D70 vs. D100

[todd_rossnagel]

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all, who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

 

[Jarle Aasland]

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70.

I'd probably wait and get the D70.

Still, I'm very happy with my D100.

Jarle

 

[tamon77]

I'm in the same debate myself!! Waiting for a hands on review and samples.
Knowledge is king!

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70.

I'd probably wait and get the D70.

Still, I'm very happy with my D100.

Jarle

--
Tamon Yanagimoto
http://www.yanagimotophoto.net

 

[Nick 2004]

At this stage of the game, considering the differences in most specs are fairly non-existent, I would be leaning toward the D70 because of the price difference.

In fact like the other posters so far I am asking myself the same question. I love my 5700 but I reckon I'll love the love the D70 just as much (ooh, cold shivers )

Nick Monk
CP 5700
http://public.fotki.com/NickTheSinger/

 

[Jesper S. Jensen]

If you (as I) do not own a D-SLR, and (again as I) have been looking at/ for the D100 since it hit the shelves, I would certainly wait another couple of months, for the D70!! I've made up my mind, and pre ordered the D70 + 18-70 AF-S DX lens. Let's hope I got the cash ready when the camera dealers calls me to tell me, that my brand new camera is ready for pick up

--
Jesper S. Jensen
Denmark
C P 4 5 0 0 & F 9 0 X

 

[Petre]

I had a D100 that I'd just bought and returned it.

For $190 more ..... I ordered

D70 Camera body and lense kit with the (Looks to be very nice quality Nikor DX lens that will list for about $500 alone)

AND

An SB800 Flash unit

Did I say for $190 more ?

IMO ... This is newer technology .... Nikon wants to crush the Rebel/300D ... Putting out a camera that's inferior to the D100 was not going to do it.

Shooting speed , iTTL support , 3D matrix, 1005 pixel metering , 1/8000 shutter speed , 1/500 flash sync , 1.8", 130,000 pixels LCD , Infrared remote and almost all the same features as on the D100

AND finally a much smarter layout and quicker access to critical functions and a fully automatic mode (nice for making a quick shot in a pinch) did it for me .

I'm confident Nikon is putting out a fine product.

Can't wait to see it in my hands .... and WORST CASE ... If it's not all it sounded like it would be ... I'll return it and get the upgrade to the D100 or whatever . I've got other cameras so , no big hurry for me.

Petre

 

[VJ]

Unless you need features only the D100 has (and these are details, ranging from the 10-pin remote (optional, requires the MB-D100) to the larger eyepoint and the threaded shutter button) or must have the camera now, I would wait...

Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with my D100 (I have it over 1.5 years now, and I'm sure it will be with me for years to come), but the D70 is a newer model.

The colour matrix metering is a superb system (I have used an F5, you simply can't get a bad exposure with it), the CLS seems very feature-rich, the technology has advanced (framerate, newer CCD), ...

Jörg

 

[Dan Petrescu]

Esti roman Petre?

dp

I had a D100 that I'd just bought and returned it.

For $190 more ..... I ordered

D70 Camera body and lense kit with the (Looks to be very nice
quality Nikor DX lens that will list for about $500 alone)

AND

An SB800 Flash unit

Did I say for $190 more ?

IMO ... This is newer technology .... Nikon wants to crush the
Rebel/300D ... Putting out a camera that's inferior to the D100 was
not going to do it.

Shooting speed , iTTL support , 3D matrix, 1005 pixel metering ,
1/8000 shutter speed , 1/500 flash sync , 1.8", 130,000 pixels LCD
, Infrared remote and almost all the same features as on the D100

AND finally a much smarter layout and quicker access to critical
functions and a fully automatic mode (nice for making a quick shot
in a pinch) did it for me .

I'm confident Nikon is putting out a fine product.

Can't wait to see it in my hands .... and WORST CASE ... If it's
not all it sounded like it would be ... I'll return it and get the
upgrade to the D100 or whatever . I've got other cameras so , no
big hurry for me.

Petre

--
non multas sed multum

 

[buenavista]

My main concern is with the quality and durability of D70. Specs of D70 and D100 are roughly the same, but D70 is much cheaper. Is it for the poorer quality of D70 or for a 2002 technology that has become more affordable?

 

[Dan Nastu]

Eu da. Petre...hm...suna foarte romaneste!

dp

I had a D100 that I'd just bought and returned it.

For $190 more ..... I ordered

D70 Camera body and lense kit with the (Looks to be very nice
quality Nikor DX lens that will list for about $500 alone)

AND

An SB800 Flash unit

Did I say for $190 more ?

IMO ... This is newer technology .... Nikon wants to crush the
Rebel/300D ... Putting out a camera that's inferior to the D100 was
not going to do it.

Shooting speed , iTTL support , 3D matrix, 1005 pixel metering ,
1/8000 shutter speed , 1/500 flash sync , 1.8", 130,000 pixels LCD
, Infrared remote and almost all the same features as on the D100

AND finally a much smarter layout and quicker access to critical
functions and a fully automatic mode (nice for making a quick shot
in a pinch) did it for me .

I'm confident Nikon is putting out a fine product.

