Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by condor_222@yahoo.com, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Dear experts,

    I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
    cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.

    I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
    noticed a few issues.

    The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.

    The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    for other Nikons, but not the D70.

    So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    focus them.

    I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
    the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
    lenses too if I bought a Canon.

    I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
    camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
    on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
    have different screens?

    How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?

    Thanks a lot
    , Oct 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GTO Guest

    > I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
    > cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
    >


    I still use my FM from 1979. Even the MD-12 still works. A great manual
    camera.

    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


    Manual focusing with my D70 sucks. I wish it had a decent view-finder with
    exchangeable focusing screens. I can manually focus with my D70 but I had to
    practice a lot.

    > The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    > is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    > to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    > no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    > for other Nikons, but not the D70.


    Hmm, my D70 has a diopter adjustment.

    > So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    > real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    > use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    > focus them.


    Not yet. But we are all praying that Nikon will soon notice our pleading.
    But if you are in a hurry, you can always default to the slightly more
    expensive D2X ;-)

    > I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
    > camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
    > on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
    > have different screens?


    Get the 5D if you can part yourself from your Nikon gears. Get it and run!

    >
    > How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    > you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
    >


    Regarding glass: no difference
    Regarding DSLR camera body: one year ahead. No?

    Gregor
    GTO, Oct 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Dear experts,
    >
    > I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
    > cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
    >
    > I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
    > noticed a few issues.
    >
    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
    >
    > The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    > is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    > to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    > no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    > for other Nikons, but not the D70.
    >
    > So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    > real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    > use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    > focus them.
    >
    > I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
    > the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
    > lenses too if I bought a Canon.
    >
    > I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
    > camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
    > on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
    > have different screens?
    >
    > How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    > you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
    >
    > Thanks a lot


    The Canon with similarly small sensors have similar issues with manual
    focus...
    But...
    The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
    viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
    different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
    $3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.
    Mark², Oct 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Richard H. Guest

    wrote:
    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


    Bingo. Not just because it's digital - because it's auto-focus. You'll
    find this with film AF cameras too. It's nearly impossible to manually
    focus sharply with the current SLR focus screens.

    They seem to have cut a corner here since "nobody would want to focus
    manually with an AF camera". Sadly, there's not an after-market option
    to add a split prism or other style of focusing screen. (If somebody
    knows of one for the N80 or D70, please tell!)

    This may help - it's a viewfinder magnifier for Nikons. It looks a
    little goofy, but it's on my to-buy list anyway...
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37321&is=GREY
    and it needs this:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37445&is=REG


    > The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    > is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    > to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    > no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    > for other Nikons, but not the D70.


    Interesting point. I hadn't noticed.

    I would speculate that if the viewfinder screen is smaller, it's because
    the image being cast onto the sensor / viewfinder is smaller. (Though
    I'd think that should be correctable in the viewfinder regardless. Hmmm.)

    If you search on "nikon diopter d70" at http://www.bhphotovideo.com, you
    will see there is a full range of them. There is also a minor
    adjustment built into the body. If you're fortunate not to have an
    astigmatism, they will work OK; otherwise, you'll need to keep your
    glasses on when shooting.


    > I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
    > the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
    > lenses too if I bought a Canon.


    Very true.

    Ironically, some of Nikon's very good lenses are manual-focus only, such
    as their 50mm f/1.2.


    > How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    > you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?


    Let the religious battles begin. :)

    After much debate, it's usually apparent that both are excellent
    systems. Canon seems to lead in some areas, and Nikon in others.

    Aside from the obvious things like lens selection available, look at
    subtler things too like compression tech (number of images per MB),
    battery life, continuous rate buffer sizes, etc.

    Cheers,
    Richard
    Richard H., Oct 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Mike Warren Guest

    wrote:
    > Dear experts,


    Not me, but I'll answer anyway. :)

    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


    Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The
    full frame ones would be better since the focus screen is
    bigger.

    There are after-market focus screens available for some
    dSLRs. I don't have any personal experience though.

    > And, in the catalog, there is no diopter (?) correction
    > for the D70. They have some for other Nikons, but
    > not the D70.


    The D70/D70s and D50 all have viewfinder diopter adjustment.
    It's under the left side of the eye cup.

    --
    Mike Warren
    My web gallery: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike
    Mike Warren, Oct 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Wayne Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >And, in the catalog, there is
    >no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    >for other Nikons, but not the D70.



    The D70 has a small slider on the right side of its eyepiece, allowing
    small adjustment from -1.6 to +0.5 diopter.

    There are also optional stronger replacement eyepieces listed in the
    Accessories section of the D70 web page at www.nikonusa.com. The
    builtin slider still works to modify those lens by -1.6 to +0.5.
    Wayne, Oct 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Richard H. Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
    > viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
    > different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
    > $3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.


