D70 vs D100

Hey I am wondering if the D100 is considered to be more of a pro

camera than the D70... If not what are the pros and cons of each?

thanks

Concensus seems to be that the D70 is universally better. However, it feels like a cheap plastic toy, very n65 esq, and the D100 less so. Also, the D100 has an optional battery grip (although you can now purchase a battery grip for the D70 made by another company). Apparently they have the same puny autofocus motors (for someone use to an F90). No real reason to get a D100 other than price, and price for a D100 has remained high, so no reason at all.

thay are both similar but different. I have both. Overall I like the D100 a bit better. Image quality in my hands is similar, There is a bit more noise in the monotone (sky) areas of the D70 images. The RAW file sizes of the D70 are smaller due to a usable compressed RAW format. The remote and self timer features on the D100 are easier to use. (I use the self timer a lot in place of mirror lock-up which neither camera has). The D100 feels more substantial as it is a bit larger and heavier. I do not use a vertical grip so do not miss the D70 not having one. The D70 has a larger usable buffer and appears to write to disk a bit faster. The viewfinder of the D100 is brighter and more pleasent to use. If I was getting a body ony and the D100 and D70 were the same price I would still be tempted to get the D100 as the areas the D70 is better at don't matter to me as much as the areas the D100 is better at. However if I was getting a camera and lens I would go for the current D70 kit (which is what I got to add to the D100). THe D70 and kit lens , after rebate is about $1,100. Add an extra battery (hardly needed as they really keep their charge) and a couple of CF cards, toss it all into a LowePro Toploader Zoom 1 (taking out the little velcro support strips) and you have a very compact (for a DSLR), very usable, relativly light weight digital SLR with all the benefits of a true DSLR (near absence of shutter lag, larger imager (pixel count is not everything)) for a bit over the cost of a high end point and shoot.

The D70 has better specifications and more features than the D100 for the same price or less and this makes it a great choice for a lot of people. The biggest benefit to the D70 is the faster flash-sync speed which can be very important to some people - that 1/500th flash sync can be very nice.

 

On the other hand, the D100 has some benefits that may make it more important to a pro. The D100 has a real cable release - the D70 doesn't, and the IR remote is not too good at working behind the camera, which is where you really want it to work (the D70S supposedly has a wired release which will be better). Also, the D100 seems to be a more solidly built camera, and there will be pros who may want to have a camera that is more reliable, rather than one that has better features or bells and whistles.

 

That being said, the D70 is a great camera and many pros do use it - it's convinced a lot of people - myself included - that it is up to the task.

 

If you're looking now, I do agree with waiting to see the D70S at least - some of its advantages may be well worth waiting for, if the price stays right.

 

As far as megapixels are concerned, I think that while it is important for Nikon to keep up with Canon with the megapixels, that's not really the biggest consideration for serious photographers. I would be very surprised to not see a D100 replacement soon, but it seems more likely that it'll be an 8 megapixel camera to compete more directly with Canon's 20D. Most pros will look at reliability, build quality and handling before megapixelage when they're buying their camera. The big advantage the top-end Canon cameras have isn't the megapixels - it is the overall sensor size. That full-frame sensor is very nice, especially if you need to shoot wide-angle photography.

IMHO, the D100 is a nicer camera to handle, look through and shoot with. Both are 6MP

CCD, so the images are too close to call (again, IMO). They both buffer 4 RAW images, but

I think the D70 can do a few more JPEGS. At equal price points, I'd go for the D100 for

sure. One area where the D70 excels is in flash. Not just the 1/500 sync speed, but the

sensor and algorithm are better. The D100/SB-80DX employed a film technology in the

flash metering and it doesn't work as well looking at the LPF and CCD sensor. The D70

and SB-600/800 use a new approach (I don't fully understand) that does a better job in

tough lighting, especially with specular highlights, backlit, and daylight fill. For me, I keep

flash to a bare minimum or use studio lights and meter manually, so it's a non-issue and

the D100 is what suites me. I am waiting for the D2x to come down or for some kind of

D90 to arrive on the scene. I'd like to see about 10-12 MP with a nice bright high-

eyepoint finder and maybe 8-10 RAW buffer, that'll float my boat and get the old wallet

open for Nikon USA (are they listening/reading?)

 

HTH and cheers...

As usual, it depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. For me 80%+ of the shots I take are vertical so the second shutter button is invaluable. I've heard from people I shoot sports with that the D70's autofocus is slower (I can't confirm that, however). If you aren't worried about these two things I'd get the newer D70.

Dan - go for the D70, it's a great camera!

 

John, just curious, how come you didn't go with Canon if 12mp isn't enough? And what do you think of the D2X after having it for a week? Does Canon really have a camera over 17mp?

D100 has a pentaprism. D70 has mirrors. D100 viewfinder image is bigger and brighter. D70 appears to have better metering.

