New D70 firmware on the way... - DPChallenge Forums

04/22/2005 07:22:49 AM · #1

There's been a lot of talk all over the Internet about the new D70s, but I hadn't seen mention of the piece which excited me the most. Apparently some of the enhancements which were developed for the D70s will be back-ported and made available via firmware updates on the older D70.

I caught this snippet from DPReview.com:

Primary improvements include new menu design and improved auto focus performance, especially in motion tracking.

Who has EVER heard of a company with a new product making them available on an older body? They could have just said, "Nope, you want better AF, you need a D70s". I continue to be very pleased with my D70, and even more pleased that Nikon is actively slowing its depreciation.

e301

04/22/2005 08:05:44 AM · #2

It also seems that the D70s is not really an upgrade of the 70 - more a gentle re-design of some areas: screen, menus etc. I believe the entire image capture and processing chain is identical.

Surely they must have something new in the pipeline, before Canon disappears over the horizon?

E

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/22/2005 09:23:42 AM · #3

Canon isn't disappearing over the horizon. They are producing excellent gear to be certain. Some of it has advantages over Nikon. There are still many folks happily purchasing Nikon gear, and producing great work with it. When you see an amazing image somewhere, do you really first think about what camera they may have used?

What matters is final image quality, and at this point neither vendor has a camera so advanced as to displace technique and composition as the most critical components of an image. They merely have the ability to make a great photographer more consistent.

As for the D70s not being an upgrade, I disagree. Its certainly not enough to make a D70 owner want to move up unless they have money to burn. But it does show clearly that Nikon listened to its consumer base and refined an already great camera in very significant ways. No one can argue the value of the larger LCD. Anyone who owns the ML-3 remote will appreciate the concept of a shutter release cable that works from any angle. Who can argue with improved autofocus? And a clearer menu system will definitely make for a more usable camera.

So what's left? The image pipeline. Both cameras share that component. But is image quality on the D70 really something to be disappointed in? For me, it takes one look at the DPC Top Photos for the D70 to see that image quality is a function of the photographer, not a limitation of their gear.

Once you have either a Canon or Nikon dSLR... Any model... There really aren't too many excuses. You could take any top level pro who shoots Canon and give them a comperable Nikon, and they'd still create mind blowing photos. You could give any Nikon pro a comperable Canon and they'd do the same.

Sure, improvements happen all the time, but I'm a firm believer that the best criteria today for choosing a camera is ergonomics, which is totally subjective. The most important thing a camera can do is stay out of your way and respond to what you intuitively do. Beyond that, everything is gravy.

kearock

Nikon D90

04/22/2005 09:44:16 AM · #4

So many people are saying Canon is disappearing over the horizon (or similar comments), but I haven't seen any facts that suggest that. Given, I'm not actively researching the differences because I already have a camera. But in reading all these forums, the only "advantage" I see for Canon is more megapixels. To me that's not a huge deal. 6 megapixels is quite a lot unless you're shooting for huge prints (and there is the D2X fot that). I think Canon may be grabbing up a lot of newbies because megapixels are the big "feature" that compact point and shoots tout, so that's the only thing new SLR users really know about. The difference between 6 and 8 isn't much. It seems to me, once you get over 5, you're set (unless you're printing poster size, which you'll need more than 8 for). I just find it interesting that every time people talk Nikon vs. Canon, the Canon folks seem to get stuck on their megapixels while the Nikon folks talk ergonomics, intuitiveness of controls and other things that will actually help you take better photos. If someone can tell me a nonmegapixel reason why Canon is better, I'd love to hear it, but until then I maintain that there's no major difference and the better camera is whichever fits the individual photographer's hand and intuition better.

Message edited by author 2005-04-22 09:45:32.

e301

04/22/2005 09:50:55 AM · #5

I wasn't talking about the Mp count. I mean the output quality of the CMOS sensor and DIGIC II processor combination; if you're printing at only a little over A4 size, even at 10x8, that cleanness of image is an advantage - and that's not so unusual a thing to do.

I would love to have bought a Nikon, but all my research pointed one way.

I'm sure it ain't that big a deal really - but Nikon seem to have released nothing fundamentally new since the D70 (at least not in the price bracket I pay attention to), and the D70s sems like a stop-gap at best.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/22/2005 10:24:27 AM · #6

Originally posted by e301:

I have an 11x17 print on my wall that I created with a 3.1mp Kodak DC4800. It is stunning. A well executed photograph combined with the right workflow can create saleable images. Anyone who doesn't think the D70 can create good quality 8x10s has never looked.

In my observation, the Digic's best strength is its noise reduction algorithms. Out of the box, Digic produces cleaner prints. On the other hand, I use the Noise reduction in my Raw converter, and it takes me about 3 seconds to batch the right NR functions for whatever ISO I use. I can make a creamy smooth ISO 400, and a very acceptable 800. At 1000 it can't be masked, but its still better than many films would be at that sensitivity.

