Although very little is known about the D70 there seems to be enough information to question whether the D100 is good to buy now. The D70 appears to have everything the D100 plus a few more pixels. I wonder if the D70 is replacing the D100 with the expected release of a D200 sometime in 2004. I know sometime can be very long for Nikon, but the reactionary and catch up Nikon is doing with Canon it would be logical. It would be nice if Nikon took a lead. However the D200 is rumored and will obsolete the D100 leaving the D200 and D70. The D70 mayf it better for those of us who know we can not give up our film cameras if we wish to continue to shoot sports action. Just wondering because I'm not giving up all my Nikon lenses to switch to the other guys.
"Although very little is known about the D70 there seems to be enough information to question whether the D100 is good to buy now. The D70 appears to have everything the D100 plus a few more pixels."
Where did you get that from?
"I wonder if the D70 is replacing the D100 with the expected release of a D200 sometime in 2004. "
The D70 is clearly slated to slot in underneath the D100. This is Nikon's response to the Canon 300D. D200 will be a long time coming, I think. Nikon need to wheel out the D70 and later the expected D2X before they turn their minds to the D100 replacement. The D100 might just get enhanced rather than replaced.
"I know sometime can be very long for Nikon, but the reactionary and catch up Nikon is doing with Canon it would be logical. It would be nice if Nikon took a lead. However the D200 is rumored and will obsolete the D100 leaving the D200 and D70. The D70 mayf it better for those of us who know we can not give up our film cameras if we wish to continue to shoot sports action."
Why can't you shoot sports action with digital?
"Just wondering because I'm not giving up all my Nikon lenses to switch to the other guys."
The D100 is a perfectly competent camera and it is now very nicely priced. In that sense it is an even more attractive prospect than when it was released. It will not suddenly stop working when Nikon bring out a replacement.
With regard to shooting sports/action with a D100: The D100 has the same AF sensor as the N80. Alot of us hobbiests do not have long, fast, tele AFS lenses - and have no financial prospect of adding them in the future. My experience and research suggests that long teles (non-AFS) and the N80 sensor can be frustrating when trying to shoot sports. I love my N80, but I think I need a CAM 1300 sensor camera to shoot sports with an 80-200 f2.8 and 300 f4 without AFS. And, my N80 really hunts with my 70-300 ED at 300mm, even with relatively slow subjects like whales shot from the overlook at Point Reyes, CA last spring. Its not only the lens speed and AFS, but having those extra (and probably better) cross sensors of the CAM 1300 that makes a big difference.
While alot of pros are shooting sports in digital, I'll bet there aren't that many shooting with a D100 (which is why you see so many white Canon lenses on the sidelines at sporting events). The D2H is great, but it is simply not a practical purchase for those who don't make their living taking pictures.
When I finally take the digital plunge, I'll probably still get a D100 - because it meets my needs for everything but sports/action, and because I like and know the N80. But, I'm saving up for an F100 and sticking to film for sports.
I know there are little tweaks to the D100 that would make it a more effective tool, but to me the CAM 900 sensor and slow sync speed of the D100 really limit it to being an advanced-amateur camera. IF there is a D200 on the horizon, it had beter have the CAM 1300, or better, AF sensor, or it will have built-in limitations too.
Throw an AF-S lens on your N80 and stand back. The N80's biggest weakness is the strength of its AF motor, not the sensors. No matter what Nikon body you're using, AF-S will boost AF performance but more so on the N80 or lesser bodies.
Nice shots. I agree with this. I use to shoot tons and had a darkroom. Now I don't because of expense and convenence. All the post done now require digital and this would save the step of converting. Going digital makes perfect sense.
From what I have seen, the D-70 looks to be based on the N-75 where the D-100 has components from the N-80. I would assume, from a feature standpoint, that you would find the differences between the D-100 and D-70 to be similar the differences between the N-80 and N-75.
My guess would be that it would mean the D-100 would have more features, better metering and slightly faster autofocus than the D-70, but this is all speculation.
