Budget upgrade from D70?

While I was very fond of my D700, I'm still concerned that there was quite a big sensor improvement (especially for dynamic range) in what I consider "the D7000 generation", which included the D800 but was after the D700. Other than a few moved switches, the D700 does handle vaguely like the latest cameras - but if you're going FX and taking it on holiday, I'd strongly lean towards a D800 (which KEH has under the $1000 point) over a D700. The D700 is a fair bit cheaper for a reason.

 

That said, the others are right - even a D700 is a big step up from a D70, and when it comes to my image quality concerns, you don't miss what you never had.

 

But I do have, at home, a large picture of the Grand Canyon taken with the D700 and my 14-24, shortly after acquiring both (this one, in fact). I found the raw file recently, and DxO does get some better per-pixel sharpness out of it, and pulls back some of the corners - but it would still have been nice to put more pixels on it. And I have Antelope Canyon shots with my D700 and with a D810, where the latter handled the dynamic range (from a hand-held shot in a hurry) and the D700 didn't. It depends what you're doing, but for a holiday camera, I'd definitely take the D8x0 bodies over the D700 - it's not always mattered for some other things I've shot, but the kind of things I shoot on holiday benefitted from it. I'd feel I missed out less with a D7100 or D7200 than with a D700 - but that's just my opinion.

 

And I am thinking of getting a D3.

As far as replacing the D70 nearly everything I've read here seems good, just a matter of budget. I still have my D100 and while limited it does most things pretty well. I take a pair of D200s to the Fiddlers convention and they do an excellent job. The D300 or 300S will also deliver excellent results. All are easy to use and meet my criteria of not getting in the way of making photographs. None of these are expensive and you can find them in excellent condition from reputable places like KEH all day.

 

Rick H.

And I am thinking of getting a D3.

 

I think I've forgotten a conversation, but out of interest, in this day and age, why? Other than as a hammer if you have a DIY project, obviously.

 

A D3s I can just about understand as a budget low-light solution if you can't stretch to a Df, D4, D5 or D850. But the plain D3 is mostly a D700 + grip without the sensor cleaning or integrated flash, but with 1fps and a second card slot (and a shutter mechanism that supports dynamic aperture control). You'd really have to like the unibody handling (and allow for the price of batteries).

 

Not that something this size makes for an obvious holiday camera, of course.

The D3 was the first DSLR I considered but at the time I passed it because I wasn't in the position to buy a camera. I like the classic body style of the Df but for a modern style I like the built in battery pack and not an add on. I don't want the the D3s because I don't want video on my SLR. I think low light performance is only slightly worse than the D3s. Without the flash is a plus to me and that's why I never considered the D700.

Off topic, but out of interest...

 

The D3 was the first DSLR I considered but at the time I passed it because I wasn't in the position to buy a camera.

 

Fair enough. I considered one while waiting for the D700 to become available.

 

I like the classic body style of the Df but for a modern style I like the built in battery pack and not an add on.

 

That's fair (although I like the portability of the D700 and D8x0 cameras when ungripped). It does mean it's the big batteries or nothing, obviously, but that's what third-party solutions are for. It's certainly more robust than an accessory-gripped body.

 

I don't want the the D3s because I don't want video on my SLR.

 

Do you have a moral dislike of the MPEG Committee members and don't want to pay them any royalties? Of all Nikon's cameras that can shoot video, the D3s is pretty close to "not shooting video". Partly because the video isn't very good, and partly because there isn't a custom button that has anything to do with it (you have to be in live view and press the depth of field preview button). I've always liked having the movie button on the D8x0 bodies, since it gives me another customisable control point that I can use for photo shooting, but the D3s doesn't get that. Otherwise I completely ignore the movie capability, and will do until the rare moment that I'm suddenly very grateful I've got it. (Admittedly, I tried some video during a recent thunderstorm, but found I coped with stills.) Still, a "no video" restriction does limit you quite a lot - I'm surprised you got away with the Df!

 

Anyway, your choice is your choice, but I do think it's an odd concern to have unless you feel there's some compromise that I don't see.

 

I think low light performance is only slightly worse than the D3s.

 

It's about a stop and a half worse, in dynamic range at the high end - ISO 51200 on the D3s has more dynamic range than ISO 25600 on the D3. The D800 and D810 split the difference. The D3s matches the Df from ISO 3200 up (the Df is better below that). Having been shooting at ISO 6400 recently (squirrels, see Nikon Wednesday) and got usable ISO 20000 and up images out of the D850, which is roughly a match for the D3s and Df, I can see it doing better than I would have expected from my D810, and I found my D800 to be about a stop better than the D700 when I had both. If you're usually below ISO 1600 there's not much in it (though the Df is quite a bit ahead). It was a big jump in performance, but it depends whether you need a fairly clean ISO 12800 or usable ISO 25600.

