Why would I pay $1600+ for the D2 vs $800 for the D70?

[d_price]

I began with a 3.2MP Minolta. Then moved on to an N80. I haven't

outgrown my N80, but I'm ready for a digital. I was looking at the D2

and the D70, but there's something I don't understand. Why would I

want to pay twice the cost for the D2 over the D70, when the latter

has a higher MP count? I know that there is a very valid reason for

it, but I just can't comprehend it. I'm not making enormous prints,

but I do want fantastic color in my shots. I'm not shooting sports on

a regular basis, but I shoot alot outside and I take my camera with

me all over. I don't mind the weight, as I'm a big guy (6'0 240lbs).

I was even thinking of just going with an F5.

Can someone explain to me why the D2 is that much better than the

D70. I'm a bit frustrated.

Sorry for the long post.

[min_wong1]

1st, D2H means 2 hundred. D70 means 70. 200>70 thus, you paid more for the difference.

 

2nd, D2H is twice the weight compare with D70, Nikon charge $600 per pound for their SLR camera. You paid for the difference.

 

3rd, you pay the difference for the weather seal pro body, bigger and brighter viewfinder, faster buffer, bigger LCD......

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d2h%2Cnikon_d70&show=all

[RaymondC]

You say that the D70 has more than the D2? Thats the D2h. The D2x which is coming out soon would be more MP than the D70 16MP is it abouts?

 

The D2 series is like the F100/F5 vs the N80/N70 hence the price difference. The F5 is about $1500US and the N70 is just over $100US?

 

They are pro bodies, have better build, better mositure sealing, faster autofocus, better, brighter, bigger viewfinder, its faster in burst mode, able to meter with manual lenses.

 

The D2h was older than the D70. Compare the D70 to the D2x that is coming out in any month now...

[loreneidahl]

True - the D2h came out before the D70. However the D70 is marketed toward a totally different user.

 

Do NOT compare the D2h to the D70 unless YOU personally have had the chance to use one in real world setting. The reviews and numbers alone dont tell the whole story. There are plenty of D70 evanglists on this board who have never even touched a D2h and are bashing it.

 

The D2h is superior to the D70 in many ways. If you are looking for a plastic body enry level camera that allows you to experience Nikon glass at a price tag under $1000 then the D70 is there.

 

I have compared the two side by side in real world shooting situations. I have shooting parters and employees who have the D2h D100, S1 S2, and the D70. I also own the D2h. I get plenty of chances to shoot with diffenet bodies. The D2h kicks them all for the type of shooting that I and my employees do.

 

 

The D2h body is magnesium alloy. The D70 body is plastic. The D2h viewfinder is 100% . The D70 is about 90%. The D2h is weather sealed the D70 is not. The shutter on the D2h is raterd for 150K cycles . the shutter on the D70 is rated for less (~50k).

 

The D2h is markedted toward professionals who need to get the job done. The d70 is marketed toward people who get off on gee whiz gadgets.

 

Just like the F5 vs the F100. The F5 is the pro body howerver the F100 has more "features" .

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

it's all about features, and it is depend on what you need. If you need fast buffer and body build quality for sport photography, then D2H fits well for you. If you only care about the color the sensors produce and dont care about the build quality and fast buffer, then D70 is peferct for you and for portrait and wedding. D2H cost more becuase it has more RAM and better body/cpu :), but the sensor are well equals. Like run WINDOW XP on P4 VS P3. They both do the same thing, except P4 has more speed to get you there faster, so you pay more for P4 vs P3.

 

About colors, they both produce execellent quality. Hope that explains if extra $600-1000 is worth it or not. For me, I would get D70 over D2h because I don't need all the features D2H provides, which is a waste for my work.

 

 

good luck.

[markwilkins]

The F5 and the F100 are much closer to each other in build quality than are the D2h and

the D70.

 

However, while the D2h is great (and I'm speaking from the point of view of having a D1x,

which is very similar) the D70 is much smaller and lighter, which might mean you're more

willing to carry it with you.

[d_price]

I do more portrait work, than anything else now. Just by the nature of my work, I shouldn't NEED anything that extremely robust and hardy. I'm not completely restricted to the studio though. I spend time outside. But I'd hate to buy the D70 if the technology in the D2 is going to be worth the extra $$. Aside from the tanklike build, is the AF, sensor, and overall design like night and day? I do want really good color and image quality, but not at the sacrafice of a unit that isn't going to last me.

