Nikon D70s vs. D200?

[steven_s4]

<p>I have been saving up for a D70s and a bunch of lenses for a long while now, and I am finally ready to purchase. Now that this time has finally arrived, I am having doubts about the D70s.<br>

<br />The D70s:<br />--The Bad:<br />------Tiny & dark viewfinder<br />------Unsealed Body<br />------Poor AF performance in anything but center AF<br />--The Good:<br />------$300 - $350 for a mint cond. body<br />------Fast flash sync (1/500) - - - - - - - - - -Not sure that I will want/need this yet...<br />------$17 ML-L3 Wireless remote - - - - -Will want/need this <br />------Low noise at High ISO (better than d40/60/80)<br /><br />The D200:<br />--The Bad:<br />------$600 - $700 for a mint body<br />------$165 ML-3 Wireless remote - - - - -I will need this, but this is half the cost of a D70s!<br />------Slower flash sync (1/250)<br />--The Good:<br />------Large, bright viewfinder<br />------Sealed body<br />------5 fps shooting and larger buffer<br />------Better AF<br />------Control Multiple groups of flashes<br />------More flexable WB<br>

I am not sure how the noise of High ISO images compare, but that would be a factor... I would guess they are close to the same knowing that the D70s is better than the d40/60/80.</p>

<p>Anyways, my question is whether or not it is worth the extra $415- $515?</p>

<p>Here is what I plan on doing with my future Nikon: <br />(O-represents what I already own, others are a future purchase)<br>

<br />My lens line-up is: <br />O- AF-S 18-105mm VR (general shooting and learning what primes I want)<br />--- AF-S 70-300mm VR (general shooting, zoo/wildlife, although pretty short for wildlife)<br />O- AF 50mm 1.8 (general shooting, portraits/modeling)<br />--- AF-S 105mm 2.8 micro (macro shooting)<br />--- AF 80-200mm 2.8 (general shooting, sports/action)<br>

Other equip:<br />---SB 800 or 900<br />---R1 wireless close-up flash sys w/ two SB-R200's<br />---More lighting for studio type work</p>

<p>You can see that I will be using flashes when I can, but the majority of my photography will be done with natural light, and most of the time there will not be much light, thus requiring higher ISO settings, thus more noise.</p>

<p>If I could afford it, like if I won the lottery, my body selection would be a D300s. Nothing else would cross my mind. Not even the D700. (Although I wouldn't mind a D3 and a vast collection of lenses, lol.) Anyways, everything about a D300s it is perfect for what I want to do (even the video), but I can't afford it.</p>

<p>So here is the quesiton that I can't answer, hence the reason for this thread:<br />With a tight budget for a body, and spending most of my money on lenses and equipment, will I be happy with a D70s, or is it worth double the cost to buy a D200?</p>

[steven_s4]

<p>I would also like to mention that I have had hands on experience with the D5000, D40, D60, D70, D80, D90, D300, D700, and the D3, but never handled a D200 or the D70s (although nearly identical to the D70)<br>

The D40/60 is too small, and doesn't feel right. Too much menu scrolling, and no AF motor.<br>

The D90 and D300 fit well in my hand, and would take either of them, but can't afford them.<br>

The D700 is heavy and too expensive.<br>

The D3 is suprisingly light and cool, but even more expensive.</p>

<p>I am assuming the D200 will be nearly identical as the D300 as far as the build feels. And I liked the D300.</p>

[bms]

<p>Your are taking the paradigm of spending more money on lenses that the body seriously, which can only be commended.... it is quite amazing how much the D70s held its price (new $899).... but it is a 4 year old camera and you do not know where it's been or how it has been treated....</p>

<p>So you own Nikkor lenses - which body do you ave now?</p>

<p>But, seeing you after low light, my suggestion would be to consider a D300 (not necessarily the "s") and defer some of you lens purchases. Cutting out the 70-300VR or the 80-200, and getting the 105 Micro AF-D rather than the new version may get you there. A used body may come up on auction for $1000 or so.....</p>

<p>Just my thoughts</p>

<p>Ben</p>

[stank]

<p>It depends on what you are shooting (action?). Since you highlighted better AF as a positive for the D200 I'll figure that it is important. I own a D70s and get a little frustrated with the AF speed with the screw drive lenses. I am also on a tight budget. It works much better with the AF-S lenses that I have borrowed. I do really like the D70s for everything else and if I had AF-S lenses, action would likely be a non-issue too.<br>

Recently I borrowed a friends D200 to see how well it would work with my screw drive lenses (70-210 AF-D, apparently one of the fastest focusing screw drive lenses) for action. It was night and day. Apparently the D200 has a higher torque AF motor or something. I felt that I couldn't miss a shot. Additionally, the exposures and white balance were spot on. I was shooting an outdoor swim meet and the color of the pool can really throw off the auto white balance. Another challenge for shooting swim meets is that the AF tends to lock onto foreground splashing. Not the D200. It stayed locked on the swimmer to get those head on butterfly shots.<br>

Now I see that you have a few non-AF-S (screw drive) lenses listed. In particular, the 80-200 f2.8. I believe that the D200 would have a distinct AF speed advantage over the D70s. For action I recommend the D200. If you occasionally shoot action then consider the D70s and spend more on AF-S lenses.<br>

Stan</p>

[hans_janssen]

The bad ML-3 wireless remote....you can buy wireless remotes for about $20 on e-bay.

