Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

In article ,
says...
This is your argument? That the world view is Leicas are best for low
light so it must be true, regardless of the evidence?

Show me the evidence to the contrary. Show me pictures from the SLR that
shoots wide open at very low hand-held speeds in dimly lit situations
with reasonable ISO speeds (say 400). Oh, and try to use a FOV that is
standard to medium telephoto, viz 50-90mm.

You're making the claim. Technically, the burden of proof is on YOU
first.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ,
says...

Do yourself a favour....shut up. You clearly have no idea as to why
Leicas cost as much as they do, nor do you have a concept of image
quality.

Leicas cost a lot because idiots like you keep thinking they're
something special... which they aren't.

"Fashion statements". Yeah, right...Bob.

"Fancy paper weights" is a more accurate term.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article .com,
says...

This is your argument? That the world view is Leicas are best for low
light so it must be true, regardless of the evidence?

Show me the evidence to the contrary. Show me pictures from the SLR that
shoots wide open at very low hand-held speeds in dimly lit situations
with reasonable ISO speeds (say 400). Oh, and try to use a FOV that is
standard to medium telephoto, viz 50-90mm.

400 is a bit slow these days, and 90mm is really a short telephoto by SLR
standards. However:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/IS_Portrait.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 28-135 IS USM @ 135mm, f/5.6 (wide open), 1/20, 1600 ISO, handheld.

Or, to see what it can do with a faster lens without IS:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/5D_Candid.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 50mm f/1.4, f/1.4, 1/60, 1600 ISO, handheld.

With 400 ISO film, you'd have had to use 1/15 to get the same shot. OTOH,
the low detail and graininess of 400 ISO 35mm film should do a good job of
hiding small amounts of camera shake.

I can post 1:1 crops from either of these if you like, colour of B&W.

In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:

Repeating what I said earlier, the Leica M lenses are extremely sharp
wide open.

....and you then go and insult those nice expensive German optics by
projecting them onto a grainy postage stamp. Shame on you!

In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article ,
says...

So yes, IS can equal, if not better what you thought only overpriced 35mm
cameras of the sort frequentlly bought merely as fashion statements can do.
Perhaps it's time to get over it?

That photo is a real rival for Leica quality. Congratulations...

It was never intended to have any sort of artistic or technical merit, other
than demonstrating a lack of camera shake, but now you mention it, it does
have the air of some of the pretentious crap put forward as "art" by people
who buy overpriced brand-name cameras as fashion statements.

Do yourself a favour....shut up. You clearly have no idea as to why
Leicas cost as much as they do,

Well, you seem to believe they have some sort of magical ability to alter
the speed of light in nightclubs, or something. I guess that does come at a
price.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article .com,
says...

This is your argument? That the world view is Leicas are best for low
light so it must be true, regardless of the evidence?

Show me the evidence to the contrary. Show me pictures from the SLR that
shoots wide open at very low hand-held speeds in dimly lit situations
with reasonable ISO speeds (say 400). Oh, and try to use a FOV that is
standard to medium telephoto, viz 50-90mm.

400 is a bit slow these days, and 90mm is really a short telephoto by SLR
standards. However:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/IS_Portrait.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 28-135 IS USM @ 135mm, f/5.6 (wide open), 1/20, 1600 ISO, handheld.

Or, to see what it can do with a faster lens without IS:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/5D_Candid.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 50mm f/1.4, f/1.4, 1/60, 1600 ISO, handheld.

With 400 ISO film, you'd have had to use 1/15 to get the same shot. OTOH,
the low detail and graininess of 400 ISO 35mm film should do a good job of
hiding small amounts of camera shake.

I can post 1:1 crops from either of these if you like, colour of B&W.

This keeps getting funnier and funnier. When will Dallas wake up?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

In article ,
Brian Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...

I suppose the world view of Leica M series as being the best possible
solution for low light, slow shutter speed photography is just a myth
about to be broken by a group of fevered Canonites. Yet again.

Uh, no. You'll have motion blur at 1/8th of a second with any performer
who ISN'T playing dead. Your Leica won't be able to do it, NO camera
will be able to do it.

Only in daylight with a Canon! Not in a nightclub with a Leica! It's...
it's... it's special!

In article ,
says...
In article ,
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article .com,
says...

This is your argument? That the world view is Leicas are best for low
light so it must be true, regardless of the evidence?

Show me the evidence to the contrary. Show me pictures from the SLR that
shoots wide open at very low hand-held speeds in dimly lit situations
with reasonable ISO speeds (say 400). Oh, and try to use a FOV that is
standard to medium telephoto, viz 50-90mm.

400 is a bit slow these days, and 90mm is really a short telephoto by SLR
standards. However:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/IS_Portrait.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 28-135 IS USM @ 135mm, f/5.6 (wide open), 1/20, 1600 ISO, handheld.

Or, to see what it can do with a faster lens without IS:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/5D_Candid.jpg

EOS 5D, EF 50mm f/1.4, f/1.4, 1/60, 1600 ISO, handheld.

Why did you focus on her shoulder?

With 400 ISO film, you'd have had to use 1/15 to get the same shot. OTOH,
the low detail and graininess of 400 ISO 35mm film should do a good job of
hiding small amounts of camera shake.

The shot I took (which is of my son paying on the carpet - found on the
last page of the People section of my site) was taken with an M3 (1962)
and 50mm Summicron at f/2. Shutter speed was 1/8sec, film was Ilford XP2
(400ISO). Neat Image dealt with most of the grain.

I can post 1:1 crops from either of these if you like, colour of B&W.

Never mind.

--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com

In article , says...
I'm smart enough NOT to shoot at anything below 1/30th of a second
without a flash when human beings are involved - IS, no IS, rangefinder
or SLR.

No Brian, you're not smart in any way. Just stubborn. How many
rangefinders have you used?

I suppose the world view of Leica M series as being the best possible
solution for low light, slow shutter speed photography is just a myth
about to be broken by a group of fevered Canonites. Yet again.

Uh, no. You'll have motion blur at 1/8th of a second with any performer
who ISN'T playing dead. Your Leica won't be able to do it, NO camera
will be able to do it.

Who is talking about motion blur? OBVIOUSLY you will have motion blur if
you are shooting a moving subject at that speed, but that's not what
this is about.

Additionally, you're changing the requirements of the test after you
were proven wrong. I mean, is there something in the water down there
that makes you a complete twit?

I was not proven anything but correct. Your friends shots are noisy and
out of focus and I really doubt the claimed shutter speeds.

But show us YOUR shots on this subject. Oh, you haven't got any? Why am
I not surprised...

--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Brian Baird wrote:
In article ,
says...

I suppose the world view of Leica M series as being the best possible
solution for low light, slow shutter speed photography is just a myth
about to be broken by a group of fevered Canonites. Yet again.

Uh, no. You'll have motion blur at 1/8th of a second with any performer
who ISN'T playing dead. Your Leica won't be able to do it, NO camera
will be able to do it.

Only in daylight with a Canon! Not in a nightclub with a Leica! It's...
it's... it's special!

Indeed. Do some research as to why the world's top photographers all
used them at some point.

--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com