I am a new comer, want to choose the right camera for my use.

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus faster than D70.

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Though I can afford D2H , if there is not much different in performance, I will choode the D70.

Please help me to choose.

ManWai

I have the D70 and it's a great camera but if I had the capital I would have bought the D2H. If you have the capital buy the one you really want as you don't want to always ask yourself "Did I buy the right one"

Read some threads on the D100/D2H about the camera and I'm sure that you will hear how in love poeple are with their D2H's.

Good luck

George

ManWai Wong said:

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus
faster than D70.

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a
lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Though I can afford D2H , if there is not much different in
performance, I will choode the D70.

Please help me to choose.

ManWai

Click to expand...

... that you need to spend $$$ on good lenses too, not just the body, in case you did not know that already.

So far, I've spent more on 3 lenses (and they are not the very best lenses) than on my D70. If you get a D2H for shooting birds, I can only imagine you'll also want to spend the $$$ on something like a 80-400VR or the really big $$$ on the 200-400VR. It would be odd to put a cheap $200-300 70-300 telezoom on a $3.5K body.

Also, you should know that the D2H is huge compared to the D70. But yes, I too would love to have a D2H based on what I understand of its capabilities although I'm not too sure I'd want to lug it around all that often -- I have my D70 w/ me almost everywhere I go. If $$$ is not an issue, I'd actually want both.

Man

GeorgeF said:

Read some threads on the D100/D2H about the camera and I'm sure
that you will hear how in love poeple are with their D2H's.

Good luck

George

ManWai Wong said:

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus
faster than D70.

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a
lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Though I can afford D2H , if there is not much different in
performance, I will choode the D70.

Please help me to choose.

ManWai

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

if I read it correctly, the original questions asked if the D2H was better than the D70's performance in proportion to the increased cost of the camera... is the D2H THAT much better?

This is an interesting question and I'd like to know the same thing!

Kelton

Maybe you haven't heard the saying enough: "It's the photog that makes the photo, not the camera."

If you want to know how much better, I suggest posting in the other Nikon SLR forum because the extreme traffic volume over here might make it hard for any experienced users (w/ both D2H and D70) to find this post and offer good advice.

And remember, you're also only getting people's opinions on the matter, not some thorough scientific findings. If you're really serious about it, you should go check the cameras out in a reputable store for yourself. I'm sure the salesfolk won't mind, if you're a serious, potential D2H buyer.

Of course, why not also read Phil Askey's reviews on the two cameras, if you haven't already? If his reviews doesn't give you enough clues as a good starting point, then there's some likelihood that the D2H is too much camera for you anyway.

Man

kelton said:

if I read it correctly, the original questions asked if the D2H was
better than the D70's performance in proportion to the increased
cost of the camera... is the D2H THAT much better?

This is an interesting question and I'd like to know the same thing!

Kelton

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

For a minute I thought, whats up with Man-Foi with a subject like "newcomer" etc?
--
http://www.anands.net/photos

ManWai

There is no doubt that the D2H is in another league than the D70, but:

• 1 IMO the lenses will make a bigger difference in pics quality.
• 2 Your lenses investment will stay, digital bodies come and go, and the next one will perform much better (because of improvements in electronics) and be much less expensive (the price war between Nikon and Canon has barely started)

-3 At this point if I were to get that type of body I would wait for the D2H successor, to be announced a little before the next Photokina (in September).

Good luck with your choice !

Thierry

ManWai Wong said:

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus
faster than D70.

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a
lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Though I can afford D2H , if there is not much different in
performance, I will choode the D70.

Please help me to choose.

ManWai

Click to expand...

Its my understanding that while the body helps with focus speed, the lens used has a greater impact. Given the difference in price and the D70's extreme popularity (at the present moment), I would purchase a killer lens or two and the D70. If after using the D70 you feel its too slow, borrow a D2H and if its that much better (for your use), sell your D70 or keep the D70 as a back-up. In the grand scheme of things (2 VR lens, etc.) the price of the D70's body isnt that much.
--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

I was going to say something about that myself, but you probably said it better than I would've. ;-)

Now, I wonder if I will be confused about which posts are actually mine. Actually, I'm surprised I don't see this more often given all the various forums I've frequented over the years. ;-)

Man

Anand Sankaran said:

For a minute I thought, whats up with Man-Foi with a subject like
"newcomer" etc?
--
http://www.anands.net/photos

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

Much of the diff between these 2 will probably take some experience to flesh out anyway unless one is a serious SLR veteran.

I haven't looked too carefully myself (since it was not a consideration), but I'm pretty sure it's more than just AF speed. Basically, the D2H should be better in almost every aspect of camera design, except the lower MP count though not necessarily diff in true image quality. The D2H has more powerful AF motor (which is good for non-AFS lenses), more AF points, better AF sensors, better placement of AF points, better AF tracking, built-in vertical grip, more robust build and design, etc. etc. But it is a lot bigger too, which may not be so desirable for most people.

I think most of those AF improvements over the D70 are most significant for tracking moving subjects and still have good composition w/out needing much cropping, so one would have to decide how crucial that is. If you don't mind cropping more and/or accept lesser composition, then it probably becomes a bit less of an issue.

And as pointed out, one can get the D70 + some nice lenses for the price of the D2H alone. And then, there will always be a better body to come along and very likely cheaper also.

