jim_roberts

I recently sold my D70 on Ebay for 65-70% of what I paid for it 2 years ago when it first came out. It is a great camera but the D200 is a better camera in every way. There is no concern about image sharpness. All digital images need a little post-processing sharpening including the D200. The D200 is clearly a better camera than the D70.

"The D200 is a nice camera, but it's basically a 20D with a bigger viewfinder and an extra 2 mpixels."

 

You wouldn't say this if you could hold them both. Totally different build quality.

If anyone wants a cheaper D2X, all they have to do is start watching ebay when the D200's start coming out. There are going to be plenty of people that are going to sell them to buy the smaller and much cheaper D200 (and take the extra money for lenses, etc.).

There are quite a few D70's on ebay now that the D200 is coming out (there will be even more in the next month or and prices will probably be dropping). I just sold mine for $650 and it only had about 1000 shutter actuations. I would consider a used D70. I bet you could sell it in 6 months for about the same as you paid for it if you decided to upgrade to the D200.

 

I also agree with the poster that suggested the D50. That is a bargain.

It seems like I recall that my FE2 would not meter correctly if there was no film in the camera. I remember thinking that the meter had broke but then I would advance the film lever (as if to make it think that film had been loaded) and it would work fine. I may be wrong and I can't remember the exact solution but I am sure that there is something in that camera that shuts off power to the meter related to the film loading mechanism.

I always wondered how much ink is actually used in a cleaning cycle. I often have to cycle my 1280 1-3 times to unclog it if it hasn't been used for awhile (rarely if ever 5 times though). I suspect it is more of a time and inconvenience problem than a significant ink consumption problem (where does the ink actually go if a lot of it is being used).

I don't know why, but the 1280 heads just need to be cleaned frequently. I have had mine for 2-3 yrs and I only use it every 1-2 months. It seems to require 1-2 cleaning cycles each time I try to use it. I have just accepted it. It has never gotten any worse and I have never not been able to clean the heads quickly. It wouldn't be worth it to me to spend a lot of money on a different printer just to save a couple minutes of cleaning time (and I suppose a little ink for the cleaning cycle). By the way, I only use Epson ink cartridges.

If you are going to use a SLR, you are going to have to learn how to clean the sensor with a swab system. Nothing else will work well and you will get sick of taking it back to a dealer and paying him to do it. It is not that hard to do and the risk is minimal if you do it right. It seems like mine needs cleaning every 2-3 weeks.

This happened on my D-70 shortly after I bought it. It would occur every 100 shots or so. I took it back to my dealer and he replaced it (and sent it in for repair).

I agree with the original poster. I am an old-timer that grew up with manual focus cameras and I would much rather focus manually.

 

I own a D-70 and I like it by I hate the fact that you can't manually focus it well (trying to focus manually with the kit 18-70 or my Nikon 12-24 lens is next to impossible). A D-70 with a split screen manual focus screen like my old Nikon FE-2 (and of course, a little brighter viewfinder) would be the perfect digital camera for me.

 

I did read a post on the internet about someone that had themselves replaced the stock screen on the D-70 (or whatever the part is called) with a "split screen" that allowed manual focusing. If this becomes commercially availabe, I will be one of the firt in line.

I agree with Loren's assessment above. I am an amateur photographer (in other words I have another day job). If the D-70 was $1600 and the D2H was $800, I would still buy the D-70. I have no interest in hauling around a much larger and heavier camera like the D2H. Compared to my old Nikon FE-2, I even think the D-70 is big and heavy.

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not even sure if he works for NG anymore. All I recall is that he made it clear that his film cameras were now cathering dust. I concluded that this professional would not have switched from 35mm film to digital unless he thought the format was better or at least equal.

 

Personally, I will be more interested in digital photgraphy when a magazine like Arizona Highways begins to accept digital photgraphs. I can hardly wait for the day when medium and large format can be equaled by digital (at a price that I could afford).

I was at a recent event for Jim Brandenburg who has been one of National Geographic photographers for many years. In the last couple years, he has switched almost entirely to digital SLR's.

Last I heard the Coolwalker wasn't coming out till this fall. The other rumor was that the price may be pretty high. Time will tell.

