D100 over D70?

[Sanford]

Now that the D100 is price only several hundred dollars over the D70

is the ANY reason to prefer it over the D70. Highest picture quality

would be my primary concern.

[jwhyche]

Not really. There is some concern about the body of the D70 over that of the D100. As on owner of a D70 I can tell you that is unfounded. The D70 body feels just as soild as any camera that I've owned.

[aardvarko]

not unless you are really excited about portrait grips or mechanical cable releases

[vivek iyer]

"..D100 is price only several hundred dollars over the D70.."

 

Yes, there is a good reason: iTTL flash.

 

Spend the extra cash on one of them.

[vivek iyer]

I meant to say that you should go for a D70 instead of D100.

[bill_harris1]

I have them both. My lady usues the D 70 and it is a very good camera. The only demand I put on any camera is that it take good pictures without "Glitches"..I am not a technical sort of person and could not tell you why one is supposed to be better than the other. I prefer the D100 because it seems more like my favorite camera of all time, the F5. I am a big person with large hands, it just fit me better than the D70 and performs as advertized..

[xmms]

what i prefer in D100 is:

1.much better viewfinder

2.vertical shuttle

3.better body manufacture

otherwise,D70 is overwhelmingly better than a D100 :D

[asaf_tzadok]

I also agree with you all and I will add to Jian list that with the D100 you can save uncompressed NEF while with D70 you save compressed NEF. Nikon claim for VISUALLY lossless, but any imaging person knows that quantization is loss of information. Indeed, the compressed NEF use quantization.

 

I own D70 and I like it. I am waiting for the D100 successor ....

 

Asaf.

[vivek iyer]

D70 has a newer CCD.

[bob_savas]

I have both cameras (the D70 for several weeks now). And think everyone here has pretty much covered the differences. Back last year I went to my local camera store and told one of the salesmen I deal with on a regular basis that I was thinking about buying a second D100. He shook his head and said "They dont make the D100 anymore (a claim I don't think is accurate), and the new D70 is a much better camera". I picked it up, thought it felt a bit "cheesey", took a quick look throught the viewfinder and thought it gave a poorer image (visually) than my D100. Several months later I went back and took a more thorough look at the camera and came to the conlcusion these differences were not as pronounced as I had first assumed. The major differences I see now are that the D70 does not accept a standard cable release, does not have the delayed shutter release where the mirror goes up, then the shutter is triggered a short time later for macro work, does not have uncompressed RAW storage. The plusses for the D70 is that it can write from the memory buffer to the CF card faster allowing for taking pictures at a higher effective frame rate, has a higher flash synch speed (A major plus in my opinion), and has the iTTL capability. In fact, the difference in price between the D100 and the D70 would allow you to buy a SB800 so you can take advantage of this last feature.

 

If I were buying my first and only camera and had settled between the D70 and the D100, there is no doubt I'd buy the D70 today. I don't know much about what is supposed to succeed the D100, but I would not wait. I'd buy the D70 and start making pictures.

[paul beiser]

D70 has the F5's Color Matrix Metering, the D100 does not.

[ShunCheung]

The D100 and D70 each has a few features that the other one doesn't have. I bought my D100 2.5 years ago and today, the D70 is clearly the better DSLR overall and should worth more than the D100. Why people are willing to pay more for the somewhat inferior and much older technology (by 2 years) in the D100 is beyond me.

[scott_carlsson]

If you can pick up a D100 for $500.00, otherwise forget it and go with the D70.

[aardvarko]

The compression is lossless; the quantization occurs during the noise reduction stage of processing, which is applied to every image (seperate from the "Long Exposure NR" menu option). Compare a compressed NEF from a D100 to an uncompressed NEF from a D100 to see that there's no quantization in the compression stage.

 

For more information about the noise reduction, see:

 

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

 

"The reduction noise option is put OFF. At the end of the exposure, the "raw" image is stored into the CompactFlash. But before this, the internal firmware applied a median like filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing is not mentioned in Nikon documentation, and the fact that it is applied automatically on RAW images is worst news! We will see the consequences. So, the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format such as one has the right to await it, i.e. an image which would reflected the outgoing signal of a CCD sensor (via the analog/digital converter). The presence of this numerical filtering explains why the long exposure in the darkness in this mode do not show any sign of thermal signal, which is completely abnormal for CCD specialists."

