D70 vs D70s?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Rubin, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
    a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
    larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
    socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
    foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
    really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
    have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
    its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?

    Thanks.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Rubin

    larrylook Guest

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
    > a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
    > larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
    > socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
    > foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
    > really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
    > have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
    > its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?


    This question is above my experitise, but I will make one comment. BTW I
    own a D70. I really think, that as a holdover from film days, the
    manufacturers give you a small lcd and think you'll be thrilled, since you
    had none in film days. BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
    digital times it really should be larger! Especially if your over 40 yrs
    old. You certainly can't tell on the D70 lcd if your moderately out of
    focus and I think you should be able to tell. I think the value of a bigger
    lcd is huge and can't be overemphasized. My son is 13 and has eagle eyes,
    so maybe not for him, but if your thirty - you'll be 40 in ten years and
    maybe you'll still have the camera and your eyes will be older. Then again
    in 10 years you'll want a 100MP camera.
    larrylook, Apr 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "larrylook" <> writes:
    > had none in film days. BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
    > digital times it really should be larger! Especially if your over 40 yrs
    > old. You certainly can't tell on the D70 lcd if your moderately out of
    > focus and I think you should be able to tell. I think the value of a bigger
    > lcd is huge and can't be overemphasized.


    Thanks, yes, an increase from 2" to say 4" would be a big help with that.
    But the D70s increase is something like 2" to 2.1", not that big a deal.
    You have to use the zoom function to check focus either way.

    I've had a series of small point/shoot digicams and am already
    reasonably comfortable with the lcd sizes for quick review purposes.
    For closer inspection I think it's best to use a computer monitor.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Paul Rubin

    Bubbabob Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

    > Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
    > a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
    > larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
    > socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
    > foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
    > really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
    > have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
    > its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable itself
    is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about its price.
    It might be $100 or more.

    D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
    camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
    aren't.
    Bubbabob, Apr 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Paul Rubin

    Dave Busch Guest

    On 12 Apr 2005 14:35:11 -0700, Paul Rubin
    <http://> wrote:

    >Has anyone looked at the D70s instructions closely yet? Should I buy
    >a D70 now, or hold out for the upgrade? I know about the slightly
    >larger LCD and it's not that big a deal for me. The remote release
    >socket matters more since I'd like to be able to run the camera from a
    >foot pedal (copy stand). But its absence isn't a deal killer. What I
    >really want is metering with MF lenses and none of the D70/D70S/D100
    >have that. Finally I wonder what people think of the D50. What are
    >its drawbacks compared to the D70/D70S?
    >
    >Thanks.


    It would depend on whether the minimal new features are worth the
    extra $200 or so a D70s is likely to cost you. My guess is that the
    update will be sold at the old, no-rebate price.


    -------------------------------------
    Everything I know, and then some:
    http://www.auctionmyths.com
    Dave Busch, Apr 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
    > Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable itself
    > is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about its price.
    > It might be $100 or more.


    Does it give a part number for the remote cable? I hope they weren't
    crazy enough to make a special remote cable for the D70, instead of
    using the same MC30 cable that the D1 and so forth use. It's around
    $50.

    > D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
    > camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
    > aren't.


    What colorspace does the D70 use? Is that different from what typical
    p/s digicams use? Do you mean the D50 doesn't do RAW? I don't have
    anything against SD, but good point, I have several CF cards and it
    would be nice to be able to keep using them.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Dave Busch <moc.seimmud4latigid@eriafresal> writes:
    > It would depend on whether the minimal new features are worth the
    > extra $200 or so a D70s is likely to cost you. My guess is that the
    > update will be sold at the old, no-rebate price.


    I wonder if they can keep that price where it is. Note that the D70
    no longer has a rebate, but the regular price seems to have fallen some.
    There's still a $100 rebate for the D70 kit with the 18-70 zoom.
    I really, really, prefer to not deal with rebates though.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #7
  8. > BUT the screen is so incredibly helpful in these
    > digital times it really should be larger!


    Yes, but to be realistically useful for focus checking it would need to be
    larger than the form factor of the camera could handle. The more MP you
    have the less of the image detail you can see on the LCD. Even "zooming in"
    on playback isn't much use for checking focus of shots on my 20D. The
    quality of the LCD screen, especially in daylight, really isn't enough to
    display that sort of detail.

