My beloved D70

<p>I have had a Nikon D70 for 10 years, I bought it during the fall of 2003 or early spring 2004. It has been a little tempermental for the last year, but now, I need to have the sensor replaced.<br>

I loved my D70 (sentimentally mostly) as it captured both children through high school, all the family trips we took as my Dad heroically fought a terminal illness, and photographed (for free) kids who couldn't afford senior pictures.<br>

I am in no way anything but a novice amateur. But I do LOVE snapping photos.<br>

The man at the camera store said I should move into a D7100 so I don't notice any missing features from the D70.<br>

Help? I've been reading forums all afternoon.<br>

Thank you in advance for your thoughts,<br>

Roberta</p>

<p>Roberta, how was it determined that the sensor needs replacing? Have you ever had your D70 serviced since new?</p>

<p>If it does indeed need to have the sensor replaced then it may be time to retire it to a bookshelf as a conversation piece and memento. </p>

<p>The D7100 is today's comparable to a D70 in terms of level and price point (when new). It has a motor for AF lenses in the body, most of the controls are similar (there are new features, menus, etc) but it has the dual dials for making adjustments, can control CLS, etc.. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>I mentioned that my D70 was a doorstop a couple of weeks ago, because two local shops could not clean the sensor. It had about 3 dozen dust spots and some kind of residue streaks from one of the cleanings.<br /> Last week I brought my pair of D300 to a another shop I was referred to for cleaning. This tech fixed them up and asked if he could check out the D70. He did a quickie clean for free before he got busy. It is much better then after the two other people attempted to clean them, but still has a couple of tiny dust bunnies. <br />Roberta, for $50.00 it's yours. Haaaa</p>

<p>I did have it serviced (second time) last fall. It seemed to work fine. I tried shooting some shots of a friend's grandchild the other day and all that registered was a really cool looking magenta, purple and blue graph looking pattern. So, to the only shop we have anywhere near us in NEOhio, and he said it is time to replace the sensor. But, they would have to send it to Cleveland to confirm ($40) just to ship. If I have to replace, I would rather put the $40 to the new camera...we still have one kiddo in college!<br>

So, I did some research on line and all the pictures of a bad sensor resemble mine.<br>

John, thank you so much for your kind offer :-) , but I think if I must replace, I'm going with the latest technology.</p>

<p>Yes this line of cameras was D70, D70S, D80, D90, D7000 and D7100.</p>

<p>D7100 however has 24 megapixels so the images will be a lot bigger and you'll need a more powerful computer to handle the images with the same speed as the D70 images.</p>

<p>D80 and later also uses the smaller SD cards and not CF cards so you can't use you're older cards and need newer larger memory cards.</p>

<p>D7000 and later uses a new format battery so if you have spares for your D70 you need to replace those as well.</p>

<p>The D7000 would also be a good alternative to the D7100 - if you're on a budget. It's still in stock and it's still a very capable camera.</p>

<p>PS. Keep in mind that you can keep whatever lens you had for the D70 and just buy a new camera body. You don't have to buy the D7000/D7100 in a kit if you don't want to.</p>

 

<p>Roberta:<br>

My first DSLR was a d70 given to me by my wife for Christmas the year it became available. It was a workhorse for me for many years and continues to be so for my daughter and her husband now. I put on my list of Nikon legends like my ancient f3.</p>

<p>I now have a d7100 and I am quite certain it will be on that same list down the road. It is reliable with wonderful resolving power and wonderful low light performance. If this is your choice you will not me disappointed. As noted, your old lenses will do fine on it. Good luck and remember to kiss your d70 goodnight each evening, it deserves no less.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>The D70 was also my first DSLR, and I never went back to film! Like Owen, I now use a D7100 and find it amazing. </p>

<p>KEH, perhaps the most reliable seller of used equipment, has a D70 in EX condition for $89, and that comes with a six month warranty. A D70S in EX condition is $133. That tells me it isn't worth your money to try to have your D70 fixed. If you really love the D70 and like the idea of keeping the same model for all those familiarity reasons, KEH may be your best solution.</p>

