|
yorb
Mar 21, 2006, 2:37 AM
Post #1 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2004
Posts: 102
|
Is it the camera, or the photographer who takes a great shot?
Some say Canon, others say Nikon...
Shouldn't a good photographer be able to use one or the other and still take the same quality (not pixel count, or noise, etc.) shot??
Is this not "to each his own?"
Mine is a Nikon, I find it most efficient for my personal use.
Can you really say that Nikon is better than Canon?
I'm sure you can talk about noise difference, or pixel count, or camera processing(personally I think this far outweighs the MP count) or any number of things for one or the other... but for the most part these things are never noticed when you look at a photo.
The camera is a tool, it doesn't make a photo on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
cal_gundert05
Mar 21, 2006, 2:54 AM
Post #2 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Posts: 410
|
In reply to: Can you really say that Nikon is better than Canon?
Absolutely not...because Canons rule! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mistymountainhop
Mar 21, 2006, 3:03 AM
Post #3 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 410
|
In reply to: Is it the camera, or the photographer who takes a great shot? The camera is a tool, it doesn't make a photo on its own.
I loved my Nikon, but i Also love my Canon. When you get into the 20d/ d70 range your not going to give up one thing over the other.
WHat DOES make the photo is the lense. ITs all about the best lense with the best aperture.
|
|
|
|
|
omegaprime
Mar 21, 2006, 3:07 AM
Post #4 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Posts: 308
|
I've seen some great shots taken with a low end camera using film, and I've seen some bad shots taken from a high end digital camera. That more or less is what I think about the issue for most of us average photographers out there. :wink:
On the other hand, I can't say much for the pros out there. I would think subtle differences on the equipment might make a difference between a good photo and a great photo. It would be interesting to hear their comments.
Its like n00bs and climbing shoes - no matter how good a shoe you give them, it won't do much good if they can't get the footwork right. On the other hand, a pro can fully utilize a good edging (or smearing) shoe when the occasion calls for it. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Mar 21, 2006, 3:18 AM
Post #5 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Better gear + knowing how to use it = higher percent of good/great shoots. Metering/AF speed/fps/etc all can come into play for climbing photos. And the lens choice is also key, wide angle/super telephoto/fish eye/fast glass. Good post software and the knowledge to use it. All that stuff plus spending the time to get set up for the shots you want and pressing the shutter release at the right time will give you consistently good photos.
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
Mar 21, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #6 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
Who hasn't fallen into this trap - the 'if only I had a better X, I could Y better?'
I used to feel this way about climbing.
I definitely feel this way about biking (hence the ~$1K i've spent on bike parts in the last 6 months).
I've felt this way about my photography for a while now as well (hence, why I have a SLR now and not a P&S)
as wes summed it up, some of this is justified - I'm definitely getting better pictures with my new camera than with my little APS p&s, but how much of that is the camera, and how much of it is me just putting more effort into good photography?
What I want to know is, how to get out of that trap?
Like I said, I used to feel that way about climbing, not sure how I shook it off - perhaps the fact that I've got doubles in most of my gear now makes me feel like there's no possible way that lack of gear will prevent me from climbing anything (indian creek excluded, of course)...
|
|
|
|
|
starkcontrast
Mar 21, 2006, 5:53 PM
Post #7 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Posts: 149
|
i'm really craving mellow mushroom pizza
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Mar 21, 2006, 8:58 PM
Post #8 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
these days the camera is digital so the camera does in fact matter a heck of a lot more than the lense!! Its all about file size and quality!! that means a camera with a big sensor beats the crap out of a camera with a small sensor.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Mar 21, 2006, 9:01 PM
Post #9 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
In reply to: Better gear + knowing how to use it = higher percent of good/great shoots. Metering/AF speed/fps/etc all can come into play for climbing photos. And the lens choice is also key, wide angle/super telephoto/fish eye/fast glass. Good post software and the knowledge to use it. All that stuff plus spending the time to get set up for the shots you want and pressing the shutter release at the right time will give you consistently good photos.
booo ya
In reply to: i'm really craving mellow mushroom pizza
Wha?????
|
|
|
|
|
yorb
Mar 21, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #10 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2004
Posts: 102
|
In reply to: these days the camera is digital so the camera does in fact matter a heck of a lot more than the lense!! Its all about file size and quality!! that means a camera with a big sensor beats the crap out of a camera with a small sensor.
thats not really true about a larger sensor...
