Slightly disappointed with D70 viewfinder

So I went over to my local large camera store with my set of Nikon
lenses (85mm 1.8 & 50mm 1.8) to check out the D70. I had mentioned in a
previous post that since I use almost exclusively my 85 1.8 that I'd be
somewhat happy with my 50 1.8 on the smaller sensor. So I figured I'd
run over to the store with my N80 and two lenses. Well the camera seems
great when you first pick it up - everything is where I'd expect it,
having experience with the N80.

I figured that the image in the viewfinder would be the same size, just
magnified to take into account the crop factor. But when I put it to my
eye I was disappointed to see that the image was the same - just
cropped in the viewfinder. It was definitely a smaller image that
seemed further away from you. Why wouldn't nikon take advantage of the
whole viewfinder? Seems like some simple optics.

This doesn't kill it for me, I'm sure I'd just get used to it. But I
was a bit disappointed. Anyone else have a similar opinion or know why?
-Josh

Josh wrote:



This doesn't kill it for me, I'm sure I'd just get used to it. But I
was a bit disappointed. Anyone else have a similar opinion or know why?


I found the same thing and is one reason I chose the Olympus Dslr, better
viewfinder. If I already owned some nikon or canon lenses it might have
swayed me but I don't want a viewfinder I have "to get used to" if I can
help it. Makes composing hard if the viewfinder is too small.
--

Stacey

There is alot about this camera that is less than perfect, starting with the
viewfinder.
Picture quality can be very good (I would not call it excellent) providing
you know how to manipulate raw images in Photoshop; default jpeg settings
are no better than many P&S cameras (and worse than some), and I would not
buy a D70 if that is how you plan to use it.
If you think that with the D70 you are going to get the digital equivalent
of shooting color film with your N80 you will be in for the shock of your
life. There is no digital equivalent of the color slide that is an end
product in itself after pressing the shutter button.
For good or bad shooting with hi-end digital cameras requires some
rethinking and it is simply not possible to get quality results unless you
also learn post exposure digital image manipulation.
If you are the type of user who posts on this newsgroup arguing about the
quality differences between Walmart and Costco prints do not get a D70.

"bmoag" wrote in message
...
There is alot about this camera that is less than perfect, starting with
the viewfinder.
Picture quality can be very good (I would not call it excellent) providing
you know how to manipulate raw images in Photoshop; default jpeg settings
are no better than many P&S cameras (and worse than some), and I would not
buy a D70 if that is how you plan to use it.
If you think that with the D70 you are going to get the digital equivalent
of shooting color film with your N80 you will be in for the shock of your
life. There is no digital equivalent of the color slide that is an end
product in itself after pressing the shutter button.
For good or bad shooting with hi-end digital cameras requires some
rethinking and it is simply not possible to get quality results unless you
also learn post exposure digital image manipulation.
If you are the type of user who posts on this newsgroup arguing about the
quality differences between Walmart and Costco prints do not get a D70.

I bought a d70 and am no fanatic. However what's the advice you'd give if
someone who needs to spend less than 1500$, wants digital, wants instant on
and instant off, wants 3 pics a second at least, wants a good bundled lens,
and wants to do 11x14 prints or maybe bigger? Maybe there will be lots of
options in future, but not many now in this price range. Agree there's a
lot of learning and things aren't perfect. I'm always reading about
manipulating photos, optimizing printer settings etc. Comparison to film
isn't really fair since many of us are primarily interested in digital, for
the many advantages it brings over film. Yes, when the camera first arrived
I took some initial pics that seemed, without any work, worse than with my
olympus 3040! But I would have been limitied by the 3040 (still a great P&S
for the money IMH0). It doesn't have some of the features listed above.
You can't get a sb800 flash for it. With the d70 you can change lenses and
you've got to learn a lot about post processing eventually in this new
digital world. Digital rebel is in the right price range but there's
reasons to consider the d70 over it.

Well right now the status quo is shoot with my N80 using 85 1.8
(mostly) onto Portra VC 400 and get 2000 x 3000 pixel scans on my local
(good) printer's Noritsu printer (the same one that makes the prints I
guess similar to the Frontier but supposedly better). Of course I also
get the standard double prints at 4 x 6. I am thinking more and more
that I should probably just keep doing the same thing and just use the
6 megapixel scans I'm getting (about 2.2 megs each as JPEGs). He only
charges me an additional $2.50 for the CD on top of the $15 for the
prints. Maybe I'll get the next rendition of the D70 when they improve
on a few things.

-Josh

"LarryLOOK" wrote:

Digital rebel is in the right price range but there's
reasons to consider the d70 over it.

Three very good reasons: instant on, spot meter, and grid lines on the
screen make the D70 _very_ attractive. About the only thing the Rebel has is
the slightly lower noise at ISO 100 (which is significant since it makes
more shadow detail rescuable) and the upgrade path to a full-frame sensor.
The slow turn-on time (I've finally figured out to wake it up _before_
removing the lens capg) and lack of a spot meter are really irritating.

So you are quite right.

But the upgrade path to a full-frame sensor is very important to me. At A4,
for the stuff I do, scanned medium format looks a lot better than 6 or 8MP.
The Epson R800 renders detail that holds up under a loupe, and the
smoothness, tonality, and detail that it can render given enough pixels is
amazing.

If, like just about everyone else, you are happy with 6 or 8MP at 13x19, you
can ignore my rantingg.

All but one of my lenses will work on a full-frame camera, which I probably
would not be able to afford if I had to buy new glass for it. (I'm expecting
a mid-range full-frame from Canon in 2006 in the US$3000 to $4000 price
range.)