[williamting]

<p>You can work around crappy auto WB by shooting raw, and with the D200 the buffer is large enough for a fairly long burst of continuous 5fps.</p>

<p>Also, ditto what Hans said -- you might want to look into 3rd party wireless triggers. I got a 3rd party wired trigger for $10 and vertical grip for $60 for my D200 and they've been fantastic. In the case of the vertical grip (Targus version), it's actually better than the Nikon version that's prone to breaking tabs.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The selection of lenses you chose is a bit redundent. You could eliminate a lens or two from that list and use the funding saved on the body. Both the D70s and the D200 were excellent cameras during their days, but they are becoming outdated. I think the newer generation of electronics have much to offer; and I would suggest that you get a D90 or even a D5000 (if you're low on budget). If you have to stick with either the D70s and the D200, I think the D200 is the better choice. </p>

[peter]

<p>I had a D70S and went to the D200 as my main camera. The D200 is the better camera in some respects but the D70s is still (even though its now quite old) no slouch. I would advise getting the D200 if you can afford it due to its build quality and later software.  I think the D70s jpgs straight from the camera look better (more in camera processing?) but I shoot RAW now and find that the D200 files are really very good as long as you are willing to post process a bit. Incidentally I still own the D70s and have no ambition to part with it. When I feel like taking out a lighter camera its the one I reach for.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>just curious, what body are you using now?</p>

[rombon]

<p>I used both D70s and D200 and I am using D300 now. Do not forget to consider battery life: D70S - excellent; D200 - mediocre, especially if you are in RAW mode. On the other hand AF and the viewfinder on D70S are pathetic. I would go on D200 without hesitation.<br>

I know that this will not help you if you can not afford it but consider used D300 also. For me D300 is the first Nikon digital camera really suitable for serious work.<br>

Regards Marko</p>

 

[errol young]

<p>I have both a D70 and D70s. I now have a D300 and love it but last month I was in Venezuela and took the 70s only. It worked very well. My pics are a lot better than my friends with P&S cameras with more MPs. I depend less on the viewfinder and LCD than the 300 so it is more like shooting film. Just asying that the 70 is a great camera.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Get a used D300 and cut back somewhere else.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If it were between spending 700 800 dollars on a D200 (with wireless) and waiting just a little and buying a D90?</p>

<p>Sorry, but the D90 is the obvious choice for you. Not a four year old camera.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Some of your assumptions are not quite correct but there is no doubt the D200 is a superior body to the D70s for numerous reasons.</p>

<p><em>"I am not sure how the noise of High ISO images compare, but that would be a factor" </em> For this reason alone, you should consider the D90 to be a starting point. It can be purchased used or refurbished for a little bit more than the D200.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO the D200 has poor ISO performance above 400. I can not remember how the D70 performed at 400 but I suspect it was a bit better. If you want ISO performance I suggest looking at the D90. I like to use manual focus Nikkors so a Dx00 is important to me but it does not look like a feature you require.</p>

[tom_zastrow]

<p>Steve, I'm about to put my D70 kit up for Ebay auction. After watching the D70 sales there, I think you might be easily able to pick up a D70 kit with the 18-70 mm Nikon AF-S kit lens for the price you quote for a body. I'm also going to separately list a ProMaster (built by Tamaron) 70-300 mm lens for the D-70 which unfortunately will probably go quite cheaply. So price wise-like most things-there's a pretty good bang for the buck with used D-70 approach. The reason I'm selling is the one con you mentioned which is the 1.5 inch monitor. Even with the enlarge feature, it hard for my old eyes to pick out details. Good luck with whatever you find.</p>

[tveck]

Don't spend your money on the wireless remote ML-3, just buy one with wire like the MC-DC2. I own both, and never will use that wireless one again. The MC-DC2 I bought after getting anoyed with the

ML-3, and not regret that a moment. The ML-3 you can get free (if I'll ever find the thing back again)

[steven_s4]

<p>Wow, thank you all for your responses... Now to answer some of your questions:</p>

<p>I currently do not own a DSLR, and never have. For the last year I have been researching cameras and lenses, and playing with all kinds of nikon bodys, as you can see from my list at the top, as well as a handfull of canon bodys. In fact, I probably have more experience shooting canon than nikon, but I have fallen for the nikon line-up. It suits me better. The only camera I own is an old PS Nikon L6. So any body will be better than what I got, and I have had a lot of practice getting good pictures from the L6, but they are never that great. Always a lot of noise, and not very impressive IQ. But that is expected.</p>

<p>If you look at the list of lenses at the top, they are ranked in the ideal order of purchasing... I will not be getting a 105mm micro or a 80-200mm 2.8 any time soon. I am only going to be able to afford the 70-300mm lens when I come across a good deal, and find a good copy. The reason for the overlap with the 70-300 and the 80-200 is that I want the extra reach of the 300, and the speed of the 80-200 to freeze action. I played with a D90 and 70-300mm yesterday, and I had to shoot at 800 ISO @ f5.6 @ 300mm to freeze peoples feet when walking outdoors with light overcast (no direct sun). Not the ideal action lens. But it is great for sharp 300mm stills at the zoo.</p>