you should read this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Mar 21, 2006, 9:48 PM
Post #11 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
I ain't no techno geek but I do know that my 8.2mp canon 1D markll N beats the liveing piss out of the 4.1mp Nikon D2h that I used to shoot with!! and they both beat the piss out of the canon 5mp a610 point and shoot that I use for climbing. So in my experience bigger is better 8^) I did read that link and it is interesting. it does support my theory that slr sized CCDs are better than the tiny ones in the point and shoots. In the SLR department 8.2mps beats 6.1 and 4.1 I have used both. what the heck was nikon thinking when they built the D2h arround a 4.1mp CCD :roll: :roll: :roll: what are they still thinking that they didn't bump it up to at least 6mp on the D2Hs model :roll: i had to sell all my nikons as the low light images from the D2h suck so bad!!!! My canon 1d mark ll N is faster than the D2h and far and away hands down a much bigger and better file. RIP Nikon :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 22, 2006, 4:37 AM
Post #12 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Is it the camera, or the photographer who takes a great shot? Some say Canon, others say Nikon... Shouldn't a good photographer be able to use one or the other and still take the same quality (not pixel count, or noise, etc.) shot?? Is this not "to each his own?" Mine is a Nikon, I find it most efficient for my personal use. Can you really say that Nikon is better than Canon? I'm sure you can talk about noise difference, or pixel count, or camera processing(personally I think this far outweighs the MP count) or any number of things for one or the other... but for the most part these things are never noticed when you look at a photo. The camera is a tool, it doesn't make a photo on its own.
I'll one up you, "a camera is a box that captures light"
With the web as a viewing area for photos then no cameras don't matter. But even your D70 doesn't surpass a good film and lens. The argument for these sub film quality cameras is the over all reduced cost and ease of processing. Quality is rarely the case made for DSLRS (although we are approaching a crossroads in terms of which is better with the Canon 1D Mark IIN)
If you're printing your photos then the lens and sensor or film really matter. For 72dpi 60K web jpegs any DSLR can put great 640x480 photos out there and with a little PS you are golden. Now blow those up till at least 8x12 and then try 11x14. You'll quickly see the flaws.
But no even for printing MP's aren't the most important thing. It's better to have a lower noise, higher dynamic range sensor with a better lens than just a high MP sensor. The thing that makes the D200 so good is the low noise at ISO 1600 along with a high resolution.
And then depending on your uses other things come into play. Ergonomics, camera speed, AF speed, burst speed, long exposure noise reduction.
Tradman shoots sports/horses so speed is important. If you shoot just landscapes and portraits then something slow like the 14MP kodak will be just fine. Or the Fuji S3 which uses Nikon mounts but is a very slow clumsy camera.
Really, don't worry about what the best camera is, just shoot what you like and if the results are good enough then be happy. It's like the backpacker gear guide that comes out every year, I look at it, wonder if my gear is good enough, then put it all in a pack and go for a hike. Sure enough it all works. Marketing is tough on the mind.
I still shoot film. Provia 100F mostly, and a mix of manual and auto cameras. It's antiquated, i have to scan it to make use of the modern darkroom but it works for me and for me it's comparitivly cheap compared to a $2000-3000 SLR. If I have anything amazing I can send it off for a drum scan and get a 50-100Mb file.
But just like film emulsions d-cams and sensors do matter for the final product. Unfortunately with DSLR's you can't just order a brick of the newest film, you have to buy a new body and shell out a few g's. So why not get some new features with the new sensor.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 22, 2006, 4:47 AM
Post #13 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Better gear + knowing how to use it = higher percent of good/great shoots. Metering/AF speed/fps/etc all can come into play for climbing photos. And the lens choice is also key, wide angle/super telephoto/fish eye/fast glass. Good post software and the knowledge to use it. All that stuff plus spending the time to get set up for the shots you want and pressing the shutter release at the right time will give you consistently good photos.
Honestly, fancy metering is nice. But will the guy who knows how to meter and knows the tricks of various lighting conditions (knows the sunny sixteen rule for instance and how to extrapolate other exposures from it) get better shots in the long run?
If you know how to meter you'll turn the matrix or 200 segment metering off for all but seat of your pants action shooting and use the spot meter.
Really the super segmented metering is most useful for flash photography. For everyhing else i shoot spot metering and make my own exposure calls based on the zone system or lighting conditions (front, back, side lighting, night, campfires, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 22, 2006, 8:52 PM
Post #14 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
i rtfa, and his claim is that smaller ccds are cheaper and faster. But we are talking about S/N ratio (signal to noise ratio), and if you follow the canon link in the article, larger sensors almost always give better S/N.
It is exactly the same with medium format vs 35mm, if you have a larger area to capture the light, you get less noise.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 23, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #15 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: i rtfa, and his claim is that smaller ccds are cheaper and faster. But we are talking about S/N ratio (signal to noise ratio), and if you follow the canon link in the article, larger sensors almost always give better S/N. It is exactly the same with medium format vs 35mm, if you have a larger area to capture the light, you get less noise.