Of course, Nikon might beat Canon to the affordable full-frame punch, but I
doubt it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Josh" writes:

So I went over to my local large camera store with my set of Nikon
lenses (85mm 1.8 & 50mm 1.8) to check out the D70. I had mentioned in a
previous post that since I use almost exclusively my 85 1.8 that I'd be
somewhat happy with my 50 1.8 on the smaller sensor. So I figured I'd
run over to the store with my N80 and two lenses. Well the camera seems
great when you first pick it up - everything is where I'd expect it,
having experience with the N80.

I figured that the image in the viewfinder would be the same size, just
magnified to take into account the crop factor. But when I put it to my
eye I was disappointed to see that the image was the same - just
cropped in the viewfinder. It was definitely a smaller image that
seemed further away from you. Why wouldn't nikon take advantage of the
whole viewfinder? Seems like some simple optics.

It'd get a lot dimmer if spread over a larger screen.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David J. Littleboy wrote:


But the upgrade path to a full-frame sensor is very important to me.

Because you assume sensor technology is at it's peak. If you look at any
other electronic field, even digital photography, you'd see this isn't the
case.

I'm betting sensor technology will improve REQUIRING better optics not that
they will make cheap large sensors. If for no other reason they can get
more sensors in each batch with smaller sensors and the low yield rate with
the large sensors will keep them very expencive. I can't imagine they are
just going to give up on sensor technology development and just make them
bigger like film had to. Guess we'll have to wait to see who is right?

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

But the upgrade path to a full-frame sensor is very important to me.

Because you assume sensor technology is at it's peak.

It's not an assumption, it's physics. Besides, as you well know, larger
formats are always better.

I'm betting sensor technology will improve REQUIRING better optics not
that
they will make cheap large sensors.

There aren't a lot of better optics than Canon's better lenses. Zeiss Contax
and Leica. Maybe. Certainly not Olympus. And the Zeiss Contax lenses can be
used on Canon bodies.

If for no other reason they can get
more sensors in each batch with smaller sensors and the low yield rate
with
the large sensors will keep them very expencive.

I suspect that the yield rate problem isn't as bad as most people think:
sensors are seriously low-tech (large feature size) circuits (by current
standards), and the clean room technologies are getting better. So it's just
not as hard to make every transistor count as it used to be.

Besides, APS-C sensors can't be more than US$100 or so nowadays, and I'd
gladly pay 10 times that (assuming the rest of the camera stays cheap) for
the 1Dsmk2 sensor. Even US$2000 for the sensor plus US$1000 for the rest of
the camera is fine by me.

I can't imagine they are
just going to give up on sensor technology development and just make them
bigger like film had to. Guess we'll have to wait to see who is right?

Sure, there are going to be lots of sensor improvements, but the physics is
already clear that we're close to the limits (see Roger Clark's notes), so
those improvements are going to be minimal. And no matter how much it
improves, larger is always better.

Not only light collection, but also charge storage is limited by pixel size,
so dynamic range (noise) at low ISOs is limited in smaller pixels.

It's pretty amazing that 15x23mm sensors are better than 35mm, but there's
no way that 15x23mm or smaller is going to be better than 645 film: there
just aren't enough photons and there just isn't enough resolution in that
small an area whatever the sensor does.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

But the upgrade path to a full-frame sensor is very important to me.

Because you assume sensor technology is at it's peak.

It's not an assumption, it's physics. Besides, as you well know, larger
formats are always better.

Higher resolution also is better. 35mm today is better than medium format
was using film from the 80's and that was a developed technology.
How long have they been making hi rez sensors, 10 years at best? IMHO they
are just starting to get really good.


I'm betting sensor technology will improve REQUIRING better optics not
that
they will make cheap large sensors.

There aren't a lot of better optics than Canon's better lenses. Zeiss
Contax and Leica. Maybe. Certainly not Olympus.

Smelling like a canon troll.

How many of the new ZD zuiko lenses have you used? Or any OM lenses for that
matter... And how many people actually buy "canon's better lenses" to take
advantage of what's avalible now? Given most are optimized for full frame
sized capture, you don't think lenses optimized for smaller sensors might
be capable of higher resolution? Given 35mm optics resolve more than
medformat ones, I don't see why that wouldn't be the case here as well.



Besides, APS-C sensors can't be more than US$100 or so nowadays, and I'd
gladly pay 10 times that (assuming the rest of the camera stays cheap) for
the 1Dsmk2 sensor. Even US$2000 for the sensor plus US$1000 for the rest
of the camera is fine by me.

Most people aren't going to pay $3000 for a camera body, which will make
them even more expencive. If there is a small market, they can't sell
enough to get the economy of scale down where it has to be. You don't think
they'd already be marketing a camera like you suggest if they could?


I can't imagine they are
just going to give up on sensor technology development and just make them
bigger like film had to. Guess we'll have to wait to see who is right?

Sure, there are going to be lots of sensor improvements, but the physics
is already clear that we're close to the limits

That's what they said about HD speeds and size, memory densities, network
transmission rates etc etc. Yea I'm sure they have given up making any big
improvements...


Not only light collection, but also charge storage is limited by pixel
size, so dynamic range (noise) at low ISOs is limited in smaller pixels.

But IMHO the MP count is already high enough for most uses. You don't think
they will work on better image quality at the same MP count?


there
just aren't enough photons and there just isn't enough resolution in that
small an area whatever the sensor does.


Maybe not using the old 35mm designed canon lenses? :-)

I could easily see them going to either some sort of 3chip system like video
cams use to eliminate the bayer filter or just better, more sensitive chip
technology. Guessing the chips or this technology has already reached a
dead end seem silly given what has happened on almost every other digital
front so far. Like I said, time will tell but I'm not going to believe they
are going to stop development on the sensors and they are "close to the
limits".
--

Stacey