>From what I have seen, the D-70 looks to be based on the >N-75 where the D-100 has components from the N-80. I would >assume, from a feature standpoint, that you would find the >differences between the D-100 and D-70 to be similar the >differences between the N-80 and N-75. > >My guess would be that it would mean the D-100 would have >more features, better metering and slightly faster autofocus >than the D-70, but this is all speculation.
Actually the N-75 seems to have a better metering system (25 area meterin vs. 10 area) than the N80 (I think the N80 is going to be upgraded soon). I also believe the N75 and N80 have the exact same autofocus sensor. But I may be wrong here. My bet is that there will be very little difference between the D100 and the D75 other than build, frame rates, and flash sync. These will keep people buying the D100 until the D200 is out, hopefully with a better autofocus.
>Although very little is known about the D70 there seems to >be enough information to question whether the D100 is good >to buy now. The D70 appears to have everything the D100 plus >a few more pixels. I wonder if the D70 is replacing the D100 >with the expected release of a D200 sometime in 2004. I know
No. The D70 will be a new camera for a new market segment. The D100 is still a top notch camera that can more than hold its own against the competition (who are now in their 4th model and just starting to catch up). There is as yet no D200. The Nikon rep at last weekend's meeting in Brussels could neither confirm nor deny that a D200 will be released anytime soon, and was not allowed to give any information on the D70 beyond the prerelease announcement.
>sometime can be very long for Nikon, but the reactionary and >catch up Nikon is doing with Canon it would be logical. It Nikon and Canon play different games, no matter what Canon users seem to think. Nikon goes for endurance and quality, releasing a model that's so far ahead it takes the competition years to catch up. Canon releases a new line every 6 months and markets the hell out of it, getting users to replace a perfectly good camera every year if not more often on the promise of better functions. Nikon goes for quality, Canon for quantity.
>would be nice if Nikon took a lead. However the D200 is >rumored and will obsolete the D100 leaving the D200 and D70. >The D70 mayf it better for those of us who know we can not >give up our film cameras if we wish to continue to shoot >sports action. Just wondering because I'm not giving up all >my Nikon lenses to switch to the other guys. D70 will likely be too slow for sports action. If you're serious about doing that look long and hard (while saving up a lot of money) at the D2h. At this time, that camera rules suppreme and has no competition coming even close in raw speed and performance.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
The D70 is being positioned to challenge the Canon Digital Rebel, so we can expect lower performance specifications in frame rate, buffer and general chassis build if compared to the D100. Hopefully we will see minor improvements that would mirror the D-Rebel's innovations, such as better higher ISO performance. It's likely as well that the D70 will retain some of the improvements in the N75 - like the matrix metering and the three-mode AF selector on the back; but will also have simplified controls, such as AF/MF only instead of S/C/M servo choices. C servo, for example, may be embedded in Sports Mode. It's reassuring to see that there is a front-control dial, so we may have a very similar (and IMHO superior) dual command-dial control scheme like the N80/D100.
Rest assured the D70 can never replace the D100 on a per-feature basis.
I personally have several problems with how the D70 and D100 are positioned in Nikon's lineup. The D100 should have had much more in common with the F100, not the N80. I own an N80 and love it, but the body is just all plastic. Pick up Canon's magnesium bodied EOS-10D and you'll wish there was more to the D100.
The fact that soon there will be another N80-ish DSLR from Nikon really muddies the waters as far as I'm concerned. I -hope- the D100 replacement gets more substantial to differentiate itself from the new D70, but who knows?
I am also hoping the prices remain stable at the D100, EOS-10D level now that the "bargain DSLR" segment is shaping up. It doesn't make sense to drop prices for either segment, which means features will need to be added in both segments to lure new buyers and entice existing owners to trade up.
This addition of features will be especially important in the D100 class since the current bargain DSLRs are very close in performance to their older siblings. Based upon the aforementioned, I predict the EOS-10D's replacement will get a large infusion of extra features to further justify the $400-$500 increase over the Digital Rebel. I hope someone at Nikon is looking past the EOS-10D or they're in a heap of trouble. Their target is a fast moving one.