Although I must admit that I'm a bit hesitant to purchase a 4MP camera that seems like it's going to be outdated fairly quickly. Even the D1 seems a bit better at 5.3MP. Am I just hung up on pixels? What is it that makes the D2 outshine all the other competition. How is it that this 4.1MP box is that much better than the 8.3MP Canon EOS Mark II? Not that I'm considering buying one.

[min_wong1]

I will recommend you save the money for a better lens. A better lens improves your speed, accuracy, contrast. D70 is good enough for most people and it is a much lighter/smaller camera which doesn't attract much attention. Good for city shooting and hiking. D2H is definely good for sport shooting.

[ShunCheung]

The D2H has fast AF and fast frame rate. Try to shoot some sports or animal action such as birds in flight with a D2H and D70 side by side. Why you need a D2H (or Canon EOS 1D Mark 2) should become very obvious. If however you only shoot still objects, many of the advantages of the D2H could be pretty useless to you.

 

It is like whether a Porsche or a Mack truck is "better." It highly depends on what you are going to do with it.

[tholte]

"The D2h is markedted toward professionals who need to get the job done. The d70 is marketed toward people who get off on gee whiz gadgets."

Loren, You almost managed to complete a logical and rational post regarding your love affair with the D2H, but you blew it with the last line. Let me run this by you one more time and see if it finally sinks in. The D70 is a $900 camera for serious amateurs like me, the D2H is for sports shooters and others who need faster AF, bigger viewfinder etc. The D2H in Milwaukee costs $3,000. How many amateurs will fork over that much money for a camera that is old technology? For $3500 you can get a Canon EOS-1D MKII which is a much better camera than the D2H by a longshot. I hope you will buy a D2X when it comes out next month so you will be able to say with complete accuracy that your new camera is finally better than the D70 (and you only had to pay $4,995 for the privilege).

[david_debalko1]

Why pay 35,000 for a BMW when a Hyundai for 16,000 will get the job done.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<i>

I do more portrait work, than anything else now. Just by the nature of my work, I shouldn't NEED anything that extremely robust and hardy...</i>

<p>

If you favor the wide open narrow DOF style of portraiture, the D70 viewfinder may drive you crazy. It is extremely difficult to critically evaluate focus in the viewfinder of the D70, so you tend to end up having to 'trust' the AF.

[robert_johnson15]

It's been said on another non phono.net list that the Nikon digital kit that includes the 18-70mm lens will see an increase in the rebate effective February 1st. I don't know whether that's the D-100 or D-70 kit OR both. Don't want to start any hot rumors. I guess we'll have to wait til tomorrow and see what's posted on like B&H, Adorama or Nikon. With a name like Nikon Cold Cash Rebates efective til March 31st, it's possible their sales are "COLD!" Hope the change effects the F5 and F6, but I'm not holdoing my breath. If this "blurb" is wrong, please accept my apologies! Guess we'll know in about 24 hours!

[d_price]

I think that I'll just take Shun's advice and rent them both. The only problem I see with that is they want a deposit equal to the replacement cost. :(

But I think that's going to be the only way for me to figure it out. There are features and qualities of both that I want and need, but it seems like there really is no middle ground. I need a D70-D2 hybrid. lol. I really want the build quality of the D2, but I suppose the D70 is going to be more functional. I think that I'm trying to justify the purchase of a D2, lol. I'd rather have and not need, than need and not have.

 

Do any of you guys have both? Or had both?

 

BTW David, I can't say much about your analogy because I have 2 BMW's. LOL

[HuskyMason1]

I've had both...The D2h is a great photojournalist camera...the viewfinder is fabulous and the controls are well placed...I had the common problem with the shutter which Nikon fixed...I recently sold the D2H and bought the D70 (just before the Nikon price drop) which is a nice camera...the finder is the biggest step down for me and the added resolution is a step up...hope this helps...my experience has been that it's the glass and the photographer that matters most...

[ShunCheung]

D Price: I did not advice you to rent them both. If you can rent them cheaply, that may work, but my local store (K&S in Palo Alto, California) still charges $150 per day to rent the D2H. That is pretty expensive for a camera below $2000.

 

Seriously, I have a D100. Your N80, the D100 and D70 all use the Mutli-CAM 900 AF module. To say the least, its AF is not at all sufficient for action photographey. If you use the D70 to shoot sports (not golf, but something as simple as children soccer) or wildlife action, most likely you will be very frustrated because you'll have a lot of out of focus images. Moreover, in action photography, you'll likely shoot many frames in succession. The buffer in the D70 will probably be not big enough.

