Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #29829 > unrolled thread

Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 08:30 -0700
    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 09:36 -0700
      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 09:39 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 10:14 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 15:05 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 15:21 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 16:04 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 16:13 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:10 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 20:43 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 21:07 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-22 02:14 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-22 02:14 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 15:24 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 15:51 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 16:08 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 18:06 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera John Young <jy@scallawags.net> - 2012-08-21 21:48 -0400
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 20:33 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:10 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 22:23 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 23:55 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:40 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:09 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 18:01 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:03 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:17 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 00:37 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 00:55 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-22 10:59 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 14:28 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 12:46 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-22 15:37 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 15:58 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 16:10 -0700
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-22 20:03 -0500
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 20:20 -0700
                            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 09:06 -0700
                              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 12:32 -0700
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 12:54 -0700
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 14:33 -0700
                                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 15:20 -0700
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-23 16:11 -0700
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-23 20:53 -0500
                                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 21:05 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-22 20:01 -0500
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVEsPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 20:44 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> - 2012-08-23 08:12 -0600
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-24 17:10 -0400
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 14:20 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-25 08:03 +1000
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 09:21 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-25 09:42 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 13:01 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-26 08:22 +1000
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-26 11:41 -0400
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-27 07:38 +1000
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-26 17:48 -0400
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-27 11:19 +1000
                            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-27 17:13 -0400
                              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-28 08:05 +1000
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-27 18:44 -0400
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-28 11:27 +1000
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 20:31 -0500
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-24 21:41 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 22:29 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 09:22 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-25 09:38 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#29829 — Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera

In article <michelle-469341.08040221082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Here are two more examples; taken with an iPad 3, in April of this year, 
> > > with whatever version of iOS was current at the time.
> > > 
> > > <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50314006/IMG_0033.jpg>
> > > <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50314006/IMG_0034.JPG>
> > > 
> > > -- Michelle
> > 
> > Well they have more detail in the photos compared to photos taken on my
> > iPad 2. I must find out how many Megapixels the camera on the iPad 3 has.
> 
> 5 megapixels.

I made some test photos this morning; the EXIF data will give you the 
information about each picture.

I shot the same bush with an iPad, iPhone (both HDR and no HDR) and a Nikon 
D70s.

A few notes, though; the date and time in the Nikon were way off (by about 
seven years), but I fixed that.  Also, I had the Nikon set to its most 
automatic mode, and it fired the flash.  I didn't try it again without the 
flash.

I saved the Nikon's file as the original NEF, so you will have to download 
it to view it; you can view the iOS photos with your browser, though.

<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xsov4y1h4m0a816/GrM4reBlB6>

I didn't bother to try for any composition, as I'm trying to compare the 
quality of the cameras themselves, so composition doesn't really matter for 
this exercise.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29831

On 2012-08-21 08:30:59 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:

> In article <michelle-469341.08040221082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> Here are two more examples; taken with an iPad 3, in April of this year,
>>>> with whatever version of iOS was current at the time.
>>>> 
>>>> <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50314006/IMG_0033.jpg>
>>>> <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50314006/IMG_0034.JPG>
>>>> 
>>>> -- Michelle
>>> 
>>> Well they have more detail in the photos compared to photos taken on my
>>> iPad 2. I must find out how many Megapixels the camera on the iPad 3 has.
>> 
>> 5 megapixels.
> 
> I made some test photos this morning; the EXIF data will give you the
> information about each picture.
> 
> I shot the same bush with an iPad, iPhone (both HDR and no HDR) and a Nikon
> D70s.
> 
> A few notes, though; the date and time in the Nikon were way off (by about
> seven years), but I fixed that.  Also, I had the Nikon set to its most
> automatic mode, and it fired the flash.  I didn't try it again without the
> flash.
> 
> I saved the Nikon's file as the original NEF, so you will have to download
> it to view it; you can view the iOS photos with your browser, though.
> 
> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xsov4y1h4m0a816/GrM4reBlB6>
> 
> I didn't bother to try for any composition, as I'm trying to compare the
> quality of the cameras themselves, so composition doesn't really matter for
> this exercise.

