Some photo's I took with the D70 Aus.

[andyz4000]

Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few more

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html

Andy Z

[AU Digital POTD]

"andyz4000" <andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> more
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
>
> Andy Z
>


Hi Andy, How long have you had the D70? Being a new release it can't be
all that long, but I found it interesting that you have dust on the sensor
already. (Seen easily in the tree shot) I hope it does not turn out to be
a dust magnet for you.

Also what lens was used for that shot, as there is a bit of fringing going
on?

Russell

[AU Digital POTD]

"AU Digital POTD" <nospam@bigpond.net> wrote in message
news:0AM1c.87103$Wa.80963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "andyz4000" <andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> >
> > Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> > more
> >
> > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
> >
> > Andy Z
> >
>
>
> Hi Andy, How long have you had the D70? Being a new release it can't be
> all that long, but I found it interesting that you have dust on the sensor
> already. (Seen easily in the tree shot) I hope it does not turn out to
be
> a dust magnet for you.
>
> Also what lens was used for that shot, as there is a bit of fringing going
> on?
>
> Russell
>
>

OK... ignore the lens question, I have now looked at the exif. :-)

[Ubiquitous]

He also says on the page that the dust is on the lens, not the sensor.. (but
I find that hard to believe, never seen any dust on the lens create that
sort of blob...)

"AU Digital POTD" <nospam@bigpond.net> wrote in message
news:VBM1c.87106$Wa.1842@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "AU Digital POTD" <nospam@bigpond.net> wrote in message
> news:0AM1c.87103$Wa.80963@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "andyz4000" <andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> > >
> > > Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> > > more
> > >
> > > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
> > >
> > > Andy Z
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi Andy, How long have you had the D70? Being a new release it can't
be
> > all that long, but I found it interesting that you have dust on the
sensor
> > already. (Seen easily in the tree shot) I hope it does not turn out to
> be
> > a dust magnet for you.
> >
> > Also what lens was used for that shot, as there is a bit of fringing
going
> > on?
> >
> > Russell
> >
> >
>
> OK... ignore the lens question, I have now looked at the exif. :-)
>
>

[Phil Cole]

AU Digital POTD wrote:

> Hi Andy, How long have you had the D70? Being a new release it can't be
> all that long, but I found it interesting that you have dust on the sensor
> already. (Seen easily in the tree shot) I hope it does not turn out to be
> a dust magnet for you.

I had a brand new fuji s2 that had noticeable dust on the sensor out of
the box. I think quality control is dropping on a lot of new camera gear...

Cheers,
Phil

[Danny Rohr]

"andyz4000" <andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:andyz4000.12ln5n@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...

> Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> more
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
>
> Andy Z

Does anyone else think the shots look quite noisey for ISO 200?
Considdering teh excellent noise levels of the 300/10D at ISO400, I am a
little worried.

The noise doesn't look much like a JPEG issue.

Danny.

[Ken Chandler]

"Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote:
> "andyz4000" <via the EVIL EYO interface> wrote:

> > Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> > more

> > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html

> Does anyone else think the shots look quite noisey for ISO 200?
> Considdering teh excellent noise levels of the 300/10D at ISO400,
> I am a little worried.

That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
<http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think is a
particularly nice compostion BTW)

I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.

The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how the
performance is at faster ISOs.

KC

[me]

Ken Chandler wrote:

> "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote:
>
>>"andyz4000" <via the EVIL EYO interface> wrote:
>
>
>>>Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
>>>more
>
>
>>>http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
>
>
>>Does anyone else think the shots look quite noisey for ISO 200?
>>Considdering teh excellent noise levels of the 300/10D at ISO400,
>> I am a little worried.
>
>
> That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
> <http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think is a
> particularly nice compostion BTW)
>
> I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
> definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
>
> The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how the
> performance is at faster ISOs.
>
> KC
>
>

Image
Looks more like the compression of the JPG than noise. That particular
file is 1.5mb. Does the D70 use something else to make JPegs that size
from a 2000x3000 pixel image. ( the D100 usually is another 1Mb bigger
at 2.5Mb) Dark images are small but never that small.

What does the card image capacity spec read for 100Mb?

Dirt
As for the dirt on the sensor you will either have to get someone to
clean it off or sensor swabs. I found that blowing it off does not work
unless the sensor is sparkling clean in the first instance which it
obviously is not. It would seem that there maybe a residue on the sensor
which needs a alcohol based solution to clean that off first. After I
cleaned mine with eclipse fluid, dirt has not been attracted to or
sticks on the sensor.

[AU Digital POTD]

"Ubiquitous" <diliff@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4047cf98$0$22531$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net. au...
> He also says on the page that the dust is on the lens, not the sensor..
(but
> I find that hard to believe, never seen any dust on the lens create that
> sort of blob...)