I wish I could be as positive about the image quality on the D100 as others in this thread are. The D100's competition is beginning to catch up? While the D100 can hold its own, it's pretty accepted that it's not leading the class. I don't know how much difference in image processing the D70 will have, but I hope it addresses the washed out look that is so difficult to overcome on the D100 sensor. I don't own one, but a friend does, and I am constantly unimpressed with the photos it produces.
I own a bunch of Nikon glass and I love Nikon, but I'm realistic. I'd be the first in line to buy a Nikon DSLR if they could produce what I wanted, and cost isn't even a factor. There's nothing they make that I'd buy in the digital space currently.
With the D2H at $3200 at release time, I'm hoping the D2X isn't too much more. It may be worth the 2X cost increase of jumping to the pro segment simply to get something that's not going to be outclassed in 6 months by the next volley from Canon.
Perhaps it's your friend and not the camera. I've seen many impressive D100 images with lots of color. That's not a chip limitation with any camera.
Why not drop the price of the D100 down to $1250 and come out with a new camera postioned between it and the D2 series? There's a lotta room between the D100's pricepoint and the D2's. The D2X will be at least a grand more expensive than the D2H.
I don't think the D70 will be any closer to the D100 than the digital Rebel is to the 10D. The D70 will have a great feature set, but it won't have the build of the D100. The D100 may not be magnesium, but it's a cut above my S2 and N80 in materials and finish.
I was hoping that the D70 would closer. Dropping the price on the D100 would be nice but reducing the size of camera would be a bigger plus. Also the D100 is an excellent photo maker once you pass the learning curve. There an interesting note from Thom at http://www.bythom.com/D70.htm
But how does image quality of the S2 rate to that of the D100 ? Although the question may be for another forum, which of the three (D70 / D100 / Fuji S2) would you to recommend to someone with Nikkor lenses (for F80) considering buying DSLR?
I can't recommend a camera that doesn't exist. There are pros and cons to both the D100 and the Fuji S2. I own an S2, but that's based on my priorities (and budget). The D70 will retail for half the price of the S2, so price will factor large in any comparison - once we have some real specs and images to compare.
>I can't recommend a camera that doesn't exist. There are >pros and cons to both the D100 and the Fuji S2. I own an S2, >but that's based on my priorities (and budget). The D70 will >retail for half the price of the S2, so price will factor >large in any comparison - once we have some real specs and >images to compare.
heh..this made me laugh. i was just browsing this forum when i thought to myself...damn, theres a forum for a camera that doesnt even exist yet.
And guess what - that skill rating includes the ability to post-process, just like in the old days before convenience-store development labs. So it's not just about getting the right exposure and composition, it's also about how good you are in the digital darkroom. 'Nuff said. With regards to the D70 - it's being positioned as an entry-level DSLR. Someone who's ready to move into digital from film and has beginner-to-amateur skills is the targeted market. If this is not you, and you want to go digital with Nikon, look at the D100 and the D1/D2 series. There's enough product delineation with the DSLR line to accomodate everyone.
Fascinating to read that someone thinks the D100 produces images with a "washed out look."
I made the leap to digital 4.5 months ago, and once I learned the medium, haven't had a 'washed-out' image, or anything even close.
I agree that Nikon is making an effort to offer a camera for every level of photographer, and that you could certainly find something that will live up to what you 'wanted;' I am not certain I understand your hesitation. Take a chunk of your change and get yourself a digital camera, learn how to post-process your images, and you will wonder why you waited so long!
There must be something terribly wrong with my D100. I consistantly get gorgeous images that I'm also selling. Plus, does whatever the competition is doing technology or price-wise have anything to do with that or change that fact? Maybe I'm one of the few that doesn't worry about it.
The D70, like the D100, will be a very capable tool in the right hands.
But unlike comparing, say, the F5 with the EOS1n, when discussing DSLRs, surely the most important point is the sensor?
For me, I looked long and hard at the D100 and its vertical grip MB100(!), but in the final analysis the image 'tone' of the Fuji S2 won out. I like to compare the two cameras as slide film: the D100 is reminiscent of Kodak's Ektachrome 100, while the S2 is (surprise) like Fuji's Velvia. Since I love Velvia (even though it is sometimes referred to as Disneychrome), the S2 won.
So the main issue with the D70 and its ilk will be, I feel, the sensor quality.