<p>I have really considered the D90 and D300, but I decided I would rather have the ability to shoot a variety of glass. What is the point of spending all that money and to only have one or two lenses? I would feel so limited. But on the contrary, the IQ of the pics with those lenses would be better, especially in low light. There is always a trade off. It's just a matter of finding the right balance.</p>

<p>I am fairly set on the idea of getting a D70s, but the D200 is tempting. But like it has been said before, if I look at a D200, I should just spend the extra money on a new D90, or a little more for a used D300. Now we are looking a $1200 body vs. the original $300 body. That difference is my 70-300mm lens and a SB-900.</p>

<p>That being said, I want to stick to looking at the D70s and D200. When the time comes, likely two years from now, I will be ready to upgrade to the "D400" when it comes out in summer '11, lol.</p>

<p>I guess I should also mention that my eyes are pretty sensitive when it comes to looking through the viewfinder. I played with a D90 last night for a good 30 minutes, and it did not bother my eyes. But when I was playing with my friends D70, I only used it for 5-10 minutes when my eye started to hurt, and started to get blurred vision... I am not sure why that happens, but it seems to happen whether I keep both eyes open or one eye closed. Anyways, the viewfinder in the D90 seemed to be a lot nicer. I am guessing the D200 is the same, if not better in that sense.</p>

<p>In many aspects, the D200 is very appealing, and so far the responses in this thread make it more so. But the price tag of the D70s makes me think that I can live with it's short comings for a couple years.</p>

<p>As you have probably noticed by now, I am a very patient person, and also very very picky person too. But my patients is running out and I just want to shoot! </p>

[tobycline]

<p>Oops, I thought we warped back to 2005!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Steve writes [i have really considered the D90 and D300, but I decided I would rather have the ability to shoot a variety of glass.] I'll be honest, I think buying a D200 over the D90 is just plain foolish. If you can only afford the D70 that is one thing, but choosing the 200 over the 90? When you can shoot on the D90 cleanly at 1600 compared to only 400 on the D200? The Active D-Lighting in the D90? The newer technology is simply the way to go.</p>

<p>Again, if you need to stay way down in price, then stick with the D70. But think carefully about choosing a 200 over a 90 for ANY kind of action.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"What is the point of spending all that money and to only have one or two lenses? I would feel so limited." The point is getting some good photos. The AF and view finder on the D70 is not good (I had a D70 for four years) and the D200's AF and noise are not up to the D300. Get a used D300 for a $1000.00, a new 50mm 1.8 for $115, a used 80-200 2.8 push pull for a few hundred (I got one for $175.00) and something like the 18-70 kit lens for the the D70 ($125) and you will be set to go. </p>

[robertash]

<p>Steven,<br>

Seriously consider spending your money on a newer model with less noise at high ISOs, and opt for a smaller number of lenses to begin pursuing your interests in digital photography. Having that higher ISO option available to you might be worth narrowing your choices in lenses. Add lenses to your collection as you can afford, and as you learn your needs.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Robert</p>

[tom_zastrow]

<p>I talked about the D70 I will be selling soon. There is a new Nikon soon to be on the shelves which you may also want to look at - the D3000. It's billed as Nikon's new starter DSL but it uses the 11 point auto focus and has a 3 inch monitor. With kit lens it will sell for $599. Check out the reviews as well as the video reviews that are out and check out the specs. In one video review a comparison is made with the D90.</p>

[peter]

<p>The point someone made about battery life on the D70s compared with the D200 is accurate. I had forgotten to say that the D70s has wonderful battery life (probably helped by its comparatively small LCD screen.) The D200 battery life is really very very ordinary by comparison. The d70s is good even without a battery grip ( which gives it 2 batteries) but I never the less bought an aftermarket battery grip for my D70s (Nikon did not make one) and I could then literally shoot for a week or more without thinking about battery charge. Great for short trips. When I got my D200, I had to get an MD-200 grip for the D200 as I found that the battery life without this camera is comparatively so poor that I was constantly worried I would run out. With it ,battery life is now dequate and the grip itself is very functional and well worth the cost. I especially like the way that the grip draws current from one battery first and when its dead switches to the other - very neat. And the D200 grip comes with a battery tray for AA batteries. If you do happen to be away from home without a charger and the camera batteries die then you can switch over to store bought cells although the drain on these must be pretty great and it would not be a cheap way to shoot long term. Oh and by the way the grip also adds nice balance too.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the battery life of the D70s is definitely a huge plus. the same with its high ISO performance. when i upgraded to the D200 from the D70s, there were big shoots that i get paid where in i use the D70s (with the 17-55mm; sometimes with tamron 17-50mm) as main camera and the D200 taking the backup role or with the long tele on it.</p>

<p>the viewfinder can be very much improved with katz eye ($110) if you need to end your eye suffering.............limiting your choices, i vote for the D70s.</p>