 

Without the flash is a plus to me and that's why I never considered the D700.

 

The flash is certainly a point of weakness, but I've never yet broken one (on any camera). I've been known to use the on-camera flash when literally finding myself in the dark (for recording something, not trying to take an artistic photo); for artistic reasons, I've used it for triggering remote flashes, which is something I've had to work around with some radio triggers on the D850. And the radio triggers are much more bulky and prone to damage than the pop-up flash. As with video, I'd sooner have it for the 1% of time when I suddenly really need it than worry about its presence the other 99% of the time.

 

I still think a D3, given the cost, is a somewhat odd choice except as a historical relic (a reason I may someday decide I'd rather have a D1 than money). But to each his own.

Well that's because we are different. I don't want features on my camera that I am not going to use it. Sometimes I have to accept it because they don't make them like that or I can't afford it. If they make the camera for me and if I can afford it, it would only have exactly what I want and no more no less. I do not hate the MPEG as i do enjoy movies, just that I know I can't make any decent movies ever. I found that you can only make certain kind of movies if you work alone which i really do not have the skills to do it or patience to to it.

Quite unfortunate that the OP never returned to answer the question as to which lenses he currently owns as the answer can have quite a bearing on what to suggest. Not the least because it leaves the option of abandoning Nikon altogether and look closer at some mirrorless offerings.

 

f yes, then which affordable camera is likely to stay relevant the longest in today’s rapidly changing market?

Completely irrelevant question. The simple answer is that none will.

 

The D70 was also my first DSLR - traded up to a D200 and then to a D300 (both a marked improvement over each respective predecessor) As Andrew pointed out, with the D7000, sensor development has surpassed by quite a margin what those pre-2009. cameras have to offer. From the point of view of dynamic range, I was quite disappointed in the D700 as it did no better than the D300 - which is also a reason I would not consider a D3 as it doesn't offer a performance gain over the D700 (not sure the D3S does at low ISO but certainly offers better high ISO performance).

Understood, BeBu - and please know that I was just trying to understand, not criticise.

 

I do think it's harmless to have unused features on a camera so long as they don't get in the way (I pretty much never touch the white balance button, since I almost always shoot raw), so actively avoiding the technically superior D3s over the D3 just because the D3s has (bad) video didn't seem logical to me - but that's your prerogative. I absolutely agree that getting good at videography is a complex task, and I, too, have no great inclination to spend the "10,000 hours" doing so. Sometimes I thing happens that I want to record, and a video is the best way to do it even if the result isn't artistic, so I've valued having the functionality available to me - not everything I shoot is fine art (or even my usual coarse art) - but if having unused functionality present bothers you, I'm not going to tell you otherwise. Although it's another argument for my suggesting that Nikon should have configurable menu banks that can hide some options.

 

At base ISO, the D3s is, if anything, very slightly worse than the D3. The big sensor advance on the D4 series was to make the base ISO pretty good (if not up there with the D800), while still staying close to the high-ISO performance of the D3s. The D3s made for good sports and journalist shots, captured in bulk and in JPEG under terrible lighting, for rapid transmission to the news publishers. The D4 and D4s could also do this, but a raw capture at base ISO meant that they could also do a good job of capturing portraits and scenery that the editor could retouch for the magazine edition - and at higher resolution, if not quite up with the D3x. For a while, I claimed the D4s was Nikon's most flexible camera because of the combined low- and high-ISO performance (I now put the D850 in that category). The D5 goes back to its D3s roots - the low-ISO dynamic range sucks, but this doesn't really matter if you're capturing a JPEG that needs to appear on the web immediately or be on a printing press in the next couple of hours, and the ability of the image to hold together in the dark is far more important for people in that market. For people needing base ISO raw flexibility as well, there's the D850 (with a grip) or the D4s.

 

That's a lot for me to write about the unibody cameras given that I've never owned one, unless you count the F5. :-)

I have to count the F5 as it's actually the only film unibody camera. Neither Canon or Minolta even had one. The F4 has options for different battery pack.

I too would like to know what lenses you have before making a recommendation, as there are incompatibility issues between Nikon lenses and bodies.

Are you willing to also upgrade some of your lenses?

Is weight a factor to you?