    A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific lenses.
    He made an interesting observation about the prospect of full-frame
    CCD sensors becoming the new trend...

    * With the smaller sensors, we're "beyond" the resolution of the mass
    market needs, even at 6 or 8MP. (i.e., it's good enough for most 35mm
    purposes, and while consumers may ask for higher resolution, there
    aren't enough willing to pay for it.)

    * The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
    to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
    really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
    market segment)

    * At a manufacturing level, full-frame sensors will always be more
    expensive to make because they have a higher probability of defects and
    fewer of them fit on a manufacturing wafer (more scrap material, lower #
    units per batch, & higher defect rate).

    * "Digital" format lenses are cheaper to produce (and sell), and can be
    smaller and lighter because they require less glass for the same result.

    Looking at the above if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd be focusing on
    increasing resolution by improving density of the smaller sensors at the
    same / less cost, not on physically increasing the size of the sensor.

    It'll be very interesting to see if Canon's 5D is setting a new trend,
    or a short-lived idea.

    Cheers,
    Richard
    Richard H., Oct 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Nikon User Guest

    In article <434de722$0$62661$>,
    "Mike Warren" <> wrote:

    > Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The full frame
    > ones would be better since the focus screen is bigger.


    It's the same thing with 35MM autofocus cameras. The N8008s doesn't
    have a split image device either.
    Nikon User, Oct 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Mark² Guest

    Richard H. wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large,
    >> bright viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It
    >> also accepts different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
    >> $3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.

    >
    > A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific
    > lenses. He made an interesting observation about the prospect of
    > full-frame CCD sensors becoming the new trend...
    >
    > * With the smaller sensors, we're "beyond" the resolution of the mass
    > market needs, even at 6 or 8MP. (i.e., it's good enough for most 35mm
    > purposes, and while consumers may ask for higher resolution, there
    > aren't enough willing to pay for it.)
    >
    > * The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
    > to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
    > really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
    > market segment)
    >
    > * At a manufacturing level, full-frame sensors will always be more
    > expensive to make because they have a higher probability of defects
    > and fewer of them fit on a manufacturing wafer (more scrap material,
    > lower # units per batch, & higher defect rate).
    >
    > * "Digital" format lenses are cheaper to produce (and sell), and can
    > be smaller and lighter because they require less glass for the same
    > result.
    > Looking at the above if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd be focusing
    > on increasing resolution by improving density of the smaller sensors
    > at the same / less cost, not on physically increasing the size of the
    > sensor.
    > It'll be very interesting to see if Canon's 5D is setting a new trend,
    > or a short-lived idea.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Richard


    At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this is
    its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neither
    want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is for
    serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
    want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They have
    also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the
    full frame sizes in the future.

    The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
    Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses. As sensors grow
    both in size and pixel density, we are quickly reaching a point where lens
    quality is paramount. Sensors are now capable of revealing lens' optical
    flaws. From a marketing standpoint, this could be good for Canon, since it
    would then "justify" the purchase of their highest quality (and, by far,
    their highest priced) lenses. It is already happening. More and more
    advanced amateurs seem to be gravitating toward larger, faster, more
    expesnive glass. This is where Canon will make a mint. If they were to
    limit themselves to small sensors (which also lead to lower threshholds for
    noise), they'd only be inviting lesser lens manufacturers to nab their cash
    cow (lenses), since everyone could churn out small-sensor-optimized lenses.

    I think Canon is not only on the right track business-wise, but they are
    also in a position of command in terms of utilizing the larger sensor's
    capacity for high-res/low-noise imaging.

    -Mark
    Mark², Oct 13, 2005
    #9
  10. DD (Rox) Guest

    In article <Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
    even number here)@cox..net> says...
    > At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this is
    > its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neither
    > want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is for
    > serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
    > want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They have
    > also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the
    > full frame sizes in the future.


    Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped
    into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with
    the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in
    the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
    amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
    photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
    (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
    they had to had it.

    > The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
    > Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.


    I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment and
    supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds their
    operation is made from P&S digital cameras.

    --
    DD (everything is temporary)
    www.dallasdahms.com
    DD (Rox), Oct 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Mark² Guest

    DD (Rox) wrote:
    > In article <Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
    > even number here)@cox..net> says...
    >> At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of
    >> this is its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't
    >> likely neither want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized
    >> built-in flash. It is for serious photographers who want their wide
    >> angle lenses to work...and who want the high res of 12.8MP without
    >> sacrificing quality to noise. They have also indicated a plan to
    >> keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the full frame sizes
    >> in the future.