I agree.... it looks like sensor dust to me.

[andyz4000]

Hi Russell

I got it the night before posting the shots, so Its 2 days now.

Andy Z

Hi Andy, How long have you had the D70? Being a new release it can't be
all that long, but I found it interesting that you have dust on the sensor
already. (Seen easily in the tree shot) I hope it does not turn out to be
a dust magnet for you.

Also what lens was used for that shot, as there is a bit of fringing going
on?

Russell

[andyz4000]

He also says on the page that the dust is on the lens, not the sensor.. (but
I find that hard to believe, never seen any dust on the lens create that
sort of blob...)

Im not sure what It is, I took the lense off and cleaned both sides (front glass and rear of the 18-70), there was a few noticable bits of dust on the rear glass. I will take more shots and post, When I got the camera I just put it together and started shooting but I purchased a blower brush today and cleaned it all up a now, hopefully it should be better.

Andy Z

[Douglas MacDonald]

The image is sharpened considerably and this in itself will produce noise.
Personally I think noise adds some character to an otherwise bland vista in
some photos.

Douglas
-------------

"Ken Chandler" <news(at)kenchandler_com> wrote in message
news:4047e03f$0$4227$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote:
> > "andyz4000" <via the EVIL EYO interface> wrote:
>
> > > Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> > > more
>
> > > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
>
> > Does anyone else think the shots look quite noisey for ISO 200?
> > Considdering teh excellent noise levels of the 300/10D at ISO400,
> > I am a little worried.
>
> That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
> <http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think is
a
> particularly nice compostion BTW)
>
> I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
> definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
>
> The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how
the
> performance is at faster ISOs.
>
> KC
>
>

[andyz4000]

Yes It was, I had a look at the ccd and there it was, dead smack in the middle. 2 second job to get it off and pictures are fine. The images on the web are all compressed at medium quality using photoshop, the real images are about 3 - 4 megs each and are very clear. I will try to get an uncompressed image up when I get more time.

Andy Z

[AU Digital POTD]

"andyz4000" <andyz4000.12mmbz@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:andyz4000.12mmbz@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
>
> He also says on the page that the dust is on the lens, not the sensor..
> (but
> I find that hard to believe, never seen any dust on the lens create
> that
> sort of blob...)
>
> Im not sure what It is, I took the lense off and cleaned both sides
> (front glass and rear of the 18-70), there was a few noticable bits of
> dust on the rear glass. I will take more shots and post, When I got the
> camera I just put it together and started shooting but I purchased a
> blower brush today and cleaned it all up a now, hopefully it should be
> better.
>

I am quite sure it's dust on your sensor, BUT...whatever you do, DON'T put
that blower brush anywhere near your sensor! Some have tried and ended up
with more dust than they could poke a stick at.

[Matt]

"me" <me@me.me> wrote in message
news:4047e8e4$0$27650$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.c om.au...

> Ken Chandler wrote:
> > "Danny Rohr" <danny.rohr@telstra.com> wrote:
> >>"andyz4000" <via the EVIL EYO interface> wrote:
> >>>Not many but its a start, going away this w/end so hope to get a few
> >>>more
> >
> >>>http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/index.html
> >
> >>Does anyone else think the shots look quite noisey for ISO 200?
> >>Considdering teh excellent noise levels of the 300/10D at ISO400,
> >> I am a little worried.

> > That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
> > <http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think
is a
> > particularly nice compostion BTW)
Agree great shot!!

> > I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
> > definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
> >
> > The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how
the
> > performance is at faster ISOs.
> >
> > KC
> >

> Image
> Looks more like the compression of the JPG than noise. That particular
> file is 1.5mb. Does the D70 use something else to make JPegs that size
> from a 2000x3000 pixel image. ( the D100 usually is another 1Mb bigger
> at 2.5Mb) Dark images are small but never that small.

Images have been reduced. Site states:
"I have posted the photo's at 70% of original size as It is too much space
for my site (10 gig). Details off the camera are added below each thumbnail"
Even if resaved on PC as same size normally has greater compression than
camera.

> What does the card image capacity spec read for 100Mb?
>
> Dirt
> As for the dirt on the sensor you will either have to get someone to
> clean it off or sensor swabs. I found that blowing it off does not work
> unless the sensor is sparkling clean in the first instance which it
> obviously is not. It would seem that there maybe a residue on the sensor
> which needs a alcohol based solution to clean that off first. After I
> cleaned mine with eclipse fluid, dirt has not been attracted to or
> sticks on the sensor.
Looking at these pics and feedback, looks like more evidence to point that
my 10D also has dust on sensor - pretty much from beginning out of box.

