Nikon D70

I would suggest upgrading to CS. And since CS 2.0 is about to be announced, I would suggest buying the CS 2.0 upgrade. You will have the Raw plugin for your camera and will be able to work your photos much easier. Working in Raw Mode will allow much greater control.

Craig

garmon wrote:

Hi,
I have decided to purchase the above camera, and in the summer will need to process several hundred archaeological pics, both landscape/site shots and close-ups of artefacts.
Could anyone suggest the best method/software for downloading and cataloguing them all into PS7 please? Presumably a certain amount comes with the camera, but I would be interested if there are any better alternatives anyone can suggest.
TIA

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Stephan

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:37:26 GMT, "garmon"
wrote:

Hi,
I have decided to purchase the above camera, and in the summer will need to process several hundred archaeological pics, both landscape/site shots and close-ups of artefacts.
Could anyone suggest the best method/software for downloading and cataloguing them all into PS7 please? Presumably a certain amount comes with the camera, but I would be interested if there are any better alternatives anyone can suggest.
TIA

For serious work like that your best solution is a proper database. Try Thumbs Plus which can deal with RAW files as well as any jpg etc. It’ll be cheaper than upgrading PS if you don’t need an upgrade and it works well – far better than the crappy browser included with CS>

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:31:48 GMT, Stephan wrote:

garmon wrote:

Hi,
I have decided to purchase the above camera, and in the summer will need to process several hundred archaeological pics, both landscape/site shots and close-ups of artefacts.
Could anyone suggest the best method/software for downloading and cataloguing them all into PS7 please? Presumably a certain amount comes with the camera, but I would be interested if there are any better alternatives anyone can suggest.
TIA

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:31:48 GMT, Stephan wrote:

garmon wrote:

Hi,
I have decided to purchase the above camera, and in the summer will need to process several hundred archaeological pics, both landscape/site shots and close-ups of artefacts.
Could anyone suggest the best method/software for downloading and cataloguing them all into PS7 please? Presumably a certain amount comes with the camera, but I would be interested if there are any better alternatives anyone can suggest.
TIA

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Since

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Oh really, when were your days, in the 1920’s? Just teasing you!

What was wrong with Mamiya, Hasselblad, Leica, Canon, some of the old Pentax’s, Bronica, etc., etc. It appears that many products gain reputations that they may or may not deserve (but we won’t go there LOL). There have been many professional cameras and there has always been a choice (except for the early pioneering days).

My first Canon was an EOS 620, followed by an EOS 10QD. Several of my friends had Nikon F801s cameras, and we would often go on photographic outings together. In farily evenly lit scenes, the cameras were all comparable in what they producted. As soon as the lighting became tricky, especially backlit shots, the Canon shone. It’s fill flash metering is so good, you just rely on it. The F801s’s invariably over-exposed.

All the best,
Brian.

Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:31:48 GMT, Stephan wrote:

garmon wrote:

Hi,
I have decided to purchase the above camera, and in the summer will need to process several hundred archaeological pics, both landscape/site shots and close-ups of artefacts.
Could anyone suggest the best method/software for downloading and cataloguing them all into PS7 please? Presumably a certain amount comes with the camera, but I would be interested if there are any better alternatives anyone can suggest.
TIA

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Since

Hey, one other thing on speaking of Nikons. Around 1990, there was an international Nikon photo competition (they may do that every year??). A manager at a camera shop told me at that time, that someone had entered the competition and won it using a "Zenit". That is a cheap Russian camera. He sent a letter in saying "haha, I took that winning photo with a crappy old Zenit" and they disqualified him. The point here being, they could not pick the image quality difference between his el cheapo camera and those taken with the Nikons. Like I said, reputations are so easily gained at times, but don’t always mean a lot.

I am not knocking Nikon cameras, I am just saying that at the end of the day, a great image could have been taken on almost any make of camera.

Brian.

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:34:05 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I am not knocking Nikon cameras, I am just saying that at the end of the day, a great image could have been taken on almost any make of camera.
Brian.

and by any novice photographer
You should see some of my photos!.
hallo Brain:-)

Dave

DD wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:34:05 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I am not knocking Nikon cameras, I am just saying that at the end of the day, a great image could have been taken on almost any make of camera.
Brian.

and by any novice photographer
You should see some of my photos!.
hallo Brain:-)

Dave

Is that good, or bad? LOL

I will read your response tomorrow, off to bed now (4.06am).

Brian.

Brian wrote:

Hey, one other thing on speaking of Nikons. Around 1990, there was an international Nikon photo competition (they may do that every year??). A manager at a camera shop told me at that time, that someone had entered the competition and won it using a "Zenit". That is a cheap Russian camera. He sent a letter in saying "haha, I took that winning photo with a crappy old Zenit" and they disqualified him. The point here being, they could not pick the image quality difference between his el cheapo camera and those taken with the Nikons. Like I said, reputations are so easily gained at times, but don’t always mean a lot.

