Nikon D70 (viewfinder)+ Eyeglasses?

I am looking to upgrade my fathers film camera with a Nikon D70 DSLR camera. My question is will the optical viewfinder work with eyeglasses?

 

My dad said that he needs the viewfinder to focus to infinity so that he can actually use it while wearing glasses. I dont wear glasses myself so I thought I would check with the arscollective about this topic.

 

Thanks for your help in advance.

Nikon introduced the D70 in 2004, some 15 years ago. That was in the "stone age" of digital. In particular, the D70's viewfinder is well known to be poor, very difficult to view. There are many newer, better camera choices by now, especially for someone who wears glasses.

The D70 has built in diopter adjustment to allow for different peoples eyesight. It should be possible to adjust it to suit within reasonable limits. I don't currently have a D70 but I've used one whilst wearing my glasses with no perceived problems. Obviously prescriptions for eyeglasses vary greatly from person to person.

 

The old metal cover would leave marks, especially on plastic glasses lenses,

A replacement that is rubber covered was later offered;

A D70 was my first Nikon DSLR-I bought it in 2016 to dip my toes in the water of what was the then new to me Nikon F mount for as little as reasonably possible. I didn't use it for long before moving up market(my next stop was a D2X, which has a wonderful viewfinder even by today's standards) but I never had any trouble using the D70 with glasses.

The D70 viewfinder is IMO among the most difficult to work with and I would advise the use of a different camera to see the image more clearly. If I recall correctly (it would be best to check the camera in person), the D80 and D90 have a glass prism viewfinder that is higher quality than the D70's pentaprism viewfinder. This should help a bit. Normally the viewfinder should appear sharp if you can see clearly objects at appear at about 1 meter distance. I use varifocal eyeglasses now (since a few months) so there is a far field and near field and gradation between these areas, and have noticed that I can see both the subject, the viewfinder image and the back LCD much more clearly now. This might help work working on all aspects of photography, if it is financially viable. Edited July 16, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

YES.

I wear glasses, and I used a D70 just fine. Though the image was a little small, it was perfectly usable. Though as one gets older, the smaller viewfinder image gets harder to use.

And get the rubber eyepiece cover.

 

But, I would get a newer camera if at all possible.

One reason is, the new/current AF-P lenses will NOT work on the D70. You are limited to the NON - AF-P lenses, of which there are a lot.

You HAVE TO check the compatibility charts, to determine which lens you want to buy will work on the D70. Unlike Canon, the Nikon lens landscape is a minefield of compatibility issues; like the AF-P lenses that do not work on the D70.

 

The D70 is about 15 years old.

You should get a NEW battery, even if the old battery seems to work. The old battery is likely worn down, and has a short run life on a charge.

If you need an old camera, I believe that the D200 is a better choice.

 

Used ones are pretty reasonably priced.

 

The D300 and D700 would be my next two choices.

Experiment with the D70. They are super cheap and the colors that pop out of the jpegs are Kodachrome like in my opinion. When you think you need more bells and whistles move up to a D300 and start the experimentation process all over again. If you get in the groove with digital photography, treat yourself and buy a new camera.

Hi Julia.

 

I've not used a D70, but I do own a Canon Eos 300D, which was contemporary to it. Everyone has budgetary constraints, but I do think a consumer camera of this vintage is likely to be frustrating enough to put someone off digital photography, especially if they're already into shooting film to a non-trivial extent. The D70 comes up as a camera that's particularly good for conversion to shooting infrared, and it has an unusually fast flash sync speed (1/500s), but other than that it was what happens when you build to a budget and your technology is 15 years out of date. That doesn't make it a bad camera, but it's going to be slow, bulky and hard to use compared to even the lowest-end modern options that are not much less affordable. The screen is tiny and low-resolution, there's no "live view" that would let you shoot using it (so it's for menus and review only), and the viewfinder is... budget. It is a dual-dial camera, though, which helps a bit with handling - and it has an autofocus screw for screw-drive autofocus lenses (but no aperture ring for metering with truly manual lenses.) The difference between five years old and 15 years old is a lot, in camera circles.

 

Most notably, it's a crop-sensor camera, as are the budget models from many manufacturers. This is fine if you're buying lenses to go with it, but might mean an existing set of cherished lenses are less useful - or not, depending on need.

