Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:

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

Me thinks me smell a troll.... The D2 series of Nikons accept and
meter with the older Nikon lenses.. as do the high end Canon's with
older Canon glass. The D70s has an adjustable diopter on the view
finder and dipoters are available for the high end cameras. And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light. My Nikon F split prism blacks out with slow lenses and long
lenses. An AF camera in maual mode still shows the electronic
rangefinder and works in a much wider variety of lighting than my old
split prism.


Do a little research......

If you want to buy Canon, then do it. You will get an an excellent
state of the art camera. Don't do it by making up or implying features
of the Nikon line that simply aren't true.

Nikon F, Nikon N90s, D70s, Coolscan IV, Mac G4 OS 10.3 and a
couple of Kodak Carousels.

Jim
--
Jim

In article , Jim wrote:
On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:
And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light.

Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present in many
flashes?

If AF system is so great, why does it need additional lights to focus?

AF has a number of annoying failure modes (doesn't work in low light, can
focus on the wrong object, doesn't know about DoF, etc.) that are not present
in manual focus systems.

Neither of the two systems is always better than the other.


--
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

In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article , Jim wrote:
On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:
And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light.

Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present in many
flashes?

They're present for focusing on featureless surfaces, where there's little
or no detail to focus on.

If AF system is so great, why does it need additional lights to focus?

Can't focus on a featureless surface. This goes equally for autofocus and
manual focus.

In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article , Jim wrote:
On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:
And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light.

Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present in many
flashes?

They're present for focusing on featureless surfaces, where there's little
or no detail to focus on.

On a featureless surface, you don't have to focus because you can't see the
difference between in focus and out of focus.

I didn't know that taking pictures of featureless surfaces was so popular
that just every flash needs an AF illumination light.

On the other hand, I didn't have any trouble finding a spot in my house that
was dark enough that my cameras' AF systems gave up, but didn't provide
any real difficulties for manual focusing.

If AF system is so great, why does it need additional lights to focus?

Can't focus on a featureless surface. This goes equally for autofocus and
manual focus.

I don't think I ever took a picture that consists of just a featureless
surface. So, you are saying that I will never need my AF illumination
light?

Maybe somebody should tell Nikon about the featureless surfaces. From the
SB-800 manual:
"When the light is too dim for normal autofocus operation, the SB-800's Wide-
"Area AF-Assist Illuminator enables you to perform autofocus flash photography.


--
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

In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:

Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present in many
flashes?

They're present for focusing on featureless surfaces, where there's little
or no detail to focus on.

On a featureless surface, you don't have to focus because you can't see the
difference between in focus and out of focus.

There are situations where detail (e.g. an edge) on that surface doesn't
conviniently fall under a focus point, and being able to focus without
recomposing is useful. Photography is not limited by your lack of
imagination.

In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
There are situations where detail (e.g. an edge) on that surface doesn't
conviniently fall under a focus point, and being able to focus without
recomposing is useful.

That's why they invented ground glass. Each point a focus point.


--
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 wrote:
In article , Jim wrote:

On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:
And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid works
much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens, in any
light.


Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present in many
flashes?

If AF system is so great, why does it need additional lights to focus?

AF has a number of annoying failure modes (doesn't work in low light, can
focus on the wrong object, doesn't know about DoF, etc.) that are not present
in manual focus systems.

Neither of the two systems is always better than the other.



The illumination light on the flash will allow AF in complete darkness.
And it works much better than the camera's own focus aid lamp.

No matter how good the AF system is, it needs help in low light, low
contrast situations.

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
In article
coh.net, Philip
Homburg wrote:
In article , Jim
wrote:
On 2005-10-13 00:06:07 -0400, said:
And with
AF who needs manual focus anyway? The electronic focusing aid
works much better than the old split prism.. with nearly any lens,
in any light.

Can you explain to me the AF illumination lights that are present
in many flashes?

They're present for focusing on featureless surfaces, where there's
little or no detail to focus on.

On a featureless surface, you don't have to focus because you can't
see the difference between in focus and out of focus.

AF sensors look for points of contrast.
When shooting something that has little or no discernable contrast...or
where contrast is faint, or angled in such a way as to fool most sensors,
the focus assist light projects lines which can then be distinguished by the
sensors. To say that it somehow doesn't matter if you focus properly or not
in those shots is absurd.

In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
There are situations where detail (e.g. an edge) on that surface doesn't
conviniently fall under a focus point, and being able to focus without
recomposing is useful.

That's why they invented ground glass. Each point a focus point.

Not for autofocus, and I don't believe anyone was mooting the use of
AF-assist lights (the clue's in the name) for *manual* focusing.

In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:
There are situations where detail (e.g. an edge) on that surface doesn't
conviniently fall under a focus point, and being able to focus without
recomposing is useful.

That's why they invented ground glass. Each point a focus point.

Not for autofocus, and I don't believe anyone was mooting the use of
AF-assist lights (the clue's in the name) for *manual* focusing.

No the claim was, that manual focus support in screens was no longer
necessary because AF is superior in every way.

I used the AF-assist light as an example to demonstrate that AF has a number
of limitations (of which Nikon considers low light the most important one,
they don't even mention other uses in the manual).



--
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