I read that article a while back and I was almost sold on aps sensors. but then i realized. it was marketing. today they tell you the APS sensor is better. tomorrow when the full frame sensor is just as cheap to make they will insist you need a full frame. in the end, they sell you a bunch of APS lenses that you can't use on a full frame sensor (well you can with a converter but...) plus they sell a lot of cameras now and later.
Bigger is always better when dealing with imaging. And a bigger sensor will ultimately be better than a APS sensor or a compact sensor. Lower noise, higher iso's and higher maximum resolution.
One thing to note. Sensors have gotten so cheap that some camera companies are putting two in a camera. Kodak has a two lens compact with 2 5Mp sensors. And Olympus has live view on there SLR's thanks to a second 8MP sensor. So it is invevitable that smaller sensors will eventually fade away.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Mar 23, 2006, 1:28 AM
Post #16 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
The best combination is a nice camera and skill. If you can only have one of these things though, have skill.
And I don't use Canon OR Nikon. At least not from this century.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 23, 2006, 2:04 AM
Post #17 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
First off, ignore Ken Rockwell. He's a buffoon that posts all kinds of nonsense.
In reply to: One thing to note. Sensors have gotten so cheap that some camera companies are putting two in a camera. Kodak has a two lens compact with 2 5Mp sensors. And Olympus has live view on there SLR's thanks to a second 8MP sensor. So it is invevitable that smaller sensors will eventually fade away.
Um, no. The Olympus cameras have a single 4/3 sensor but use a trick viewing system to either give an SLR or LCD view. Panasonic's new high-end SLR also uses this technology and the 4/3 sensor. Leica's upcoming high-end SLR is also going to use the "small" 4/3 sensor. The lenses from Olympus and Leica are/will be designed specifically for 4/3.
Most 35mm lenses, especially wide angles, are sub-par for digital, which is why Canon and Nikon are rushing out new lenses engineered for the smaller APS sensor (about the same as 4/3). Turns out Olympus was right in this regard (and the dust cleaner). Full-frame sensors will become the medium format of the digital world and have zero chance of becoming the norm for 95% of the SLR market.
BTW film ain't dead yet. The new Provia 400x is supposed to have the color and grain of Provia 100F.
|
|
|
|
|
yorb
Mar 23, 2006, 2:47 AM
Post #18 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2004
Posts: 102
|
OK First.
In reply to: I ain't no techno geek but I do know that my 8.2mp canon 1D markll N beats the liveing piss out of the 4.1mp Nikon D2h that I used to shoot with!!
The D2H is an old camera, your argument isn't really that great. It would be better to compare it with a D2X.
Second
In reply to: In the SLR department 8.2mps beats 6.1 and 4.1 I have used both. what the heck was nikon thinking when they built the D2h arround a 4.1mp CCD Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes what are they still thinking that they didn't bump it up to at least 6mp on the D2Hs model Rolling Eyes i had to sell all my nikons as the low light images from the D2h suck so bad!!!!
Yeah, your going to notice a difference between a 8MP and 4MP camera, but the difference between an 8MP and a 6MP isn't that much... or noticeable. 3504 x 2336(8MP) vs. 2464 X 1632(4MP) is huge, but 3504 x 2336(8MP) vs. 3000x2000(6MP) isn't that significant... or noticable. You really have to double the MP's to have a great enough difference to matter.
... this is just wrong
In reply to: But even your D70 doesn't surpass a good film and lens.
I've printed out photos taken with my D70 at around 16x10 at 300 resolution (about 12MP) without editing and they look amazing! They looked much better than High Definition 35mm film scanned and printed at the same size. It wasn't due to poor scanning quality either, the film just didn't hold up at that size. I also print photos at 15x24ish and they still look great, not as good as at 16x10 but still acceptable.
I use an Epson Stylus 4000 Pro for all my high qual printing.
My camera payed for itself a long time ago in film and developing.
Medium format however, blows any DSLR out of the water.
Finally...
In reply to: i rtfa, and his claim is that smaller ccds are cheaper and faster. But we are talking about S/N ratio (signal to noise ratio), and if you follow the canon link in the article, larger sensors almost always give better S/N.
Yes, it does have a lower S/N... but are you EVER going to notice the difference??? I'd rather pay a lot less for a camera because the sensor is smaller and get a little more noise that no one will ever notice. Hey, if you have the money, go for it.