Can't wait to see it in my hands .... and WORST CASE ... If it's
not all it sounded like it would be ... I'll return it and get the
upgrade to the D100 or whatever . I've got other cameras so , no
big hurry for me.

Petre

--
non multas sed multum

 

[Nick 2004]

I think it probably more to do with the fact that Nikon had to do something about the Digital Rebel market-share wise. This is hopefully a damn fine attack on it.

It will be interesting to know just how the D70 'feels' compared with the D100. Obviously one is plastic and the other metal. For me this is also a factor. I don't like a camera that feels cheap.

As for '2002 technology', sure the D100 was released around then and the D70 is largely the same technology (although there are some improvements).

If you want some 'real' 2004 technology (huge mega-pixel count etc) you will probably have to pay quite a bit more for it!

Nikon can't afford to stuff this up and have the other brands push ahead. I think us, the consumer, will be the winner with the D70 with a very good quality but cheap DSLR.

My main concern is with the quality and durability of D70. Specs of
D70 and D100 are roughly the same, but D70 is much cheaper. Is it
for the poorer quality of D70 or for a 2002 technology that has
become more affordable?

--
Nick Monk
CP 5700
http://public.fotki.com/NickTheSinger/

 

[buenavista]

You are right, Nick

My purely speculative question about D70 may have sounded a bit insidiuous...

Some two months ago I had my money prepared for a Nikon D100. I was waiting for a decent deal (see the thread discussing "the most expensive D100…" in this forum ) when D70 has been announced. The D70 vs. D100 dilemma has then become very acute for me. D100 has a good history and mostly favorable feed-back from users, etc. D70 is cheaper and makes room for an extra lens, etc…

I have been a Nikon user since 1982. I still own and use the same FM and a bunch of AI lenses which (un?)fortunately gave me a peculiar notion of reliability in a camera. I am aware that shifting to digital (especially with a very tight budget) would mean that I will have treat the new camera as something more or less expendable, but not to the extent that I will have to throw it away after 2 years or so.

Subjectively, I would get a D100 if I could…

George

My main concern is with the quality and durability of D70. Specs of
D70 and D100 are roughly the same, but D70 is much cheaper. Is it
for the poorer quality of D70 or for a 2002 technology that has
become more affordable?

--
Nick Monk
CP 5700
http://public.fotki.com/NickTheSinger/

 

[Nick 2004]

As far as digitals being expendable there are two points of view I see.

1) The image quality and features in general of the D100 and others in the same market range are good enough to satisy all but the most discerning photographer (which is probably everyone in this forum ). That is, there's no reason to think you'll have to upgrade in a couple of years because the D100 or similar no longer suits your needs. Unless you're printing huge gallery photos (which most of us aren't) it really is perfectly fine and probably still will be in 20 years.
Which brings me to my second point.

2) From now on are we going to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading? The manufacturers certainly hope so. Logically there's no point doing so if the D100 or whatever suits all your needs. They'll always be a new camera coming out with upteen mega-pixels and there will be plenty of people that just have to have the 'latest and greatest' (probably myself included - I can't help it!!).

So George it doesen't have to be thrown away if it does what you need it to do. Your film camera has suited your needs for over 20 years. If the image quality is fine on the 6mp camera you don't have to jump on the 'must have the new stuff' bandwagon. It's hard not to, I know. A bit like giving up a nasty habit

You are right, Nick

My purely speculative question about D70 may have sounded a bit
insidiuous...

Some two months ago I had my money prepared for a Nikon D100. I was
waiting for a decent deal (see the thread discussing "the most
expensive D100…" in this forum ) when D70 has been announced.
The D70 vs. D100 dilemma has then become very acute for me. D100
has a good history and mostly favorable feed-back from users, etc.
D70 is cheaper and makes room for an extra lens, etc…

I have been a Nikon user since 1982. I still own and use the same
FM and a bunch of AI lenses which (un?)fortunately gave me a
peculiar notion of reliability in a camera. I am aware that
shifting to digital (especially with a very tight budget) would
mean that I will have treat the new camera as something more or
less expendable, but not to the extent that I will have to throw it
away after 2 years or so.

Subjectively, I would get a D100 if I could…

George

--
Nick Monk
CP 5700
http://public.fotki.com/NickTheSinger/

 

[KenEis]

As a happy D-100 owner I am very tempted by the D70...but have two reservations.

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100 before I consider the switch.

2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--

Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300, 80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

 

[georgemann]

I have friends who do not like the D100 because it feels less substantial than the D1x, they will probably not like the D70. It feels less substantial then the D100 (and a lot less substantial than the D2H).

But I use all of them and I like the D70 (yes I spent some time with one today). As a take it everywhere camera it will do really nicely. Comparing it side by side with the Canon 300D it feels more substantial. Comparing it side by side with the D2H it feels very flimsy (but I still like it, especially with lighter weight lenses).

For me it is the camera that replaces the CP5700 as a constant companion.

It does not replace the D2H or D1(2)X for professional work.

Sorry to have to say this but I was never that much of a fan of the D100, for a second (or third) camera I want something that people don't notice (not something just as big but cheaper than the top of the line cameras).

