The D70s is pretty "obsolete" - but it still takes excellent pictures. The D90 is also pretty much "obsolete." And whatever you buy today will be obsolete in four years or less. And, like today's D70s, they will all take excellent pictures in five years.

> sometimes you experienced folk don't understand how difficult it is when it's all so new to you and you don't want to end up with anything less than the best bang for your buck.

On the contrary, some of the most experienced folk will recognize your deal as quite an excellent entry. Used equipment is nearly always a better bang-for-the-buck play than new. You just can't get the latest technology that way - but then again, photography and even digital photography has matured to an extent that the improvements are often relatively in the margins.

Consider these two images:





One was taken with a setup that includes a 7-year-old D100 DSLR (even older than a D70, which is older than a D70s), the $120 18-55VR kit lens from the D40, using a lightweight, underpowered travel tripod. The other was shot with a D3, the $1800 24-70/f2.8 AFS (a lens noted for low light ability) and a tripod that I otherwise use to support an 11lb 400/f2.8. And there is a fairly interesting mistake in the capture of one of them. Which is which and why?

Your D70s can provide results similar to these, which are night scenes and are more challenging than many of the opportunities you will come across. Of course you can spend more - but particularly within your $450 budget, you won't find much of an upgrade that is feasible.

As far as resolution goes, yes, the D70s has a little better than a third of the resolution of a current D7000 and a quarter of a D3x ($6500+). What that buys you is the ability to make bigger prints. But how often will you exploit that capability? I used my 6mp D100 (more or less the same sensor as in the D70 and D70s) to make a full-color magazine cover (typical 8x11.5" size). I have a print on my office wall that is a 16x20" - and it is from my D2h, which is only 4mp, not 6mp. Not a single viewer has realized that it was from the totally "obsolete" D2h and not from one of my newer, bigger cameras, all of which are obsolete now. Of course, with a 4mp image one has to be letter-perfect to make a 16x20, and even at that some subjects don't work out all that well. But that's a 16x20, and it's 4mp. How often do you need to make 11x14 prints or larger?

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!