At base ISO, the D3s is, if anything, very slightly worse than the D3. The big sensor advance on the D4 series was to make the base ISO pretty good (if not up there with the D800), while still staying close to the high-ISO performance of the D3s. The D3s made for good sports and journalist shots, captured in bulk and in JPEG under terrible lighting, for rapid transmission to the news publishers. The D4 and D4s could also do this, but a raw capture at base ISO meant that they could also do a good job of capturing portraits and scenery that the editor could

 

I love single digit "D" cameras(and F cameras for that matter). Honestly, nothing handles like them and you get spoiled by how responsive they are. I actually went through a pretty rapid progression of primary Nikon DSLRs last year-a D70s, D2X, and then a D800(with a brief flirtation with a D300 between the D2X and D800 while my D800 was off for repair. Even though I'm still accumulating them(the older ones are cheap and are fun to play with), I'm basically down to using 3 DSLRs-the D800, a D600 when I want a lighter camera, and a Finepix S5 for studio use. I'm sure that the last seems to be an interesting choice, but most of my studio work is for straight to web so I prefer a lower resolution camera, and the Fuji gives me web-ready JPEGs like nothing else I've ever used(and even more than 10 years after it was introduced, it still has a competitive amount of DR-something that's actually quite important to me given what I'm usually photographing with it).

 

In any case, the D800 beats my D2X in nearly every way aside from the speed and responsiveness. Also, I do still like the color rendition of the D2X for certain situations, but it doesn't give me the "crank it to 11" saturation of the D800 as easily(or as cleanly). Still, though, the single digit cameras are typically very near industry leading in terms of things like shutter lag and autofocus speed. From playing with the D850 in the store, AF speed is pretty darn impressive, but it still doesn't scream "speed" like even a D2 series body.

 

I started looking at the D3 as prices are getting VERY tempting on them, but I can't get over the fact that my D800 still gives better IQ in almost every way. I'll take my D800 up to 6400 and it's fine as long as I'm not printing much larger than 8x10(which isn't often), but from real-world samples I've seen(and photos I've taken home on a CF card) it's at least a stop worse than my D800 at high ISO. By contrast, the D3s seems to be a stop better than my D800. That's not DXOMark, but looking at images.

 

So, I've decided for myself that if I get a D3-class camera, a D3s would give me some meaningful improvement while a D3 wouldn't add anything. D3 prices will need to be about half their current range before I look at one. The D4 is still too rich for me, and as much as I'd love a Df they've, IMO, become too expensive.

This is a little like the discussion about why one would buy a modern Sharps (style) Buffalo Rifle or an English Double Rifle - if you have to ask you'll never understand the answer.

I have to count the F5 as it's actually the only film unibody camera. Neither Canon or Minolta even had one. The F4 has options for different battery pack.

 

What do you consider constituting a "unibody" camera?

 

If you mean something larger with at least a pseudo-vertical grip, the T90 fits bill. It lacks a vertical release button and vertical command dial, although the former is somewhat mitigated by an optional vertical release button that screws into the remote control socket located in the main grip.

 

Although the F4 packs are interchangeable, they are so solidly attached and integrated that I forget they come off. They also don't have the obvious thumb wheel of other battery grips/motor drives. I've never handled an F4e(they aren't super common in the US and bring higher prices than I want to pay) but I have an F4(4 cell, MB-20) and an F4s(6 cell, MB-21, most common in the US). I've never actually had the MB-21 off my camera.

 

Also, grips that physically fit into the battery chamber like the MB-15(F100) and MB-D200(D200, Finepix S5) have always felt more secure to me than the current practice of only attaching them to the bottom.

What do you consider constituting a "unibody" camera?

 

If you mean something larger with at least a pseudo-vertical grip, the T90 fits bill. It lacks a vertical release button and vertical command dial, although the former is somewhat mitigated by an optional vertical release button that screws into the remote control socket located in the main grip.

 

Although the F4 packs are interchangeable, they are so solidly attached and integrated that I forget they come off. They also don't have the obvious thumb wheel of other battery grips/motor drives. I've never handled an F4e(they aren't super common in the US and bring higher prices than I want to pay) but I have an F4(4 cell, MB-20) and an F4s(6 cell, MB-21, most common in the US). I've never actually had the MB-21 off my camera.

 

Also, grips that physically fit into the battery chamber like the MB-15(F100) and MB-D200(D200, Finepix S5) have always felt more secure to me than the current practice of only attaching them to the bottom.

 

I guess the T90 may be one. I don' worry about secure just that the accessory doesn't look good.

I don' worry about secure just that the accessory doesn't look good.

 

!

