It's January 2013, if you were on a budget, would you buy a D70?

[ann_overland]

<p>Hehehehe......</p>

[steve_phillips3]

<p>Does the D70s use the internal battery like my D80? If so, it may be dead by now and need to go back to Nikon if it is to keep time on its internal clock. That will add to the cost.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Thanks everybody. I feel better about the advice I gave him (NOT to buy it), if only for the fact that if it gets the BGLOD it's all over anyway.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>The D70 btw is very finicky about dealing with the newer CF cards. The smallest you can find now is 4 GB and that is really the max the D70 can deal with. mine even has trouble with that, so I bought a used 2 GB one to prevent the dreaded CA signal (not working), which I was getting even with the 4GB. I read online that this is a common problem. <br>

I also should remark that the Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras, first and second generation, are way better than the D70, and I'm seeing the the G1, G2, GF1 all on sale for a lot less than $300. Sometimes with the kit lens. If he scores the original kit lens with one of those -- the 14-45mm, not the newer 14-42mm, he'll have a real winner because that earlier lens is absolutely stunning. Even if he can't get a lens he can get an adapter for almost any vintage lens to that camera for about $20. An old 28/3.5 from Nikon or Pentax or Olympus would be a fine walk around lens with that (56mm equivalent) and they're available often for less than $50. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I would really dislike living in your world, Shun, where new technology makes ones previous photos instantly turn into complete garbage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rob, have you looked thru a D70 viewfinder recently? About 3, 4 years ago, someone asked me a question in the field and I looked thru her D70 viewfinder, and I couldn't stand it any more. I always knew that the D70/D70s and D50 had the worst viewfinders among Nikon SLRs, but never thought that it was so bad.</p>

<p>For the purpose of Peter's friend, with a $300 budget or even $150, you can get a very good P&S to capture images for posting to Facebook, e-mail to friends, and capture some video for YouTube. Why buy an SLR if you have no money for more lenses? How do you capture video with a D70?</p>

[james_lai]

<p>I think the viewfinder issue is completely subjective. I have a D70s, along with a D1H, D90 and D7000 and have no problem with the viewfinders of any of them.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Why buy an SLR if you have no money for more lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you are interested in taking photography a bit more seriously and you realize that you need a dslr to do it. Money for other lenses can come later.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the viewfinder issue is completely subjective. I have a D70s, along with a D1H, D90 and D7000 and have no problem with the viewfinders of any of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. In fact, my own opinion on that issue has shifted. Back in 2004, I was arguing that the D70's viewfinder, while poor, was acceptable. But after using the D2X and D300 for a few years, my opinion has changed.</p>

<p>But that was precisely why I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, to be blunt, I would not use a D70 today even if it is given to me for free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because I wouldn't use one doesn't mean you should have the same opinion.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Because you are interested in taking photography a bit more seriously and you realize that you need a dslr to do it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People use all kinds of cameras to do photography seriously. </p>

[kgavin]

<p>Nope.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<blockquote>

<p>Because you are interested in taking photography a bit more seriously and you realize that you need a dslr to do it.<br>

People use all kinds of cameras to do photography seriously.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I hired a photographer to take my wedding pictures and he shows up with a Sony NEX7 I would shoot him...... NOT with a camera.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I'd buy it but I think $300 is a little steep if it includes the 18-70 and outrageous if it doesn't.</p>

<p>New or used makes no difference since it is old and doesn't have any warranty anyway. I'd say $200 would be a reasonable price. The lens will outlast the camera.</p>

<p>Dxomark gives the D70 sensor a rating of 50 while a high-end compact like Canon G15 has a rating of 46, Nikon P7100 has 41. So even if it's old technology it will still be better than most high-end compacts.</p>

<p>I've shot a lot with D70s and while the viewfinder is not the best it's way better than what you get on most compacts. If you wanted to have a higher end dslr I would stay in the D70/D80/D90/D7000 series and not trade down to the lower series cameras. The lack of body ergonomics like having two control wheels, a top lcd and a body size that can be held easily weighs heavier than having new technology for me and for everyone else I suspect that will actually use the features on the camera and not having it merely as a big point and shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

