Digital SLRs are they there yet
Posted by: Rockingdoc on 21 July 2004
O.K. I'm beaten. Film is dying (well the labs are) and digital now rules the prosumer world.
I have a sack of Nikon lenses, so what SLR do I buy.
I was just about to jump for a D70, like every other photo-lemming in the world it seems, when a pro-photographer friend said it's image processing is a bit suspect and to hang on for something better. I can't afford the Kodak Pro (which he approved of ) at 4K.
So is he correct, is it still too early. I suspect this is the new PC e.g. twice the power for the same price each year you wait, and old digi SLRs will be worthless in 5 years.
Any views?
I have a sack of Nikon lenses, so what SLR do I buy.
I was just about to jump for a D70, like every other photo-lemming in the world it seems, when a pro-photographer friend said it's image processing is a bit suspect and to hang on for something better. I can't afford the Kodak Pro (which he approved of ) at 4K.
So is he correct, is it still too early. I suspect this is the new PC e.g. twice the power for the same price each year you wait, and old digi SLRs will be worthless in 5 years.
Any views?
Posted on: 26 July 2004 by BrianD
Joe
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
BTW I've got a Fuji 6900z but to be more accurate what I meant in my earlier post was if I want to go to digital SLR can I use the lenses from the Pentax? I'm happy with the advantageous from a digital camera but I want better results.
Thanks for the info. Much appreciated.
BTW I've got a Fuji 6900z but to be more accurate what I meant in my earlier post was if I want to go to digital SLR can I use the lenses from the Pentax? I'm happy with the advantageous from a digital camera but I want better results.
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Rockingdoc
Joe
You are my current forum hero
thanks again
You are my current forum hero
thanks again
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by count.d
quote:
Personally, if I were looking for a digital SLR, I'd get either a used D1x (because of the resolution -- ~5.5 MP) or a D2h (because of the lens compatibility). Actually, what I want is the fictitious F6/D3. That's what Nikon should build.
Doc,
Questions like the one you asked cannot be answered without your budget and without knowing what you want to shoot in the long term.
A secondhand D1x? I wouldn't touch a secondhand camera of that value, unless it was peanuts. If they go wrong, (and they do) they cost a fortune to have repaired.
A D2h? I wouldn't buy that model. It is a fast downloading camera suited to press and not quality. As far as it's compatibility with old lenses in matrix mode, it's too much hassle. You have to do settings on each lens every time you change one. They are also very expensive and you didn't have much budget.
If you plan on digital photography only, then sell all your lenses, except the macro, and buy one of the latest pro-range of zooms and a D70 body.
The new range of high res Nikkors are far better than any of the old mf range.
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Rockingdoc
Thanks to you also Count
My budget is a moveable feast. If I wanted it enough, and if I thought it was going to last, I could go 3k-4k for a body.
My lenses are in mint condition, some have decent f-stops, and I forgot another two or three manuals from my list, then there are all the filters and accessories, ring-flash and stuff I've accumulated. Very difficult to just dump them and start again, although it may make sense.
My photography is pretty general pictorial 35mm stuff. Landscapes mostly, some portraits,but I am planning a big move (i.e. very expensive lenses) into bird photography, so I need a fast shutter response as a priority. Bird photography is probably what is pushing me to digital as I have such a horrendous wastage rate on film.
I have been trying "digiscoping" with a Coolpix 4500 on a Swarovski scope but the results are disappointing.
My budget is a moveable feast. If I wanted it enough, and if I thought it was going to last, I could go 3k-4k for a body.
My lenses are in mint condition, some have decent f-stops, and I forgot another two or three manuals from my list, then there are all the filters and accessories, ring-flash and stuff I've accumulated. Very difficult to just dump them and start again, although it may make sense.
My photography is pretty general pictorial 35mm stuff. Landscapes mostly, some portraits,but I am planning a big move (i.e. very expensive lenses) into bird photography, so I need a fast shutter response as a priority. Bird photography is probably what is pushing me to digital as I have such a horrendous wastage rate on film.
I have been trying "digiscoping" with a Coolpix 4500 on a Swarovski scope but the results are disappointing.
