Dirt cheap D70 -- I'm just sayin'

<p>So I've got two Nikon D70 bodies which I bought new I guess in 2005 or thereabouts. I've loved 'em since the moment I opened the boxes. <br>

Anyhow, I've managed to pick up a few sweet Nikkor manual focus lenses along the way -- 135mmQ 2.8, 50mmAI 1.4 and a couple others. I've been using a Sekonic L-308s meter since the oldies but goodies don't meter with my D70 bodies. <br>

I was thinking the other day about picking up a D200 body so I'd be able to meter manually and shoot in aperture priority with my MF Nikkors. D200's are REALLY reasonably priced these days. <br>

Then I wondered how much I could get for one of my D70's on THAT auction site. Jeepers creepers!!! D70's are going for $100 and UNDER. I just saw one that sold for $56. in perfect working condition. <br>

It's absolutely CRAZY that such a fine camera has been cast upon the junk pile by people afflicted with Nikon Acquisition Syndrome. <br>

Six megapixels is really PLENTY for MOST of the stuff that MOST people do. I've made many gorgeous 16x20's from my D70's. Yeah, I know, I know . . . the viewfinder is supposed to be horrible and it's got that teeny weeny LCD display. But hey, the battery holds a charge for EVER and it's really nice to synch. with a strobe @ 1/500. <br>

So any how, I'll probably go ahead and pick up a D200 but no way am I parting with one of my D70's for $56. <br>

I'm just sayin'.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, D100 bodies sell for even less ;-)</p>

<p>My first DSLR was a D70 - glad I sold it when I did. My second was a D200 - served me well and I kept it until earlier this year.</p>

<p>Cameras, computers, smartphones all fall in the same category, unfortunately. The average household cordless drill gets less than 15 minutes of use in its entire lifetime and are discarded or replaced by the millions annually when their batteries expire. </p>

<p>As for the D70, you can still buy dedicated astronomy cameras based on the same sensor and electronics, but it'd cost you well over $1,000 for that bare bones cube. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's absolutely CRAZY that such a fine camera has been cast upon the junk pile by people afflicted with Nikon Acquisition Syndrome.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are always very good reasons that something is cheap. The D70 was introduced in early 2004 as the first affordable, $1000 Nikon DSLR. Now almost 10 years later, calling it "a fine camera" in 2013 is a bit of a stretch.</p>

<p>Some used digicams hold their resale value surprisingly well. For others the market value may be tainted by online reports of bugs. The D70 and D2H were associated with bugs addressed by an official recall (which Nikon honored only inconsistently). Numerous web complaints may exaggerate impressions of actual problems beyond any statistical significance. But it may be enough to decrease the value compared with cameras that weren't associated with errors.</p>

<p>On the plus side, the D70 is popular for IR conversion. I've considered the IR conversion for my D2H, but my dSLR has been buggy for a couple of years and I'm reluctant to spend money for a conversion for a camera that might fail before I get much use from the conversion.</p>

<p>The D70 was my first DSLR. I bought it when it first came out and used it for 5 years without any problems whatsoever and I only sold it and got the D90 because I bought a larger format printer and figured that the extra megapixels would come in handy. cb :-)</p>

<p>Seems like the D70 on fleabay is still going for like $100US.... give / take. </p>

<p>I had a D70 since new yeah the BGLOD issue. I actually tried to resecure the memory card ribbon cable to the PCB heard it fixes it but one of the plastic clips was a lift up instead of a pull out so I broke it off ... I got a new memory card module off fleabay. The issue was that all else it was a pretty good reliable camera for me for 9.5yrs and a lot of memories and for $40US bucks for that part ... We have a new year camp later in the year and I will take my D70 instead of my D600 - with the camp ground and cabins etc. Well they prob dont' even want 6x4's hahah. </p>

<p>If I were going overseas I actually may still use the D70 for outdoor type on a tripod but I won't use it for people or indoors due to the noise and the color it gives. </p>

<p>With the prices - yeah maybe I coulda delayed my D600 that I got in May 2013 for 3-5yrs, look at the used or refurbished D600 prices now. I personally found that for my own work I shoot static on tripod so old cameras are fine for that maybe not exactly like a D70 but like a used FX in the future. But the casual stuff and including people they just want v small prints and the very few 8x12. It's like some of my D600 shots and then they just want it on Facebook, LOL.</p>

<p>Peter:</p>

<p>I know your feelings about this camera. I have had one for the same period of time and it is the camera that I shot a book based on a trip to Oaxaca Mexico. The results were fantastic. I am using the d7100 now for most of my work but the d70 will be on the shelf not far away.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>My D70 is still on the shelf, but I'm not sure it will get any more use. It went from being my sole DSLR to my backup (to a D2X) to the camera I carried when on my bicycle because it was small in size compared to my other options. But now I have a 1 V1 that gives IQ a little better than the D70 and makes a much smaller package. So, the final use case I had for my D70 is gone. Well, maybe it's my backup to the V1 now (rather than my D7000 or D7100, which I don't want to bounce around on the bike). It may as well be because it isn't worth anything on the used market.</p>