    >
    > Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
    > popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
    > around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much
    > interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10
    > orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were
    > not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought
    > the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the
    > newest thing and they had to had it.


    There will always be people like that.
    I've seen people hauling around Leicas for the same reason: They think they
    look cool holding one. I'm sure that happens with all sorts of
    things...cars...motorcycles...guns...and cameras. Meanwhile, those who
    actually know how to use a camera are using them well, regardless of how
    many dorks with money there might be--posing in their mirrors holding their
    new toy.

    >> The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
    >> Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.

    >
    > I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment
    > and supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds
    > their operation is made from P&S digital cameras.


    Since this is a discussion about photography equipment, I thought it would
    go without saying that I was referring to SLR photo equitpment $$ coming
    from sale of lenses, as opposed to bodies.

    -Though actually, I suspect that with the huge successes of digital bodies,
    that may be swinging a bit.
    I don't know.
    Mark², Oct 13, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    >There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    >by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    >in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
    >
    >The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    >is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    >to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    >no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    >for other Nikons, but not the D70.


    I have a D1 (for fun and experiments, my 'real' photos are still on film).
    In my experience, the ground glass in the D1 is quite suitable for manual
    focus (I only have manual focus Nikkors).

    The screen in the D1 can be replaced, but I don't think that Nikon makes a
    screen with focussing aids.

    The resolution of the D1 is a bit low, but the D1X may be a option. Second
    hand prices aren't all that high. And you get good compatibility with
    your manual focus Nikkors.


    --
    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, Oct 13, 2005
    #12
  13. DoN. Nichols Guest

    According to <>:
    > Dear experts,
    >
    > I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
    > cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
    >
    > I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
    > noticed a few issues.
    >
    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


    That can be a problem, as the viewfinder screen (permanent one,
    not changeable like the Nikon F was) is optimized for working with the
    autofocus mechanism.

    > The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    > is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    > to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    > no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    > for other Nikons, but not the D70.


    There is none in the catalog because it is built into the
    camera. There is a ribbed sliding object just to the right of the
    eyepiece which can be used to adjust the diopter of the viewfinder
    eyepiece. To set that correctly, turn on the grid and the zone-of-focus
    indicators to give your eye something to judge the focus by. (These
    also help when focusing a lens, once the eyepiece is tuned, because they
    can help to anchor the focus of the eye, which can otherwise be pulled
    by an out-of-focus image -- as could an eye using the clear spot version
    of the Nikon F viewfinder, which is why there was a fine black '+' in
    the center of the spot.

    > So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    > real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    > use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    > focus them.


    You can focus them -- but if they have no built-in electrical
    contacts, you cannot use the camera's metering system with them. The
    metering system for the D70 *must* see a chip in the lens. Some of the
    more expensive Nikon cameras will still work with any lens with the AI
    aperture ring (a couple of tabs on it to talk to sensors on the camera.)

    > I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
    > the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
    > lenses too if I bought a Canon.


    If your lenses have the chip, you can use them with the D70
    metering once you tune the viewfinder to your eyeglass prescription.

    > I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
    > camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
    > on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
    > have different screens?


    I presume that it, also, has a built-in diopter adjustment like
    the Nikon D70. I don't know whether it has interchangeable screens, and
    this may be a function of *which* Cannon you are talking about. There
    are several, just as there are several Nikon DSLRs. The D70 is the one
    which I happen to have, so I can answer your implied question about the
    diopter correction.

    > How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    > you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?


    Again -- *which* Cannon, compared against which of the Nikon
    cameras?

    If I had the money, I would be very tempted to change to the
    D2x, which would allow me to meter with some of my older lenses which
    can't be "chipped". (I had a nice 180mm f2.8 manual lens "chipped" so
    it will work nicely with the metering in the D70, though it still has no
    autofocus.

    You can also get used lenses *with* the autofocus. One of mine
    (a 50mm f1.4) was obtained used, and I expect to get others as time goes
    on. (I also expect to perform some modifications on some really old
    ones to allow me to actually mount them on the D70. Those too old to
    have the AI aperture ring won't mount, as the solid aperture ring
    interferes with the sensor that assures the D70 that a lens has been
    stopped down all the way.

    Good luck,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Nichols, Oct 13, 2005
    #13
  14. DD (Rox) Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Dear experts,
    >
    > I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
    > cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
    >
    > I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
    > noticed a few issues.
    >
    > The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
    > There was no split in the middle where you can focus
    > by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
    > in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.


    The modern Nikon cameras use an electronic rangefinder device of some
    sorts to indicate when you are in focus. A little green dot in the
    viewfinder lights up when the lens has achieved focus and arrows either
    side of it tell the user which way to turn the focussing ring to achieve
    focus.

