ND70
 

Posting this thread to specifically ask about the ND70 without having to search through other threads.

Something I hadn't noticed until I took my first pictures with a model, is no access for a cable release. Thought "that can't be right", then saw no self-timer. I didn't have my manual with me, and didn't want to waste time, so I took the pics as carefully as I could.

When I got home, I noticed in the manual that there was an available remote control, but without one to test, the procedure sounds complicated. It sounds like it needs to be used differently based on manual and auto settings. Has anyone used the remote, and is it easy or annoying? I'd rather not use the self-timer because I know the model will get bored after ten seconds and the expression will not be the same as an instant pic. I try to get them at their most relaxed, them knowing the pic won't come for ten seconds will tense them up or bore them.

Thanks.

Jimmie,

I have used the self timer, but mostly on non portrait related stuff. It seems to work much the same way my old Nikon film camera worked.

I share your concerns regarding the use of this feature for portrait photography for the reasons you express. I would also discourage the use of cable release (or the wireless remote).

I am of the opinion that the shutter should be released while observing the subject through the view finder. I believe the view of the subject from any other vantage point is just arbitrary, except maybe with experienced models.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, maybe others can answer you question more directly.

If you use a tripod, the fact there is no cable release shouldn't be an issue. If you don't use a tripod you now have something to ask Santa for, assuming he hasn't blown his budget on Beth. The tripod is the most essential tool in a photographer's arsenal.

Marvin, I have two tripods, one for the D70 and one for the N80. A Bogen that's about ten years old (but is mint) and a Davis and Sanford which I bought for cheap off someone I know, so I don't need one from Santa. Good news for Beth. What I need for Christmas is a paid vacation, and extra dough to take your workshop. But this year, I will again ask Santa for world peace. I have my daughter ask for me now as I'm a little too big for his lap.

Mike, I always look through the viewfinder anyway while holding the cable release. The only time I don't look through is when the model is tense, she'll loosen up if she does'nt think I'm going to take the picture. Then snap with the cable release! The receiver for the remote should easily be in reach at arm's length while lookin through the viewfinder. Not sure if there's a minimum distance, but I'm sure there's a maximum of about 15 feet. Not sure how comfortable that would be while trying to take a pic.

I mainly ask because I noticed that a couple of the pics I took were slightly out of focus and others that were extremely sharp. Don't know if it's me pressing too hard, or the model moving. I'll try to be more careful next time and see what happens. Thanks.

Jimmie,

The D100 has an optional (expensive) bottom that can be added to allow for a remote electronic shutter release. Don't know if that's available for the D70?

Holly,

The remote is only about $20 and the receiver is built in the camera, nothing else to attach, I think.

The D70's self timer can be adjusted to as short a time as two seconds, I believe. I think that a remote shutter release would be better though, since a lot can change in two seconds with a model.

Unfortunately the remote for the D70 looks like it needs to be operated from the front of the camera, as if you were taking a photo of yourself and you were holding the clicker standing in front of the lens. The sensor for the remote is on the front of the camera and I don't know if it would pick up a signal from a photographer standing behind or even beside the camera.

If some of your pictures are slightly out of focus it could be that you didn't have the camera set for AF-S (Single -Servo Autofocus) and not CF-A (Continuous-Servo Autofocus) or manual focus. The AF-S prevents the camera from shooting unless the focus is locked in. Obviously you'd have to be using an autofocus lens and the active focus area would have to be centered over what you have determined to be the critical are of focus. Also be careful the AF-area Mode isn't set to closest subject.

The settings stay fairly similar through out the shoot. The pics that are slightly out of focus is very slight, I don't notice it myself until I start increasing the size on screen. Most people who would not use pics as reference would not likely notice. It does'nt happen much, mainly to the pics that I would have loved to use, of course. I am new with this camera so it was probably something I did. Live and learn.

I'll take plenty of practice shots at home before shooting models. A few pictures that I took of my wife and her sisters came out very good, my daughter's came out great also. They were with flash though, so the concern over shutter speed was'nt present.

