upgrading from D70

[lookupinwonder]

I'd stick with the D70 and buy nice stuff like lenses, flashes, studio equipment or a nice holiday.

 

I upgraded from a D70 to a D200. Of course the D200 is better. D300 will be better still.

 

But ask yourself the question: Will your photographs actually be better? Mine aren't. Not even slightly. Not even once.

 

Sure, you can print even bigger, but how often will you do that? Stick to the D70 and invest in photography, not a new camera.

[sven keil]

For portraits, I would prefer the S5 over the D200. You can get the S5 now for half of the price of a D90 in

Europe, and the S5 can meter with old manual Nikkors (the D90 cannot). The only drawback is burst rate, but on

the positive side we have dynamic range and a high (per-pixel) resolution 6MP camera. Bigger image sizes do not

reveal more detail (12MP do not make much sense - R and S pixel are under the same microlens). There are

reasonable fast and free raw converters like s7pro, and this delivers on par results with Fuji's one if you save

the result as 12MP, and then downsample to 6MP with Photoshop etc. Otherwise (6MP directly from s7raw) you loose

some per-pixel-resolution. Of course D300 is superior in noise, resolution, and burst rate, but not in dynamic

range and price. Fuji perhaps does not produce any other DSLR camera, but who cares? After a few years you will

anyway get a new one, and I think spare parts will still be available. Eventually Fuji keeps on manufacturing

smaller consumer cameras.

[lou korell]

Love my D300! It's a great camera. If you do mostly portraits you will be very happy with it. I shoot both portraits and weddings and the D300 can really do it all. But I went a bit farther and just added a D700 to the mix. With DX & FX formats I have everything I need. My backup system is Canon (5D) so I am covered on all fronts.

Nikon is cooking up great stuff these days and I am sure there will be some future products that will be appealing. There's always a temptation to buy new stuff, but you can't go wrong with the D300. The images I am getting are making me...and my clients very happy. That's what counts.

 

Lou

[rustys pics]

Unless you just have money to burn or flush down the toilet, get the D90. It's basically the same sensor as the D300, and the control layout will be very similar to the D70. Of course your camera store will try and sell you a D300, lots more commission for the salesperson! If you're comfortable with that, go for the D300 and associated bragging rights.

[photo5]

Well I dunno, I went from the D70s to the D80, and it wasn't an easy transition. First I had to buy new memory cards, and second, the D80 wasn't nearly as good at metering difficult lighting conditions as the D70 was. That is because the D80 is really an upgrade from the D50. Even though the image quality was good, the D80 was a pain to use mostly because of its metering idiosyncrasies. Shooting semi-pro deserves a semi-pro camera like the D300.

[paul_soohoo2]

I also upgraded from a D70 to a D300 and am strictly an amateur (although I have been shooting photos for 40 years) and do not

regret the move up for a minute. As many have noted about the only down side is the size and weight everything else is a giant leap

forward.

 

Don't get me wrong. I loved my D70, in fact I still have it. Recently, I went on a fall bike ride and didn't want the weight and risk of

bashing my D300 so I dumped my D70 into my backpack and went riding. I stopped and wanted to take some pictures through my D70

for the very first time since getting my D300 and I thought as I looked through the viewfinder that I was looking through a tunnel.

Furthermore, it felt like a toy and when I tried to take a photo sequence I thought it was broken when I heard how slow the shutter was

between frames but realized that I was just used to the D300 responsiveness. As many have noted in the 5 years between the D70

and the D300 there has been a world of improvements that you can take advantage of.

 

If you have the $$$ and can use and appreciate the differences run do not walk to make the upgrade. As many have said, skip the

D200 if you can.