My D-70 focuses perfect (I did all the usual backfocus tests).

 

On the other hand, the tests that people are doing are testing the camera at close-up ranges, with the smallest possible depth of field and then complaining because the auto-focus mechanism if off by a very small amount. Most of the examples that I have seen of minor backfocus wouldn't ever be noticeable in my real life shooting situations.

 

There are clearly some people though that need to have their camera recalibrated. I have no idea what the percentage is but I bet it is a small number. It sounds like the recalibration procedure is quite simple to do by the techs.

I have no idea how you can make a generalized conclusion about digital cameras and landscape photography with a Canon G2 camera. See if you can try a digital SLR with a high quality lens. I bet you will change your mind.

I would rather have the D-70 + $2200 in new lenses (especially when I am hauling it around on mountian trails).

I own the D-70 and my vision is not the greatest but I don't have any problem with the size or the brightness of the viewfinder. It is just fine for me and I can't recall hearing any complaints about this on any of the reviews of the D-70.

 

The only problem I have with the camera is that it is hard to manually focus with normal or wide angle lenses (tele lens are fine). I am used to manual focus cameras with split screen focusing and it is very difficult to manually focus with the D-70 compared to my older film cameras. Fortunately, the auto focus is very accurate. I suspect that this just goes with the territory - they are not made with manual focusing as a priority.

Go somewhere and handle the two cameras. For me, the D-70 feels like a more substantial camera for the money.

 

I also decided to go buy the D-70 because I use wide angle lenses and the Nikon 12-24 DX is a great lens. Canon hasn't come up with comparable wide angle lens for the DRebel.

I am having trouble manual focusing with my new D-70. This is the

first camera I have bought in 20 years and previously have used a

Nikon FE-2 for years. I always liked the split screen focus of the

FE-2 and found it to be very accurate and easy to see. The D-70 is

very difficult to focus manually with a normal or wide angle lens

(kit lens and the 12-24). I am 45 and my vision is perfect with my

classes. I have the diopter adjusted correctly. When I try to

focus, I end up going back and forth with the focusing ring before I

am somewhat satisfied that I have it set properly. It does work

better and easier with a telephoto lens. It is also a little easier

if I am in a darker environment with less ambient light around my

head (for example inside my home shooting out the window).

Fortunately, the auto focus seems to be pretty good but I would like

to use the manual focus some of the time.

 

Do other people share this experience? Is this the reality of modern

day cameras (or DSLR's)? Is there anything that can be done to

improve it (like a different focusing screen)? I have thought about

trying one of those wider rubber devices that snap on the viewfinder

to block ambient light but it seems odd that this should be

necessary. Thanks.

I have been using a Nikon 70-210 on my D-70 this week and it works very well (35mm equivalent is 105-315). It is a relatively small lens, is quite sharp and focuses well with the D-70. They are cheap on the used market. As I recall, I paid about $180 for mine at KEH. Here is a review.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm

"it seems small at first"

 

I have seen this exact comment several times now about how the D-70 is a "small" camera.

 

I just bought a D-70 and I agree that it is a great camera. This was the first real camera that I have bought in 25 yrs. My old Nikon FE-2 has served me well for that entire time. I was actually surprised how big and heavy the D-70 is based on my old-fashioned comparisons. Apparently in the last 25 years cameras have gotten a lot bigger. In the old days, they would have called this an anchor. Of course, the D-70 does a lot more than my old FE-2 (although this may not include taking better pictures).

As I recall, they advertise a download speed of about 300 kbps or so with the media reader. This works out to over 25 min to dump a 512MB card (way too long for this to be useful for me). The ipod probably makes sense if you are buying it to use primarily as a music storage device and photgraphy use is a distant afterthought.

I agree with Gary. Trying to get high quality 20x30 prints from a digital camera (and not even a top of the line digital camera) is like trying to build a house with a toy hammer. It is just not what the tool was made for.

 

If you want high quality 20x30 prints (at least what I would call high quality) you will need a large or medium format film camera.

You are right. I recently bought a Nikon DSLR because they have a high quality 12-24 lens. I would have preferred a Canon but I need wide angle coverage. I don't know why they haven't filled this void.