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Derek Wright
RD
Given that you are interested in bird photography
Take a look at the photos at
Interesting wild life
After you have done that, tell us what you think of them and the equipment used
Derek
<< >>
Given that you are interested in bird photography
Take a look at the photos at
Interesting wild life
After you have done that, tell us what you think of them and the equipment used
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Rockingdoc
Well the bird photos seem to have been taken with 4k worth of lens on 4k worth of body. Doesn't detract from the skill of the photographer, but my original question still holds. Is the digital SLR worth buying yet, or are we still being asked to pay to beta-test them?
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Derek Wright
I do not where you get the 4k from the camera is the Olympus E1 - cost about 1400 incl the 14 - 54 mm lens (equiv 28 to 108mm in 35mm)
The 50 to 200mm (100 to 400mm 35 mm equivalent) is about £720 ish, the 1.4 mm teleconvertor is about 300, I do not know the cost the 300mm lens.
The advantage of the E1 is that you can go from the 35mm equivalent of 28 to 400 mm with only 2 lenses which are smaller and lighter than the other makes of lenses.
The system has been designed as a whole rather than trying to match two very difficult and conflicting challenges that Nikon and Canon do
Please go along to an Olympus dealer and try an E1 out - going this route means forgetting the baggage of the past - ie all that wonderful Nikon glass (I had to write off all my Minolta stuff) and see if this is a route forward for you
Remember I warned you about the weight of the Nikon combo last time round.
Derek
<< >>
The 50 to 200mm (100 to 400mm 35 mm equivalent) is about £720 ish, the 1.4 mm teleconvertor is about 300, I do not know the cost the 300mm lens.
The advantage of the E1 is that you can go from the 35mm equivalent of 28 to 400 mm with only 2 lenses which are smaller and lighter than the other makes of lenses.
The system has been designed as a whole rather than trying to match two very difficult and conflicting challenges that Nikon and Canon do
Please go along to an Olympus dealer and try an E1 out - going this route means forgetting the baggage of the past - ie all that wonderful Nikon glass (I had to write off all my Minolta stuff) and see if this is a route forward for you
Remember I warned you about the weight of the Nikon combo last time round.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Joe Petrik
Count,
I think you're over-stating the difficulty of setting the camera to work with old MF lenses.
From Bjorn's D2H review:"
"The final, and to me most remarkable, improvement of D2H is its ingenious backwards compatibility with older, manual-focusing (MF) lenses. For years now, commencing with the introduction of F5 in 1996, Nikon has crippled the metering compatibility even of the pro-level cameras. Many long-term Nikon aficionados take exception to this practice and some, myself included, have had CPU modifications done to older lenses to make them more amenable with newer cameras. With the introduction of D2H, I feel our voices have been listened to. Any AI'd, AI, or AIS Nikkor not needing the reflex mirror to be swung aside can be mounted on the D2H. I have literally hundreds of lenses fulfilling that score, eureka! Using the nifty function button (lower front left, below the preview control), it's simplicity itself to give the camera needed details about lens speed and focal length. You can dial in the data for all your MF lenses, and the camera will recall the maximum aperture if you rotate the dial to get focal length. If you have several lenses with the same focal length, you do have to select amongst them, but most people won't even notice this. In practice the setting of the data only takes a fraction of a second, and best of all, the D2H remembers the data for the MF lens last used, so when you swap a single MF lens with AF/AFS Nikkors in a shooting session, there is no need to repeat the setup of the manual lens. Very, very clever. Very, very nice.
Compatibility with old MF lenses is a huge issue for long-time Nikkor shooters like me and, I assume, the Doc. I could sell all my lenses and buy the equivalent AF models (if they even exist), but for me that's tantamount to selling my huge LP collection to buy some CDs. Besides, it's taken me 15 years to assemble the lens system I have. Why sell all those spiffy -- and fast -- primes for a fancy AF zoom or two?
This seems more like a blurb from a Nikon brochure than a honest assessment of MF and AF Nikkors. Nikon has made some exceptional MF lenses as well as lots of great AF lenses. It's misleading to suggest that they just figured out how to do it right after designing and making lenses for more than a century.
__________________________________________
Doc,
Then digital it should be. One of the huge benefits of digital SLRs for nature photographers is that the smaller size of the CCD sensor (relative to film) means that the focal lengths of your lenses are effectively multiplied by 1.5. For instance, an affordable 300mm f/4 Nikkor is now a 450mm f/4 -- a lens that obviously has lots "reach" for bird pix -- and at a price less than that of a small car.