[ty_mickan]

<p>Keep the D70 and spend the money on lenses.  What do you hope to acheive with a new camera?  Your images will not improve.  The D300 has a slight advantage in high ISO, but this is only really 'needed' by wedding photographers and the like.  You say you shoot portraits, so I'm guessing you are at base ISO with your studio lights. <br>

I am not sure what lenses you have, but on the crop sensor of the consumer bodies, a 1.4/85mm would improve your portraits more than anything else (assuming you have studio lights).</p>

[rascal64]

<p>My my my...what would I do without PN? I really appreciate the feedback. I am a little surprised that this is a top thread. On the other hand...everyone is very passionate about what they shoot with...it makes sense.  Michael...I did what you did. Instead of buying a D200 a few years back...I just bought a second D70. I think it is a great camera. There are areas now that I would like to push myself in that I think I need a better camera for. Tze...thank you for looking at the work. I appreciate it. I also appreciate the information on the Fuji. I will definitely check it out. One of the areas that I find bothersome on the D70 showed up when I made a print of an outdoor/wildlife shot. The background was very flat and a bit noisy...very dissapointing. I wonder how the Fuji would work for that kind of work.  And yes...Tim...the D70 has let me down on more than one occasion with fidgety kids. Particularly if I am shooting on a black background..it sometimes takes a few embarassing moments for the camera to find it's subject. And thank you Marco for pointing out the "problems". It was a concern of mine. Ronald and Tom...you make good points. There are several things that I NEED. I am trying to prioritize.  In addition to the logical benefits of a new camera...it also speaks to the reptilian part of my brain. Guilty!</p>

[oskar_ojala]

I don't agree with the advice of saving the money for lenses. These days, the camera has a huge impact on overall picture quality. Also, you might have perfectly adequate lenses, I don't know. For portraits, one doesn't need super expensive lenses; an AF 85/1.8 or AIS 105/2.5 can take care of things, add 50/1.8 for wider shots and you get quite far with a quite reasonable budget.

[ty_mickan]

<p>so Oskar, then there is no need to upgrade at all then, from your advice.  I am inclined to agree, there is nothing to be gained.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<i>so Oskar, then there is no need to upgrade at all then, from your advice.</i>

 

<p>Maybe you could read my first answer and the second sentence of my second answer. Also, speculating about upgrading lenses is a bit premature since Tiffany didn't seem to actually mention what lenses she has and if there is any need to upgrade them.

 

<p>For the record, I just put a $50 lens on my D300 and had quality that's not possible with a D70 or D200. It just shows that the choice of equipment is often dependant on many things and there's no simple answer.

[rascal64]

<p>My favorite portrait lens is a Tamron SP AF Aspherical LD (IF) 28-105mm 1:2.8. I don't take it outside though for fear of scratching it. I have an old manual 24mm sigma (that I must admit is really fun...though I would like to get a bit wider) a nikkor 28-105mm (for rougher environments) and a nikkor 70-300mm which is painfully slow....so much for wildlife shots on a budget. So...maybe dumb question...but the D300 would improve the performance of the 70-300?</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Oskar, we are talking about studio/portrait shots which are more than likely at base ISO.  Do you really beleive that there is a huge difference at base ISO between the D70/D200 and the D300?  There simply isn't, but I guess companies like Nikon love to hear of people with that mindset.  I have no issues using my D200 when situation calls for, leaving my D3's in the case.At base ISO, image quality difference is neglegable and the lens will most certainly make the biggest difference.  Of course, as you say, equipment choice rely's on more than camera and lens in some cases.  Lighting is going to have even a more profound effect than the difference between a 1.4/85 and a 1.8/85.</p>

<p>The D300 Tiffany will get you a couple of stops  extra on the 70-300 which may make the lens more practical for you to use.  The D700 will be an even bigger improvement is the speed at which you can use the lens.  The minus is that you will go from an effective focal length of 450mm at the long end, to 300mm.  There is always a compromise, and as you correctly stated, wildlife photography is not cheap. <br>

From your last post, with more info provided, my opinion is that you may see a benifit in upgrading cameras, but does the wildlife stuff make you money?  With the lenses listed, for you portrait work, I maintain that your biggest benefit will come from upgrading your Tamron to the Nikon 1.4/85.  This is an awesome lens, please check some expamples.  The bokeh is as good as it gets, and that will set your portraiture apart. </p>

[rascal64]