    The screen is useful for composition checking, the histogram, and checking
    to see if a subject blinked, etc. Making it a bit bigger, even quite a bit
    bigger, won't make it a lot more useful IMHO.

    --
    The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
    http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
    href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
    Derek Fountain, Apr 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    : D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its a
    : camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
    : aren't.

    The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG. If shooting
    RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

    WRT SD cards, they are the small form factor that has won. They're the same
    cost per meg as CF, and they're physically small enough to be useful in other devices
    (mp3 players, cell phones, etc, etc). The formats to avoid are one-off standards
    invented by money-grubbing companies trying to lock you into their stuff (read: Sony
    MemoryStick, xD, etc).

    -Cory

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
    > If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.


    If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
    want the standard one?
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    : writes:
    : > The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
    : > If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.

    : If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
    : want the standard one?

    It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB colorspace
    specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of working colorspace. You can
    think of AdobeRGB space being capable of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not
    all devices can display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
    denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an average PC monitor.

    With RAW, all of that colorspace conversion is done in the RAW conversion
    post-processing step. You can map the output into any working space you want,
    including sRGB or AdobeRGB.

    -Cory

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Rubin

    Bubbabob Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

    > Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
    >> Those are the two primary differences. Note that the remote cable
    >> itself is listed as an option and Nikon is being typically coy about
    >> its price. It might be $100 or more.

    >
    > Does it give a part number for the remote cable? I hope they weren't
    > crazy enough to make a special remote cable for the D70, instead of
    > using the same MC30 cable that the D1 and so forth use. It's around
    > $50.

    MC-DC1 is the remote cable for the D70s. I'm not familiar with it.

    >
    >> D50 will only do sRGB colorspace and uses silly little SD cards. Its
    >> a camera for P&S owners who think they're ready for a real camera but
    >> aren't.

    >
    > What colorspace does the D70 use? Is that different from what typical
    > p/s digicams use? Do you mean the D50 doesn't do RAW? I don't have
    > anything against SD, but good point, I have several CF cards and it
    > would be nice to be able to keep using them.
    >



    The D70 uses sRGB color space AND Adobe RGB98.

    I don't recall if the D50 shoots RAW. I don't have a copy of the manual
    and probably won't download one as I'm not even slightly interested in
    downgrading to one.
    Bubbabob, Apr 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    writes:
    > It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
    > colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
    > working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
    > of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
    > display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
    > denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
    > average PC monitor.


    I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
    that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
    all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
    and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul Rubin

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > writes:
    >> It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
    >> colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
    >> working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
    >> of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
    >> display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
    >> denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
    >> average PC monitor.

    >
    >I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
    >that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
    >all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
    >and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?


    Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
    example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
    stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.

    IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
    best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
    wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
    different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
    posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth, which means
    shooting raw, but colourspace is irrelevant in raw-mode, because it gets
    assigned during conversion.
    Chris Brown, Apr 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    wrote:
    > Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > : writes:
    > : > The colorspace on the camera only applies if shooting in JPEG.
    > : > If shooting RAW, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB is irrelevant and ignored.


    > : If sRGB vs. AdobeRGB means standard RGB vs proprietary RGB, don't I
    > : want the standard one?


    > It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
    > colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
    > working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
    > of representing "redder reds" than sRGB,


    You'd be wrong, though -- the blue and red primaries of Adobe RGB and
    sRGB are the same. The larger space is entirely due to the use of a
    different green primary.

    Bruce Lindbloom said "I have heard the rumor that the green primary
    for Adobe RGB came about by the accidental use of the NTSC green
    primary, used incorrectly since NTSC is defined relative to Illuminant
    C while Adobe RGB is defined relative to D65. After the mistake was
    discovered, Adobe decided to keep it since their experiences with this
    accidental reference space were favorable."

    Andrew.
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Paul Rubin

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> writes:
    > Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
    > example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
    > stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.


    OK, let me ask it again, is AdobeRGB good or bad for the 99.9% of us
    (well maybe 98%) who aren't using Macs and aren't using Adobe products?

    > IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
    > best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
    > wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
    > different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
    > posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth, which means
    > shooting raw, but colourspace is irrelevant in raw-mode, because it gets
    > assigned during conversion.