By the way, if "focal length multiplying" is new to you, have a look at this article.
Joe
quote:
A D2h? I wouldn't buy that model. It is a fast downloading camera suited to press and not quality. As far as it's compatibility with old lenses in matrix mode, it's too much hassle. You have to do settings on each lens every time you change one. They are also very expensive and you didn't have much budget.
I think you're over-stating the difficulty of setting the camera to work with old MF lenses.
From Bjorn's D2H review:"
"The final, and to me most remarkable, improvement of D2H is its ingenious backwards compatibility with older, manual-focusing (MF) lenses. For years now, commencing with the introduction of F5 in 1996, Nikon has crippled the metering compatibility even of the pro-level cameras. Many long-term Nikon aficionados take exception to this practice and some, myself included, have had CPU modifications done to older lenses to make them more amenable with newer cameras. With the introduction of D2H, I feel our voices have been listened to. Any AI'd, AI, or AIS Nikkor not needing the reflex mirror to be swung aside can be mounted on the D2H. I have literally hundreds of lenses fulfilling that score, eureka! Using the nifty function button (lower front left, below the preview control), it's simplicity itself to give the camera needed details about lens speed and focal length. You can dial in the data for all your MF lenses, and the camera will recall the maximum aperture if you rotate the dial to get focal length. If you have several lenses with the same focal length, you do have to select amongst them, but most people won't even notice this. In practice the setting of the data only takes a fraction of a second, and best of all, the D2H remembers the data for the MF lens last used, so when you swap a single MF lens with AF/AFS Nikkors in a shooting session, there is no need to repeat the setup of the manual lens. Very, very clever. Very, very nice.
Compatibility with old MF lenses is a huge issue for long-time Nikkor shooters like me and, I assume, the Doc. I could sell all my lenses and buy the equivalent AF models (if they even exist), but for me that's tantamount to selling my huge LP collection to buy some CDs. Besides, it's taken me 15 years to assemble the lens system I have. Why sell all those spiffy -- and fast -- primes for a fancy AF zoom or two?
quote:
The new range of high res Nikkors are far better than any of the old mf range.
This seems more like a blurb from a Nikon brochure than a honest assessment of MF and AF Nikkors. Nikon has made some exceptional MF lenses as well as lots of great AF lenses. It's misleading to suggest that they just figured out how to do it right after designing and making lenses for more than a century.
__________________________________________
Doc,
quote:
I am planning a big move (i.e. very expensive lenses) into bird photography, so I need a fast shutter response as a priority. Bird photography is probably what is pushing me to digital as I have such a horrendous wastage rate on film.
Then digital it should be. One of the huge benefits of digital SLRs for nature photographers is that the smaller size of the CCD sensor (relative to film) means that the focal lengths of your lenses are effectively multiplied by 1.5. For instance, an affordable 300mm f/4 Nikkor is now a 450mm f/4 -- a lens that obviously has lots "reach" for bird pix -- and at a price less than that of a small car.
By the way, if "focal length multiplying" is new to you, have a look at this article.
Joe
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Joe Petrik
quote:
Given that you are interested in bird photography...
Here's another site worth checking out -- Jim Brandenburg. He thankfully avoids the cliched flower and rainbow pix that seem to be in every nature photographer's portfolio.
Joe
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by count.d
quote:
This seems more like a blurb from a Nikon brochure than a honest assessment of MF and AF Nikkors. Nikon has made some exceptional MF lenses as well as lots of great AF lenses. It's misleading to suggest that they just figured out how to do it right after designing and making lenses for more than a century.
Joe,
I'm sick of you. Your whole reply is full of rubbish. You obviously don't use cameras very often. I don't read blurb and I don't read photo forums. They're all crap and so is your advice.
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Joe Petrik
Count,
Grow up. Please.
Joe
quote:
I'm sick of you. Your whole reply is full of rubbish. You obviously don't use cameras very often. I don't read blurb and I don't read photo forums. They're all crap and so is your advice.
Grow up. Please.
Joe
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Bob Shedlock
Well, to qualify my remarks, I've been shooting 35mm for almost three decades, maintained my own dark room, and actually have made money taking pics. Then I started scanning in my negs and slides on a Nikon film scanner.
When I got curious about digital cameras, I went through a slew of Point and shoot cameras, (8!) because I was constantly running up against the limitations of the little beasts.