[austinphoto]

<p>The D70 is a very special camera. While I had been using it for years, I have upgraded all the way to D700, I have always used my D70 as 2nd and backup camera. It is the only camera that I know of that will flash synch at all speeds. I can get it to flash Synch upto 1/8000th of a second, which is perfect for outdoor fill flash. I can use very large lens openings and use fill flash outdoors with fast shutter speeds, something that no other camera can do. My outdoor fill flash photos look spectacular. Try that with the latest and most modern camera. It comes nowhere near the D70. Love that camera, although I don't use it as much.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I think the price is a bit high. It's actually a usable camera for many but not sports or wildlife. I've gotten good 8x12 off it and some 12x16. I remember an image taken with a 18-200 of a hot air balloon over a lake, prob around 28mm - printed 8x12 and it was really really sharp, no grain detected 1/2" away from my nose. Epson Prem Luster.</p>

<p>The VF doesn't bother me that much, you get used to it and provided the person hasn't shot with large VF film bodies or full frame dSLRs. I had a Canon Rebel or the European EOS 3000 before my D70, while the VF was a big larger it still had the tunnel effect. Now I have a FM2N and a F100. I think someone (an expat) I know shoots a D5100 or similar camera in Cambodia and she does some portrait studio photography after quitting her job as an accountant. She also has a gallery with documentary shots from a developing country. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The lack of body ergonomics like having two control wheels, a top lcd and a body size that can be held easily weighs heavier than having new technology for me and for everyone else I suspect that will actually use the features on the camera and not having it merely as a big point and shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br>

IMO the d70 was a classic. more camera than most people needed at the time. i'm sure it can't be that difficult to find 2g CF cards these days. and the small viewfinder is really not that big of a deal unless you've used a camera with a bigger one. OTOH i kind of think a d5100 refurb for $419 would be a better deal since the technology is so much more advanced. i guess it depends on who the camera is for and what their photographic aspirations are.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2301406">Rene' Villela</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2013; 06:46 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Because you are interested in taking photography a bit more seriously and you realize that you need a dslr to do it.</em><br /><em>People use all kinds of cameras to do photography seriously.</em><br>

If I hired a photographer to take my wedding pictures and he shows up with a Sony NEX7 I would shoot him...... NOT with a camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And that's exactly why I still have my Nikon gear :) So I don't look like a shlub at weddings. I actually tried shooting an outdoor event with my NEX7 and some Schneider lenses ... the images were actually much better than with my Nikon and a 70-200, but people wouldn't stop asking me really stupid questions, like if I was <em>sure</em> I was really a professional photographer.</p>

 

[RaymondC]

<p>I use a 16GB Sandisk Extreme III CF card on my D70. Works as a charm but I don't use that card often. Prob was a silly purchase, I don't take heaps and heaps of images, I guess I learnt ..... $200 I think would be worth considering, I say get something better cannot you get a used D200 about $300-400? The D70 is still a very nice camera with a nice lens, if you into the bokeh ..... or long exposures.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I owned a D70 around six years ago and enjoyed it then. Now I would probably not use one for free, because I've just moved to a D5100 refurb (for $369 from Adorama). Much of my work is indoors in low light. Nikon's sensor and processor technology has moved a ways since the D70.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's too much money. Not because it's outdated technology, in my view. The question is not whether it can take good photos or not - sure it can, every bit as good as it could do back in 2004. The point is how reliable it still is. For example - in years of doing nothing in a box, how did lubrication of moving parts hold up? Indeed the internal battery for the clock....Sure, it *should* be fine, but if it isn't: any repair is going to cost more than the economic value of the body.<br>

The 18-70 still is a sweet lens, though - might be worth putting an offer on the lens alone, and find a nice D3000 or D5000 to go with it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Peter Hamm wrote in his opening post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect most of what he's going to do is post stuff on FB and stuff. Yes, a P&S would probably do, but I think he wants a DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main reason that IMO, this guy should not get an old D70 is that, at least according to Peter, his application does not require one. If he were getting into photography and were planning to add a few more lenses when more fund becomes available, it could be a different story. But I would say at a minimum, you need at least $500 and start with some used D3100 or used D5000 with a kit zoom ....</p>