<p>Thank you Tom.  I will check out the lens that you mentioned. Wildlife photography for money? Oh...heck no. I am interested in pushing myself as a photographer for the sake of the art and the joy. Some of my jobs are rewarding ...others mundane and uninspired. If I only do one type of photography...I know that I will end up quitting photography all together.  I have respect for photographers who work to perfect one thing...but I have a profound admiration for those who push themselves to excel at several types of work ...doing that without being spread thin is an art in itself.  I think that I need a more versatile camera at this point. The future is very uncertain right now and I want to make sure that I have options.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Tiffany,<br>

Don't think too much, get a D300. it's a great all around camera and the best deal for the money.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

Tom, I do not believe, I know! I own a D70 and a D300, I have done plenty of photography with those. Even in a well-made 8x12" print the D300 has a slight edge and in larger prints the edge grows more obvious. There is a 40% increase in resolution and better dynamics and that simply shows.

 

Tiffany, the D300 should improve quality of the 70-300 at the shorter focal lengths, but at the longer focal lengths the lens doesn't match the D300 so well. My advice, if you're ok with primes and want AF, are the 85/1.8 and/or 50/1.8 -- cheap and excellent. The 85/1.4 sure is nice, offering worse resolution but better bokeh than the 85/1.8, but it's much more expensive. If you want a zoom, some 3rd party company made some 50-150/2.8 or similar, might be worth checking out. The Nikon 70-200/2.8 sure is excellent but expensive and on DX it would be nice that the wide end would be a bit wider for portraits. But these are just some ideas, there are many other options too.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The difference between the D70 and D200 is indeed easy to see in an A4 print, and the D300 should be superior to the D200 in fine detail. But the quality of the D300/D200 viewfinder is far better than the D70's and that makes a big difference in evaluating focus and the subject's expression. To me using the D70 was always a frustrating experience since I use shallow DOF a lot and focusing the D70 was erratic using autofocus and very difficult manually. I imagine going from the D70 to the D300 would be an extremely positive experience. Or, if you can get the D700 you'll get a still better viewfinder and the opportunity to use specialized "portrait" lenses with their intended angles of view.<br>

The D90 is a bit less expensive than the D300 but it lacks the D300's excellent autofocus. If your studio is not all that well lit you might find this difference worth the difference in the cost. Plus, the D300 has better ergonomics.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>If you are not a machine-gunner type of photographer, Fuji S5 Pro like someone mentioned, is really really good value for money. Also don't get confused with it's slowness as in slow in focusing, shutter lag, etc. The slowness of S5 is in burst rate (can't do anymore than 2/3 fps max), and also the time it takes to write to CF card (but then again, the file size from S5 is larger than 10MP camera).</p>

<p>Also if you are utilising it's full dynamic range option, the picture preview of the shot you just take will appear roughly around 1.8 seconds after you press the shutter. However if you don't use the max full dynamic range, it will take a bit less than a second for the picture to appear at the back of your LCD.<br /> Apart from that, it is just as fast as D200 in terms of AF and shutter lag.</p>

<p>I upgraded from D80 to S5 Pro. I chose this over D90 and never regretted it a bit. Like you I also don't have that much money to splurge, but although I know if I really want to I can get a D300, but I am really happy that I chose S5. I got it for US$1,000 that includes a brand new Fuji S5 Pro and a brand new Tamron 17-50mm 2.8</p>

<p>But if burst rate is important for you, steer clear from S5. If not, it's really a no brainer bargain at it's current price point now. I also love the metering, it's so accurate.</p>

<p>One thing you will notice coming from D70 though, the colours will look very different, especially if you are using the 'film mode' that S5 offers. It's so different, at first I thought there was something wrong with my S5, but now after adjusting it and finding the best one, I love the jpgs it produces straight from camera.<br /> But looking at your pictures, I don't think this matters so much because you will tweak them anyway.</p>

<p>ISO wise, the S5 is much better at high ISO than D200, it actually beats D80 in noise performance. Also the difference is, the S5 has more monochromatic noise (therefore more film-like?) and doesn't smear the image with ugly chroma colours.</p>