 

Possibly an important question to ask: what camera does your father have, that you want to "upgrade"? If he's used to, say, an F100, the D700 is very close to the experience with a good viewfinder, and with a full-sized sensor so all the lenses behave like they do on a film body. It works properly with most old (and new) lenses, it's fast, and it's built like a tank - compared with the current state of the art you lose a bit of image editing and resolution, but it's not a bad body. But you pay $380 (having just checked used prices on KEH) for the privilege, and that's obviously not a trivial amount for everyone. If he's got an F or F2 and a lot of elderly lenses, the ideal option for handling vaguely like it is the Df, but they're very expensive; the less ideal option is probably to bite the bullet with a crop body - and then you get to choose whether you want a cheap and light but dim pentamirror finder (like the D70 and modern D3x00/D5x00 series) or a brighter but heavier pentaprism (like the D7x00 series and up), which, if you're asking about using the viewfinder, I figure might be a decider. Personally, I find a pentamirror fine outside, but it gets tricky if you like shooting in dim conditions. Old (pre-AI lenses) actually work less well with the more expensive bodies, but will sort of work with the budget ones, if that comes into it.

 

If you can let us know what he's used to and what he's got (particularly lenses), we may be able to suggest a better trade-off. Unless you or he are set on the D70, of course, in which case don't let us put you off!

I am looking to upgrade my fathers film camera with a Nikon D70 DSLR camera. My question is will the optical viewfinder work with eyeglasses?

Instead of an ancient camera such as D70, I recommend you buy the excellent D300. It's just a tiny bit more expensive than a D70 on eBay.

There are, unfortunately, lots of trade-offs that it's hard to make without more information. The D300, for example, is an extremely capable body with pretty good image quality and the same level of build and lens compatibility as the D700 I mentioned as an example. It has a pentaprism viewfinder, which is brighter than the D70's. It's a fairly professional model, and despite its age it should respond reasonably quickly to input (as does, for example, the D90 I own).

 

Countering that, a D300 is a crop sensor, so if Julia's father has a large selection of lenses and wants them to behave as they do on a film camera, he may be disappointed by that - the camera only captures the centre of the frame, which is fine if you're expecting it but potentially annoying if not. The full-frame bodies do have a larger, brighter viewfinder, since they are capturing more of the light that goes through a sensor. Not that the D300's viewfinder is exactly dim. I'd find the D300 a very nice body to use (as I did the current D500, its successor), but then I was "raised" on multi-function dial cameras like the F5, not on dedicated-dial cameras like an F2. The D300 (and D700) won't accept pre-AI (aka very old) lenses, whereas, for example, a D3300 will. The D300 and D700 don't shoot video, and if you want to trade image quality for build quality, any D7x00 series is a step up from the D300 (and a D610 is a step up from the D700) - technology moved on.

 

Which doesn't make the D300 a bad suggestion, and certainly less frustrating than a D70 is likely to be - I'm not trying to argue with Mary. But I do think there are some additional parameters to the choice, and if it's possible to define them, we might be able to give a more tailored suggestion.

 

Incidentally, if you're coming from a sufficiently old film camera and want a similar experience rather than modern features, there's an argument that "the best digital Nikon isn't a Nikon": a crop-sensor mirrorless camera (such as a Fujifilm on Sony) with a "speed booster" adaptor might let old Nikon lenses be used as they used to - at least covering their original field of view. Without autofocus, admittedly, but there are bodies in Fuji's line (such as an X-T1 or X-T10) that handle more like an early Nikon F than any Nikon dSLR except the Df, so long as you don't mind an electronic viewfinder - not that I've used them. There are compromises in doing so (not least the price of a speed booster), but it's another option to consider.

An ancient D70 seems an odd choice as an 'upgrade', and besides, it's a DX camera and not full-frame. So your father's existing lenses won't deliver the same field of view as he's used to - assuming he already has a film Nikon.

 

The D700 would be a much better choice, since it's full-frame and has good eye-relief with built-in dioptre correction. More expensive, agreed, but much more likely to not need further expenditure on lenses and yet another body upgrade in the near future. And its 12 megapixel sensor can outclass 35mm film, which I doubt the D70 can.

 

I never had any issue using the D700 wearing spectacles.

Yes, the D700 is a pretty good solution to several problems (relatively affordable, relatively modern, capable, pretty compatible with old lenses especially regarding field of view, solid, generally considered a pleasant experience - it was my introduction to Nikon, and I'm still here). Other than the field of view thing, the same applies to a D300 or even D200; nobody's giving unreasonable suggestions. (If you want one, a D5 is a very nice camera...)

 

My concerns would be:

1. Price. A DX crop sensor is "good enough" for many people, and only using the middle of your lenses isn't the end of the world, so "you have to pay $300+" is worth confirming.
   
2. Lens compatibility with pre-AI lenses. We're talking very old, but there are people who've been using the same Nikon F for fifty years, so you never know.
   