But the D70 is a real winner and I will use it daily and carry it with me everywhere, unless I need the speed of the D2H, the whatever of whatever the D2x will have, or I need to impress a client with a more expensive camera.

[email protected]

http://dpmac.com

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100
before I consider the switch.
2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all
plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo
plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However
the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is
critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior
skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location
shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

--
George Mann

http://dpmac.com

 

[buenavista]

Nick,

When I said "expendable" I didn't refer to my future camera becoming obsolete in two years or so. I have no problem with that, and a 6 Mp SLR like D100 or D70 would be perfect match for my needs and for the rest of my days. Instead, I have a problem with the mechanical ruggedness of contemporary consumer SLRs. To be more explicit, I would hate to throw away a camera because of shutter-mirror defects or misalignments occurring after a mere two years of use.

Cheaper D70 signals more plastic, God-knows-what-other-compromises, etc. and hence shorter term quality. This is why I would still choose D100…

George

 

[M Lammerse]

I agree,

Frame is important. But if it is strong enough (I gues it will be than for me it's no problem when it's made completely out of plastic.
I'm more interested how the picture quality will be.
I'm almost sure ;-) that it at least will match that of the D100 quality

So I wait till Phill may say more about the picture quality and show some shots.

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100
before I consider the switch.
2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all
plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo
plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However
the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is
critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior
skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location
shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

 

[todd_rossnagel]

Ken -

True, we haven't seen any pics yet, but honestly - I can't imagine Nikon putting out an inferior product. Doesn't stand to much reason...

Good point about the frame issue. Hey, plastic makes the world go round though, right? Sometimes a lighter camera is a good thing...I know my N90s can get a little weighty around my neck at times. I remember upgrading from the N70 and missing its "lightness", BUT if we are going to sacrifice quality because of plastic, I'll take the extra weight any day...

I am really torn here...maybe I'll just hit the lottery and be able to afford both!

Thanks for the post...

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100
before I consider the switch.
2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all
plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo
plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However
the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is
critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior
skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location
shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

 

[todd_rossnagel]

Hey George!

Can you post some pics from the D70???

But I use all of them and I like the D70 (yes I spent some time
with one today). As a take it everywhere camera it will do really
nicely. Comparing it side by side with the Canon 300D it feels more
substantial. Comparing it side by side with the D2H it feels very
flimsy (but I still like it, especially with lighter weight lenses).

For me it is the camera that replaces the CP5700 as a constant
companion.

It does not replace the D2H or D1(2)X for professional work.

Sorry to have to say this but I was never that much of a fan of the
D100, for a second (or third) camera I want something that people
don't notice (not something just as big but cheaper than the top of
the line cameras).

But the D70 is a real winner and I will use it daily and carry it
with me everywhere, unless I need the speed of the D2H, the
whatever of whatever the D2x will have, or I need to impress a
client with a more expensive camera.

[email protected]

http://dpmac.com

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100
before I consider the switch.
2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all
plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo
plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However
the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is
critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior
skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location
shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

--
George Mann

http://dpmac.com

 

[georgemann]

Sorry this was a pre-production camera, I'm really not even supposed to talk about it. In two weeks I will get my hands on a production model.

Untill then I have to console myself by playing with the D2H.

I will post some D2H pictures tomorrow.

George

http://dpmac.com

Can you post some pics from the D70???

But I use all of them and I like the D70 (yes I spent some time
with one today). As a take it everywhere camera it will do really
nicely. Comparing it side by side with the Canon 300D it feels more
substantial. Comparing it side by side with the D2H it feels very
flimsy (but I still like it, especially with lighter weight lenses).

For me it is the camera that replaces the CP5700 as a constant
companion.

It does not replace the D2H or D1(2)X for professional work.

Sorry to have to say this but I was never that much of a fan of the
D100, for a second (or third) camera I want something that people
don't notice (not something just as big but cheaper than the top of
the line cameras).

But the D70 is a real winner and I will use it daily and carry it
with me everywhere, unless I need the speed of the D2H, the
whatever of whatever the D2x will have, or I need to impress a
client with a more expensive camera.

[email protected]

http://dpmac.com

1. We haven't seen any pix yet. It must match or exceed the D-100
before I consider the switch.
2. The D-100 has a metal frame. I'd like to hear more about the all
plastic construction of the D70. I get a pain when people popo
plastic because it is actually an advantage in some areas. However
the aliegnment of the lens mount to the focal plane (CCD) is
critical to longterm photographic quality. Seems a metal interior
skeleton is needed if you plan on any outdoors or on location
shooting.

Allright guys and gals...here we go again...sorry to start this
thread AGAIN, but some of you have had a chance to ponder this one
for a few weeks now...

I am debating whether to buy a D100 now or wait for the D70. There
doesn't seem to be much difference spec-wise in the two, but surely
Nikon has a reason, right? Does anyone know if they plan to come
out with an advanced D100? Price is a consideration, after all,
who wouldn't want to save nearly $600.

Begin debating now...

Thanks!

--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro

--
George Mann

http://dpmac.com

--
George Mann

http://dpmac.com