<p>Having said that, I agree with your statement about latest technology - I've advised people for years that when it comes to technology, it's better to buy for the future. When I bought my D7000, I was looking for a significant improvement in noise control at higher ISO settings, and I got it (it is much better than my D70 and D80). It also has a much more sophisticated autofocus system, which useful to me for wildlife shooting, and would be for sports as well. But for simpler shooting of stationary subjects, that snazzier autofocus isn't being challenged at all. The 16 MP D7000 can still be had new, and would be less expensive than the 24 MP D7100. I think the extra pixels in the 7100 come at small cost, though - based on what I've read, images I've seen, and users I've talked to, the 7100's noise control isn't quite as good as the 7000 because of the added pixels, but you'd probably have to be enlarging an image a lot or cropping very heavily to see the difference between them in finished images.</p>

<p>The advice about batteries and memory cards is correct - an extra battery isn't all that expensive, but a D70 battery will not work in a 7000 or 7100. Likewise, the Cf cards can't be used , either, but the good news is that good quality, decent speed SD cards can be purchased for far less than the CF cards cost at the time you got your D70!</p>

<p>Some months back new D7000 could be had from HKG on the big auction site for like under $500. Or get a used D90. Similar control layout to the D70 ...</p>

<p>I got a memory card module and repaired my D70 and now it has not had a single error in 5 months. In the past I reattached the memory module ribbon cable which sort of worked but then it had the error again but I broke the plastic clip that holds in the ribbon cable. We still use the D70, great camera with a little prime lens, great for Facebook which is what people just need these days. Got a D600 but for casual stuff the D70 does it. But at times at the beach or the BBQ I prefer something like a Sony RX100. A SLR just doesn't suit it and lots of energy required.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes this line of cameras was D70, D70S, D80, D90, D7000 and D7100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the D70, D80, D90 product line stopped after the D90.</p>

<p>When Nikon introduced the D7000 in 2010, I mistakenly classified it as the successor to the D90, and Nikon USA corrected me via e-mail. The D7000 and subsequently the D7100 are a new class of DSLR between the D90 and D300: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00XHzq">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XHzq</a><br>

In over a decade posting to this forum, that was the one time Nikon USA had corrected what I posted. It has not happened again in 3+ years.</p>

<p>While Nikon didn't tell us explicitely at that time, the D7000 was in fact the merger of the D90 and D300, and both the D90 and D300 product lines would be terminated with no more successor.</p>

<p>The D7000 has the aperture follower tab to meter with manual-focus AI and AI-S lenses without any CPU as well as a 100% viewfinder. those are features previously only available on high-end DX-format DSLRs such as the D1, D2, D200, and D300 families. With 20/20 hindsight, it was very clear that Nikon was eliminating their $1800 DX-format DSLRs to make room for low-end FX, which was coming down in price to the $2000 range.</p>

<p>Given that the D70 is now 10 years old with numerous drawbacks, I wouldn't spend a dime on fixing it. If you had a D70 that is still working fine and you are happy with it, by all means continue using it, but IMO it is not a good idea to spend additional money on one. In these days you can get a used D90 or D7000 (or even new D7000) at very affordable prices. The D7100 is likely an overkill if you are happy with the D70. Just keep in mind that once you use the D7000 or D7100's viewfinder and higher-ISO results for a week or two, it will likely be very difficult to use the D70 again.</p>

<p>I am in the don't upgrade camp but this is not an upgrade. Your D70 doesn't work well any more and the cost of repair is expected to be high. Possibly higher than a good used one. So in this case I would suggest that you pick out a new camera that would fit your need. The D71000 may be? Don't be too much sentimental.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No, the D70, D80, D90 product line stopped after the D90.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah I know, that is what Nikon like us to believe. So they could sell their old stock.</p>

<p>But the D7000 was the same price as the D90 (not D300), same size as the D90 (not D300), about the same weight as the D90 (not D300), same control layout as the D90 (not D300), slightly improved fps/buffer over the D90 (but not D300), same scene modes as the D90 (but not D300).</p>

