Will I perceive a noticeable difference?

Digital equipment progresses at an incredibly rapid rate. Just replaced for travel a D5100 with a D5200, and can see a noticable difference (improvement) over an already great sensor. Replaced a D3 with a D800E for the resolution, needless to say a noticable difference there too although the D3/700 was/is also great sensor.

In terms of technology, the D70 is, if not in the dark ages, certainly the middle ages - but it was a wonderful workhorse for a non pro body.

You'll see a huge difference with either of the camera's you mentioned - because sensors/meters really have improved that much...

Good luck!

I can absolutely identify with your perspective.....I also 'grew up' with film SLRs. Up to a few months ago I had not even used a DSLR, mostly 'enthusiast compacts.' I had no experience with post processing other than red eye and cropping.

Wanting more reach as well as speed, I purchased a D7000. Truly an amazing camera, but that is only half the story, when a friend coaxed me into trying Photoshop and Lightroom. It adds a whole new dimension to improving photographs.

If you desire to have the ability to create stunning photographs, it is easy to get started.... a little daunting at first, but like anything worthwhile, the amount of energy invested usually pays back dividends.

Have fun : )

Upgrading from a D70 to anything else is a no going back experience, unless you just want to prove a point. The thing to realise is that any digital camera does something very well - the D70 did everything very well in its day as it had no real competition, but pretty soon it started to lag. So it still does good photos, and at its best it sings, but when it struggles you'd be better off rubbing two sticks together.

The 70 was a compromise for me as I couldn't justify the extra expense of the canon 20d which had a far superior viewfinder. And whilst its lcd was no doubt state of the art at the time, it isn't any more. My upgrade to a D300 surprised me, not in image quality (which I expected, and was a giant leap in low light and dr) but the viewfinder and lcd, plus all those lovely focus points. It became practical to use on a tripod, I could check focus, dof, colour histogram - a totally different way of working. And the 300 now lags behind any current nikon on all the image quality issues. You'll wonder how you ever managed with a 70.

Raw v jpg - its a personal thing. Some folk delight in setting their camera for every shot, I don't. Get the exposure triangle near enough then process to taste, or lack of. If its worth taking, its worth processing. I do take shots which have very little pp, but I shoot 14bit raw and for landscape work I generally process well beyond the limits of an 8bit jpg. This makes it right for me, but doesn't mean its right for the next person. But take away photoshop, and you can take my cameras with hit.

I would always, and only, shoot raw. If you want simple, easy - download the free Nikon ViewNX2 and use to easily process and convert your files (if/when needed).

All you have to do is switch back and forth in ViewNX2 between the jpeg and raw vesions and you'll get an idea of what you've been leaving on the table - 8 bit v. 14 bit really is significant. And perhaps most importantly, you get the fail safe to make major exposure mods when you or your camera's meter drop the ball.

When I first went into digital, I tested extensively between editors and converters. I've always stayed with Nikon s/w since because I got better results, and figured that nobody knows nef images like Nikon. People criticize the workflow, but not the product. And with all due respect to Nikon, the old Capture software really was the workflow software of choice - the newer stuff really does have much more creative flexibility though.

And perhaps more significant was that I could always - and I mean always get better jpegs - when I shot in raw and let Nikon software make the conversion on my computer, rather than letting the limited firmware on the camera do it. Even if I made no mods and needed jpegs, it was a one quick batch process for them all - and in your case viewing on screen, you may not often even need to convert. Significantly, Nikon software gets updated more frequently/currently than the camera firmware.

By shooting raw you also preserve the option to in the future and go back and reprocess with then more sophisticated software - getting better results as the processors get better (which they do/have). With jpeg the settings are 'baked in' forever.

Good luck - shoot raw!

Thanks for the excellent replies. New camera, sold.

And I promise to give RAW more of a try...

Now to decide, D5200 or D7100... I think it's a matter of budget more than anything.

> though in recent years, the kids have tended to dominate subject matter.

You'll definitely appreciate the AF system of the D7100 then.

I came from Film too and i like the minimum PP.

But in my D70 the difference in IQ between NEF and straight OOC JPEGs was huge. the gap in D7000 is smaller but noticeable yet and in Fuji S5 pro the diff. is next to nothing.

My workflow with D70 was:

Batch in View NX the bunch of pictures you like to convert from NEF to JPEG and let the computer to do the dirty work and go for a walk.

After that i did final touch in PS.

The Work did not fix WB issues or something related to a single picture, just converted to get the most out of it.

The Nikon D5000 has also a good JPEG engine on Board, D40 too (i have used them from relatives).

Hope this give a second air to your old and great Camera.

BTW the Best Lens for my D70 was a Tamron 90 macro Di II F2.8

J.

This is a very interesting topic - I'm now talking about PP.

I have to ask a question to those coming from film SLRs who don't PP in the digital era:

- Were you processing your own film?

If yes, then I suppose you were doing it to have control over it.

If no, then it means you gave away half - if not more - of the control over to someone else

It's the same thing with digital photography. When you don't spend time PP-ing your photos, it's like you hand over control to the engineers which made your camera. And indeed, just like the film labs of the past, cameras do an excellent job at producing accurate colors and tones of a scene.

The thing is, do you want this, or do you want art?

If you just want snapshots (I don't assign the usually derogatory meaning here; I simply imply memories of certain scenes/occasions), then this is more than fine. But if you want to create mood, emotions, art, then I couldn't imagine photography without photo editing..

Some related reading:

http://www.amateurnikon.com/2013/01/photoshop-is-cheating-oh-really.html


I of course respect everybody's approach - if it works for you, super! But I'm saying, that there's so much more to photography than the camera. In other words, the job doesn't end when you press the shutter button...