    JPEG supports 16 bit color though I don't know how much software
    actually knows about this. Adding that support sounds like a better
    plan than trying to move towards a different RGB standard.
    Paul Rubin, Apr 13, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> writes:
    >> Anything that's colourspace-aware should handle it (most Mac stuff, for
    >> example, web browsers included). Non-aware software will render AdobeRGB
    >> stuff as looking very dull and unsaturated.

    >
    >OK, let me ask it again, is AdobeRGB good or bad for the 99.9% of us
    >(well maybe 98%) who aren't using Macs and aren't using Adobe products?


    AdobeRGB is good is you want to store colors that are outside the gamut
    of sRGB. If you only display your photos on computer screens, sRGB
    should be enough. If you want to print pictures with saturated greens
    of yellows, sRGB is wasting the potential of the print.

    >JPEG supports 16 bit color though I don't know how much software
    >actually knows about this.


    There is much more software that supports AdobeRGB than >8 bit/ch jpeg.
    On the other hand, in most cases, 8 bit/ch works fine with AdobeRGB.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Apr 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    lid wrote:
    : You'd be wrong, though -- the blue and red primaries of Adobe RGB and
    : sRGB are the same. The larger space is entirely due to the use of a
    : different green primary.

    : Bruce Lindbloom said "I have heard the rumor that the green primary
    : for Adobe RGB came about by the accidental use of the NTSC green
    : primary, used incorrectly since NTSC is defined relative to Illuminant
    : C while Adobe RGB is defined relative to D65. After the mistake was
    : discovered, Adobe decided to keep it since their experiences with this
    : accidental reference space were favorable."

    OK... I stand corrected. I was supposed to be a general-purpose comment.

    -Cory
    --

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    > IMO, the ability to use AdobeRGB in JPEGs on DSLRs is a misfeature, or at
    > best, pointless. Since JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, and
    > wide-gamuts tradeoff the number of shades of a colour against the number of
    > different colours, using Adobe-RGB in JPEG mode would seem to be inviting
    > posterised output. To avoid this, you need a higher bit depth


    IMO, if you have a scene that needs a wide gamut it's better to risk a
    little posterization than to clip colours, but it's a tradeoff. Adobe
    RGB jpegs are usually OK.

    Besides, Adobe RGB isn't much bigger than sRGB -- I agree that wide
    gamut spaces (like ProPhoto RGB) shouldn't be used with 8 bit images.

    Andrew.
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Paul Rubin

    Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    : writes:
    : > It isn't about "standard" vs. "proprietary," as AdobeRGB
    : > colorspace specification is public. It has to do with subtlties of
    : > working colorspace. You can think of AdobeRGB space being capable
    : > of representing "redder reds" than sRGB, but not all devices can
    : > display them as truly "redder than red." sRGB is the lowest common
    : > denominator and roughly represents what can be represented on an
    : > average PC monitor.

    : I still don't get this. If I look at a jpeg file in a web browser,
    : that's presumably set up for sRGB; will AdobeRGB pictures display at
    : all in that case? Will the colors look weird? Why would I want AdobeRGB
    : and what programs understand it other than Adobe programs?

    I think you're getting confused on file type vs. color profile. In all these
    cases, the images are (at least eventually) recorded as RGB values. A tiff/jpeg/bmp,
    etc record just that and define the file type. Anything that can read those should be
    able to load and display them.

    Now, add on *top* of that, a small additional piece of information. That is
    the color profile that describes (generally) small adjustments in the definition of
    what "red, green, and blue" mean in an absolute sense. It's not limited to small
    adjustments, just that it usually is. Now, it's up to the display device whether or
    not it is going to honor this profile.

    Think of it like the EXIF information in the JPEG from a camera. It's there
    in addition to the image. If an application looks at it, great.... if not then it's
    ignored. Embedded color profiling works similarly, except that if the image has been
    "pre-corrected" into a different colorspace, using an application downstream that
    doesn't honor it will result in slightly different color rendition.

    -Cory
    --

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. carrigman

    Nikon D70 to be upgraded to an 8MP Nilkon D70S

    carrigman, Mar 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    648
  2. Sidney Friedman

    D70 or D70s?

    Sidney Friedman, May 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    597
    Paul Furman
    Jun 3, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
  4. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    829
    Todd Gibbs
    Jan 10, 2006
  5. PitR

    d70 vs d70s

    PitR, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    429
    [BnH]
    Jul 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page