<p>Just because you put an aperture follower tab and a 100% viewfinder in the D7000, it doesn't make it a D300 successor. Features trickle down all the time to lower models as technology advances.</p>

<p>IMHO it doesn't matter what Nikon US marketing department says. Nikon engineered a D90 successor with the D7000 and the world is still waiting for the D300 successor. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But the D7000 was the same price as the D90 (not D300)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not exactly.</p>

<p>At their introduction, the D70, D70S, D80, and D90 were all $1000, or $999.95 to be exact. Along with the first Canon Digital Rebel, the D70 broke the $1000 price barrier in 2004 and suddenly DSLRs became popular. Both the D7000 and D7100 were $1200.</p>

<p>The D200 was $1700 and the D300 was $1800. Therefore, the D7000 was indeed between the D90 and D300 in terms of initial price.</p>

<p>Again, the D7000 was designed to be a merger between the D90 and D300. Therefore, feature-wise it is a mix between the two: the control layout is indeed similar to the D80 and D90, but the D7000 has some higher-end features that only appears on the top-of-the-line DX bodies such as the aperture follower tab, 100% viewfinder. The D7000 also has dual memory cards; that is clearly a high-end feature. The subsequent D7100 retains all of those features plus Nikon's top-of-the-line AF module, leaving no room for an even higher-end DX body. Nikon USA even directly pointed out that the D7100 is now the flag-ship DX model.</p>

<p>I bought the D7000 as an upgrade to my D300. Strictly speaking, the D7000 is half a step down from the D300/D300S (and half a step up from the D90) so that it is not exactly a successor, but I have been saying for over a year: Nikon has no intention to introduce a successor to the D300/D300S or it would have been introduced at least 2, 3 years ago, when Nikon could no longer sell the D300S in Japan due to the exposed battery contacts in the EN-EL3e. Both Canon and Nikon recognize that the $1800 price range now belongs to low-end FX (full 35mm frame).</p>

<p>If you are still waiting for a successor to the D300 from Nikon, you will be waiting forever.</p>

<p>Shun, I understand what you're saying but you have to adjust for inflation. $1000 in 2004 is just over $1200 in todays currency. To me that is the same price.</p>

<p>The way I see it the D7000 was the D90 successor. It's just what a D90 successor would be - better but still the same.</p>

<p>The D300S was the last camera in that line up. The D7000 or the D7100 was not the successor because they are not better. Not enough fps, not enough buffer and consumer controls and connectors. Sure a successor may never materialize because Nikon basically said go FX or go home.</p>

<p>There would still be room for a higher end DX. Just make it 10 fps and make the controls the same as either D800 or D4. Big buffer. Pro features like pc sync connector, 10 pin remote etc. Price it 50% over the D7100.</p>

<p>There would also be room for a D700 successor as well. D700 body controls and dimensions, D4 sensor, 8 fps. Price it the same as the D800.</p>

<p>Since we both know that Nikon does what they want there is no point for any further discussions on this subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, you have to adjust for inflation. $1000 in 2004 is just over $1200 in todays currency. To me that is the same price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pete, you are saying there was no inflation from the D70 (2004), D70S (2005), D80 (2006), and D90 (2008), but suddenly there was "inflation" in 2010 for the D7000, and then there was no "inflation" again for the D7100 in 2013?</p>

<p>Come on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pete, you are saying there was no inflation from the D70 (2004), D70S (2005), D80 (2006), and D90 (2008), but suddenly there was "inflation" in 2010 for the D7000, and then there was no "inflation" again for the D7100 in 2013?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, I was just comparing the D70 $1000 with what we pay today for the same class camera, the D7100.</p>

<p>But I've just checked the intro prices and you're right, if we just look at the D90 and the D7100 the D90 was cheaper. Accounting for inflation the D90 was also cheaper than the D80 and D70.</p>

<p>So I guess you're right about Nikon thinking the D7000 was more than just a replacement for the way cheaper D90.</p>

<p> </p>