First you have to compare like images. The iPad, iPhone are jpeg files 
while the NEF is an unprocessed RAW file and has to minimally be 
processed via a Raw converter. I used Photoshop CS5 and Adobe Camera 
Raw (ACR).

The difference in physical sensor size is telling, the D70 image is far 
superior to the iOS images.
That said, of the iOS shots the non-HDR iPhone shot is the best and 
would probably be the best choice if choosing between the iPad or 
iPhone as a camera of convenience, or handy snapshot camera when a 
camera with a better lens and larger physical sensor is not available. 
The iPad shot is awful, or should I say the worst of the four. The 
iPhone HDR adds nothing (it is not true multi exposure HDR and is just 
a gimmick).
The iPhone is never going to replace a dedicated camera regardless of 
what advocates of using the iPhone as your only camera would like you 
to believe. However, it is a more than adequate camera of last resort, 
and I use mine in that role.

As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel 
race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.

Here are your 3 iOS shots compared with the processed D70 JPEG.

< 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/tzWia7Jg_Q/Shared%20Images/USENET%20SHARE/iOS%2BD70 
>

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29832

In article <2012082109361980278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel 
> race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.

it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better
than the d70.

the iphone wins on convenience. you can't slip a d70 into your pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29833

On 2012-08-21 09:39:47 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <2012082109361980278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel
>> race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.
> 
> it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better
> than the d70.

Yup! That is why my D70 was relegated to "lifeboat" status back in 
2008. My current working camera is a D300S.

> 
> the iphone wins on convenience. you can't slip a d70 into your pocket.

Agreed. As such my iPhone is my current third in line when it comes to 
camera selection. That selection goes like this, D300S, Canon G11, 
iPhone.

...and I am quite happy with the images I have captured with my iPhone, 
but it is my choice of last resource, unless I am using it as part of 
an App such as Theodolite.
< http://db.tt/jzZlmAo7 >
< http://db.tt/muVqyhh3 >




-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29841

On 2012-08-21 16:39:47 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <2012082109361980278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel
>> race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.
> 
> it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better
> than the d70.
> 
> the iphone wins on convenience. you can't slip a d70 into your pocket.

We have a d-90 and thankfully, it's working great.  It's by far the 
best camera I've ever owned.

A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has 
now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we 
got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and 
that's a _long_ time in digital photography.

Any strong recommendations?

Absolutely, btw, the camera you have with you is *always* superior to 
the one you don't.  However, we go out of our way to haul the D-90 when 
we think there's going to be something we're going to want to take 
pictures of.  Some of the early phone cameras just weren't worth 
bothering with, but now, with my iPhone 4 (and the improved camera is 
the thing that made me think most about getting a 4S), I get a lot of 
shots I'd never have gotten before.

I should do a side-by-side between the iPhone 4 and the small Canon 
pocket point-and-shoot I've got, which I've had for about 5+ years.  I 
think the Canon may still actually be a bit better, but I haven't 
really done a close comparison.  I pretty much always have the iPhone, 
so I take more pictures with it than anything else now.

Dropbox's new deal to suck pix out of your camera is pretty 
interesting.  One of my desktop computers is my true, permanent photo 
repository, but if I'm on the road with my laptop, that's an easy way 
to get the pix over to the desktop machine.  Their iOS app has a 
setting which automatically sends any pix or vids on your iOS device up 
to your DropBox account, too, which works kind of like iCloud's 
photostream.

