposure digital camera could do this: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919 > > The lag time is too great. The Leicaflex cameras have the shortest lag > > time of any SLR ever made (except the Canon models with a fixed > > semi-silvered mirror). > > it is not that great a shot........in fact it is not great at all. Good, > yes.....not great. > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople > could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > lenses. mmmm hmmm, yeah........ > > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople > > could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > > lenses. > > > mmmm hmmm, yeah........ 560mm? Let's see your rugby photos, then... >> > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital >> > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 560mm? Let's see your rugby photos, then... Don't attend rugby matches. And you have seen my photos. Unlike you I am proud of my work, although sports would be my weakest area admittedly. I will gladly post the links of 3 places you can see my work....hell four places....I seem to have gone through a "phase" a few years back. UC..... I throw the gauntlet at your feet. If you have been shooting so long and have the experience that you seem to have......drop the crotchety old fart routine and actually try to constructively help people that come to the ng.... now if you want to belittle and demean people elsewhere, that is fine. You did a commendable job in the thread ref: fstops of lenses. I would love to see a change in heart from you! be safe David www.delawarestudio.com www.pbase.com/fitpix http://www.fitness-vision.9f.com/ http://www.gravesight.9f.com/ I don't tske photos of daisies or sunsets, so I guess I'm not qualified.... I do much more challenging work...which requires real photographic skill, timing, anticipation, patience, knowledge of the subject matter, etc. > >> > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > >> > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > throw the gauntlet at your feet. If you have been shooting so long and have > the experience that you seem to have......drop the crotchety old fart > routine and actually try to constructively help people that come to the > ng.... now if you want to belittle and demean people elsewhere, that is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.fitness-vision.9f.com/ > http://www.gravesight.9f.com/ You're in Delaware, Ohio? I'm in Columbus. that I am....now how about my appeal for civility? Can't hurt. > You're in Delaware, Ohio? > > I'm in Columbus. oh well....can't say I didn't try. > that I am....now how about my appeal for civility? Can't hurt. >> You're in Delaware, Ohio? >> >> I'm in Columbus. You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more morons than any other activity. > oh well....can't say I didn't try. > > that I am....now how about my appeal for civility? Can't hurt. > >> You're in Delaware, Ohio? > >> > >> I'm in Columbus. You're the best proof of that! At least the rest of the known world understands digital photography (not to mention film photography). And doesn't try to sell off test prints and entry-level sports shots as art. >You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more >morons than any other activity. Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > You're the best proof of that! At least the rest of the known world > understands digital photography (not to mention film photography). And [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more > >morons than any other activity. >Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! Having seen what you consider to be 'good' photographs, yes you are entirely correct within your own little world. Using an extremely un-scientific method of proof I offer the following: Google on: 'Photography Art' - 17,000,000 matches. 'Photography Science' - 8,525,000 matches. "photography is an art" - 5,490 matches "photography is a science" - 114 matches UC, the world disagrees with you, which from the world's perspective, makes you wrong... again. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. > >Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Owamanga! > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. The difference between your photography and real photography proves that it's an art beyond any doubt. > > >Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Owamanga! > > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely >man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. Dude, are you drunk or something? What time zone are you in - it's still morning here. I can't think of one art that is entirely hand-made. Art really has no rules. You can arrange a set of used car tires into the shape of a submarine and call the result art. I can cut out a shape from a $20 bill and call it art. I can put some bells on my feet, dance around slapping my thighs with a group of guys from the village and call it art. "Photographs are produced by lenses?" This is no more true than suggesting that paintings are produced by brushes or music is produced by violins. A violin makes noise. A brush moves paint. A lens changes the direction of light. All are tools of an art. The human is an *essential* part of the process. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. Painting is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely man-made/hand-made. Paintings are produced by brushes. > > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely > > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. > > Painting is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely man-made/hand-made. > Paintings are produced by brushes. Nope, they are not. A brush has no image-forming potential whatsoever. And a painting is not an 'image'. >> > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely >> > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nope, they are not. A brush has no image-forming potential whatsoever. > And a painting is not an 'image'. So you're saying that this isn't fine art? Then why did my house builder have it hanging in his office? http://www.autotrend.com/pic/9446.jpg >> Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely >> man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. > > Painting is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely man-made/hand-made. > Paintings are produced by brushes. Not true! Paintings are made w paint! Paint is man made so we don't even need to mention the brushes!LOL >>> Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely >>> man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not true! Paintings are made w paint! Paint is man made so we don't even > need to mention the brushes!LOL I'LL FIGHT YOU. > Photographs are produced by lenses. that like saying paintings are produced with brushes. just more bullshit sorry. Alan > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>Owamanga! >>http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Nope, photography is not art and cannot be art. Art is entirely > man-made/hand-made. Photographs are produced by lenses. But photographs are composed by humans. There lies the art. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. My apologies to all for feeding the troll. >Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > My apologies to all for feeding the troll. Apology accepted. Now, Fitpix, here's a trout being slapped upside your head. <smack!> Stop feeding the troll! ;) Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >My apologies to all for feeding the troll. > >>Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! These threads are a lot shorter if you just killfile him. > >My apologies to all for feeding the troll. > > > >>Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > > These threads are a lot shorter if you just killfile him. Agreed, we'd all be allot better off...personally I did that about a week after I started coming to this group. Yes, I agree as well. Into the killfile immediately from now on. >> >My apologies to all for feeding the troll. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Agreed, we'd all be allot better off...personally I did that about a week >after I started coming to this group. > Agreed, we'd all be allot better off...personally I did that about a week > after I started coming to this group. Keep it all in context, the real problem is that UC can't afford a DSLR ;-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > > Agreed, we'd all be allot better off...personally I did that about a week > > after I started coming to this group. > > Keep it all in context, the real problem is that UC can't afford a DSLR > ;-) If I desired such an item, I could afford it. I do not. >> Keep it all in context, the real problem is that UC can't afford a > DSLR >> ;-) > > If I desired such an item, I could afford it. I do not. It was a joke ... we already know your opinion on the matter. > Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! not with your skill level thats for sure Alan > Photography is not and cannot be art. Only fools would believe that! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more >>>morons than any other activity. I also work as a police/fire/EMS dispatcher. Trust me, the people who come into alt.photography with their questions are hardly morons. Of course, the %2 of the population I deal with, 98% of the time sets a very very very high (low?) standard for moronic behavior. Case in point from last week: Guy : ummm yeah my girlfriend said the cops were here looking for me Me: Okay let me check (At this point I got his name.....hmmm no warrants and I tell him that. He insists they were looking for him again, so I check his address for activity there. Bingo, 3 officers were there earlier. So I call back to report writing (room where they do reports DUH) and talk to Officer A Me: Hey you were out w B and C at this guy's apartment. You know why they may have been looking for him? A: I was there to back them up, they arrested who they were after. Me: Ok cool, thanks. Me: Sir? Yeah I just talked to an officer who was at your address and he said that, whoever they were looking for they must have found because they arrested a guy. Guy: Yeah they did, it was me. Me: You? They arrested you? Guy: Uh huh Me: They arrested you and you asked me why they were looking for you? Don't you think that tidbit of info was pertinent to this conversation? Guy: Uh I guess.... Me: They arrested you, so obviously they got what they needed! Guy: Well I wanted to see if they still needed me for somethin' Me: No, they ARRESTED YOU, that is usually the final step when they come looking for you! Guy: Oh okay....ummmm bye CLICK So you see, if someone has a question about photography it can't be all that bad. When I worked for Cord Camera I spent many hours educating people and getting them to look for materials to help their photography. I have been shooting professionally for about 15 years. People feel comfortable asking me about photography. I can bet you almost anything that if it was in "real life" you wouldn't answer people to their face like you do here. You would get your a.s kicked! Try civility Mike, on the net. It really can't hurt. be safe, D > You have to understand the 'moron factor'. Photography attracts more > morons than any other activity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> >> >> I'm in Columbus. uhhh... try an entry-level photojournalism course. >The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital >cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long >lenses. Ha ha ha.... I teach photography, dumbass...... > uhhh... try an entry-level photojournalism course. > > >The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > >cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople > >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > >lenses. You teach photography and you know nothing about digital? Sad. Then again, so are your shots. >Ha ha ha.... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long >> >lenses. Yeah, no butterflies and sunsets..... Fuckwit.... > You teach photography and you know nothing about digital? Sad. Then > again, so are your shots. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > >> >lenses. Nope. Just third-rate sports shots like most beginners. >Yeah, no butterflies and sunsets..... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long >> >> >lenses. Beginners don't know sh.t. You could not do anything this good if your life depended on it and time stood still. AND I don't give a flyin' f.ck what you think. I'm not here to brag or to show my photographs. I'm here to ridicule imbeciles like you. I could have been a pro (in fact I did work professionally for a while) but the whole thing was so nauseating. Most pros are fuckwits, and I did not want to be associated with them... > Nope. Just third-rate sports shots like most beginners. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> >> >could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > >> >> >lenses. Wow, great to see such useful posters on this group. As a person interested in photography casually and for personal use, I come to this group to see what the state of digital vs film photography is for the consumer like me. I find your attitude similar to the snobs on many Usenet groups. I could find several of you on any of the groups that I read. You should know that people with your attitude get instantly dismissed and you rarely change anyone's perspective. As a former educator, I think your perspective is not only offensive, but downright unprofessional. I do appreciate the information that I have found here. Too bad none of it has come from you. Another post like the one below and you will be in my killfile. Leonard > Beginners don't know sh.t. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but the whole thing was so nauseating. Most pros are fuckwits, and I > did not want to be associated with them... I am not a snob. People who don't know what they're doing and give advice are sbobs. I am a highly-experienced photographer who prefers to work as an amateur, for various personal reasons. I don't wear my camera around my neck when I enter a camera shop just so people can see it when I walk in. I see this all the time, and I have to laugh. What pathetic pieces of sh.t these people are. If you want to know something about photography (not digital), just ask me. > Wow, great to see such useful posters on this group. As a person interested > in photography casually and for personal use, I come to this group to see [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > but the whole thing was so nauseating. Most pros are fuckwits, and I > > did not want to be associated with them... > I am not a snob. People who don't know what they're doing and give > advice are sbobs. What's a 'sbob'? >I am a highly-experienced photographer who prefers to > work as an amateur, for various personal reasons. Chief among them is your lack of ability. >I don't wear my > camera around my neck when I enter a camera shop just so people can see > it when I walk in. Can't stand the laughter? People mistake your twenty five year old rangefinder for a Fuji disposable? > I see this all the time, and I have to laugh. What > pathetic pieces of sh.t these people are. > > If you want to know something about photography (not digital), just ask > me. Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! (snipped) > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople > could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > lenses. I rarely have any problem shooting hockey indoors with a D70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, with or without flash. If you have any idea about the sport you're shooting, you'll have a good idea what's about to happen. You know that the skaters will be in the crease momentarily, so you focus there and lock it, just like with a manual focus film camera. The shots that I do screw up (of which there are plenty, because I'm the World's Worst Photographer(tm)), I would've screwed up anyway. Sports photography is about taking lots of shots so that a few out of every hundred represent "perfect timing." As for that rugby shot, if you had taken it with the ball another two inches in either direction, it would still be the same, and you'd have the same facial expressions on people and same action. It's not like you sat there for two weeks lining up the single good possible shot, took it, and left. Show the entire contact sheet for that event and let's see that every one of your shots was "perfect" like this one. Yes, the ball could be a few inches either way and it would still be basically identical. No, they were not all perfect, because with a 560mm lens it's hard just to find the ball carrier, as they're flipping it back and forth to each other and running in a serpentine pattern. If you don't care about CLOSE action you can use a shorter lens, but I wanted CLOSE action. This is what's called a scrum, and you have a bit more time to set-up for this kind of shot, as the guys are all locked arm-in-arm trying to free the ball with their feet. When the ball gets loose, one of the players called the halfback is waiting for it. He picks it up and immediately pitches it to one of several players standing around. All in all, rugby is one of the hardest sports to photograph. American football is much easier. I cannot imagine trying this with auto-focus. It would be a disaster.... > > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Show the entire contact sheet for that event and let's see that every one of > your shots was "perfect" like this one. > Yes, the ball could be a few inches either way and it would still be > basically identical. No, they were not all perfect, because with a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I cannot imagine trying this with auto-focus. It would be a > disaster.... But if you have a bit of set-up time, the auto-focus would be right around the plane of the action, and then you could still make fine adjustments on the fly. It's not an either-or situation. Is your lens an f/5.6? How much of an acceptable focus range do you get from where you stand? It sounds a lot like shooting hockey - you can hone in on a few spots where the action is likely to be. Since players (even at age 10) fly by so quickly, I find it more useful to stay zoomed out a little or even shoot from the front of the stands to get more depth of field. I'm thinking about actually tricking teams into letting me shoot their games next year, then selling prints of the better photos - they're not usually going to want more than 8x10, which is completely doable with 6 MP. Everything has its proper application. This is the lens: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560r68.html Here are some photos by Doug Herr with various Leicaflex lenses: http://www.kbcamera.com/herrphotos.htm Because of the construction of the lens, the 6,8 speed actually comes closer to 6,0 or even 5,6. It consists of one group of two cemented elements. Focussing is by push-pull, and is very easy once tou get used to it. I can think of no advantage whatsoever to auto-focussing with a lens like this. Because of the construction of the lens, contrast and color are extraordinary. > > Yes, the ball could be a few inches either way and it would still be > > basically identical. No, they were not all perfect, because with a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > than 8x10, which is completely doable with 6 MP. Everything has its proper > application. > The timing is perfect, and that is something that autofocus digital > cameras have problems with. I doubt seriously whether most peiople > could do work this good. It takes considerable skill to use long > lenses. You don't HAVE to use the autofocus or autoexposure or auto anything else. I see no reason at all why this picture couldn't be taken with a digital SLR (i.e. D-70 in context of this thread) and at the same or better quality. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in > it's intended form, you've failed." > > You meant 'its intended form', right? Sure. > How so? I WANT prints, that's my intended medium. So why did you attempt to post them on the internet? > A print is far, far better than an internet image will show, and it's > far, far better than a digital capture can be. Doesn't that depend on the situation? To be "far, far better", it would be like an 8x10 negative compared to a one megapixel digital image. A six megapixel image compared to a 35mm print might be a little better under optimal conditions. On the other hand, the one megapixel image displayed on a web site would be superior to those crappy scanned images you posted. I don't give a sh.t what > you think. I put those images up only as rough samples, You succeeded. They're quite rough. not as 'fine > work', simply because I haven't got the time or interest to make prints > just for internet imbeciles like you. I see COUNTLESS boring crappy > photos that people put on the internet. These people could not make a > print to save their lives. They don't have to. Just manipulate the image to the point you want and upload to a quality lab. > NO auto-focus, auto-exposure digital camera could do this: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > shame that the small file size necessary for internet viewing does not > permit sufficient resolution to show the clarity of this photograph. Huh? That's what scroll bars are for. Post away. > > > These were proof prints, and unspotted. As I said, I didn't make > > these [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > . > > Anymore excuses, worthless one? > > "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on > in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So why did you attempt to post them on the internet? Because people asked to see my work. I don't care whether they do or not. Imbeciles who have been taking picctures for a total of six months have web sites. Who gives a sh.t? I have been taking pictures for 40 years. I don't need or want anybody else's opinions. > > A print is far, far better than an internet image will show, and it's > > far, far better than a digital capture can be. > > Doesn't that depend on the situation? To be "far, far better", it > would be like an 8x10 negative compared to a one megapixel digital > image. No, this is quite false. > A six megapixel image compared to a 35mm print might be a > little better under optimal conditions. On the other hand, the one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't give a sh.t what > > you think. I put those images up only as rough samples, > You succeeded. They're quite rough. The original prints look less rough. The prints look quite good, actually. > not as 'fine > > work', simply because I haven't got the time or interest to make [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They don't have to. Just manipulate the image to the point you want > and upload to a quality lab. Sorry, doesn't work that way. B&W film has far more capacity for detail than digital crap, no matter how many pixels....the spacing of the recording cells can NEVER be as close as film grains. So, 'sending it to a lab' will never equal learning how to develop and print B&W > "We can't see the prints, now can we? If you can't pass your work on in > it's intended form, you've failed." [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >>Anymore excuses, worthless one? Digital can capture plenty of detail. Check out this very low res image <http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=90420> Alan Yes and digital voice and digital music is quite inferior to analog.....but the masses want what is in vogue and they buy. Tom > You morons who buy some digital piece of crap because you want 'new > technology' make me want to puke. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > >> >rec.photo.film+labs > Yes and digital voice and digital music is quite inferior to > analog.....but the masses want what is in vogue and they buy. Define "inferior". Digital is a more accurate representation of audio than any analog system, so by that measure, analog is "inferior". I'd suspect that's the measure most people use, but feel free to explain what you're measuring it by. I'd be interested to know. Signature~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Yes and digital voice and digital music is quite inferior to >> analog.....but the masses want what is in vogue and they buy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that's the measure most people use, but feel free to explain what you're > measuring it by. I'd be interested to know. I understand that the last Strokes and Steely Dan albums were recorded to analogue tape because they prefer the warm sound and compression characteristics that tape offer. > >> Yes and digital voice and digital music is quite inferior to > >> analog.....but the masses want what is in vogue and they buy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > analogue tape because they prefer the warm sound and compression > characteristics that tape offer. Analog and digital are different. They both have advantages, but it is hard to generalize the common assumption that digital is better. In many ways it is clearly not, audio included. The statement that "Digital is a more accurate representation of audio than any analog system,..." is simply false. Digital can be very good, and good digital recordings are in some ways much better than analog, but most digital recordings may not be. It very much depends on the standards, the processing, and the execution. Same for video and imaging, only more so. Leonard > Analog and digital are different. They both have advantages, but it > is hard to generalize the common assumption that digital is better. > In many ways it is clearly not, audio included. I believe digital workflow and process is far superior to analog methods, and few can reasonably deny that. Digital storage is fast and clean, it doesn't degrade, it can be copied any number of times with no loss of quality, and it naturally lends itself to the easy organization of even massive amounts of material. Analog simply can't compete in this area - the advantages are inherent in the medium. But otherwise, you're absolutely right - aesthetically, neither is "better", they are just different. The subjective element can't be quantified, and it just comes down to personal taste. Also note that even the advantages listed above can be subjective - I s |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message