D70: A classic?

<p>Recently, my friend went on vacation but his older Canon Rebel no longer recognized it card.<br>

he asked to borrow one of mine. Now he is not a photographer so I recommended that he use a P&S, lighter, easier to carry, but he was used to the DSLR format.<br>

So I lent him my D70s. He emailed me that he now wants to buy this camera. I actually cannot sell it to him because it works on my Santa Clause Mall shoot tethered to a laptop and my version of Nikon Control will not recognize my more modern D300 (my miain working body) or D3100 (my back up and walk around).<br>

But I was thinking; that camera was or is a classic. Sturdy, reliable, good buttons. There are few digital classics, D40x, D700. (I only know Nikon. I am sure there are Canon, Sony etc ones.)<br>

Just some thoughts.<br>

I am recommending that he look at getting a new Canon Rebel since he has a kit lens and can save a few bucks.</p>

D90, not D70, is a classic.

<p>I see 'classic' has joined 'legendary' in the lexicon of premature hyperbole.</p>

<p>D40x a classic? uh, no.</p>

<p>Mine is not a classic but a vacation camera. Paired with a 28mm lens and 8 gig card.</p>

<p>I have had two Nikon reps refer to the d70 as a classic.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>Coca-Cola Classic -- July 10, 1985. Macintosh Classic October -- 15, 1990. <br>

Hardly new to the lexicon, but I have to offer my kudos for your attempt to embarrass the OP. Good job, Sir.</p>

<p>I love my d70. It's my main digital camera, and have had it out shooting on the streets at least a couple of times a week for several years after buying it used for about 350 bucks. A great camera. It goes everywhere with me. Sturdy and reliable is exactly how I would describe it. It has every feature I need, with the exception of very high ISO shooting.</p>

<p>The word "classic" fits it well.</p>

<p>I don't think any digital camera will be a "classic" because each model will be considered useless junk within ten years of its introduction due to technological advancements. Consider this: ten years ago, Nikon had two similar-looking (from the front, anyway) high-end cameras: the F5 (film) and the D1 (digital). Street price of the D1 was more than double the F5. Fast-foward ten years to today. You can buy a used F5 in excellent condition for around $500, and it still takes great pictures, but a D1 costs only about $250 because nobody really wants a 2 MP digital camera anymore. Ten years from now, the F5 will still take great pictures, but nobody will want a D3x because the latest entry-level Nikon (the D3500, perhaps?) will blow it away.</p>

<p>The D70 (and if I'm not mistaken also the D70s) has an electronic shutter that allows you to sync flash at upto 1/5000. Also, it is very very easy to modify the D70 for infrared (15 minutes with the right screwdriver). I would probably not let go of mine.</p>

<p>... that is up to 1/8000 sec with non-Nikon brand flashes. 1/500 sec with Nikon CLS flashes.</p>

<p>My first DSLR five years ago was a D70s, followed very shortly by another. They served me well for the concert, events, catalogue and some sports I shoot, but as time went on, I did feel their shortcomings more and more. A couple of months ago I traded them in for D300s, which is definitely in a different league, BUT, I would still vote the D70s as a high point in the Nikon line.</p>

<p>I think the D70 will have a unique position in digital photography history because it was among the first "affordable" high performance dSLRs.</p>

 

<p>I think the D70 will be recognized as a Classic (what is a classic, anyway??) because it was the first entry/enthusiast-level Nikon dSLR that was bought by the masses, and that still can take nice images. (rant: No, it did not brake into pieces the same day a newer and more fancy camera was introduced) I know that D100 was earlier, but that was more branded as a pro-level camera.</p>

<p>@Errol: I agree with you. There is no need for your friend to change brands.</p>

<p>Errol, please let your friend use your D300 or perhaps even the D3100 for a week, or if he has access to a newer consumer-grade Canon DSLR such as the 60D. After a week, let's see whether he still wants to buy a D70 or not.</p>

<p>I too see no point for him to switch from Canon to Nikon if he is so satisfied with a D70. There are plenty of Canon DSLRs that are better and still affordable at this point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D70 : A classic? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Classic equipment, be they cars or cameras are purely subjective in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The D70 was my first SLR body, it was affordable, user friendly and super reliable. </p>

<p>I sold mine to a friend along with the 18-70mm DX kit lens. She is still using it today, 151,000+ actuations and still going strong.</p>

<p>At least to me, the D70 is a classic body, it has lead me on to countless hours of photographic joy.</p>

<p>It was my first DSLR - loved it. And while I don't know if it is a <em>classic</em>, it <em>is</em> the reason that I shoot Nikon instead of Canon.</p>

<p>This is first time when I have to disagree with Shun. Every Canon user that is experiencing for a week a Nikon body will want to migrate to the dark side. Why to discourage them? LOL!</p>

<p>P.S. While I will not shoot a D70 today I must agree that it was a very good camera at its times.</p>

<p>I don't know about the D70 but I did had the D40X and I dond't know how this could become a classic: Super-small body, poor viewfinder, only AFS, no depth of field preview, no 1sec. shutter delay, 3 point autofocus (Rebels had 9 at the time). Except for the point meter the D40x was a big P&S. </p>

<p>Any advanced amateur should look for the D80 at the time.</p>

<p>I had the D40x for two years and the plastic parts started to feel loose. I mean, if I pressed the grip I could feel a very small looseness there. Never had that impression with my FM2 or the D200 that give you a feeling of real sturdiness.</p>

<p>The D70 may have been a nice camera but also had its compromises, like the electronic shutter, plastic body, poor viewfinder... etc.</p>

<p>They're computers with lenses these days.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to use the computer I was using in 2005 anymore. No sir.</p>

<p>In such a fast-changing world of electronics, with the relentless (and from some point on mindless) pursuit for higher specs (esp. nr. of pixels) it is useless to talk about classics.<br>

I have used D70 for some years and admittedly I have changed mostly because of the geek inside me.<br>

Looking back from this vantage point in time I would rather name the D300 as "classic". Just consider the fact that more than 4 years after the introduction it's still quite a widely used workhorse.</p>

<p>More of a milestone than a classic, I'd say. Still use mine, but <strong>*am*</strong> reluctantly considering an upgrade :-)</p><div></div>

<p>D70 will be a classic in the same manner that the original iPod or Mac was... broke new ground in digital photography, opened up the world of digital to the masses; worked well for its time; did things no other body at the time did; and was not $6,000 + at launch.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>The D70 is a landmark camera only in the sense that it has a singularly poor viewfinder, resulting in a lot of people being forced to give up manual focus entirely. The autofocus also was notoriously unreliable, though improved significantly with a firmware upgrade. Thankfully the D200 and D300 corrected these problems after a widespread public outcry on the internet and elsewhere.</p>

<p>The D70 belongs in a recycling station. That's where it will make the least damage.</p>

<p>Even if the D70 is a classic, how does that make a difference? It does not really change what it is and always was.</p>

There are few digital classics, D40x, D700. ?????????

 

D700 a classic?