<p>At first my fiance used it after I abandoned my D70s. And, she won a prize in our photo club with one of the first pictures she took with it five years ago, blown up to 13" x 19" very nicely.</p>

<p>Think about this. How about converting it to an infrared camera? I did. The body can be adjusted to focus well with the original kit zoom lens, which as you know is a pretty good lens. I have had some fun with the converted camera, and it was better than letting it collect dust.</p>

<p>There may be better candidates, but you have two of them just sitting around.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the viewfinder is supposed to be horrible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not supposed to be horrible, I think Nikon supposed it to be sufficient. But it <strong>is</strong> horrible. And the second you use that D200, you will realise this, and find the D70 a lot less fun to work with ;-)<br>

Otherwise, if you're happy with your D70's, and they work fine for your uses, use them till they fall apart, and stop wondering what others do. I basically ignore resale value of my gear, and try to enjoy using it as much as I can. Does it depricate? Sure, but I already paid the purchase price, and I am not selling, so it's all a big academic question. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now almost 10 years later, calling it "a fine camera" in 2013 is a bit of a stretch.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really.</p>

<p>Back in 2004, when I first saw the D70, I though while its viewfinder was on the poor side, it was tolerable. I never owned a D70, but about 4, 5 years ago, which would make it around 2008, 2009, some beginner had a problem with her D70 in the field and handed it to me to check. I looked through its viewfinder and could not believe how poor it is.</p>

<p>As Wouter said, use the D200 for two weeks and then look through the D70's viewfinder again. By no means the D200 is top of the line, but once you get used to something considerably better, you'll understand the difference.</p>

<p>And that is merely the beginning. The D70 is hopelessly out of date in many ways. If anything, I think the $65 or so used price is way too high.</p>

<p>I think I paid around $70 for a cubic yard of topsoil so I would say that a D70 is cheaper than dirt.<br>

<br />Honestly I wouldn't even take a D70 if it was free. I converted mine to IR about 5 years ago and still hate the viewfinder. I tried giving my D200 away to 5 different people and none of them wanted it. I think I'm going to convert that to IR so I don't have to put up with the D70 viewfinder.</p>

<p>Bought mine new, I never liked the sound/feel of the shutter, but it was way better than the toy PnS digital cameras I had before.</p>

 

<p>If you like it just keep using it. I love my D70s for its light weight and compact files, and have absolutely no problem with the viewfinder. It is my favorite camera for family vacations -- I find it enough of a grind editing 800 to 1000 6MP files, editing the same number of 16MP files (if I brought my D7000 instead) would be a real pain!</p>

<p>Besides, I've often walked into the water to photograph my kids playing on the beach and if I were to accidentally drop the D70s in the ocean it wouldn't really bother me except that we'd have to use my wife's P&S for the rest of the vacation.</p>

<p>I still use a Fuji S-1 Pro from 1999, bought it for $20 3 years ago, because the mirror was stuck at halfway up. Cleaning contacts, inserting(2) new 123A's and (4) NiMH rechargeables AA's solved the problem and my Nikon lenses work nicely these last three years. Images are quite film like, Fuji mentions this as do wedding photogs.</p>

<p>Well, what I was REALLY trying to get at originally is: Why do most people get rid of their existing cameras????? I suspect that it really isn't because their current gear "takes bad pictures". The vast majority of pictures I see on this website could easily have been taken with a D70 -- or a D40, D50, D100 or OF COURSE they could have been produced with a $6,000 D4. I would guess that most of the contributors on this website are not "true" professional photographers -- by that I mean that they earn 100% of their income from photography. <br>

I did earn 100% of my income as a professional photographer for over 25 years. When you are operating a business you upgrade your gear because you have a real need to do so. <br>

Although my heart races when I see a the latest Nikon DSLR I haven't parted with over $1,000 for a new body since getting my D70 because when I really thought about it I could still do what I set out to accomplish without a new body. I've spent money on lenses instead. <br>

So that being said. . . Walt Flanagan, I'll happily take your d200 off you hands. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Well, what I was REALLY trying to get at originally is: Why do most people get rid of their existing cameras?????"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, I have a friend who only drives leased cars. His rationale is no maintenance, fixed monthly payment, always driving new cars, and it's a strategy that works for him. <br /> <br /> I suspect people who continually upgrade cameras see it in a similar manner except camera-leasing isn't a widespread practice, but apart from the perception that some people no doubt buy every new toy, I suspect most people exercise some value judgement and skip a generation or two and buy their "new" cameras at a price point right at the knee that represents good value at the time of purchase. <br /> <br /> With technology, just about every new entry will offer the perception of better value than its predecessor because they are indeed better and cheaper, and that element of consumer psychology will also help fuel the impulse to upgrade. <br /> <br /> Similarly, a retiree buying a Lincoln Town Car might trade it in every few years with low mileage, but a limo company will drive the same car until the cost of upkeep no longer makes business sense which often means a few hundred thousand miles between new cars. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, what I was REALLY trying to get at originally is: Why do most people get rid of their existing cameras?????</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they are afraid of being outdated, old, irrelevant, not-up-to-date, dinosaurs and fools. For rational reasons 90% of casual (not professional) DSLR users would be as good or even better off using digital, even film P&S (getting nice 4x6 prints at their local drug store) or cameras in their smartphones to share on social media. </p>