Now I have a digital SLR and a passle of glass.
I am not the least bit concerned that the body will become outmoded in x amount of years. I think the reason film bodies held valuse so well is because there really wasn't any great leaps in the technology of keeping film in a light tight box!
I think in practice the debates over crop factor and sensor size are just an academic point when factored against the actual taking of pictures. Although, smaller sensors DO have a poorer signal to noise ratio than larger sensors, and it does show in the final output.
The only other real limitation to crop factor becomes apparent if you are primarily shooting wide angle lenses. 1 mm on the short end is a big difference.
I love my DSLR, much better than I ever liked any of my three Olympus film bodies, two Nikons, or Yashica. (There may have been a Minolta in there too ---)
Having said all that - digital is much less expensive to shoot away with. I was paying about 9 dollars a roll for film, and 15 dollars for processing. Now I do it all on computers in Photoshop, check my exposures and composition in the field and only keep what I like.
I have no particular brand loyalty, but if I could afford anything I wanted, I'd probably buy the Canon 1D MkII. A very compelling piece of technology ---
When I got curious about digital cameras, I went through a slew of Point and shoot cameras, (8!) because I was constantly running up against the limitations of the little beasts.
Now I have a digital SLR and a passle of glass.
I am not the least bit concerned that the body will become outmoded in x amount of years. I think the reason film bodies held valuse so well is because there really wasn't any great leaps in the technology of keeping film in a light tight box!
I think in practice the debates over crop factor and sensor size are just an academic point when factored against the actual taking of pictures. Although, smaller sensors DO have a poorer signal to noise ratio than larger sensors, and it does show in the final output.
The only other real limitation to crop factor becomes apparent if you are primarily shooting wide angle lenses. 1 mm on the short end is a big difference.
I love my DSLR, much better than I ever liked any of my three Olympus film bodies, two Nikons, or Yashica. (There may have been a Minolta in there too ---)
Having said all that - digital is much less expensive to shoot away with. I was paying about 9 dollars a roll for film, and 15 dollars for processing. Now I do it all on computers in Photoshop, check my exposures and composition in the field and only keep what I like.
I have no particular brand loyalty, but if I could afford anything I wanted, I'd probably buy the Canon 1D MkII. A very compelling piece of technology ---
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by Top Cat
Just under a year ago I bought a Canon 10D and I would say that in answer to the question: "Digital SLRs - are they there yet?" I would have to say "Yes" for most purposes.
In terms of ultimate resolution, a top-end film scanner and well processed film can theoretically better my Canon - but in practise the 10D betters the results I get from my film camera (a 35mm rangefinder) without the hassle of my MF Mamiya 7.
In short, I am very happy with the Canon and it's opened up a new, creative branch in my own personal photography.
I expect either the Nikon or Canon offerings currently available will be capable (for the most part) of better pictures than 95-99% of the photographers who will use them.
In other words, you'll be the limiting factor, not the camera (unless you regularly print at 20"+ print sizes)
John
In terms of ultimate resolution, a top-end film scanner and well processed film can theoretically better my Canon - but in practise the 10D betters the results I get from my film camera (a 35mm rangefinder) without the hassle of my MF Mamiya 7.
In short, I am very happy with the Canon and it's opened up a new, creative branch in my own personal photography.
I expect either the Nikon or Canon offerings currently available will be capable (for the most part) of better pictures than 95-99% of the photographers who will use them.
In other words, you'll be the limiting factor, not the camera (unless you regularly print at 20"+ print sizes)
John
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by count.d
Bob,
This is basically what I was saying, although I genuinely don't have the time for long posts.
Digital, at the high end, has too many advantages over film to ignore. Cheap digital cameras will always be crap, just like cheap compact film cameras are still crap after x years developements. Like yourself, I'm not interested in products going out of date or binned after x years. Do I want to take great shots or collect pieces of glass. If someone wants to keep their lenses just because they've had them for fifteen years, then let them keep them. However, cad, modern technology and higher resolution requirements (for ccd), mean lenses of today can be far superior, in all aspects, to the old lenses.
I have beautiful lenses like Hasselblad 350mm, (£3,800 10 years ago), and I never use them. They just sit there looking pretty. I buy a Nikon 70-200 VR AFS one year ago and I never stop using it. It's stunning.