Eh, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the Canon camera - the EOS 1DS-II is effectively 16.7MP, but technically has 17.2MP worth of actual photo sensors. For me, and for most people I know, once you reach a certain level, megapixels becomes pretty irrelevant. The only benefit is that it gives you more leeway if you like cropping your photos. I don't print (as a rule) larger than Super-B size (13"x19") - mostly less than that - and I'm generally satisfied with my print quality from the D70 up to that size. Do I need to up-res the photos? Sure, but usually not so much that it becomes a real noticable problem.

 

As far as a D2X is concerned, well if John bought it, I'll be nice and assume he's rolling in disposable cash and an additional D70 wouldn't be much of a hardship... *SHRUG* To each their own.

<I>"D100 has a pentaprism. D70 has mirrors"</I><P>

 

Viewing method for both D100 and D70 are identical, SLR with wirh a optical-type fixed-

eye level pentaprism. BTW, its one mirror not mirrors.

The D70 viewfinder and focus screen are different from the D100...

D70 vs D100? Are those boys fighting again?

An exercise in futility.

kids trying to come up with reasons to convince themselves that the D70 is a better piece of hardware than the D100.

 

It isn't of course, just like the Canon 300D isn't an improved 10D (despite what a lot of people claimed last year).

 

Sure it's got a newer version of the electronics which might in some conditions lead to somewhat better files.

But mechanically and in features it lacks far behind.

Versus old guys trying to convince themselves that their D100 is a better camera than the D70? :-D

 

I don't think the comparison with the Canon 300D and 10D is entirely fair though - the 300D is a crippled version of the 10D in a sense, but with much less build quality (and lower reliability).

 

The D70 isn't a crippled-software version of the D100 - though I do think that the D100 is a more solidly built camera and probably is more reliable. Image-wise, I don't see much (if any) difference between them.

For a second there, I thought I was missing out. I thought Canon came out with another MP monster.

Tony..I didn't go with Canon because in my opinion Nikon still makes better lenses ( and I

already have some good Nikon glass I didn't want to have to replace), also I've been using

Nikon since I got my N8008 and F4 back in like 1991 or whenever it was, so am used to

how Nikons work.

 

I think Canon makes better cameras, but the lenses are something I will be using

(hopefully) for decades to come. I went digital (from Kodachrome) about a month ago with

the D70 and just got the D2X last week. The D2X is a great camera that produces

stunning images. BUT Canon makes a better top of the line camera today....however, as

with all technology in this age the cameras we buy today will be outdated in 5 years,

however (hopefully) the lenses will still be usable down the road for a long time, so I chose

to continue using Nikon because they still are better in that field in my own opinion.

 

I was very disspointed in how much Nikon has let Canon surpass them in terms of

megapixels.... Nikon can get buy with this because they have a loyal following (including

me) who won't/can't switch because of investment in Nikon glass.

 

However young photographers today who are just starting out I would guess are choosing

Canon over Nikon because of Canon's superior digital technology. I posted my criticisms

of Nikon to raise awareness so that maybe if someone from Nikon reads this forum it will

be taken into account.

 

As I own several cameras from Nikon including the D2X which I just got, the D70, a F4, a

8008, several FA's (my favorite cameras of all time) I think I myself can be counted in the

Nikon corner, but I still think it is very important to bitch and complain that Canon is

advancing the technology faster than Nikon, just to wake Nikon up so that they know that

at least some of the natives are restless.... otherwise the professional photographic world

in 10 years will be ONLY Canon.

 

Perhaps an analogy of the Canon/Nikon megapixel debate may compare to computer

processor speed between Apple/Windows. At one time Apple Macintosh computers were

much faster than Windows personal computers..and no serious graphic designer would

consider a Windows machine.... however Apple dropped the ball in terms of processor

speed and Windows machines advanced much faster than the Apple system, to the point

where Apple computer's lost even their lead amongst graphic designers.

 

People such as myself who were comfortable with Macs stayed with Macs, but the new

generation largely abandonded the Macintosh platform in the late 1990's. Nikon is

making the same mistake Apple did, allowing its competition to sell superior cameras.

 

We can argue until we are blue in the face on whether the amount of different between a

17 megapixel Canon versus a 12 megapixel Nikon really matters, but to someone new to

digital photography, the choice if pretty obvious.

 

Apple computer survived because they (like Nikon) have a loyal following. Apple today is

making more money though from things like iPods than from computers so who knows

what will become of it. (I still only use Macintosh computers). It appears Apple is making a

comeback but that is another debate.

 

I guess I'm repeating myself but I don't want anyone to think I'm attacking Nikon for

unfounded reasons... it really bothers me that Nikon has surrendered the technology lead

to Canon. Nikon still is ahead in lenses, but if Nikon doesn't wake up it will be relegated

to being a camera company that produces cameras for a loyal but steadily decreasing

following as time goes on.

 

........