I might get the remote just for the hey of it. It's only $20 and it'll come in handy for family pics.

Low light capabilities?
 

Hi Jimmie and Marvin and any other D70 users -

How does this camera operate in low light? I see from the DP Review that the lowest ISO is 200.

ISO numbers are inversely proportional to the amount of light. A low ISO number is for taking pictures in a lot of light, so you would use ISO 100 (which this camera doesn't have) on a bright sunny day.

The higher numbers, like ISO 1600, are for low light. This camera does a much better job focusing in low light (thanks to an extra little light it fires to help the camera find edges to focus on) than my old digital Minolta did.

The resulting image gets grainy with lower light on the subject, however, just like on film cameras.

Light is my concern
 

Thanks, Michelle -

What I want to be able to do is use as low an ISO as I can in a low light situation to get the best image I can, without a lot of artifacts or graininess. With my old 2 megapixel camera, I can shoot pictures in my north light living room that has less light because of trees outside at 100 or 200 ISO with reasonable results. Is this possible with the D70? And does anyone have any examples?
(If I am inappropriately starting a new topic on an existing thread, feel free to move this)

Thanks!

I can't imagine the newer cameras, especially the 6 megapixel ones like the D70, would give you worse results in low light than an older two megapixel camera, and I would expect the results would indeed be much better.

I don't know, technically speaking, which features on the D70 would be responsible for addressing this issue (whether it's the increased number of megapixels, the larger pixels, the greater ISO range or all of them combined).

I do know there are forums that specifically address the capabilities of the D70 camera and others where you might be able to ask this question. Try www.dpreview.com for starters.

Julie,

In my opinion the Nikon D70 is a low light machine.

The following is the best example I can offer in this regard. This image was shot at 500 ISO.

My doubts are resolved
 

Thanks Mike -

It appears that even though the ISO doesn't go to 100, the quality is not compromised at all. That clinches it for me.

Julie,

The above was excerpted from the following site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

One important reason why digital SLRs like the D70 are able to take better pictures goes beyond just the number of megapixels. Each pixel in the D70 is considerably larger than those in a typical digicam, even digicams that have 8 megapixels. This manifests itself in less noise and color artifacts at higher ISOs and in shadow areas. Also the lenses available for SLRs are far superior.

Can I extend this thread to ask what format most of you use with your D70 when shooting your clients? TIFF, RAW, JPEG?

John

John,

The image posted just above was shot at JPEG, FINE, LARGE, this produces an 3008 x 2000 pixel image. This setting is just below the largest RAW file setting which produces a much larger file.

The difference in file size is substantial. For my purposes the large JPEG file is sufficient. I rarely work from anything larger than an 8x10 sized print.

I think if I knew that I was going to shoot a limited number of poses, in a studio type setting, which might tend to reduce the number of exposures, I would consider shooting the larger RAW file. I just don't like to have to trudge through 150+ images that are so large. I often times create 2,3,4 auxiliary images from each one I'm considering.

Opinions vary.

I'm guessing that at that format you can expect to get about 70 exposures on one card. Does that sound right?

John,

That's close if you're using a 256K card. My camera indicates 72 image possibilities when I use a 256K card. I find though that the camera is using a worst case scenario to get this number. Some images take up more space than others. So, I find that in reality I can get well over 100.

That 72 becomes a 23 when you set the image to RAW.

I also shoot with my D70 at the largest JPEG file format, like Mike. I haven't the software/time to learn how to manipulate the RAW files when I do so much in Photoshop with my JPEG files.

Thanks for the input. I feel reluctant to use jpg format because every time you save, you further compress the file. I may try the large jpg format and once on the computer, convert to a TIFF. Or I may choose to use a second memory card (512k?).

I still haven't purchased the camera yet but plan on soon and am trying to iron out as many questions as possible before I crack open my wallet.

Thanks again for all of your advice. This forum has been a blessing.