I am not knocking Nikon cameras, I am just saying that at the end of the day, a great image could have been taken on almost any make of camera.

You can take good pictures with ANY camera.
The reason pros preferred Nikon was that it was reliable. That is the main difference between pro and not
Some pros shoot all day long, film after film, the Zenith would probably melt after 10 rolls.
Imagine being sent by a paper to cover a war, would you go with a Nikon /Canon or with a cheapo brand?

Stephan

Brian wrote:

Having been a Nikon guy all my life I recommend you check the Olympus CW8080.
Compare the outputs on Dpreview.com.
I bought one and since then my Nikons are retired.

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Oh really, when were your days, in the 1920’s? Just teasing you!

No, make that end of the 80’s beginning of the 90’s

What was wrong with Mamiya, Hasselblad, Leica, Canon, some of the old Pentax’s, Bronica, etc., etc. It appears that many products gain reputations that they may or may not deserve (but we won’t go there LOL). There have been many professional cameras and there has always been a choice (except for the early pioneering days).

When I started assisting I was walking around with my Contax and my Zeiss lenses.
The pros explained to me you can’t work with that.
Somewhere they were right, for many reasons, but as you imagine the technical quality of my photos was as good if not better than theirs.

My first Canon was an EOS 620, followed by an EOS 10QD. Several of my friends had Nikon F801s cameras, and we would often go on photographic outings together. In farily evenly lit scenes, the cameras were all comparable in what they producted. As soon as the lighting became tricky, especially backlit shots, the Canon shone. It’s fill flash metering is so good, you just rely on it. The F801s’s invariably over-exposed.

No pro would use the cameras metering so that isn’t an argument in this case

Stephan

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:20:21 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Stephan, I didn’t realise you were *that* old…. 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:28:43 +1000, Brian
wrote:

My first Canon was an EOS 620,

My first Canon was a 600, followed by a 100 which is still in use today and often my main camera because it’s so light. It’s survived all sorts of general wear, being dropped and so forth and just goes on regardless. 🙂

Whilst the Pro cameras (a 1 and a 1N) have more features and could probably survive nuclear attack, the little 100 is just so much easier to carry around (and it’s back up is the 600 which I also still have. That has a small crack on one edge from gravitational contact with a dry stone wall, but it still goes on, and on, and on….)

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:26:03 GMT, Stephan wrote:

You can take good pictures with ANY camera.
The reason pros preferred Nikon was that it was reliable.

Yes. The reliability of Canons improved – the first of the best was the T90 – great camera. You can still get them used and they are incredibly rugged. I think what made the most difference though was lens quality. Nikon’s, apart from the glass always had a slightly warmer tone, and I think that was popular with a lot of photographers. Once Canon produced lenses that could compete with Nikon’s best, then people started seeing them as a sensible choice for Pro work.

That is the main difference between pro and not
Some pros shoot all day long, film after film, the Zenith would probably melt after 10 rolls.

Imagine being sent by a paper to cover a war, would you go with a Nikon /Canon or with a cheapo brand?

Yes. Though my first thought would be body armour 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Stephan wrote:

No pro would use the cameras metering so that isn’t an argument in this case

Stephan

That is a very generalised statement! How many press photographers getting that "grab" shot, are carrying handheld meters and calculating apertures for fill flash settings in their heads in hurried situations? None, I dare say. To be totally honest with you, I "often" use the cameras built-in metering. In a reasonably evenly lit scene, and with the experience to know what to meter from, and how much exposure compensation to apply (where necessary), why would I not use my camera’s metering? I am an absolute stickler for correct exposure and achieve it every time (where it is physically possible to do so).

If you have a camera that gets the fill-flash perfect every time, why wouldn’t you use it? If the metering was inaccurate, that would be a different matter.

Like I said before, I am not rubbishing Nikon, Nikon’s are excellent cameras. I chose Canon for a few reasons. I did my research. I used to read a UK camera magazine that used to do lots of tests, but the best test was actually taking photos. They would line up a group of cameras from various manufacturers and take a shot of something like a Navy Vessel with its serial number and masts etc. The cameras all on tripods and at the same aperture settings, etc. Canon, 9/10 produced the best image in terms of exposure accuracy and sharpness. After seeing that time after time, I then went to some leading camera stores and held the various cameras, and Canon (for me) felt the best. I have very large hands and the handgrips are great for my hands. Nikon would have been my 2nd choice had I not gone for Canon.