Whether photostream or dropbox, having pix magically copied off your 
camera/device up to more permanent storage seems like a great thing, 
especially when traveling.  I remember trying to find internet cafes, 
burning pix to CDs and swapping out (what now seem like awfully puny) 
memory cards, and I'm glad I don't have to worry about that stuff 
anymore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29842

On 2012-08-21 15:05:13 -0700, Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> said:

> On 2012-08-21 16:39:47 +0000, nospam said:
> 
>> In article <2012082109361980278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel
>>> race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.
>> 
>> it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better
>> than the d70.
>> 
>> the iphone wins on convenience. you can't slip a d70 into your pocket.
> 
> We have a d-90 and thankfully, it's working great.  It's by far the 
> best camera I've ever owned.
> 
> A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has 
> now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we 
> got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and 
> that's a _long_ time in digital photography.
> 
> Any strong recommendations?

Your D90 is a very capable and tough camera, and rather than replace it 
consider an upgrade which you can use with it. That way you will have a 
functional spare Nikon body you can use. Particularly useful if you are 
shooting with two different lenses where switching lenses might be a 
hassle.

If you are happy with Nikon APS-C size sensors such as that found in 
your D90, my recommendation would be the D7000.
< http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000 >

If you want to step up to a full frame DSLR, the D800 is worth considering.
< http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/ >

As a disclaimer, I am a Nikon user, and I am sure that you would like 
to have some use out of the Nikkor lenses you own, otherwise I would 
have recommended some Canon, or Sony DSLRs to consider.

> 
> Absolutely, btw, the camera you have with you is *always* superior to 
> the one you don't.  However, we go out of our way to haul the D-90 when 
> we think there's going to be something we're going to want to take 
> pictures of.  Some of the early phone cameras just weren't worth 
> bothering with, but now, with my iPhone 4 (and the improved camera is 
> the thing that made me think most about getting a 4S), I get a lot of 
> shots I'd never have gotten before.
> 
> I should do a side-by-side between the iPhone 4 and the small Canon 
> pocket point-and-shoot I've got, which I've had for about 5+ years.  I 
> think the Canon may still actually be a bit better, but I haven't 
> really done a close comparison.  I pretty much always have the iPhone, 
> so I take more pictures with it than anything else now.
> 
> Dropbox's new deal to suck pix out of your camera is pretty 
> interesting.  One of my desktop computers is my true, permanent photo 
> repository, but if I'm on the road with my laptop, that's an easy way 
> to get the pix over to the desktop machine.  Their iOS app has a 
> setting which automatically sends any pix or vids on your iOS device up 
> to your DropBox account, too, which works kind of like iCloud's 
> photostream.
> 
> Whether photostream or dropbox, having pix magically copied off your 
> camera/device up to more permanent storage seems like a great thing, 
> especially when traveling.  I remember trying to find internet cafes, 
> burning pix to CDs and swapping out (what now seem like awfully puny) 
> memory cards, and I'm glad I don't have to worry about that stuff 
> anymore.

Yup!


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29848

On 2012-08-21 22:21:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-08-21 15:05:13 -0700, Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> said:
> 
>> On 2012-08-21 16:39:47 +0000, nospam said:
>> 
>>> In article <2012082109361980278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel
>>>> race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.
>>> 
>>> it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better
>>> than the d70.
>>> 
>>> the iphone wins on convenience. you can't slip a d70 into your pocket.
>> 
>> We have a d-90 and thankfully, it's working great.  It's by far the 
>> best camera I've ever owned.
>> 
>> A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has 
>> now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we 
>> got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and 
>> that's a _long_ time in digital photography.
>> 
>> Any strong recommendations?
> 
> Your D90 is a very capable and tough camera, and rather than replace it 
> consider an upgrade which you can use with it. That way you will have a 
> functional spare Nikon body you can use. Particularly useful if you are 
> shooting with two different lenses where switching lenses might be a 
> hassle.

Thanks.  I am keeping my D-90.  I'm wondering what to tell my friend 
who has a now-broken D-70, though.  I got a rec for the new D3200 and 
will tell my friend to take a look at that.