[[BnH]]

AGREE !

Anyway how many lens are you using ?
IF you are only use the AFS 18-70 AND it only ... seeing a lot of dust came
in .. I doubt the F mount seal is any good.

=bob=


"AU Digital POTD" <nospam@bigpond.net> wrote in message
news:EVU1c.87706$Wa.44198@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I am quite sure it's dust on your sensor, BUT...whatever you do, DON'T put
> that blower brush anywhere near your sensor! Some have tried and ended up
> with more dust than they could poke a stick at.

[me]

Matt wrote:



>>>That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
>>><http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think
>
> is a
>
>>>particularly nice compostion BTW)
>
> Agree great shot!!
>
>
>>>I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
>>>definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
>>>
>>>The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how
>
> the
>
>>>performance is at faster ISOs.
>>>
>>>KC
>>>
>
>
>>Image
>>Looks more like the compression of the JPG than noise. That particular
>>file is 1.5mb. Does the D70 use something else to make JPegs that size
>>from a 2000x3000 pixel image. ( the D100 usually is another 1Mb bigger
>>at 2.5Mb) Dark images are small but never that small.
>
>
> Images have been reduced. Site states:
> "I have posted the photo's at 70% of original size as It is too much space
> for my site (10 gig). Details off the camera are added below each thumbnail"
> Even if resaved on PC as same size normally has greater compression than
> camera.
>


The image (d70-08.jpg) size was still 2000x3000 and now you say it was
compressed further in Photoshop which explaines the 1.5Mb file size. So
the "noise" is actually relates to jpg compression.


Does the D70 still make the ~2.5Mb jpg files?

[andyz4000]

Matt wrote:



>>>That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
>>><http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think
>
> is a
>
>>>particularly nice compostion BTW)
>
> Agree great shot!!
>
>
>>>I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it is
>>>definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
>>>
>>>The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder how
>
> the
>
>>>performance is at faster ISOs.
>>>
>>>KC
>>>
>
>
>>Image
>>Looks more like the compression of the JPG than noise. That particular
>>file is 1.5mb. Does the D70 use something else to make JPegs that size
>>from a 2000x3000 pixel image. ( the D100 usually is another 1Mb bigger
>>at 2.5Mb) Dark images are small but never that small.
>
>
> Images have been reduced. Site states:
> "I have posted the photo's at 70% of original size as It is too much space
> for my site (10 gig). Details off the camera are added below each thumbnail"
> Even if resaved on PC as same size normally has greater compression than
> camera.
>


The image (d70-08.jpg) size was still 2000x3000 and now you say it was
compressed further in Photoshop which explaines the 1.5Mb file size. So
the "noise" is actually relates to jpg compression.


Does the D70 still make the ~2.5Mb jpg files?

NEF (raw) = 5.0 MB

In JPEG Fine mode -
Large = 2.9 MB
Med. = 1.6 MB
Small = 0.8 MB

Andy Z

[Greg]

The noise doesn't look at all like JPEG compression artifacts to me. It
looks like sensor noise.
(someone said that the images have been heavily sharpened - that seems like
a plausible
explanation for the noise being magnified somewhat)

Greg.
"me" <me@me.me> wrote in message
news:404856fb$0$27651$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.c om.au...
>
>
> Matt wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>That's what I thought too, particularly noticable on the
> >>><http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/andyz/d70-08.jpg> shot (which I think
> >
> > is a
> >
> >>>particularly nice compostion BTW)
> >
> > Agree great shot!!
> >
> >
> >>>I don't suppose that the noise would adversely affect a print, but it
is
> >>>definently /there/ and moreso than it's Canon counterpart.
> >>>
> >>>The level of noise wouldn't bother me, though it does make me wonder
how
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>performance is at faster ISOs.
> >>>
> >>>KC
> >>>
> >
> >
> >>Image
> >>Looks more like the compression of the JPG than noise. That particular
> >>file is 1.5mb. Does the D70 use something else to make JPegs that size
> >>from a 2000x3000 pixel image. ( the D100 usually is another 1Mb bigger
> >>at 2.5Mb) Dark images are small but never that small.
> >
> >
> > Images have been reduced. Site states:
> > "I have posted the photo's at 70% of original size as It is too much
space
> > for my site (10 gig). Details off the camera are added below each
thumbnail"
> > Even if resaved on PC as same size normally has greater compression than
> > camera.
> >
>
>
> The image (d70-08.jpg) size was still 2000x3000 and now you say it was
> compressed further in Photoshop which explaines the 1.5Mb file size. So
> the "noise" is actually relates to jpg compression.
>
>
> Does the D70 still make the ~2.5Mb jpg files?
>
>