If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the
clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it (apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly variable terrain? :-) The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors or even indoors away from the house.) I bought self adhensive Palm screen protectors and I installed it over the LCD of my 300D. You have to cut it out to proper shape but it works like a charm. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Bielec wrote:
I bought self adhensive Palm screen protectors and I installed it over the LCD of my 300D. You have to cut it out to proper shape but it works like a charm. Where did you buy them? I was at Bureau-en-Gros (Staples to the rest of you) last night and they were $20 for a pack of 12. Seemed outrageous. I don't want 12, I figure a few will last a long enough time. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... In article , Paul Bielec wrote: DoN. Nichols wrote: In article , Paul Bielec wrote: Larry wrote: [ ... ] When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera in that price range. [ ... ] Hmm ... I haven't noticed anything of that sort. [ ... ] What I ment was the memory card or battery door. "door" was missing in my post O.K. Looking at mine, the Memory card door looks quite good, and interestingly enough it has a rubber gasket to help seal out the elements when it is closed. (I never noticed that before now, when your article called my attention to it.) There is also a small rubber button to catch the swing of the door when you pop it open -- perhaps because of the possibility of the noise distracting people in certain situations, though that would have to be quieter than the shutter. Sure - the card door does look and feel flimsy, but after almost 1 years careless use, it has been just fine. I'm sure it could also be replaced fairly easily IF it did ever break off. As for the battery door -- it happens to be removable (without tools), as long as you pull at the right angle, so it could be easily replaced at need. Since it closes firmly flush with the bottom, I've never had any problem with it. Me neither. The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it (apparently) hooked on my belt as I was getting out of a car, and by the time I noticed that it was missing, it was too late to find it. (I tried -- ever looked for a transparent chip of plastic over highly variable terrain? :-) The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand strap bracket. (I did a couple of eye splices in some bright yellow nylon string. :-) That has saved it from getting lost quite a few times since. (I tend to wear the camera most of the time that I am outdoors or even indoors away from the house.) And the tranparent cover DOES have a little hole predrilled in it for exactly that purpose. What's more, new ones are pretty cheap. ( I really should buy another one, mine is cracked from dropping the camera about 4 foot onto concrete - and that's the ONLY damage ) I've read complaints about the noise of the autofocus, which seemed to be complaints about nothing to me, as I had the "28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D" lens when I got the camera. I did not get the kit lens. Now that I've added a 50mm f1.4 autofocus, I see where the complaints come from. It produces significanly more noise than the 28-105mm does. Both are mechanically-coupled (from the camera body) autofocus -- not ones with the built-in motor in the lens, which I have not yet experienced. Yup - it's a lens issue. I have a couple of older (but good) Nikon lenses that aren't AF-S, and are a little noisy (but not too noisy unless you are photographing funerals full of easily offended people, near to a PA coupled microphone), and a couple of AF-S lenses that are really quiet. To be honest, the noise on the mech. coupled versus AF-S lense is no issue at all for me. Sometimes, with the AF-S lenses, I have to almost check to see if they have moved at all (and the sharp focus in the viewfinder ins't an illusion) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Oliver Costich" wrote in message ... On 9 Mar 2005 13:03:53 GMT, Dag wrote: On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:19:25 -0600, John A Stovall wrote: On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:30:16 GMT, "ian lincoln" wrote: snipped considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an inferior lens on the front seems pointless. Why bother buying one with a kit lens? In putting together my Canon 20D system. I just bought the body and then added the lens(es) I wanted which would meet my needs. Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next. Dag The after rebate cost of the 18-70mm kit lens was $120. Why wouldn't you buy it. Glass Nazis |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"T.N.T." wrote in message a.disorg... On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:57 GMT, Owamanga , wrote in news On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:50:15 -0500, bob wrote: T.N.T. wrote: the D70's flash sync speed of 1/500s at ISO200 vs 350D's 1/200s at ISO100 is just 1/3 stop different, not as much an advantage that 1/500s vs 1/200s makes it out to be. That makes it 16-15 for D70. The point of faster flash synch is to have shorter exposure times: 1/500 will stop action better than 1/200. Especially if you are taking shots of splashing water 'n stuff..... |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Give this a whirl.... http://stores.ebay.com/ClearGuard-Screen-Protectors
