So I tried the D70s...

molested_cow · Sep 13, 2005

was a bit disappointed.

First of all, it's the same with most new cameras. You adjust the aperture from the body and not from the lens. Nikon may think it makes things easy, but it actually takes the sense of control from the users. From a user-machine interface stand point, everything should be as obvious and instinctive as possible.

Secondly, the color/brightness/saturation isn't nearly as vibrant as my traditional. Granted that I didn't play too much with the settings, but I never had to mess with any setting on my traditional either.

Thirdly, I was surprised to find that the "bracketing" function is merely a "photoshop" effect. The camera didn't take 3 pics, but just one and then adjust it accordingly. Why would I need the camera to do it if I can do it myself?!

The camera isn't as rugged as I want. I am pretty abusive towards my gears. Just 2 years and my lens paint at the logo area has worn. I change lenses a lot when taking photos, and my friend told me to be careful about dirt getting onto the CCD..... come on, I don't have the time to be careful when every moment lasts for only a ........ moment.

So I am holding back on the decision. I'm happy with my traditional except for the film and developing cost. I don't know how much the LCD preview function is going to change my habits, but I am doing fine without it as well.

warped_baller · Sep 13, 2005

molested_cow said:
was a bit disappointed.

First of all, it's the same with most new cameras. You adjust the aperture from the body and not from the lens. Nikon may think it makes things easy, but it actually takes the sense of control from the users. From a user-machine interface stand point, everything should be as obvious and instinctive as possible.
Some lenses you can actually change the aperture but it makes it completly manual without metering. I personally like the idea that its right there next to my finger and such but its just a opinion.

Secondly, the color/brightness/saturation isn't nearly as vibrant as my traditional. Granted that I didn't play too much with the settings, but I never had to mess with any setting on my traditional either.
Stock settings aren't great for color/brightness/saturation. Ive played around with them and their great now where ive found there are times where i don't have to go boost the saturation on the computer.

Thirdly, I was surprised to find that the "bracketing" function is merely a "photoshop" effect. The camera didn't take 3 pics, but just one and then adjust it accordingly. Why would I need the camera to do it if I can do it myself?!
To many features isn't something to whine about. To little is tho.

The camera isn't as rugged as I want. I am pretty abusive towards my gears. Just 2 years and my lens paint at the logo area has worn. I change lenses a lot when taking photos, and my friend told me to be careful about dirt getting onto the CCD..... come on, I don't have the time to be careful when every moment lasts for only a ........ moment.
Your friend worries to much..........

So I am holding back on the decision. I'm happy with my traditional except for the film and developing cost. I don't know how much the LCD preview function is going to change my habits, but I am doing fine without it as well.
Digital is cheaper. The LCD is a plus but if you don't like it then well don't look at it. LOL. In my opinion its a great camera for the price. See I started out on film but man, digitals so much cheaper.

My writing = bold

thebeginning · Sep 14, 2005

i wont get into an argument about this...actually, i agree with you on some points (true ruggedness is mainly in just the pro cameras, 'fake' bracketing, and that aperture thing took me a while to get used to from my f3. I got used to all of it though, from using a little digital. digital isnt for everybody, you like it or you dont, and there isnt anything wrong with that in either direction. I'm not usually a very tolerant person, but when it comes to the whole film vs. digital thing, it mostly boils down to personal preferences. If film is your thing, dont try to force yourself into shooting digital, especially if you know you wont like it.

molested_cow · Sep 14, 2005

This isn't supposed to be film vs digital. In fact, I've stopped making prints since ages ago. I just have my negatives scanned instead. This is about my disappointment with the D70. I was hoping it to be pretty traditional and straight forward like a regular SLR but instead of recording the data with film, it does it digitally.

summers_enemy · Sep 14, 2005

Have you tried any other brands? Maybe the Nikon layout just isn't for you. Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and Minolta all have DSLR's in the same price range you may want to look at instead

Meysha · Sep 14, 2005

Sounds like you should stick with film.
A lot of the 'problems' you mentioned are typical of digital... especially the desaturated look that digital has... and it's also not as sharp as film. Unfortunately. :-(

Ant · Sep 14, 2005

Thirdly, I was surprised to find that the "bracketing" function is merely a "photoshop" effect. The camera didn't take 3 pics, but just one and then adjust it accordingly. Why would I need the camera to do it if I can do it myself?!

Are you talking about WB bracketing or exposure bracketing?

ksmattfish · Sep 14, 2005

it's the same with most new cameras. You adjust the aperture from the body and not from the lens.

This has less to do with Nikon, and more to do with the popularity of consumer zoom lenses. f/# = focal length divided by the size of the aperture. An aperture control ring on the lens doesn't allow for the math shift as you zoom out. 50mm/25mm=f/2, but when zoomed out to 100mm it's f/4, etc...

Secondly, the color/brightness/saturation isn't nearly as vibrant as my traditional. Granted that I didn't play too much with the settings, but I never had to mess with any setting on my traditional either.

Yes you did; you chose a film type with the settings built in. At least for color and saturation. Brightness would be a function of exposure for film or digital. Also if you were having lab prints made, then someone there was tweaking things. If you request the service most pro labs have people that would be happy to punch up your digital shots. Digital and film both require post exposure processing to acheive the best image.

The camera isn't as rugged as I want. I am pretty abusive towards my gears. Just 2 years and my lens paint at the logo area has worn. I change lenses a lot when taking photos, and my friend told me to be careful about dirt getting onto the CCD..... come on, I don't have the time to be careful when every moment lasts for only a ........ moment.

I'm with you there. I love my old steel and leather, no battery cameras. But as electronic cameras go the DSLRs are as rugged as their modern 35mm AF SLR versions. The pro models are about as good as it gets; the entry level models are cheaper.

I'm happy with my traditional except for the film and developing cost.

That's what is important. I bought a 20D in May, and I'm loving it, but I still have a lot of room in my soul for film. The 20D is helping me make money to support my film habit.

molested_cow · Sep 14, 2005

I considered Nikon because I am already using a Nikon and I plan to use the same set of lenses I have (they are compatible).

I was referring to exposure bracketing.

Ant · Sep 14, 2005

molested_cow said:
I was referring to exposure bracketing.

In that case I'm afraid that you haven't read the manual properly. Exposure bracketing is not a photoshop effect. It is a physical exposure bracket. That's the way it is on my D70 and I can't for one minute imagine they've made such a profound change on the D70s

DocFrankenstein · Sep 14, 2005

Ant said:
In that case I'm afraid that you haven't read the manual properly. Exposure bracketing is not a photoshop effect. It is a physical exposure bracket. That's the way it is on my D70 and I can't for one minute imagine they've made such a profound change on the D70s

Maybe he did white balance bracketing?