Nikon D40 vs. D70

[robert_brewer]

<p>I am thinking about upgrading my D40 to a D70 for now. I really would like a D200 or a D300 but can't drop that much and still get the lens with the reach that I want. I know going from a D40 to D70 is not much of an upgrade but I think my lens selection will vastly improve. I shoot mostly desert racing and surfing and I would like a faster camera with about 5 fps which is faster than the D40 and the D70 but I was thinking I could get a used D70 now and sell my D40 and be about even as far as money goes and then start to build up my lens collection from there. I was looking at a Nikon 80-400mm lens that is AF only not AF-S so it will not work 100% with the D40 but will with the D70. I was also looking at a Sigma 150-500mm that will AF with the D40 for a few hundred bucks less. But I have always heard that Nikon glass is top of the line. So if I would like to upgrade to a D200 or D300 later am I thinking about this the right way? Should I just stick with the D40 and buy the lenses that I can now even if they are not Nikon and get the faster camera when I can? I am not saying that Sigma is not a good lens but I have no experience with them.</p>

<p>Thanks for any help.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I'd consider a used D80 - better AF module than both the D40 and the D70. The only thing you are getting by trading the D40 for the older D70 is AF with non-AF-S lenses. There is enough debate about the 80-400 VR lens here on PN and elsewhere - no need to rehash it all here - very decent optical performance combined with not particularly fast AF.</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>I upgraded from the D40 to a D5000. And I think the D5000 performs much better in regards to high ISO performance. You can get very usable pictures at ISO 6400 with the D5000.<br>

<br /> You can sell your D40 for about $300 and get a new D5000 for only $585 from newegg. So in the end you only pay $285 for the top of line nikon 12 megapixel DX sensor that is identical to what's in the D90.<br>

<br /> I've found the D5000 to be a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over the D40. I thought my D40 was an awesome camera, but the D5000 is astonishing.</p>

[errol young]

<p>I have tow 70 bodies and love them. They have more external controls than the 40. But I would recommend going with the D80 if you can. Similar to the 70 but better</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Robert, in a lot of ways the D70 will be a downgrade from the D40. The D70 will not give you 5 frames/sec and will give you fairly useless AF with lenses such as the 80-400.</p>

[nick_davis]

<p>5 FPS and full compatibility with non-AFS lenses can be realized quite inexpensively if you are willing to consider shooting film. You could keep your D40 and pick up a used F100 to use when you need the high frame rate. Of course high frame rates with film can get expensive but it should still be cheaper than buying a faster D-SLR.</p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>Shun, why do you say the D70 has useless AF with non-AFS lenses? Is the AF for non-AF-S lenses that much improved with a D80/D90?</p>

<p>It seems like the only reason you are considering the D70 is for AF capabilities with non-AF-S lenses. I think the frame rate is relatively similar, about 2.5 vs. 3 if I remember correctly. I don't think the D70 is an upgrade over the D40 in any way other than that. High ISO is nothing like the D90 even D80 on the D70. I think if you are shooting racing/surfing you would want a faster camera and I think a good one would be a D200 or even a D2H. D2H I believe is 4 mp but that is still fine if you are not blowing up over 13x19. D2H can be found used for about $500 and a used D200 can be found used for about $600.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ryan, I would say the D70 will give you IMO useless AF with a big lens that has no AF-S such as the 80-400. For a big lens like that, there is a lot of glass to move around when you AF, and when there is no AF-S motor inside, it'll all depend on the AF motor inside the camera body. So if you have a D3, F6 type body, you may still get decent AF with it. On the D70 which has an out-of-date consumer-grade AF module and weak AF motor, I think it is a hopeless situation, but I admit that I am very picky.</p>

<p>However, if you need the D70 to drive a small AF-D lens such as the 24mm/f2.8, I am sure its AF motor will be up to the job.</p>

<p>And concerning Nick Davis' comment, I don't think I would agree with that:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course high frame rates with film can get expensive but it should still be cheaper than buying a faster D-SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

[User_1172872]

<p>Having used each camera, I would not recommend a D70 to replace a D40. In my opinion, high ISO performance is dramatically superior on a D40. The autofocus motor in my D70 did not have the brute force to move a lot of glass fast enough for me; I had no luck with birds in flight. The D2H recommendation is a good one, provided 4 megapixels is enough and you don't go over base ISO, which is 200. In place of the 80-400 I'd suggest the earlier version of the 300mm f4 with a D2H; mine was magnificent at f4, and the range limiter is actually useful - completely adjustable in each direction, limiting near <strong><em>or</em></strong> far. In favaor of the D2H: powerful motor, excellent battery life, 11 focus points.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I had a D70 and a D200 and now a D700. The AF system in the D70 is not great. The D200 was better and now the D700 can drive my 180mm Nikkor fairly well. If you can not afford a D300 which IMHO would AF your lense selection at a good value to performance level then maybe you should look into a D2H if you can live with the smaller file size. It's been a long time since I sold my 300mm f4 AF-D and I probably should have kept it but I think it would be a better setup even if you had to add a TC. Getting closer to your subject would certainly help the budget.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>how about a used D200? it's old technology but that is more of an upgrade than a D70.<br>

there is nothing wrong with third party lenses.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'd consider the D200 or D80 an upgrade from the D70, though I did enjoy my D70 and D70s very much. They have excellent in-camera metering that the D80 does not have. But the D80 makes up for it with better image quality and better handling in a smaller package. I would not lose your D40 so quickly, it is a very very good camera. Smaller is better is true often, and there are times I wish I had a D40 in addition to my D300.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The D70 viewfinder alone is enough to make the case of NOT getting one. Unless you actually like staring down a tunnel.<br>

The D80 at least, for all the reasons already mentioned, plus: it has a good viewfinder.</p>