If I was in Doc's shoes and considering 3-4K on a body, I would be waiting for the D2x to be unvieled at Photokina 24/9/04 and order one. I would sell my whole 35 film system and if I want to shoot film, I would leave that to medium format. 35mm is and alway be a compromise in quality. Trying to scrape every ounce of quality from such a small tran by using Velvia is a lost cause. The film is over saturated contrasty crap and not much finer grain than Provia anyway.
This is basically what I was saying, although I genuinely don't have the time for long posts.
Digital, at the high end, has too many advantages over film to ignore. Cheap digital cameras will always be crap, just like cheap compact film cameras are still crap after x years developements. Like yourself, I'm not interested in products going out of date or binned after x years. Do I want to take great shots or collect pieces of glass. If someone wants to keep their lenses just because they've had them for fifteen years, then let them keep them. However, cad, modern technology and higher resolution requirements (for ccd), mean lenses of today can be far superior, in all aspects, to the old lenses.
I have beautiful lenses like Hasselblad 350mm, (£3,800 10 years ago), and I never use them. They just sit there looking pretty. I buy a Nikon 70-200 VR AFS one year ago and I never stop using it. It's stunning.
If I was in Doc's shoes and considering 3-4K on a body, I would be waiting for the D2x to be unvieled at Photokina 24/9/04 and order one. I would sell my whole 35 film system and if I want to shoot film, I would leave that to medium format. 35mm is and alway be a compromise in quality. Trying to scrape every ounce of quality from such a small tran by using Velvia is a lost cause. The film is over saturated contrasty crap and not much finer grain than Provia anyway.
Posted on: 27 July 2004 by BrianD
count.d
So I take it that you'd think I shouldn't be concerning myself with whether my Pentax fit lenses will be suitable for a digital SLR.
I must admit, I haven't used the Pentax K1000 since buying just the Fuji 6900z and while I like this Fuji it's not the dogs bollox or anything.
So I take it that you'd think I shouldn't be concerning myself with whether my Pentax fit lenses will be suitable for a digital SLR.
I must admit, I haven't used the Pentax K1000 since buying just the Fuji 6900z and while I like this Fuji it's not the dogs bollox or anything.
Posted on: 28 July 2004 by Rockingdoc
quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
if I want to shoot film, I would leave that to medium format. .
I don't want to wander off topic because I'm really getting a lot from this thread, but do you have a view on the Hasselblad X Pan II? As I am sure you know, this uses a double length of 35mm film in panoramic format to give medium-format quality (provided you planned to shoot panorama) with a portable 35mm camera.
My wife was going to buy me an X Pan II for my birthday (it's the big one), but wisely warned me first, which started all this new camera deliberation. I think the X Pan II would be a nice camera to take on holiday, but I can see processing being a pain (unless I return to my first, and true, love of B&W) and my scanner would require two scans per neg, and stitching in Photoshop.X Pan II
[This message was edited by Rockingdoc on Wed 28 July 2004 at 9:06.]
Posted on: 28 July 2004 by Bob Shedlock
count d. - yup, this is what I did, ditched all my 35 mm gear and the darkroom. Bought a nice computer, studied my Photo shop technique, and I haven't looked backed since. 20,000 frames later I KNOW I made the right decision, AND I get many more keepers. Having fun!
Posted on: 28 July 2004 by Derek Wright
RD - here is a reference to another person's view of the E1
Remember that the the Web is only hearsay
e1 cf other makes
Please read the article -
Derek
<< >>
Remember that the the Web is only hearsay
e1 cf other makes
Please read the article -
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 28 July 2004 by long-time-dead
Just bought a Nikon D70 today as a replacement for my Coolpix 950.
Direct comparison - midi system vs. good system. End of story - no doubt. All it took was ONE picture to notice.
Is it as good as a comparably priced Nikon 35mm film SLR ? I have no interest in finding out due to the ease of use of the DSLR with the PC. My local Jessop's can arrange printing on "proper" paper if I need it and I am sure there are many professional printers that will happily take my business !
For the majority of users and majority of forum members here - DSLR is certainly good enough if you look at the likes of Nikon D70 / Canon EOS300D etc.
Just my view.................
Direct comparison - midi system vs. good system. End of story - no doubt. All it took was ONE picture to notice.
Is it as good as a comparably priced Nikon 35mm film SLR ? I have no interest in finding out due to the ease of use of the DSLR with the PC. My local Jessop's can arrange printing on "proper" paper if I need it and I am sure there are many professional printers that will happily take my business !