Now to really get the flame fest? going:

 

Back in the 1980's & early 1990's Nikon was the clear leader in photography. Some people

used Canon cameras but they were looked down upon by us snooty Nikon users. It has

reached the point now though were the tables are reversed, and perhaps has been for a

while?

John, the mega pixel argument is out of date. A few years ago when digicams went from 2 to 3 to 4 MPs, the improvement was obvious. But it has reached a point that 6MP is more than sufficient for small to medium size prints, especially for the average consumer.

 

The other day at my local store, there was a Canon poster comparing very large enlargements from the Canon D60 (2002 technology, 6MP) and the 20D (2004, 8MP). The difference is barely noticable at higher ISOs. In the most typical small prints, there really is no difference, even though the 20D is 2.5 years newer.

 

Thom Hogan recently wrote an article about competition among low-end DSLRs. He points out that price is really the issue. We'll see how Nikon prices the D50 and D70s. That will determine how well they compete against Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Pentax.

Shun, I agree on the low end camera megapixel thing..they are all about even....but the

top shelf camera megapixels carry over in the consumer minds to the lower level cameras

in term of "prestige" or whatever whether we like it or not.

 

As a Apple computer user in the late 1990's I strongly held to the belief that the

"megahertz myth" was just that...a myth..and that perhaps processor speed didn't

matter..... a out of date argument being espoused by the PC makers to tout the

supieriority of their machines over Apple computers.

 

But it didn't matter what I thought, I was already a Mac user. New users just starting out

looked at the computers and whether it really mattered or not, Apple lost out nearly

completely as new users went with faster chips on window's based computers.

 

It didn't matter that Macs were still excellent computers and indeed were better than pc's

for a variety of other reasons.... it boiled down to processor speed as the yardstick of

judging computers, so if you were going to buy one and were not brand loyal to Apple

there was little reason to buy a Mac.

 

Whether megapixels matter in terms of the results of the photograph is not the point, the

point is from a marketing standpoint the number of megapixels is what is looked at from

consumers and how they judge them. 17 is a higher number than 12... 8 is a higher

number than 6...

 

whether megapixels really matter for the end result is debatable forever....a good

photographer can easily make a better photograph with a 3 megapixel camera than what a

bad photographer can make with a 17 megapixel Canon.

 

so Nikon users are left sitting here saying that does not matter, but to new users it does

just because whether we like it or not, that is the very first thing listed after the camera

name in the product description.

"so if you were going to buy one and were not brand loyal to Apple there was little reason to buy a Mac."

 

Excuse me, the G5 machines ought to be as fast as the as the latest Pentium IV chips if not faster. The last time I checked, a PowerPC G4 wiped the floor with the highest rated Pentium III.

 

There may be other reasons (Macs are for artists, not for business execs) to choose a PC over a Mac, but performance sure isn't one of the reasons!

I was referring to the late 1990's..the lowpoint of Apple computers in my opinion to

demonstrate the mindset at Nikon today.

 

today it is a different story and Apple has managed to regain the obvious lead.

John: From a marketing standpoint I agree - but the cameras at the very top end of each lines aren't the ones the normal consumer are going to buy. In those cases, you'll usually have pros or pretty advanced amateurs looking at those (who usually know better) or consumers with very deep pockets (and there aren't enough of them to go around who will make much of a difference). The real competition is in the lower end DSLR's and digital point and shoot cameras, where I am concerned that Nikon is losing more ground. These users - especially those who get the low end DSLRs, may eventually move up into the high end DSLRs which could hurt Nikon in the long run if they don't start moving on matching or exceeding the lower end DSLRs by Canon. Releasing an 8+ megapixel DSLR would be a good start, and I'd be surprised if they aren't in the works on that now, as well as their up and coming D70S and D50.

There was an article last week, links posted on here somewhere. Nikon did in fact mention they will allocate more efforts in developing new DSLR's and slowing down on their consumer line since everyone and their grandmothers own a digital camera now. Let's just hope they do it fast enough.

I don't know why people think Nikon is in such bad shape. I think I read that the D70

alone accounted for 40 percent of all DSLR sales in 2004. I'm sure Nikon could turn

out cameras as fast as Canon does, they just choose not to do business that way. The

fact that the D100 still costs as much as it does is testament to the success of this

strategy.

Ron - Nikon certainly wasn't in bad shape in 2004 and I don't think it's in bad shape now... but while I don't expect them to necessarely release cameras one-to-one with Canon, they do seem to have a gap in the middle of their lineup. You have the D100 and the D70 at the "entry level" (soon to be joined with the D50 and D70S) and you have the high end D2X, but there's not much in between, where a lot of people tend to look. The D2H and the D2Hs are great cameras, especially for a photojournalist and others who feel the need for speed, but don't really fill the gap in the market the way the D20 does for Canon. If Nikon would put out something that's aimed directly at that in the market and in the price-range, I'd feel better about Nikon's immediate marketing strategy.