    > The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
    > is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
    > to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
    > no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
    > for other Nikons, but not the D70.


    Definitely has that feature.

    > So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    > real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    > use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    > focus them.


    You won't be able to use the cameras metering with a non-CPU lens. You
    would have to meter using a handheld or accessory shoe meter.

    > I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
    > the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
    > lenses too if I bought a Canon.


    Ooohh! OOOOOHHHHHHH!

    Don't go there! Canon is an EVIL company that makes evil products. If
    you buy one you will surely be on the fast track to hell.

    > I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
    > camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
    > on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
    > have different screens?
    >
    > How does the Canon compare in any other area that
    > you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?


    Canon cameras change so often that should anything go wrong with your
    current model in a couple of years time, the chances of getting spares
    to do feasible repairs is unlikely. In my opinion unless you are buying
    at the top end of the Canon offering you are playing a hit and miss
    game.

    --
    DD (everything is temporary)
    www.dallasdahms.com
    DD (Rox), Oct 13, 2005
    #14
  15. DD (Rox) Guest

    In article <dYm3f.1421$UF4.1052@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
    even number here)@cox..net> says...

    > > Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
    > > popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
    > > around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much
    > > interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10
    > > orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were
    > > not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought
    > > the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the
    > > newest thing and they had to had it.

    >
    > There will always be people like that.
    > I've seen people hauling around Leicas for the same reason: They think they
    > look cool holding one. I'm sure that happens with all sorts of
    > things...cars...motorcycles...guns...and cameras. Meanwhile, those who
    > actually know how to use a camera are using them well, regardless of how
    > many dorks with money there might be--posing in their mirrors holding their
    > new toy.


    Yep, too much disposable income. I once had a chat to a guy I saw
    brandishing an F5 with a crappy Sigma lens on it. I wanted to know what
    he thought of the camera and he prattled on about how it took the best
    photos he ever saw. Sounds like another guy we know who owns an EOS1v.

    > >> The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
    > >> Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.

    > >
    > > I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment
    > > and supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds
    > > their operation is made from P&S digital cameras.

    >
    > Since this is a discussion about photography equipment, I thought it would
    > go without saying that I was referring to SLR photo equitpment $$ coming
    > from sale of lenses, as opposed to bodies.
    >
    > -Though actually, I suspect that with the huge successes of digital bodies,
    > that may be swinging a bit.
    > I don't know.


    The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
    what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
    where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
    industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.

    --
    DD (everything is temporary)
    www.dallasdahms.com
    DD (Rox), Oct 13, 2005
    #15
  16. sierra Guest

    "Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.

    Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses

    Porsche - profits
    sierra, Oct 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Skip M Guest

    "DD (Rox)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    In article <Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
    even number here)@cox..net> says...
    > At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this
    > is
    > its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely
    > neither
    > want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is
    > for
    > serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
    > want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They
    > have
    > also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and
    > the
    > full frame sizes in the future.


    >Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped
    >into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with
    >the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in
    >the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
    >amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
    >photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
    >(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
    >they had to had it.


    The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105
    f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a
    little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet,
    yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those
    of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part
    time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Oct 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Skip M Guest

    "sierra" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.
    >
    > Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses
    >
    > Porsche - profits
    >


    Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what saved
    them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.

    Chrysler-profits-|
    |--DCX-losses.
    Mercedes-losses-|

    The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at this
    point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are largely
    mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Oct 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Alex Guest

    On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:32:18 +0200, DD (Rox) <>
    wrote:

    >The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
    >what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
    >where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
    >industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.


    Not anymore as the mass market cameras are becoming commodities.
    (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05080802nikonprofit_soars.asp)

    The profits are in the high end digicams and dslrs. I believe all the
    manufacturers are or have realized this already.


    --
    Alex
    atheist #2007
    Alex, Oct 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Tony Polson Guest

    wrote:

    >So, this brings up the question, if there is any
    >real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
    >use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
    >focus them.



    You should be aware that your manual focus lenses will mount to the
    D70, but the camera's metering will not work. You will either have to
    use a hand held meter and set the exposure manually, or use trial and
    error, informed by the histogram.
    Tony Polson, Oct 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. Dennis D. Carter

    Nikon D70 Questions

    Dennis D. Carter, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    810
    Dennis D. Carter
    Jul 4, 2004
  2. RexBeavers

    Nikon D70 Issues

    RexBeavers, Jul 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    424
    Ray Paseur
    Jul 29, 2004
  3. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  4. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    911
    Joseph Miller
    Jun 7, 2005
  5. William Graham
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    683
Loading...

Share This Page