<p>Otherwise, a lot of potential issues with the D70 are already mentioned here. Nikon is supposed to fix any D70 EGLOD problems forever, but availability of parts will be the hard limit, as it seems to be a circuit board issue. The D70 was introduced in 2004; only Nikon knows how many parts they have left for replacement.</p>

<p>The D70's viewfinder bothers me a lot now, and the postage-stamp size LCD makes it difficult to review images. You probably need a new battery soon, and I am sure the D70 can use modern 16G CF carts; even my D100 from two years earlier can. But CF cards cost more, and while you can slip an SD card into any modern desktop or laptop for upload, for CF, most likely you need a card reader .... All of these additional costs add up and is not helpful when $300 is already a bit beyond your budget.</p>

<p>To me, a $200 modern P&S seems to be a much better answer for this particular person.</p>

[StevenVeit-Studio1476]

<p>I used a D70 & 18-70 kit on a month-long trek through Nepal's high and remote Dolpo region last spring, mainly because the D70 was relatively lightweight, had decent battery life, wouldn't be a tragedy if damaged by the expected harsh conditions, and was easy to handle in the field. I had to laugh when reading some of the previous posts regarding the D70's viewfinder being less than ideal, though, since half-way through the trek the viewfinder on my D70 became completely non-functional when the daypack it was not-quite-securely-enough packed within landed on a rock a few inches short of some nice dense bushes on the opposite side of a tricky stream crossing. Well, at least the pack didn't land in the water. So, I managed without a viewfinder for the rest of the trip, just making do with the tiny lcd for the occasional image review. Unencumbered by the need to compose through a viewfinder, I ended up with what I thought were some of the more interesting images from the entire trip. What I learned from all this was that it's probably better to put a camera inside a watertight bag and carry it across a stream rather than toss it, and that it's sometimes possible to adapt one's photographic technique in surprising ways. Regarding the question of whether a D70 & 18-70 is worth $300 nowadays, I agree with the cumulative wisdom offered by all the previous posters. Whatever you decide, have fun making photos!</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>This is one of the brand new bridge cameras from Fujifilm. It is a <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/07/Fujifilm-finepix-sl1000">FinePix SL1000</a> 50X superzoom (24-1200mm equiv.). Highest ISO: 12800. Tilt screen. It has a built-in flash and can use an external flash in the hot shoe. The suggested retail price is $400. If he could wait for a while and save up another $100 and the cost of the SD cards, this might also be a good choice for him. It can even shoot HD video at 60fps. I would wait to check the IQ with this one too before I would decide to buy it.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I still use my D70.</p>

<p>The only reservation I would have buying used is the possibility of encountering the dreaded BGLD which happened to me but repaired under warranty - shutter (after 25k shots) and a circuit board replaced. <br>

[<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=D70+BLGD&oq=D70+BLGD&aqs=chrome.0.57.5965&sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&tbo=d&spell=1&q=D70+BGLD&sa=X&ei=s-vuUMOyEYS-2gXukICgBg&ved=0CDAQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.b2I&fp=3faba675e19a23df&biw=1440&bih=813">Link</a>]</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I think a D70 still makes good images. And, I like the 18-70 lens. With the tiny LCD, it's not as easy to use as today's cameras. $300 sounds high.</p>

<p>Last summer, we were invited to a wedding, and I didn't have my "real" camera around. I took the old D70 and I was pleasantly surprised by the images.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>It’s 2013 and if I found an old Fm2 or Fm4 at the right price I’d buy it today (I still have some great manual focus lenses that would be great on those cameras.) For a used D70 I wouldn’t pay more than $100, and it should be in great shape. I had one when they came out for about 8 months. It actually produced some really nice 8x10 prints. The D70 has a high flash sync of 1/500 which is still useful. I think it makes a good DLSR for any beginner to start learning about photography.</p>