It's January 2013, if you were on a budget, would you buy a D70?

<p>I have a friend who has found an opportunity to buy a D70 for about 300 bucks with an 18-70 lens.</p>

<p>It's "new in box". It was purchased for an institution and never used. Never out of the box. Would you avoid this because of things like the BGLOD issue and such? Or would you go for it.</p>

<p>I told him he should save a few extra bucks and get a D5100 with an 18-55. He has no budget, really, and even this is stretching.</p>

<p>I suspect most of what he's going to do is post stuff on FB and stuff. Yes, a P&S would probably do, but I think he wants a DSLR.</p>

<p>Peter, to be blunt, I would not use a D70 today even if it is given to me for free. Nine year ago, it was a relatively affordable $1000 way to get into digital, but the D70's time has passed.</p>

<p>I would say get a modern point and shoot if $300 is a hard limit, and typically you get video capability. Especially if there is no budget for more lenses later on, why bother with interchangeable lenses?</p>

<p>Shun, that's kinda what I told him, but he asked if I would "ask around" and get other opinions... Thanks!</p>

<p>If I could get one for $150, I'd convert it for IR use (since the sensor is supposedly especially good at that). It also, I believe, has the trick fast flash sync speed that the original D40 had.<br />

<br />

Otherwise, unless I wanted the cheapest camera that could drive non-AF-S lenses, I'd steer clear. Even a D3000, let alone a D3100, is a big step up - a D5100 or D3200 even more so. D5100s might be about to get cheap, with the US launch (assuming you're in the US) of the D5200. $300 sounds like quite a lot for a D70. The battery may or may not be in good shape. You still need to budget for a memory card. I'd really go for something current. A compact might be just as good, though.</p>

<p>The "never used" now works in disfavor of that D70 - it certainly doesn't justify a $300 price tag as the camera and lens can be had for $200-$250 on ebay. The D70 is totally outdated by today's standards - I wouldn't spend a dime on one. I did purchase a "as new" D60 last year to serve as my P&S camera (with the 35/1.8G attached) - I paid $150 for it; it's doing OK even though I'd like to have more AF points.<br>

A used or refurbished D3100 or D5000 with a 18-55 might be the ticket - though he may have to stretch that $300 non-budget a bit to get there. Not sure if that V1/10-30mm deal for $299 is still available - but that could be an alternative.</p>

<p>Nope, not when a new V1 with 10-30mm VR is available for $349, and used V1/lens kits for under $300. But that's me.</p>

<p>You're right about the D50. It's a much better camera than the D70, particularly at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>As Andrew noted the main appeal of the D70 now is for IR conversion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Peter, to be blunt, I would not use a D70 today even if it is given to me for free."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You wouldn't, because you have much better options readily available (and presumably paid for). But others might. It's still capable of taking excellent images. ;-) :-)</p>

<p>That said, I personally would pass on a $300 D70 kit if I was looking for a DSLR. But the AF-S 18~70 lens is an excellent "kit zoom", so the camera really has a cost of about $150 in this case. Tough call if funds are tight. After all, a new in box D70 is better than NO camera if it's all you can afford. :-)</p>

<p>You can get a D5100 w/ 18-55 for under $400 now (used) so the D70 is not worth $300. They go for about $100 or even less and the 18-70 goes for a bit over $100 these days. I just got my wife a Canon S100 point and shoot for $299. It's a fabulous camera and according to DXO Mark the best sensor among all point and shoots of the last ten years, slightly better than the far larger sensor in the D70. </p>

Whenever I see "it is capable of taking great images," I stay far far away. That is code word for some bad or out of date

products in reviews. Yeah, it can take great images at ISO 100 under great sun light when your subject is not moving ....