Beyond noise reduction, I don't think the Digic chip's advantages over Nikon's imaging pipeline are so great as to outweight the photographer's composition and exposure decisions. Given a lab environment, perhaps it would be better. Given real world outdoor photography, there are much more relevant measures of a camera's abilities.

Originally posted by e301:

I would love to have bought a Nikon, but all my research pointed one way.

Interesting. When I was first in the market, I was fixated on a Rebel because that's what I saw in all the magazines, and it looked sexy. But, after doing research (mind you, this was against a 300D, not the 350) I found the D70 to be a better camera when it came to image quality stats. Most reviews agree with that, although the D70 was more expensive.

But what really sold me was ergonomics. I handled both cameras, and there was no doubt in my mind which one was right for me. To this day I don't regret my choice, and would still buy the D70s over the Canon 350D.

Originally posted by e301:

I'm sure it ain't that big a deal really - but Nikon seem to have released nothing fundamentally new since the D70 (at least not in the price bracket I pay attention to), and the D70s sems like a stop-gap at best.

I think we can agree to disagree on this point. The D2x is a pretty incredible machine and was released since the D70. I don't see what Nikon could have done better in the Rebel/D70(s) price point. Releasing a camera just for the sake of 8mp is something you do to capture statistics nuts. Put a great photographer in touch with a 300D and they'll still create great 8x10s. Once you own a camera in the class of the 300d or D70 image quality is a function of user skill more than anything else.

waterlilies

Nikon D70

04/22/2005 10:31:12 AM · #7

Originally posted by cghubbell:

On the other hand, I use the Noise reduction in my Raw converter, and it takes me about 3 seconds to batch the right NR functions for whatever ISO I use.

Not to hijack the thread, but which Raw converter do you use?

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/22/2005 10:35:40 AM · #8

Canon and Minolta have a huge lead over Nikon in terms of noise levels at high ISOs. The new Nikon cameras don't even have the option of ISO 3200. There's no way I could consider a Nikon for the kind of photography I do.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/22/2005 10:38:39 AM · #9

Originally posted by cghubbell:

The review of the 350D in the latest AP (UK magazine) has argued (and shown) that the quality of the 10D is better when shown at the same size despite having fewer megapixels. The noise reduction algorithms in the 350D seem overly aggressive, and so the 10D actually provides better prints at A3 and above. Megapixels are not everything.

04/22/2005 11:01:52 AM · #10

Originally posted by kearock:

This is exactly my perception. Is a car that can go 110 miles per hour better than a car than can go 100 miles per hour? Or is the car that has a comfortable interior that is silent at 65mph the better choice?

Bottom line is both cameras a great, but I see a diversion in the intent of each company. Nikon is producing solid cameras that are excellent and ergonomic with their price range. Canon is pushing leading edge and megapixels because most photographers believe that their gear makes them better. I realize that on a photography web site we have better than average photographers, so hopefulyl no one is taking that the wrong way. But I think that the average person who owns a dSLR really believes it when a sales person or magazine ad tells them they will shoot better pictures with an 8mp camera than a 6mp camera. It's just not true.

Outdoor photographer ran an article a few months back about a 4mp Nikon dSLR which produced a stunning poster size image using genuine fractals. Bottom line is that when it comes to megapixels, size isn't as important as quality. Technique is the key.

It's not as easy to review ergonomics, but I firmly believe they are the most important aspects of a camera. I really don't need to think to control my D70. The thumb wheels and buttons are right where I need them and control everything I need. I have nothing against Canon products at all, I'm just tired of reading statistics and wish I could read more about how people's technique relates to their camera choice rather than how the stats on DP Review made it a clear choice.

04/22/2005 11:05:21 AM · #11

Originally posted by waterlilies:

Originally posted by cghubbell:
On the other hand, I use the Noise reduction in my Raw converter, and it takes me about 3 seconds to batch the right NR functions for whatever ISO I use.

Not to hijack the thread, but which Raw converter do you use?

I use BibblePro 4.2.3. I'm just blown away by how much efficiency it brought to my workflow, and how much faster it runs than Nikon Capture. I think NC still produces slightly better images, but as I've said, ergonomics are important also.

All that being said, I think NC is a great product, and when run on a machine with suffieicent horsepower I wouldn't have any objection to using it.

04/22/2005 11:10:26 AM · #12

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

That seems to be a very specific style of photography... I'm guessing you do a lot of event / indoor / concert type stuff? Certainly if you have a nich, then you need to go with the camera that's most effective in that space.

At the same time, I wonder how the final output would compare between your current workflow and a D70 / D2x combined with NR? Not debating which workflow is superior, more a curiosity about in-camera vs out-of-camera NR effectiveness.

Either way, you obviously made your decision for the right reasons which is witnessed by the fact that you are an above-average photographer. I'd bet that if I gave you my D70 you would still create impressive work because your technique is a stronger variable than camera capabilities.