> 
> If you are happy with Nikon APS-C size sensors such as that found in 
> your D90, my recommendation would be the D7000.
> < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000 >
> 
> If you want to step up to a full frame DSLR, the D800 is worth considering.
> < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/ >

A bit out of both my and my friend's leagues, I think.  I'm sure I'm 
under-utilizing the potential of my D-90, but it takes beautiful shots, 
many of which I've found impossible to take with a point-and-shoot or, 
of course, my iPhone.  But I'd doubt either of us needs anything more - 
it looks like the current successor is that 3200.
> 
> As a disclaimer, I am a Nikon user, and I am sure that you would like 
> to have some use out of the Nikkor lenses you own, otherwise I would 
> have recommended some Canon, or Sony DSLRs to consider.

Again, I'm not replacing my D-90 any time soon unless it dies, but 
if/when it does, the lens we got with it, the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm 
f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, is a pretty nice lens and I suppose I could save a 
bit buying just a body.  It looks like the D3200 (though who knows what 
will be current when my D-90 dies) comes with an 18-55mm, otherwise 
similar lens.  I don't think my friend's lens is worth keeping, though. 
 It doesn't have VR, and I think it's a narrower range.

Thanks again!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29852

In article <k1146c$70u$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> Again, I'm not replacing my D-90 any time soon unless it dies, but 
> if/when it does, the lens we got with it, the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm 
> f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, is a pretty nice lens and I suppose I could save a 
> bit buying just a body.  It looks like the D3200 (though who knows what 
> will be current when my D-90 dies) comes with an 18-55mm, otherwise 
> similar lens.  I don't think my friend's lens is worth keeping, though. 
>  It doesn't have VR, and I think it's a narrower range.

if he bought the d70 kit, he probably has the 18-70mm, but he might
have the older non-stabilized 18-55mm. 

the d3200 isn't sold as body only, so he'll have an extra lens he can
sell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29876

On 2012-08-21 16:13:39 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:

> In article <k1146c$70u$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> 
>> Again, I'm not replacing my D-90 any time soon unless it dies, but
>> if/when it does, the lens we got with it, the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm
>> f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, is a pretty nice lens and I suppose I could save a
>> bit buying just a body.  It looks like the D3200 (though who knows what
>> will be current when my D-90 dies) comes with an 18-55mm, otherwise
>> similar lens.  I don't think my friend's lens is worth keeping, though.
>> It doesn't have VR, and I think it's a narrower range.
> 
> if he bought the d70 kit, he probably has the 18-70mm, but he might
> have the older non-stabilized 18-55mm.

The original 18-70mm kit lens was a surprisingly good over performer.

> 
> the d3200 isn't sold as body only, so he'll have an extra lens he can
> sell.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29877

In article <2012082119103550073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > if he bought the d70 kit, he probably has the 18-70mm, but he might
> > have the older non-stabilized 18-55mm.
> 
> The original 18-70mm kit lens was a surprisingly good over performer.

yes it was.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29883

On 2012-08-22 02:29:01 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <2012082119103550073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>>> if he bought the d70 kit, he probably has the 18-70mm, but he might
>>> have the older non-stabilized 18-55mm.
>> 
>> The original 18-70mm kit lens was a surprisingly good over performer.
> 
> yes it was.

I'm going from memory, but I'm pretty certain that the lens they have
is *not* stabilized (ie. no VR).  It's still been a great camera, up
until when it stopped working and they got a quote of $200+ to fix it -
if they even can.  $700 for a D3200 - including a longer ranged VR lens -
starts looking pretty good.  They got like 7 years out of the camera,
and while not used daily, it was dragged all over the place with the kids.