<p>I see so many people with the latest DSLR's and all they do with them is take snap shots to post on Facebook (Which I hate by the way). If that is all the camera is intended for, a D70 is more than enough.</p>

<p>I would really dislike living in your world, Shun, where new technology makes ones previous photos instantly turn into complete garbage. </p>

<p>[[Yeah, it can take great images at ISO 100 under great sun light when your subject is not moving ....]]</p>

<p>Keep drinking that kool-aid, because if it wears off you're in for a rude awaking. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I suspect most of what he's going to do is post stuff on FB and stuff."<br>

-<br>

"...all they do with them is take snap shots to post on Facebook (Which I hate by the way). If that is all the camera is intended for, a D70 is <strong>more than enough</strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... and the 18-70 goes for a bit over $100 these days."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying that this kit is a great deal, but it's important to compare apples to apples to get some perspective. It's a *<strong>brand new*</strong> 18~70mm. Yes, you can get a used 18~70 for just over $100, but you'll find quite a few like-new samples recently selling for much higher prices ($200+) and <strong>many</strong> in EX+ condition selling for $150+.</p>

<p>Of course it is an older camera, but still a dslr and a p&s are different beasts and should not be compared simply by the images they produce of brick walls. I would probably look for a d200 in this price range, but if I was just getting started I would consider the OP's deal. Here are some shots taken with a d70. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d70">LINK</a></p>

<p>I'd go with a V1 with kit lens for $349 from B&H or the 2-lens kit for $399 from Henrys instead of a really old DSLR. I have to keep telling myself not to get one for myself at those prices. Heck, by getting the 2-lens kit and eBaying the second lens, one can make a 1-lens kit come out to under $300.</p>

<p>I agree with everyone here that the price is high at $300 but for your friend's intended usage, I think, in general, a D70 would be fine. This particular D70, however, was never used so noone can tell whether it will suffer from BGLOD. A D70 that was in use and had that problem would have been fixed for free by Nikon, but sometime in the last year or so Nikon stopped fixing BGLOD for free.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a *<strong>brand new*</strong> 18~70mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the OP's post I only understand that the camera is "brand new" - no specific mention is made on how "used" the lens is. I can't recall whether or not the D70 was sold in a kit together with the lens; I only know that I purchased the camera and the lens separately.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't recall whether or not the D70 was sold in a kit together with the lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes it was</p>

<p>Can you take decent photos with a D70? Of course. I still have my Eos 300D, and it was a perfectly serviceable backup to my D700 when I last had it cleaned. By "perfectly serviceable" I mean "incredibly frustrating and limited" (part of that's the D700 being much higher-end, but part of it's the age of my Canon, which is the bit that's going to hurt with the D70), but within its restrictions there were some okay images. Just don't expect the images to be as good in low light, or the camera to be as interactive, as something more recent.<br />

<br />

Is the D70 the best option available at $300? Probably not. It should be possible to buy a better camera for that price (the suggested V1 is a mixed blessing, but has merits, especially for web use - I recently got one and so can't really argue against the idea too strenuously). It should be possible to get a D70 for less. I suspect it's also possible to get a better camera at the going rate for any D70, because the price will be a little inflated by infrared seekers and people who want the build quality rather than technical ability.<br />

<br />

But if a $300 D70 is all you've got access to, it'll take pictures.</p>

<p>I would stay away from the D70. It was my first DSLR and, trust me, I didn't keep it long (was bought used in first place). It's not that the camera wasn't able to take great shots, it is that it was extremely slow. Aside from static subjects anyway moving was a challenge. Coming from film I was really disappointed by the slow camera response. I then waited for the D200 to make my definitive jump into digital.</p>

<p>For your $300 you can get a D3100 or a D5000 with lens in like new condition. These cameras will serve you well in any situation. The D3100 has a smaller body so it can be a great choice if your friend is a woman. It will also provide an image quality equivalent than what you get from a D300.</p>

<p>Plan on adding the cost of an EN-EL3 to that, because if it has never been out of the box the battery is almost certainly dead.</p>

<p>Shouldn't he really be looking for something with a facebook app onboard?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>From the OP's post I only understand that the camera is "brand new" - no specific mention is made on how "used" the lens is</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the camera was <em>"Never out of the box"</em>, and it's being sold together with an 18~70mm lens by an institution, it's a reasonable assumption that it's the complete "bundled kit" as originally sold to hundreds of thousands of buyers.</p>

<p>Does he have a Smartphone? <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/08/Nikon-announces-WiFi-enabled-Coolpix-S6500">This</a> brand new Nikon Coolpix has WiFi and full HD movie capabilities. He could upload both images and videos. Well, maybe it is not a good idea in pink. They do come in black as well. Retail price is $220. I would have waited to check IQ, but it sounds like a good idea to me.</p>

<p>WHAT's WRONG WITH PINK? Do you think pink cameras are not capable of taking good pictures??? :)<br>

I am just trying to start an argument!!! :)</p>