3. The "but this doesn't handle like my pre-F5 film body" problem. A D700 (and most other digital bodies) handles like the F5/F100, which is very much not like the F3 and earlier, or an FM/FE series - and we don't know what Julia's father is used to. The switch in experience may be fine, but if it's not, you're either looking at an expensive Df or messing around with adaptors and a Fuji - but that may still be better than shelling out for a D700 that sits unused on a shelf because it doesn't "feel right".
   

We also don't particularly know what he might like shooting - and the best sports camera is not the best wildlife camera or landscape camera. (I have a big landscape print over my bed from my D700. It'll do it, but even a D3200 would have captured more detail.)

 

I'm just putting in a firm vote for "it depends". Or, to quote the president of the Neutral Planet: "All I know is, my gut says maybe."

 

And, of course, "this camera would be better than a D70" - which I in no way deny would be fairly compromised as options go - does assume that Julia still has to buy the D70. If someone just gave her a spare D70 and the question is "can my father use this thing I've already got?" then arguing for spending another $300 may not be all that helpful...

 

I hope Julia gives us some more information - or failing that, I hope her father is happy with whatever he gets!

All good points Andrew.

But I'd argue that a Df is still nowhere near to the experience of using the likes of an F2 or F3, and is well overpriced for what it offers.

 

The D700 was my first Nikon DSLR too, and ignoring all the whistles and bells it added, it actually felt like a 'proper' camera. A duck couldn't have taken to water more readily!

 

The Df, OTOH, just felt like a poorly-built lightweight plastic imitation of a real camera, and I couldn't wait to put the demo sample I handled back down!

Interesting, Joe! I'm a technophile, and my first SLR experiences were with Canon Eos, so the multi-function dial thing was always natural to me and I've never felt the need to control aperture left-handed. (I do have a Bessa R with dedicated dials and didn't have a problem using it, at least until my eyes messed with my ability to handle a split prism, but it's not as flexible a system as if other controls were sometimes available. For what it does, it's fine, though.)

 

The Df is very expensive, and also getting on a bit now. I was unimpressed by the handling - it does feel a bit plasticky, but I only handled one briefly. It felt uncomfortably "lumpy" in my grip - notably the "turrets" containing the AE-L/AF-L and AF-ON buttons, which given that I'm generally a rear-button-focus user is unfortunate (they're a bit elevated on the D810, but not as much). The "stacked" dials and vertical front dial aren't all that comfortable for me either. I can see why they ended up that way, but certainly there was push-back from people saying the Df isn't the "digital F3/FM3a" they were hoping for. That said, some seem happy with it (particularly those who like the "set the dials before raising the camera" approach, as I understand it), so it's just something else to consider. I'm on the record as not feeling the Df design was the best way to achieve what I think it was trying to achieve (even accepting that what it was trying to achieve isn't something I particularly care about), but it's certainly the outlier when it comes to how Nikon dSLRs handle; there are differences in the others (one dial vs two, mode dial vs button, integrated grips, swapped +/- buttons that drive me nuts, etc.) - but the rest of Nikon's line-up have a lot in common with each other, and if you like one, you'll probably like the rest. I need to be careful not to start a Df rant thread again, though!

 

I stand my by suggestion that the closest thing to a digital F3 may be an X-T1 (or successor) with a speed booster compensating for the reduced sensor size. There are things not to like about the Fuji as well, and I'm sticking to my D850 thank you kindly, but if you're after something that handles like an F3, I think it's a good (if also not especially cheap) option. Not that I've tried one.

 

Of course, if you're not looking for something that handles like an old F3 film body, or are happy with a control change, then a wide range of Nikon dSLRs are opened up...

 

Julia: Have we scared you off?

Julia: Have we scared you off?

I am not Julia but the answer is "Yes, Yes, and Yes!" :eek::D:p

I am not Julia but the answer is "Yes, Yes, and Yes!" :eek::D:p

 

Sadness. Enthusiasm is sometimes a curse, and we/I repel people like a happy puppy. I didn't even rant about the Df, much.

I didn't even rant about the Df, much

How many pages would that be? :D

 

No slight meant Andrew, just comments. There's a very knowledgeable pastor that loves to give long sermons. I believe one would learn a lot if one does not sleep through it. You are very knowledgeable and that's commendable. Then, I have to say that if everything mentioned in an article is relevant and up to the point for an answer I am looking for, I would not mind reading pages of it.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Mary Doo

:-) I'll take "being useful if people can stay awake for long enough to listen to me". And if they can't, I can always steal their stuff. Maybe I have a strategy...