John

I have two 512 MB memory cards with room for about 175 large, high quality JPEG images on each. I don't often shoot more than that in a day, but I have the second card as a backup. (I've had two of these CF-type memory cards completely fail on me and become unreadable without warning. Still don't know exactly why that happened.)

Once the images have been transferred to my computer, I store one set on my hard drive to work with and one set on a CD that gets put away and not touched.

I don't save and resave the JPEG images that are on my computer, though, so the issue of re-compression is not a problem. I keep one unchanged copy of each photo and I save any edited versions with a different file name, usually as Photoshop PSD file because by then they usually have many layers.

Yes, I use a lot of CD's to archive the images, and I had to upgrade my hard drive last year too, but those things don't cost much.

Michele,

Were your memory card failures in connection with your D70?

No, they were with my old Minolta, and franky, I think I may have caused the problem myself by not waiting long enough after accessing or storing an image before turning off the camera. At least I hope that was the reason, so I can avoid that problem in the future!

Sorry Jimmie and all you Nikon guys, a Canon person jumping in here.

Jimmie, if you are getting a slight blur and have "old age eyes", which you don't since you are such a young'n... you should have a diopter adjustment on the view finder of your camera, this might need adjustment. The Canon will not let you do a auto focus unless the flash is accessible. It cannot read the focus without the right amount of light. This is really disappointing for me. Sometimes I shoot it in auto then switch to manual just to make sure I have the right focus.

On the Canon, the cable shutter release is plugged into the side where you attach your USB cord. Personally, I don't care if your camera is set in concrete, you never touch it during a longer exposure and the self timer is so annoying, especially when shooting children. I have a cable release which attaches, it was only 40 dollars and functions like a standard SLR's - meaning a 1/2 pressure touch gives you meter readings, press full and you get shutter release. I still keep my eye in the view finder while shooting mainly so light is not seeping in. I have not looked at the remote ones.

Michele, you should check out the Gig memory cards now, I couldn't believe that they are now the same price as 1/2 the memory was a year ago.

I just realized that was the exact problem I am having with the Nikon. I took photos recently of a girl and of her mom. The pics with a flash came out very clear, whereas the others in lower light did not. For the Nikon owners, is there a way to make the model light near the lens turn on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does'nt. If not, I will have to do the same as Beth, turning to manual. Thanks for bringing it up Beth.

Michele, I did'nt think it would make a difference, but the Nikon Capture software, recommended by Marvin is incredible. It was worth the extra $90. (if interested, I found it cheapest at the time thru CDW) When using RAW or NEF files, it helps adjusts photos better than Photoshop ever did, and quicker. I love the temperature control on it. It changes your original pic to daylight, flash, incandescent, etc... Then you can adjust it further by making it cooler or warmer with a slide bar. After, you can send it to Photoshop for any further manipulations. It may sound like a longer process now, but imho, it's quicker at getting better results. Then you press a button which automatically sends it to Photoshop if you need to do any erasing, copying, cutting and so on. I found it saves time in the long run. Hopefully Marvin can chime in to agree or disagree.

Thanks, Jimmie. Sounds like I'll have to look into that.

About the low light without a flash -- Do you recal what the ISO setting was? You really have to manage this setting in low light. If you leave it at 200 your shutter speed can drop to a point that will allow you to pick up very slight body / camera movement and thus make the picture blurry. I have gone as high as 800 ISO with acceptable results. As far as the other problem -- I don't think I understand.

How has the Auto ISO setting worked out for everyone in low light? Doesn't that let the camera choose the best ISO for the lighting situation?

Michele,

I think this makes sense in theory. This is one of those settings that I may work myself into. I don't know what the down side to this would be. So many good features to take advantage of.

Mike - cute little girl, by the way - the ISO wouldn't have anything to do with a digital being blurry, as I understand this. The lens is the one that needs the light for focus in auto, not the recording of the pixels - isn't this true?