Funny guys. I'd take offense if I were speaking from my own experience, but I'm not. Admittedly, my friend is not an accomplished photographer. I shoot Velvia 50, and I prefer vivid super-saturated images. Nikon will sell plenty of D100s and with the right training the owners of these cameras will take beautiful images. It's just not for me.
I've made my choice after reviewing the digital landscape, and that choice was a 5400 DPI Minolta Scan Elite. That's all the digital I need for now. All these manufacturers know that we'll eat a hot dog even though we want steak. Are these cameras really what everyone truly wants, or are they wanting in one or more areas? In other words, is our hunger for going digital making us compromise more than we'd like? If you've already bought the hot dog, go ahead and slather on the ketchup, mustard, and relish. I'll wait for a nice steak that needs little or no enhancements.
>much more in common with the F100, not the N80. I own an >N80 and love it, but the body is just all plastic. Pick up >Canon's magnesium bodied EOS-10D and you'll wish there was >more to the D100.
If you read about the design priorities of the D100 in the Nikon website in Japan, you'll notice that being light weight was one of the high priorities of the D100. The weight of the D100 was not supposed to compete with that of the D1X or D2H requirements. The D100 was designed to meet the demands of the market segment that wants a light-body; at least, that was what I understood when I read the Nikon D100 chief designer's interview.
BTW, I bookmarked your site. You have some gorgeous images there!
I know these were linked, but we have the limits for here just to have some consistancy with such a huge membership AND to accommodate our friends with slower dial-up connections. I just converted to hi-speed cable myself. What a difference!!!
>BTW, I bookmarked your site. You have some gorgeous images >there! > >I know these were linked, but we have the limits for here >just to have some consistancy with such a huge membership >AND to accommodate our friends with slower dial-up >connections. I just converted to hi-speed cable myself. What >a difference!!! > >Dan L.
thanks for the compliment , I will remember the rules next time !
I have had broadband for years , I hate traveling with the laptop now and having to use a modem :~)
People are so quick to judge an image right out of the camera, or they have not spent time understanding RAW files, if they spent some time with carefull exposure and white balance , and paid some dues in the "darkroom" and were getting less than expected I would be happy to assist them, but "casual" approaches to taking pictures really gets me going if you know what I mean LOL
thanks for visiting my little webpage , I love shooting them!
I bought a D100 just after the D70 news release. I have been saving $ for a year to make the move to digital. I will make a remark that I have seen others make, but it is not in this thread and should be.
If you wait for the next - best - cheaper camera to come out - you will never buy one.
The market changes about every 6 months, and there is a "better" camera on the way all the time. I spent about a month deciding which camera to buy and then did it. (no small part of my decision was my bag of Nikon glass) I bought the best that I could afford and make the best of it, in fact I push it to the limit.
I have an F4s/e and a 2 year old FM2n, and I was spending $50-100 per month on film and processing before I bought the D100. I now spend about $20 a month on film and processing - I still like film for some things. I could have waited for 6-8 months to save $500 on the D70 - and spent the entire difference in price to the D100 and then some on film in that time.
Look at digital this way -- every shot you take costs you less then the previous one. The first shot costs you the price of the camera - the second brings the average to 1/2 the camera price........ (yea - you have to print the digital stuff too, but only the good stuff)
I have shot over 2000 frames with my D100 in 6 weeks (equiv to 9 36exp rolls per week!) - that is a lot more that I would ever shoot with film. I have taken on projects that I would not have even considered with film because of the unsure nature of experimenting with new ideas on a tight budget. In those 6 weeks I have become a better photographer because of the sort of "no cost" nature of shooting digital images and the freedom it gives me to learn.
I am not new to photography - I had a dark room from when I was 10 (40 yrs ago) until I got married at 25. Up to the time I got married is shot at least 10,000 frames a year - about 95% of that B&W. My shooting took a dramatic slow down when I got married - up to the day I bought the D100.
My wife has even made the remark that buying the D100 was an expense that she can see will save money with in a year. THAT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I GOT A POSITIVE REMARK ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT FROM MY WIFE.
JB Buy a digital and shoot the stuffins out of it!