<p>[[Why do most people get rid of their existing cameras?]]<br>

<br>

Because people do not know how to differentiate need from want. It must be such a sad existence to believe that cameras that produced wonderful wall-hanging prints just a few years ago are worthless. How can someone go through life constantly trashing their own work by tying it to a random piece of technology is beyond me. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do most people get rid of their existing cameras?????</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know why most people do it - but the previous posts already provided some answers. I know why I do/did it. I got rid of my FM/FM2 cameras around 2000 because after 20 years, I had enough of dealing with manual exposure and missing a lot of shots in the process - and my discovery of ebay provided a convenient means to make changes. Also, when my wife got a F100, I could no longer stand the noisy shutter and mirror slap of th FM/FM2. I got rid of the D70 because it couldn't provide what I needed - the D200 did. I got rid of the D200 because the D300 does everything it did and then some. I have not gotten rid of the D300 because there is nothing to take its place. And until there is, or my D300 breaks, I will continue to use it. I am just an amateur/enthusiast and I at least try to exercise some value judgement - the new camera has to represent "good value" at the time of purchase and ideally it should fill a need rather than a want. Sure, I want a D800 and a D800E right now - but I can't make a good enough case to justify spending $6K on this.</p>

<p>For the cars, we just get a 8yr old car and use it for another 10yrs on avg before we sell it to the wreckers. All they need are the insurance, govt stuff, change the oil 6 months (and filters) and the belts every once in that lifetime and the odd bulb etc. Don't trust car dealers now rather get from auction ourselves cheaper and fix them ourselves and pay.</p>

<p>I shot a family / friends event and what occured to me was that the other family photographer shot JPEG to to lessen post processing but they haven't came back and asked what they want yet. They might just want small prints for an album and JPEGs slides. I largely do scapes when I have the time with myself. There was saying that always use tripod, cable release, lowest ISO, AF-S - Mr Hogan even said if you didn't use a tripod it would have been better to get the cheaper lens. But re: people events, the reality was AF-C, auto ISO, handhold. The reality was you can employ the best techniques and have all the flash equipment, people just didn't want large prints. Even for the scapes I do, I only do 10x15" b/c that is what the camera club needs. Which I may supply just a few per year. Even if I did print one for our wall and outsource the print job, how many would I do. Rotate them monthly ... haha. </p>

<p>So while there is this excellence in technology like areas such as sport photography, which professionals and amateurs demand but particularly for those non income generating amateurs it's a large price to pay for quality if they sell just a few prints a year or simply submit to the club to represent their camera club. So myself haven't considered the really new lenses, while they are better why not get the older ones, the only ones I have tended to get new are the newer DX crop lenses at the time and maybe that 70-200 F4 b/c there were no former versions. What I am doing now is once I have them I won't update - it's granted that bodies update in 4yrs and the common lenses within 8yrs on average (going by history). We are in the summer hemisphere we have a camp end of year - might just use my D70 in JPEG with a 35mm 1.8 DX but I may have to carry a wide angle for a group photo some 80 or so individuals. Like Peter says, I haven't paid $1k for a camera since my D70. D2h yeah cheap but then sold it for the same. 2nd D70 yeah then took the extra accessories and sold it more than I paid it for didn't need it. I've been shooting a bit of film on travels so I coulda delayed the D600 for a few yrs see how cheap they are now. The thing I like about it is just the ability to take casual shots in available light inside, ISO 3200 is my standard the better color (and I still shoot film). But the D70 is slowly falling apart, hoping this memory card module fixes the ERR/FOR error. </p>

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Please think about a D300 instead of a D200. My D300 bit the dust a couple weeks ago. I was able to purchase a replacement on ebay for $370. Big difference between D200 and D300.</p>

<p>D70 was my first DSLR, and I loved it. Fast forward through D200 to D300, and each was a big step better. Then, a year ago, attending a wedding with my "good" cameras in another state, I pulled the D70 and 18-55 lens out of the closet. It produced some great photos at that event. </p>

<p>In good light, when focus is easy, and 6MP is enough... And, when you don't need to chimp to check focus or details, a D70 still produces nice images. With the market value so low, I just keep mine in the closet. It's a second level fall-back camera; I will always use my newer bodies if I can.</p>

<p>I'll soon hand it to my granddaughter, let her shoot away, and not have to worry about it.</p>