If you make your living off of photography, then price really isn't that big of a deal anymore. Anything that gives you better results more efficiently is worth getting. My photo teacher back in highschool got a DSLR for the first time, a Canon 10D, and he took a couple shots for the governer of Illinois that payed for it. Again, if thats how you make a living, then it will pay for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Mar 23, 2006, 3:14 AM
Post #19 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Pico said something that i was trying to say in a verey clear way. In the modern world of digital photography the camera is the Film!!! So Yes!! the camera does matter!!! It's Nice if you have a good lens but a crap sensor (film) with a good lens still equals a lousy image.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Mar 23, 2006, 3:20 AM
Post #20 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I'm not a very good photographer, but having a good camera helps. 5 frames a second is great for getting the best shot in a good pose. I have 4 photos of my subject that are OK and I have one shot of them with a great facial expression which makes the photo good.
I'm definitely a button "holder" and love my new D200. I've shot with a Canon, but didn't like it, aperature and shutter speed were on the same dial etc, but then I'm just used to my Nikon I suppose
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Mar 23, 2006, 3:21 AM
Post #21 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Yorb, get you head out of your ass :D the D2hs is a new camera and it is the ONLY sports Camera that Nikon makes and it is ONLY 4.1mp. the D2X is a a fine art/ portrait/landscape camera. At 5Fps it is NOT a sports camera! the D200 is also only 5Fps. Not A sports camera. only saw one black lens at the Olympics that should tell you about how bad Nikon is getting their butt kicked these days.
|
|
|
|
|
yorb
Mar 23, 2006, 5:02 AM
Post #22 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2004
Posts: 102
|
Hey, you said D2H, not D2Hs. The D2H is an old camera, about 2.5 years old.
If you meant to say D2Hs, then yea, the 1D markll N is about the same age (a little bit newer) and superior.
Like any other peice of technology though, digital cameras become obsolete when the next new and improved one comes out. If they ever start useing the fovean chip (or something better?!) then all our CCD's and CMOS sensors will be yesterdays peice of technology.
My original point to this thread... I have a D70, I like it, it's wonderful, it does what i want it to do. Sure, there are other cameras that have newer features, higher frame rates, and bigger numbers... but I would have to pay $1000+ more for them; therefore, its not worth it for ME.
(Hey, if I see that I'm wrong, I'm always glad to admit it. I try not to be some stubborn knowitall. I try not to be some biased jerk who says Nikon only, or trad sucks [by the way, I like trad, sport, and bouldering. They each have something different about them that I enjoy. I just don't have the money to get 2-3 different DSLR's that each have their own certain area of expertise.])
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 23, 2006, 5:27 AM
Post #23 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: OK First. In reply to: I ain't no techno geek but I do know that my 8.2mp canon 1D markll N beats the liveing piss out of the 4.1mp Nikon D2h that I used to shoot with!! The D2H is an old camera, your argument isn't really that great. It would be better to compare it with a D2X. Second In reply to: In the SLR department 8.2mps beats 6.1 and 4.1 I have used both. what the heck was nikon thinking when they built the D2h arround a 4.1mp CCD Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes what are they still thinking that they didn't bump it up to at least 6mp on the D2Hs model Rolling Eyes i had to sell all my nikons as the low light images from the D2h suck so bad!!!! Yeah, your going to notice a difference between a 8MP and 4MP camera, but the difference between an 8MP and a 6MP isn't that much... or noticeable. 3504 x 2336(8MP) vs. 2464 X 1632(4MP) is huge, but 3504 x 2336(8MP) vs. 3000x2000(6MP) isn't that significant... or noticable. You really have to double the MP's to have a great enough difference to matter. ... this is just wrong In reply to: But even your D70 doesn't surpass a good film and lens. I've printed out photos taken with my D70 at around 16x10 at 300 resolution (about 12MP) without editing and they look amazing! They looked much better than High Definition 35mm film scanned and printed at the same size. It wasn't due to poor scanning quality either, the film just didn't hold up at that size. I also print photos at 15x24ish and they still look great, not as good as at 16x10 but still acceptable. I use an Epson Stylus 4000 Pro for all my high qual printing. My camera payed for itself a long time ago in film and developing. Medium format however, blows any DSLR out of the water. Finally... In reply to: i rtfa, and his claim is that smaller ccds are cheaper and faster. But we are talking about S/N ratio (signal to noise ratio), and if you follow the canon link in the article, larger sensors almost always give better S/N. Yes, it does have a lower S/N... but are you EVER going to notice the difference??? I'd rather pay a lot less for a camera because the sensor is smaller and get a little more noise that no one will ever notice. Hey, if you have the money, go for it. If you make your living off of photography, then price really isn't that big of a deal anymore. Anything that gives you better results more efficiently is worth getting. My photo teacher back in highschool got a DSLR for the first time, a Canon 10D, and he took a couple shots for the governer of Illinois that payed for it. Again, if thats how you make a living, then it will pay for itself.