Regards,
Brian

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:28:43 +1000, Brian
wrote:

My first Canon was an EOS 620,

My first Canon was a 600, followed by a 100 which is still in use today and often my main camera because it’s so light. It’s survived all sorts of general wear, being dropped and so forth and just goes on regardless. 🙂

Whilst the Pro cameras (a 1 and a 1N) have more features and could probably survive nuclear attack, the little 100 is just so much easier to carry around (and it’s back up is the 600 which I also still have. That has a small crack on one edge from gravitational contact with a dry stone wall, but it still goes on, and on, and on….)
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

You made me smile there, I still have an EOS 100 as well and it is in mint condition. I loved the 600’s too. My 620 still exists, it has even been dropped on a stone church floor and keeps on going! In my inexperienced days I had not tightened the clamp on the tripod properly, and as I was arranging a wedding group, the tripod starting to go down on that leg. Luckily I knew the wedding parties. I picked the camera up and kept going. Just a couple of tiny scratches on one edge of the pentaprism, but works perfectly.

I have never repeated that episode I am glad to say.

Talking of bullet proof, the old Nikon F4’s were quite a tank too. Not sure how the F5’s compared.

Happy shooting,
Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:20:21 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Stephan, I didn’t realise you were *that* old…. 😉

Oh come on now.. If I was *that* old I would have said Leica, not Nikon!

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

When I started assisting I was walking around with my Contax and my Zeiss lenses.
The pros explained to me you can’t work with that.
Somewhere they were right, for many reasons, but as you imagine the technical quality of my photos was as good if not better than theirs.

Did the pros explain why "you can’t work with that"?

No pro would use the cameras metering so that isn’t an argument in this case

When I asked one very seasoned pro (news media) about how to use of a particular flash unit’s manual modes, he told me that most pros don’t have the time to mess with manual settings and rely on the equipment’s’ auto modes.

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 06:08:40 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:20:21 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Shame you didn’t own Canons ;-0

In my days Nikon was the pro’s only choice.
Canon took over since

Stephan, I didn’t realise you were *that* old…. 😉

Oh come on now.. If I was *that* old I would have said Leica, not Nikon!

LOL!

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

wrote:

Stephan wrote:

When I started assisting I was walking around with my Contax and my Zeiss lenses.
The pros explained to me you can’t work with that.
Somewhere they were right, for many reasons, but as you imagine the technical quality of my photos was as good if not better than theirs.

Did the pros explain why "you can’t work with that"?

No pro would use the cameras metering so that isn’t an argument in this case

When I asked one very seasoned pro (news media) about how to use of a particular flash unit’s manual modes, he told me that most pros don’t have the time to mess with manual settings and rely on the equipment’s’ auto modes.

OK you are right, press is obviously another world.
You need the shot now or it is gone.
(I come from the fashion / advertising world)

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

wrote:

Stephan wrote:

When I started assisting I was walking around with my Contax and my Zeiss lenses.
The pros explained to me you can’t work with that.
Somewhere they were right, for many reasons, but as you imagine the technical quality of my photos was as good if not better than theirs.

Did the pros explain why "you can’t work with that"?

No pro would use the cameras metering so that isn’t an argument in this case

When I asked one very seasoned pro (news media) about how to use of a particular flash unit’s manual modes, he told me that most pros don’t have the time to mess with manual settings and rely on the equipment’s’ auto modes.

OK you are right, press is obviously another world.
You need the shot now or it is gone.
(I come from the fashion / advertising world)

Stephan

Hey Stephan,

What camera are you using, just out of interest? It is clear to me now why the camera’s built-in metering is of little use to you, due to the line of photography you are in. Built-in metering is certainly not intended for studio work, etc.

All the best,
Brian.

Brian wrote:

Hey Stephan,

What camera are you using, just out of interest? It is clear to me now why the camera’s built-in metering is of little use to you, due to the line of photography you are in. Built-in metering is certainly not intended for studio work, etc.

All the best,
Brian.

I am not in this line of work anymore.
If I was I’d most likely ditch my old Nikons to replace them with a Canon setup.
At present time I shoot landscape panoramas, real estate and experimental macro photography
My camera is the Olympus CW8080. It does it all, truly fantastic piece of equipment.
Of course amateurs will have a hard time with the idea a photographer could use such a "small" camera as a professional tool.

Stephan

You can take good pictures with ANY camera.
The reason pros preferred Nikon was that it was reliable. That is the main difference between pro and not
Some pros shoot all day long, film after film, the Zenith would probably melt after 10 rolls.
Imagine being sent by a paper to cover a war, would you go with a Nikon /Canon or with a cheapo brand?

Stephan

I had, when I was young, a Zenith and then I bought the F801s and only then I shot sharp photos
(Particularly with the amazing 105mm-f/2.5).
I would not say that it gave me some talent.

—
Houba houba.
Marsu.
"Le num