Jimmie using my trick while shooting people really doesn't work, unless you want just an idea. People move too much.

Congrats on the camera!

The ISO setting directly and proportionally affects the shutter speed. A shutter speed set too low will cause blur, a high SS will stop action. The longer the shutter is open the more time to record movement. You could think of it like this -- when the shutter is open you are recording like a movie camera for that instant in time.

I always use a 200 setting, I'd use 100 if it were an option when using flash. I still feel it's still an inability to focus when not enough light is present regardless of speed. In no way am I trying to speak as an expert, but even taking pictures of my artwork, I always get the best results when taking them outside on a bright day. Under lower light conditions, it will usually blur a tiny bit, just enough to bother me. I thought it was me accidently moving the camera, which is why I had brought up the use of a remote control due to the lack of a cable cord option. I always use a tripod, and I have a pretty light touch (I think I do). I will continue to experiment with the model light on my strobe.

Michele, not to keep pushing the issue, but while I was with my wife at the doctor's this morning, I was browsing thru a copy of Popular Photography. Nov. 2004. It had a brief article on white balance and digital cameras. It highly recommends using RAW files, or at least taking both RAW and JPEG. If you'd like, I could e-mail you a sample of two pics, one not touched and one with only white balance adjustments. The difference was made under five minutes. It gives the immediate impression that a warming filter was used. It would have taken me (you may be quicker if you're better at Photoshop) about fifteen minutes opening seperate windows and balancing each color individually. The auto adjust feature in Photoshop rarely gives me a good result. Anyhoo, let me know if you'd like to view the pics before spending the money on the software. They're about 5 megs each, but I'd have to get permission from the model first before sending.

Jimmie,

If you are shooting outdoors in shade (in what I would consider a normal sunlit day) there should be plenty of light to focus, even at the lowest ISO setting of 200.

Another thing that comes to mind is if the surface is not perpendicular to the direction of the lens. Auto focus has a hard time with these circumstances. I wouldn't think this would be the case while you were shooting art work.

You could try increasing the depth of field by putting the auto dial to landscape, but you shouldn't have to do this to get good focus. I would consult with your local camera shop expert. You may have something broke inside or need a tweek in some way.

Do you get an indication that you are "in focus" in your view finder? Is it only while using a flash that your results are bad?

Hi Jimmie,

Forgive me if this has been covered already, but have you tried increasing your depth of field, to say f8 or f11? For still models, I usually end up shooting on 400 ISO, ~f8, and hope for an exposure that isn't too long where model movement is a problem. I've had better results shooting artwork also at higher depth of fields vs. lower depth of fields.

I'd also be very interested in your results with raw files, as I've been shooting jpgs, mostly because I don't want to wait for the time it takes to write raw to memory. But I'd love to see the difference in image quality.

Holly

Jimmie, thanks for the offer of posting the RAW files. Don't go to too much trouble though.

I'm sorry, I guess I did'nt make myself too clear. It's the opposite, I get great results when using flash or sunlight. In lesser light, it will be out of focus although the camera will indicate that it is good. The last pics I took, I was using window sunlight, but thru white shades. I thought I'd have enough light, but obviously not. When I used a strobe flash on her daughter, the pics are extremely sharp, I mean extremely! Even with the model lighting, which is not as bright as the flash, I still get very good results. I thought either she could be moving a bit, or I'm pressing too hard causing the camera too move, but I don't think that's the case. I took pictures of the chair before she sat down and it was'nt as sharp as when using a brighter light. I'll try adjusting depth of field and see what happens.

I'll try posting small files of the pics, a small section of it as I'd rather have her permission before doing so. It'll be a small section of her shirt. I'll post them later.

Thanks.

Ok, I timed myself to two minutes to make adjustments. This was done by using the "cooler or warmer" option. It even shows you the temperature which is a nice feature. Then I adjusted the exposure, also done with a slide option. It may have actually been much less than two minutes, but I had to crop the pic first. It may not be a drastic change, but it looks better when it's not so small.