 

BeBu, I think I have to accept that you and I have very different requirements from a camera - which is fine, we're all allowed to be different (and I completely support people not wanting to be like me). I've never cared what a camera looks like (I'm not looking at it, after all), with the exception that I'm pleased that my F5 is missing some paint and looks even cheaper than it is. I'm slightly embarrassed that my Coolpix A is in a leather case (which is the smallest protective cover I could find) since people keep thinking it's a film camera. But I've certainly never wanted a camera to "look good". Obviously some people disagree, or Leica wouldn't sell endless cover variants, and Nikon wouldn't have sometimes sold cameras in weird colours (notably red at the low end, or the gold FA special edition).

 

That said, the F5's vertical grip is pretty vestigial - I can get my fingers round the accessory grip for the D850 much better than I can with the F5. I've handled a D4 too briefly to comment, although even the normal grip was noticeably bigger than my D810's.

 

Ben: I had a D700 and D800e at the same time (then traded both for my D810; I now have a D850 alongside the D810, and a payment scheme...) I absolutely agree that there's about a stop in it - I was wandering around near Vancouver shortly after sunset soon after I got the D800e, and was amazed that I was still getting good images. Until the first reviews, I was absolutely expecting the D700 to have the edge in low light due to its lower pixel count, which goes to show what I know about camera tech.

 

The D850 seems appreciably more "urgent" in shooting with the battery grip attached, for what it's worth. The mirror seems to be moving faster, reducing blackout time, although I've not experimented much. I might give it another go for birding soon - I'd like to confirm that the autofocus performance is improved. 9fps matches the D3, although obviously the D4/s and D5 are still faster. The D810 feels more responsive to me than a D800, and the D850 (with fast cards in it) even more so - I imagine they keep up with a D2x if not a D3 by now, despite the higher resolution!

 

Until I got the D850, I always mildly lusted after a D3s for the low-light behaviour to complement the D810. The D850 has bypassed that desire, unless the prices drop out of the D5 market. (Prior to the D850, I'd have quite liked a "D700s" with a D3s or D4 sensor; the Df - both in the handling compromises and the budget AF unit - has never tempted me enough for its price. Though I did see someone buying one a few weeks ago, so they're still going.) I've never really felt the pull of a D3, though - but then I don't think there's a doubt that the D3 sales were affected by the appearance of the D700, which is a problem that Nikon solved by having the D3s in the wings.

 

T90? I didn't realise we were allowing non-Nikons!

Hduriejbdhdu, Sorry for the late reply. The D7200 is probably the best currently manufactured DX camera available with respect to over all image quality and is backward compatible with many older manual lenses. B&H has it for around $1000 brand new and for a little over $700 as a refurb. I have an Aquatica underwater housing for the D7200. I have had mine for a little over 2 years, use it frequently and have no complaints. It's not a bad choice if your traveling light. I am currently carrying my D7200 along with my first ever Tamron lens a 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 tele zoom and a older 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G Nikor DX lens, both of which are image stabilized, while I am working in North Dakota. The bag and kit weigh less than 20 pounds including a small camera back pack, carry nicely and fit under the seat and/or in the overhead of small commuter jets. I have too many other and more expensive cameras some of which do certain things better but the D7200 is a very good all round choice. FX is certainly considered better for landscape but DX cameras hold up just fine. I have been using a D3200 for hand held beach photography and black and white. The D3200 that I bought used 4 years ago in New York for around $325 is definitely slower and has limitations but is light and gets the job done just the same. For under $1000 you get a lot of bang for the buck and with DX there are many choices for DX super zoom one lens options. Good hunting.

T90? I didn't realise we were allowing non-Nikons!

 

I used FD mount cameras for so long that it's hard for me to completely forget about them :)

 

I actually fondled my T90 a bit last night to make comments on the handling of it(and also to exercise the shutter-something these cameras should have done at least a few times a year). Even at 30+ years old, it's still a remarkably good looking camera you can still see the basic design language in all modern EOS cameras.

 

The pesky little vertical release, though, I suspect would bother me. One of the things I noticed was that the little plastic cover for the remote socket is kind of annoying under my palm, and I suspect that a button that sticks out would be even worse.

Incidentally, I suspect the D850 battery behaviour I'm seeing may be related to the EN-EL15 replacement that happened with the D500. I'll check whether mine are the Li-Ion01 version, and might have to have a word with Nikon UK, especially now I've heard someone else with the issue. Obviously I don't have a D500, so I ignored this.

 

Ben: The T90 seems (in pictures) to have a fairly minimal vertical grip, like the F5's. I don't really know why it took a while for Nikon to register that if you like a deep grip for landscape shooting, you might want one for portrait. (They could also have embedded an Arca QR dovetail in the portrait grip, since as far as I can tell an accessory one would dig into my hand unpleasantly, but that's crazy talk...) The F5's tiny portrait grip (on a chubby camera) and the lack of dials to go with it (I always assumed Canon's thumb dial was positioned to allow portrait and landscape use) mean I've pretty much only used mine like a grip-less camera. If someone wants to give me a D5, I promise to get used to it!