Come to think of it, they may have two lenses.  I'm not sure.  All the
old lens that work on the D-70 should work on a D3200, right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29885

On 2012-08-21 20:43:39 -0700, Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> said:

> On 2012-08-22 02:29:01 +0000, nospam said:
> 
>> In article <2012082119103550073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> if he bought the d70 kit, he probably has the 18-70mm, but he might
>>>> have the older non-stabilized 18-55mm.
>>> 
>>> The original 18-70mm kit lens was a surprisingly good over performer.
>> 
>> yes it was.
> 
> I'm going from memory, but I'm pretty certain that the lens they have
> is *not* stabilized (ie. no VR).  It's still been a great camera, up
> until when it stopped working and they got a quote of $200+ to fix it -
> if they even can.  $700 for a D3200 - including a longer ranged VR lens -
> starts looking pretty good.  They got like 7 years out of the camera,
> and while not used daily, it was dragged all over the place with the kids.
> 
> Come to think of it, they may have two lenses.  I'm not sure.  All the
> old lens that work on the D-70 should work on a D3200, right?

...er, possibly, if they have the 18-70mm non-VR it will work just 
fine. If they have any lenses requiring an in camera focus motor they 
will not work as most would wish with the D3200, but they can always go 
to the Nikon side to check on lens compatibility and you will find this 
for the D3200.

"AF NIKKOR for F3AF not Supported
AF-S, AF-I: All Functions Supported
AI-P NIKKOR: All Functions Supported Except Autofocus and 3D Color 
Matrix Metering II
Electronic Rangefinder can be used if Maximum Aperture is f/5.6 or Faster
IX NIKKOR Lenses Cannot be Used
Non-CPU: Autofocus not supported. Can be used in mode M, but exposure 
meter does not function.
Other AF NIKKOR: All Functions Supported Except autofocus and 3D Color 
Matrix Metering II
Type G or D AF NIKKOR: All Functions Supported Except Autofocus
Type D PC NIKKOR: All Functions Supported Except Autofocus and some 
Shooting Modes"

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29903

On 2012-08-22 04:07:35 +0000, Savageduck said:

> On 2012-08-21 20:43:39 -0700, Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> said:
>> Come to think of it, they may have two lenses.  I'm not sure.  All the
>> old lens that work on the D-70 should work on a D3200, right?
> 
> ...er, possibly, if they have the 18-70mm non-VR it will work just 
> fine. If they have any lenses requiring an in camera focus motor they 
> will not work as most would wish with the D3200, but they can always go 
> to the Nikon side to check on lens compatibility and you will find this 
> for the D3200.

Very cool.  Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29893

In article <k11khb$ssg$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> Come to think of it, they may have two lenses.  I'm not sure.  All the
> old lens that work on the D-70 should work on a D3200, right?

that depends what you mean by 'work'.

just about every nikon lens from the late 1970s will mount and work,
but some lenses may not autofocus.

if the lens has an internal focus motor (af-s in nikon lens lingo),
then it will autofocus on a d3200. most nikon lenses made in the last
decade or so have an internal motor, including the 18-70mm, which was
the d70 kit lens.

if the lens does not have an internal focus motor, the lens will mount
and function properly (the meter will work, aperture will stop down,
etc.), however, it will not autofocus because the d3200 and other low
end nikon slrs do not have an internal focus motor to drive the lens.
you will have to manually focus it, however, autofocus system is still
enabled and you will get focus confirmation, so it's not *too* bad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29902

On 2012-08-22 06:31:16 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <k11khb$ssg$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> 
>> Come to think of it, they may have two lenses.  I'm not sure.  All the
>> old lens that work on the D-70 should work on a D3200, right?
> 
> that depends what you mean by 'work'.
> 
> just about every nikon lens from the late 1970s will mount and work,
> but some lenses may not autofocus.