For the majority of users and majority of forum members here - DSLR is certainly good enough if you look at the likes of Nikon D70 / Canon EOS300D etc.
Just my view.................
Posted on: 28 July 2004 by count.d
Doc,
The X Pan is a beautiful camera and I can't fault it. The 30mm lens is superb on this body and perfect for landscapes.
It would make an ideal present to cherish and give you a lifetime of pleasure. I couldn't think of a better travel camera. You wouldn't have any problem with processing, as you should be taking films from this level of camera to a pro-lab and you shouldn't be scanning negs/trans yourself, once you take images at this quality.
However, it really is a camera for the photographer who has everything already or someone who does nothing but travel photography.
The X Pan is a beautiful camera and I can't fault it. The 30mm lens is superb on this body and perfect for landscapes.
It would make an ideal present to cherish and give you a lifetime of pleasure. I couldn't think of a better travel camera. You wouldn't have any problem with processing, as you should be taking films from this level of camera to a pro-lab and you shouldn't be scanning negs/trans yourself, once you take images at this quality.
However, it really is a camera for the photographer who has everything already or someone who does nothing but travel photography.
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Rockingdoc
Does the inability of the D70 to use RAW files have an impact for the non-pro photographer? I'm just about to "graduate" from Photoshop Elements to Photoshop proper.
How do you fellow hobbyists calibrate your computer screens, so you know what will be printed?
How do you fellow hobbyists calibrate your computer screens, so you know what will be printed?
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by long-time-dead
Doc
My D70 shoots images in RAW format.......
My D70 shoots images in RAW format.......
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Joe Petrik
Doc,
L-T-D is correct. The D70 does shoot in RAW format.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of an irascible contributor, you may want to read this review of the D70 to become more familiar with the camera. It should answer all your questions. Here's another review worth reading, too, although borrowing a D70 for a weekend would be ideal. Nothing beats a home dem...
From what I can tell, the D70 seems to be a helluva camera for the money, certainly worth considering if you're interested in digital SLR photography. But please note that I'm basing this on samples images I've seen on the Net, not from shooting with the camera myself. The reason I didn't recommend the D70 earlier was that you said you had a sack of old MF Nikkors you weren't at all keen on abandoning. But if that's really not an issue, you know what to do...
Personally, I'm not willing to sell my MF lenses for peanuts, so I'm scanning film until what I want is available. But I'm very slow to adopt new technology. I didn't buy a CD player until 1999.
Joe
L-T-D is correct. The D70 does shoot in RAW format.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of an irascible contributor, you may want to read this review of the D70 to become more familiar with the camera. It should answer all your questions. Here's another review worth reading, too, although borrowing a D70 for a weekend would be ideal. Nothing beats a home dem...
From what I can tell, the D70 seems to be a helluva camera for the money, certainly worth considering if you're interested in digital SLR photography. But please note that I'm basing this on samples images I've seen on the Net, not from shooting with the camera myself. The reason I didn't recommend the D70 earlier was that you said you had a sack of old MF Nikkors you weren't at all keen on abandoning. But if that's really not an issue, you know what to do...
Personally, I'm not willing to sell my MF lenses for peanuts, so I'm scanning film until what I want is available. But I'm very slow to adopt new technology. I didn't buy a CD player until 1999.
Joe
Posted on: 01 August 2004 by Roy T
A quick look at a torture test for memory cards to go with your new camera.
Posted on: 02 August 2004 by Rockingdoc
and just to add to the confusion, I spent the weekend discussing a friend's D70 and he swears that his Nikkor manual lenses allow metering TTL, (while one older auto-lens didn't) making the rather valid point that the meter is in the body not the lens. Is this compatability issue just about having full auto-aperture facility? I could happily shoot in manual if I had a TTL spot meter.
He is in the US, so I couldn't do a hands on.
The friend is a total fan of the Nikon capture software (but he had just returned from a Nikon course, so was a bit brainwashed).
[This message was edited by Rockingdoc on Mon 02 August 2004 at 13:16.]
He is in the US, so I couldn't do a hands on.
The friend is a total fan of the Nikon capture software (but he had just returned from a Nikon course, so was a bit brainwashed).
[This message was edited by Rockingdoc on Mon 02 August 2004 at 13:16.]