Originally I had simply done --- palm lcd screen protector ---- on Google and came up with dozens of bargains. I can vouch for this idea, I use these on my cell phone screen and my C8080 screen; works great. I put the whole screen protector thingy on, then take a brand new blade exacto knife and cut the excess from a little crevice around the screen (camera & phone) so I'm not scratching the (camera or phone). Tim Where did you buy them? I was at Bureau-en-Gros (Staples to the rest of you) last night and they were $20 for a pack of 12. Seemed outrageous. I don't want 12, I figure a few will last a long enough time. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Bielec wrote: I bought self adhensive Palm screen protectors and I installed it over the LCD of my 300D. You have to cut it out to proper shape but it works like a charm. Where did you buy them? I was at Bureau-en-Gros (Staples to the rest of you) last night and they were $20 for a pack of 12. Seemed outrageous. I don't want 12, I figure a few will last a long enough time. Cheers, Alan I got a pack of 10 or 12 on liquidation at Future Shop. It was on one of these tables they put at the entrance. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Destin_FL wrote:
Give this a whirl.... http://stores.ebay.com/ClearGuard-Screen-Protectors Originally I had simply done --- palm lcd screen protector ---- on Google and came up with dozens of bargains. I can vouch for this idea, I use these on my cell phone screen and my C8080 screen; works great. I put the whole screen protector thingy on, then take a brand new blade exacto knife and cut the excess from a little crevice around the screen (camera & phone) so I'm not scratching the (camera or phone). Thanks Tim. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
In article , adm wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... In article , Paul Bielec wrote: DoN. Nichols wrote: In article , Paul Bielec wrote: [ ... ] When I looked at D70, it gave a rougher impression. I don't remember exactly what it was, but there was something really cheap about it, the battery or memory card maybe. Something that didn't fit in on a camera in that price range. [ ... ] The one thing which *I* wish had been a bit better was the clip-on shield over the LCD display. I lost the first one, when it [ ... ] The replacement has been attached by a tether to the left-hand strap bracket. [ ... ] And the tranparent cover DOES have a little hole predrilled Actually -- the hole is moulded at the same time as the rest of the features, as *drilling* a hole in a plastic so thin and brittle would be very likely to break it. in it for exactly that purpose. What's more, new ones are pretty cheap. Agreed -- except that they are seldom in stock where I buy, and I have to wait a week after ordering one. :-) ( I really should buy another one, mine is cracked from dropping the camera about 4 foot onto concrete - and that's the ONLY damage ) I think *that* should end the argument about plastic bodies -- at least as Nikon makes them. I presume that you experienced no subsequent focus problems or balky mirror. And I wonder what would have happened if you had a microdrive in it, instead of a CF card. I've read complaints about the noise of the autofocus, which seemed to be complaints about nothing to me, as I had the "28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D" lens when I got the camera. I did not get the kit lens. Now that I've added a 50mm f1.4 autofocus, I see where the complaints come from. It produces significantly more noise than the [ ... ] Yup - it's a lens issue. I have a couple of older (but good) Nikon lenses that aren't AF-S, and are a little noisy (but not too noisy unless you are photographing funerals full of easily offended people, near to a PA coupled microphone), and a couple of AF-S lenses that are really quiet. To be honest, the noise on the mech. coupled versus AF-S lense is no issue at all for me. Sometimes, with the AF-S lenses, I have to almost check to see if they have moved at all (and the sharp focus in the viewfinder ins't an illusion) The loudest part on the 50mm f1.4 seems to be when the autofocus starts in the wrong direction and hits a hard stop at the infinity point before reversing, producing a bit of a "clack" sound. (Interesting that I got this "normal" lens later, and the 28-105mmm first (though I already had that one, for another camera, so I skipped the "kit" lens.) At the moment, the third easy-to-use lens is a 180mm f2.8 which has been converted to add the CPU to it -- though of course, no autofocus. I do also use the Medical Nikor with it -- in manual mode, since I got the flash sync adaptor, which can handle switching the higher voltages present in that old built-in flash design. The only problem is that I am locked out from using the closest setting, because the ISO (ASA) is too high for that. And I'm not at all sure that I can stack a neutral density filter with the two close-up lenses which are part of it for the extreme close-ups. (I also lose the annotation features (e.g. magnification/reduction ratio), because they are in the area beyond the sensor.) Enjoy, 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 --- |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:01:07 -0500, Oliver Costich wrote:
Because the Body with the kit lense is a lot cheaper than the body plus the cheapest lens you can buy seperatly. Assuming you don't have limitless resources it's a good way to a get the camera and start taking pictures while saving up for (and deciding) whatever lens you want next. Dag The after rebate cost of the 18-70mm kit lens was $120. Why wouldn't you buy it. I was speaking in general and not refering to Anything specific. You are assuming that rebates are available all over the world and last forever. Dag |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D | Alice | Digital SLR Cameras | 118 | March 11th 05 10:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital Photography | 78 | February 25th 05 07:36 AM |
Digital Rebel XT/350D | Darrell | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 16th 05 03:26 AM |
FS: Canon EOS Digital Rebel 6.3 Megapixel Used | Anonymous | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 27th 04 08:47 AM |
__ (Brand New) Canon Digital Rebel w/18-55mm lens for sale __ | David Weaver | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | November 8th 03 05:42 PM |