Very cool.  Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29843

In article <k110mp$7j9$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has 
> now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we 
> got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and 
> that's a _long_ time in digital photography.
> 
> Any strong recommendations?

how much does he want to spend and how many (and which) lenses does he
have?

assuming he wants to stay with nikon, there is the new nikon d3200 with
24 mp (about $700, red or black), as well as the previous d3100 (about
$500 with rebate that expires this week) and the d5100 (about $650
w/rebate, also expiring). 

the d7000 is very nice ($1200), as is the d300s ($1700), but both are
due for a replacement very soon, maybe even this week given that the
rebates are expiring. the android coolpix is expected to be announced
but maybe there will be more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29846

On 2012-08-21 22:24:44 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <k110mp$7j9$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
> 
>> A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has
>> now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we
>> got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and
>> that's a _long_ time in digital photography.
>> 
>> Any strong recommendations?
> 
> how much does he want to spend and how many (and which) lenses does he
> have?
> 
> assuming he wants to stay with nikon, there is the new nikon d3200 with
> 24 mp (about $700, red or black), as well as the previous d3100 (about
> $500 with rebate that expires this week) and the d5100 (about $650
> w/rebate, also expiring).

I suspect that they'd be into the 5-700 price range, inasmuch as I 
don't think they would care about the marginal difference an extra 
$1000 would make above that.  As I understand it, the current crop in 
that $700 or so range is pretty amazing - certainly lots better than 
their old D70.

Does anyone really need 24 megapixels?  Is that what we're up to now?  
I thought the quality-vs-quantity thing was settled and now we were 
more focused on quality.  How big those files must be.  I'll suggest 
they take a look at the D3200.  Just looked at it on dpreview and it 
looks like a pretty smart replacement for their old D70.

Thanks!  Very helpful.  Hopefully, I'll get a few more years out of my 
D-90.  I've really been enjoying it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29850

In article <k113e7$dpc$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> >> A friend, however, has a d-70 (maybe it's a d-80? I forget) which has
> >> now died and is interested in replacing it.  A few years ago, when we
> >> got our d-90, I'd have recommended the same.  But it's been 4 years and
> >> that's a _long_ time in digital photography.
> >> 
> >> Any strong recommendations?
> > 
> > how much does he want to spend and how many (and which) lenses does he
> > have?
> > 
> > assuming he wants to stay with nikon, there is the new nikon d3200 with
> > 24 mp (about $700, red or black), as well as the previous d3100 (about
> > $500 with rebate that expires this week) and the d5100 (about $650
> > w/rebate, also expiring).
> 
> I suspect that they'd be into the 5-700 price range, inasmuch as I 
> don't think they would care about the marginal difference an extra 
> $1000 would make above that.  As I understand it, the current crop in 
> that $700 or so range is pretty amazing - certainly lots better than 
> their old D70.

they're quite a bit better than the d70, especially dynamic range &
high iso. 

> Does anyone really need 24 megapixels?  Is that what we're up to now?  
> I thought the quality-vs-quantity thing was settled and now we were 
> more focused on quality.  How big those files must be.  I'll suggest 
> they take a look at the D3200.  Just looked at it on dpreview and it 
> looks like a pretty smart replacement for their old D70.

most people don't need 24 mp, but it does let you crop and still have a
usable image, which is cheaper than buying a longer lens. 

but if that's not enough, there is the d800 with 36 mp.

> Thanks!  Very helpful.  Hopefully, I'll get a few more years out of my 
> D-90.  I've really been enjoying it.

an excellent camera, and a used one could be an option for him too.

another thing to keep in mind is which lenses he has, because if any of
them need a focus motor in the camera, his choices are limited to the
d90, d7000 and d300s (or replace the lenses). most lenses don't so that
may not be an issue, but if he wants to use older lenses, then it might
be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29862

In article <210820120939471389%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > As always this is one of those times you should discount the megapixel 
> > race, the D70 is a very capable camera at 6.3MP.
> 
> it is, but it's also an old camera. modern slrs are quite a bit better 
> than the d70.

The D70s is about seven years old; we can't all keep buying new cameras 
every time a new model is released.

but even though it is old, it is still generates superior quality pictures 
compared to the iOS devices.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29874

In article <michelle-228CFA.18060221082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> but even though it is old, it is still generates superior quality pictures 
> compared to the iOS devices.

My 4s with the right camera app can outdo the D70 in most situations. 
For some people the iPad3 is far superior.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web