[aardvarko]

Actually, that article doesn't make it clear at which stage the quantization appears. My mistake. Sanford might want to know about the noise reduction, though...

[ilkka_nissila]

The major differences in my view are that the D100 has mirror prefire (important with very long lenses such as 300 mm and slowish shutter speeds), a prism viewfinder (somewhat better than the one in the D70), a vertical grip (I prefer my bodies without it), while the advantages of the D70 are: much improved image quality and much faster operational speed (the D100 can take a long time to write the files on the card).

[johnmyers]

Chris, that link provided a very good read.

[brushmeister]

A difference in price of several hundred dollars sounds to me like a very good incentive for choosing the D100 over the D70, given the assumption there is no major or obvious difference in picture quality. Several hundred dollars? Putting it another way, what better reason could there be? In fact, if all the other differences amount to bells and whistles or rarely used technical trinkets, all things being relatively equal, how the instrument feels in your hand and how well you can find your subject in its viewfinder seem to trump the other stuff. Have people forgotten how to craft a picture if they ain't got the latest gizmo?

 

Well, here's a better question I have on this subject: Does the D70 require any less post-processing with Nikon Editor than the D100? Now, that might sway me. I bought a used D100 last month and had it refurbed by Nikon USA. Just got back from a trip to Arizona where I used the thing extensively for the first time. Of over 400 images shot nearly every one required a contrast adjustment in Nikon Editor. This has got me to wondering what's up with my D100?

 

And I might add, as an old film guy going back many Nikons, I very much enjoyed using my D100, for its feel, and ease of use, especially since I could use my Ai-S lenses on it. Here's one of my Arizona shots, with a 55mm f/3.5 mf Micro-Nikkor, (for my money the sharpest lens in captivity). What will the D70 do to improve on this?<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

Myron, I guess you read it wrong. D70 is cheaper, better featured and when bought new, comes with one year warranty.

 

Yes, one can use a 55mm f/3.5 micronikkor on D70.

[brushmeister]

Oops....Yes, a new D70 is cheaper than a new D100 but I was thinking of my own particular case, in which I bought a used one for $530 that needed repair and then got it repaired at Nikon USA (with a warranty) for cheaper than buying a new D70. I was gambling on getting a steal but because of the repair expense was only left with a "very decent deal." Sorry, my fault for the confusion. My question about the post processing still stands.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon USA's repair service is very expensive. Unless it is convered under warranty, be prepared to pay. Your mileage may vary, but I would get a new D70, which is only $900 in the US after rebates.

[ilkka_nissila]

Myron, the D70 produces lower noise, more saturated and beautiful colours, and noticeably better sharpness, although this last point would obviously not be visible in a small web image. To make a good print from a D70 capture requires in my experience less work and the result is better (think of the difference between iso 100 and iso 200 slide film), unless the shot is suspect to mirror shake (I got a batch of bad results when I tried to photograph ice close-ups with my 300 mm and the D70 at 1/15 s).

[brushmeister]

Everything I read points to the D70's superiority, yet Nikon continues to keep the D100 price ...what...$400 more than a D70? What could be the reason for this?

 

Bjorn says, "I found the Nikon D100 an enticing newcomer to the digital area. Hadn't I recently bought my D1H body, a D100 could very well have sneaked into my posession. I would recommend it for anyone interested in a high-quality digital alternative."

 

So he's putting it at the level of a D1H. Would the D70 then be on a higher level? Can more plastic parts be the only reason holding the D70 back? If a D100 has fewer plastic parts thereby making it heavier, would this mean it will last longer, take more punishment, than D70? Is that what D100 buyers get for the extra $400?

 

Ah, so many questions!

[ilkka_nissila]

I'd say the relative image quality of Nikon's DSLRs goes like this (depending of course on what you value): D70 > D2H > D1X > D100 > D1H > D1.

[tholte]

Nikon sells the D100 for more than the D70 because they don't sell many D100's and know that lowering the price would irritate many of their loyal D100 buyers. The D70, D100 replacement to compete with the Canon 20D will be announced in a few months and Nikon knows that it will be the D100 people who will be their biggest market. Just because some company sells an item for more doesn't mean its better. The D100 is a good camera but not many people in the know would think it is better than the D70.