 

The viewfinder on the D70, along with its slow AF, is probably one of its weakest points. Whether that is a problem or not highly depends on your shooting style and lenses, e.g. MF vs. AF, etc. as Todd Peach points out above.

 

The D2H can solve a lot of those problems but you are stuck with 4MP. For action work, I would take an in-focus 4MP image over an (unintentionally) out-of-focus 6MP image every time.

[tonybynum]

these posts are interesting. I own the d70 and d2h - shoot them both every day. I put 35 thousand clicks on the d70 and it has not even been out for a year. I have used both bodies d70 the D2H for ports., sports, and landscape. both do the job with respective drawbacks.

 

I say this, if you are not a pro sports shooter you will be better off with the D70 - the weight alone, if youre not used to shooting pro bodies with fast lenses will cause you to put the unit down too much, and ad to it a frame and flash with battery pack and your looking at a big load, and why, so you can look good? IMHO, I would use the D70 and buy other gear with the $900-1000 savings. Remember, you will need a spare en-el4 battery - $100, extended Mack warrenty for $300 if you buy the d2h. There is not much benifit for what your shooting to buy a D2h. think about it will take you 10 years to use up the shutter on a d70 if you shoot 5,000 frams per year! In ten years you wont even be askinng about eithor camera. 3FPS with a fast card is enough - even for some sports.

 

Good luck, if money is no object buy both and test for yourself, I'll be you stick with the D70 just because it's smaller and lighter and has the capacity and engineering to produce great photos.

 

As for canon - there are a large number of people doing the switch to canon they are tired of Nikons B.S. Keep in mind that this has meant that used canon products fetch premiem prices so be prepaired to spend about 30% more for canon than nikon - and oh yea, you cant use all canon lenses on the new digital bodies! I'm sticking with nikon. My not have all the latest and greatest but nikon equipment has never faild me, not even in 50 below zero degree shooting conditions.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I have a D-70, am on the list for the D2X, and have never shot a D2H, but is sounds to me like doing portraits the extra 2 megapixels would be of greater value than sportsworthiness, assuming your clients want enLARGEments. I love the D-70 and suspect I'll continue to use it a lot, even with the D2X. Working in studio, you're not likely to need pro weather sealing unless your studio's roof caves in. As far as focus, you can shoot with Nikon Capture if you're not happy and see your results on screen. You don't need to rely on the viewfinder, which admittedly may not be the best but it's very functional. Color reproduction is excellent. I've seen several pros in my community shooting portraits with D-70.

[jim_roberts]

I agree with Loren's assessment above. I am an amateur photographer (in other words I have another day job). If the D-70 was $1600 and the D2H was $800, I would still buy the D-70. I have no interest in hauling around a much larger and heavier camera like the D2H. Compared to my old Nikon FE-2, I even think the D-70 is big and heavy.

[gaius1]

If you have to ask... you wouldn't understand.

[d_price]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all your help. All of your advice has been really helpful. I think I'll go ahead with the D70. I've been shooting film only since Sept. and haven't put any new images on my page, I'm looking forward to being able to do that again.

[d_price]

Gee Guy...I asked and I DO understand. Mabye I wouldn't understand if I DIDN'T ask.

[ilkka_nissila]

If I had known that the D2H will be $2k by the end of the year, I probably wouldn't have bought the D70 in the spring. Recently I've been shooting 95% film because I can't see much at all through the VF of the D70 in the dark winter of my country. Fogging of the ocular takes place easily below freezing and while the image recorded by the sensor may be great, I have to use playback just to iteratively compose a shot. A D2H I would continue to have use as a backup for the D2X, while I'll have no use for the D70 after I get one of the D2 models. Yes, it is lightweight, but you pay a price.

[david_debalko]

I have a D100 and a D2H-the D100 is my backup camera and hardly gets used. The D2H is such a nicer camera to use-viewfinder, speed.

I see no difference in the image quality, as a matter of fact I think the D2H gives me better color-more filmlike.

The autofocus on the D2H seems to perform better as well.

I would love to see a 8mp D2H that was priced under the 5000. 12mp D2X.

 

I would take the BMW over the Hyundai.

[juan_su]

Damn! I was beat to the car analogy, but come on guys BMW vs. a Hyundai. That's just simply not fair! Besides, D2H and D70 are both made by Nikon so I would suggest a fairer comparison would a comparison of a Honda Vs. Accura. you know they are both made the same company but clearly there is a definable difference between the two.