What to replace the D70 with?

[exposed1]

<p>I was in your same boat. I went from a D70s to the D300. I now have the Olympus epl-2 with the 14-42 series 2 lens. I do very little shooting above 1000 ISO but have shot some events with it and am very pleased. Looking at the 14mm Panasonic lens but that may have to wait. The Olympus has a learning curve that is way above the D300, but now that I have it dialed in, I just love it. Pick it up more that anyother camera I have.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone also please post an ISO 1600 shot for a real world scenario with m43 that they have printed to 8 X 10.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The general consensus is that with the GH2 and G3, ISO1600 JPEGs are pretty good, by contrast, for the D70, it is good somewhere around ISO400-800. The micro4/3 has many fast primes (14/2.5, 20/1.7, and 45/1.8) so the need to shoot at ISO1600 is low. For videos, even my GH1 does very well at ISO1600 since video is not so demanding with IQ. However if you plan to shoot on a regular basis at high ISOs, you should go with a APS-C camera.</p>

<p>The issue with "loss of DOF control" with m4/3 is overblown, just like it is really a non issue when you go from FF to APS-C. There are many different ways to achieve a shallow DOF look. Just go to Flickr and do a search.</p>

[andylynn]

I'd have a look and see if the AF in the Sony NEX 5n is good enough. It has the same (or almost the same) sensor as

the D7000 so in theory should be just as good at low light and subject isolation

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd have a look and see if the AF in the Sony NEX 5n is good enough. It has the same (or almost the same) sensor as the D7000 so in theory should be just as good at low light and subject isolation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure but where's the 1.8/1.4 nex lenses? There are none yet and the 24mm 1.8 zeiss is $1k, not to mention that is a wide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue with "loss of DOF control" with m4/3 is overblown, just like it is really a non issue when you go from FF to APS-C. There are many different ways to achieve a shallow DOF look. Just go to Flickr and do a search.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether shallow DOF is important to you or not, it *could* be overblown but DOF is DOF. Plain physics...It is what it is. 24x36 has shallower DOF than aps-c and aps-c has shallower DOF than m4/3 and so forth...</p>

[yunlong_ma]

<p>have you ever tried D3100?Imean the body.It seems enable a good capability of HDvideo shooting &High ISO using<br>

For LENs,AFS35 1.8G might works well in your hands,plus a 16-85VR zoomlens is also my suggestion.<br>

I using MF most time,nex series is in good size and good for mount change.</p>

[anuarpatjane]

You said that your budget is US $2,000 - 2500. Is that so, you should consider Leica X1 and Ricoh GXR,

they might not have the fastest autofocus on the market, but you will have the potential of great image

quality on a small and a very well built piece of photographic equipment.

[rakesh dhareshwar]

<p>D 5100 is defi a good option given the above supportings . But I would still go for the D 7000 , far far better in terms of speed, IQ . I think you will get used to the weight finally :)</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think more weight is good in a camera -- particularly if you plan to hand hold it. You get the physics of inertia on your side with a heavier camera. There is a reason that target rifles are very heavy. If you want to be able to do smooth panning on action shots or hand hold the camera at higher F-stops or lower shutter speeds, weight is your friend. I love my D7000, but I added the battery handle to it mostly to add weight to gain that benefit of inertia. If you use longer lenses, the greater weight of the body will provide a more balanced feel in your hand with the heavier and longer lenses. In terms of capability for the price, it is hard to beat the D7000.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>If you have not actually picked up and tried a newer Nikon DSLR body, you will be in for a surprise. I upgraded to a D90 from the D70s (which I still have), and the viewfinder, AF, and all other things are much, much, better. On top of that, your lenses will work just fine with it. The movie mode is pretty darn good, but then I am not a video person. </p>

[bruce_z._li2]

<p>Why not have best of both worlds? I have a D70 and still use it, for the the huge selection of pro lenses and good wireless flash setup. I also use Sony NEX-3, which is great for high quality image in a small package. The NEX system lacks auto focus prime lenses, but if you can live with manual focus (and peaking) then the possibility is limitless. The Nikon dSLR line is an evolution of what you already have, while the Sony NEX can be an inexpensive introduction to something innovative and new.</p>

[errol young]

<p>Get a D7000. I tried the D3100 for a while but it did not shoot like the D70.<br>

When I had a chance to switch, I did.<br>

D7000 is buttoned like the D70 but has all the new features.<br>

Like the D70 it is a classic.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>I upgraded from the D50 to the D7000. I love the D7000.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"Sure but where's the 1.8/1.4 nex lenses?" - </em>Nikkor 1.4 lenses with lens adapter will work on NEX-5 nex-7 with limitations of manual focus, no VR, no "D" distance information, etc.</p>