Andrew!

I kind of admit the Canon when I said neither Canon or Minolta have a unibody film camera. The idea of vertical grip from Nikon started with the F4. With the F3 and F2 while the motor drive is large the battery compartment didn't serve as a grip. Probably that is why I never use the vertical grip but whenever I shoot in portrait orientation my right hand is bellow the camera and not above or on the side.

Oops - I'd missed that comment!

 

Another difference between us, BeBu! Are you left-eyed, or do you just squish your nose with the camera when in portrait? (I just elbow whoever's to my right in the face when I'm shooting this way round.)

Incidentally, I suspect the D850 battery behaviour I'm seeing may be related to the EN-EL15 replacement that happened with the D500.

 

I get significantly fewer shots with the D850 than the specs are saying I should. Around 400-500 on a single charge. Is there a known issue?

I get significantly fewer shots with the D850 than the specs are saying I should. Around 400-500 on a single charge. Is there a known issue?

 

See also this thread. I'm getting more than a thousand images from a battery, but the battery seems to drain (slowly) on its own despite everything wireless allegedly being turned off, so leaving the camera ready to go on a shelf (as I've been able to do with previous Nikons) doesn't seem like such a good idea. If you have Snapbridge turned on, I'd expect much worse battery life, however - so check you're in airplane mode and (separately) you have SnapBridge off.

I have had a D70s with the 18-70 zoom since 2005. I really splurged and bought it for my 55th birthday at that time. Bought a used D80 in 2013 for a third of the price of a new D70s. Last year I upgraded to a D5300 and a 35mm f1.8G lens for 60% of the cost of a D70s kit. Since the key word in your post is BUDGET, the D5300 is worthy of consideration. The D5600 wasn't worth extra cash for me. I sold the D80 to help offset the cost. Have to stay in budget on that retirement income. The D5300 has definitely been worth it for me.

I upgraded my D70 which I had for 10yrs to the D600. So I don't upgrade my stuff often.

 

My 2c.

Have a good think about what type of camera do you really want. You may be at the cross roads that if you only had a D70 and the lenses were not expensive. You may have the priviledge to choose do you want to carry on with dSLR with Nikon or are you wanting to consider mirrorless as you have said.

 

A no. of my peers at my club have gone to mirrorless from dSLRs (all brands) and have not gone back. They are more the hobbyist type thou walk about photography doing some photography club's monthly topics that the small group they belong to that we choose each year. Some also might go on a vacation somewhere and just have a camera with them. So it's not hardcore street photography, wildlife, sports, documentary, studio products or studio portraits or teethered to the computer. Often people just have the 2 or 3 lenses or 4 at most.

 

For myself I don't need a dSLR. I am pretty sure for me I can shoot mirrorless or dSLR and it's all good even a 12MP second hand one, in fact I am looking for a second hand one like a Fuji XT1. The Fuji reminds me of the NIkon FM2. We have even take the odd shot with our phones and at times the 6 submitted shots we do monthly, we vote for the best 3 and those each month gets presented to the rest of the camera club.

 

Personally for me I guess since I have it already I will keep my Nikon and I can use it when size isn't an issue. For outside all day etc ... walking around maybe something smaller is ideal for me. Then there will be those who say why get more than 1 brand ... hmmmm ...

 

So yes there is the newer D7000 series dSLR by Nikon. There are also other ones. There is also the Nikon D600 full frame that can be had here in NZ for about $600US equiv. the same with the Nikon D800 and probably lesser with the D700.

Late to the show, but adding my comments to the record for future consideration.

 

My progression is D70-D80-D90-D7000-D7100. I loved each body except for the 7000; I felt I was fighting the body to get a decent shot. All others worked well, and as I expected them to. Easy to use, good features etc. The biggest changes I noticed were going from the 70-80 then from the 90-7100. The changes were in resolution by increasing pixels and low light sensitivity. Resolution is self explanatory...more pixels allowed for more flexibility in composition and then post processing crops. Low light improvement meant I could use ambient instead of flash in more cases, or go with a lower ISO if needed. For someone going strait from a D70 to D7100 I think the difference will be shocking and for a period of time the camera will be more advanced than the user- there will be a learning curve to get the best from the camera because the limits of capability are so much greater. The shooter will have to re learn how to compose, what is possible in exposure options etc. On the other hand a D7100 can be set to "Auto" and produce images that will be significantly better than what was possible from a D70.....