Ok first off the Olympus does use two sensors for the live view. and there was nothing wrong with 35mm lenses the problem is in the 1.5x crop factor eliminating all wide angle from the APS-C.
You've bought into marketing in terms of 35mm, aps, and med format. when the sensors get cheap enough they will still probably make APS-C but that will be your basic entry level camera, 35mm sensors will make up most of the market. It's not like the size difference in the camera body of APS-C or 35mm matters so the higher resolution and lower noise of the 35mm will beat out the APS-C.
In reply to: As the world’s first* digital SLR to feature a continuous live view on its LCD screen, the Olympus E-330 gives photographers a previously unheard of degree of flexibility. The camera’s TTL optical porro design has made it possible to fit the E-330 with two separate image sensors, enabling two different live view modes. Mode A, for Full Time Live View framing, utilises a CCD mounted in the viewfinder’s optical path to return a 92% field of view and retains full AF functionality. Meanwhile, Mode B locks the mirror in the up position and uses the camera’s Live MOS sensor to enable a Macro Live View with a 100% field of view. This latter mode is especially helpful when focusing macro subjects, as it provides the freedom of complete manual focus control aided by the facility to magnify the central section of the displayed image by 10x.
Also, Kodak uses two sensors and two lenses for better quality. Basically like an SLR rather than an All in one lens. 23mm to 135mm (i think). But the 23mm lens is a fixed 23 with a 2.8 ap.
Second, nice try with the print film. Print film for the most part sucks.
And if you need to see the results of 35mm head to either Galen Rowells Gallery or the halls of the University of Arkansas business building where Tim Ernst film images grace the walls.
yeah, if you reduce yourself to 35mm print film and low res scans you will get poor results.
Might I ask what they were scanned with? Did you do it yourself, on a film scanner? Did you have a photo lab do it?
Because photolabs scan at about 2MP on the frontier system. if you need more you need to have it custom scanned. I used to scan mine at 12Mp on the frontier using custom settings. It's too slow for them to do for everyone at that res.
I do agree with you on MP file sizes but 6 and 8 is a big difference but once you get into the really big sizes (i think above 12Mp it starts dropping off faster).
Nevertheless, your D70 isn't up to film snuff. But if you believe it is than you won half the battle.
Honestly I think you have buyers remorse and are trying to justify your own purchase to yourself in your post. There is nothing wrong with th D70. When I can land a *ist D (not the newer models the original) for about $400-500 I'm going in headfirst. As a note it uses the same Sony sensor as your D70 but with lower noise at higher ISO's. If you have the money to buy into a DSLR in the first place you shouldn't be boasting how it's too expensive. A 7 series BMW is pricey for me (so it a 5) but you don't see me buying one. In the digital game you have 1 year tops of having the best. Then your stuff is antiquated. The D70 is old news.
If you wanted us all to tell you that you bought a killer camera then I don't know what to tell you. If you wanted to hear peoples thoughts then you got them. Just check your facts before posting.
|
|
|
|
|
meesier42
Mar 23, 2006, 5:41 AM
Post #24 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Posts: 84
|
Well I have to go with somebody before be,
I always laugh at biker who oogle at the fastest guy out that day, and ask what is HE riding, my answer is always the same. "THEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS A FAST BIKE, ONLY FAST LEGS", ie equipment is only a very small part of the equation, unless you are a pro and the only difference between you and the next guy is the 2% equipment advantange (and even that I think is questionable)
But that being said, Nikon rules, but that cause I like the feel and controls in my hands.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 23, 2006, 5:58 AM
Post #25 of 48
(5805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Yorb...Not A sports camera. only saw one black lens at the Olympics that should tell you about how bad Nikon is getting their butt kicked these days.
He is busy looking up what you mean by black lens. I think when he figures it out he'll post back that he isn't an professional sports photographer and that he doesn't need L series USM glass (not that Nikon glass is not as good, perhaps slightly better, at least the coating is). Then he'll follow it up that the D70 is the best camera of all time and that everyone should shoot with it to be on an even field. He'll also say that noise and detail don't matter and that in his world we should all shoot with 0.5MP camera phones and use our skills to take better photographs to display on the web. Then he'll tell us that the D70 is the best he could afford and he's happy with his purchase (for the millionth time). To which we'll all say, thanks for letting us know.
Oh, he'll also let us know that in his printing the D70 out printed Velvia 100F shot with a high quality lens and a tripod after he had scanned properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