So yeah, probably just go w/ the D70 + some nice lenses first before considering the D2H. That's what I would do. With the savings, maybe get the 80-400VR for shooting wildlife in addition to whatever.

Man

Newcomb said:

Its my understanding that while the body helps with focus speed,
the lens used has a greater impact. Given the difference in price
and the D70's extreme popularity (at the present moment), I would
purchase a killer lens or two and the D70. If after using the D70
you feel its too slow, borrow a D2H and if its that much better
(for your use), sell your D70 or keep the D70 as a back-up. In the
grand scheme of things (2 VR lens, etc.) the price of the D70's
body isnt that much.
--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

ManWai Wong said:

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

Click to expand...

Sure it is.

ManWai Wong said:

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus
faster than D70.

Click to expand...

Probably so, but the d70 is plenty fast enough.

ManWai Wong said:

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a
lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Click to expand...

As people have already responded, good glass will make a bigger difference than the camera body. But even bigger gains would be made by learning the behaviors of the birds. As an example, if you know where they eat and roost, you can get close enough to photograph them with a relatively short lens, and get better results to shooting them with a long lens from afar.

In other words, you can spend a huge amount of money on equipment and still get bad shots if you don't know your prey or how to get the most out of the equipment. You can't buy a good game.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Coolpix Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix
D-Seventy Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/d70

I'm no bird shooter -- haven't even tried more than a little -- but I have to agree 100%. Know your subject and learn how to use the equipment, and that will likely be a whole order of magnitude better than getting a D2H. And you'll probably enjoy the challenge of it all too.

Man

Uncle Frank said:

Uncle Frank said:

Just wonder if D70 is good to take photo of wildlife such as birds ?

Click to expand...

Sure it is.

Uncle Frank said:

I was told that D2H is better for birds as it respond and focus
faster than D70.

Click to expand...

Probably so, but the d70 is plenty fast enough.

Uncle Frank said:

Paying a lot more money for D2H, is it just marginal better or a
lot better than D70. Is the extra money well spend?

Click to expand...

As people have already responded, good glass will make a bigger
difference than the camera body. But even bigger gains would be
made by learning the behaviors of the birds. As an example, if you
know where they eat and roost, you can get close enough to
photograph them with a relatively short lens, and get better
results to shooting them with a long lens from afar.

In other words, you can spend a huge amount of money on equipment
and still get bad shots if you don't know your prey or how to get
the most out of the equipment. You can't buy a good game.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Coolpix Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix
D-Seventy Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/d70

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

He had a D70 + 70-200 VR and he moved to a D2H + 300 f/2.8 combo.

Any way, digressing a bit, the 80-400 VR just does not seem to be the same "class" as the 70-200 VR + TCs. Call me mad , I see much better photos with the 70-200 VR + TC combo.

anand
--
http://www.anands.net/photos

In conclusion, I only gain slightly faster auto focus from D2H, but nothing else. Optic quality depends on lens, and D2H does not improve the photo quality. Whlie looking at your information, I have also searched a lot of review and articles. And find out that D2H has only 4 Mega pixel, while D70 has higher Mega pi. ! ? Sounded impossible !

I have almost decided to buy D70, as D2H is far too expensive for just a little improvement on auto focus.

Just one final question to ask before I buy it.

Just wonder is there any catch?

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.
D70 must has some bad points.
Nothing is cheaper and better (or as good as).

Can you please tell me some bad things about D70 ?

If there is no catch, who will buy D2H ?

Wai

I have a d70 for my own personal use - snap shots, cats and family and memories. It is light and easy for me to carry round.

I buy d2h for my photographers at work. It is sturdy, better built, weather proof and built as a work horse. This is just the start - there are many other differences. It depends on what you will be using the camera for and there are many here with more experience than I to offer you advice.

(Mind you I would buy the d70 and the better glass!)

Nuala

ManWai Wong said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

D70 must has some bad points. Nothing is cheaper and better (or as good as)... If there is no catch, who will buy D2H ?

Click to expand...

The d2h was designed to satisfy the needs of professional photo-journalists, Wai. It has very fast focus (a little better than the d70), and a very high continuous burst rate of 8 pictures per second versus 3 pictures per second for the d70. 4MP is more than enough pixels for photo-journalistic work, and keeps the camera fast. It's also built of very strong metal vs. high quality plastic for the d70, because professionals expect their cameras to take a lot of abuse.

Pretty soon, Nikon is expected to come out with a d2x, which will be a general purpose professional camera with 6 or 8 megapixels. It will have a heavy duty metal body, and sell for a price similar to the d2h. But unless you're a pro, it won't give much advantage over the d70 either.

ManWai Wong said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is too good to believe, and that's why retailers can't keep in on their shelves. Imo, it really doesn't have any major problems.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Coolpix Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix
D-Seventy Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/d70

Uncle Frank said:

Uncle Frank said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

D70 must has some bad points. Nothing is cheaper and better (or as good as)... If there is no catch, who will buy D2H ?

Click to expand...

The d2h was designed to satisfy the needs of professional
photo-journalists, Wai. It has very fast focus (a little better
than the d70), and a very high continuous burst rate of 8 pictures
per second versus 3 pictures per second for the d70. 4MP is more
than enough pixels for photo-journalistic work, and keeps the
camera fast. It's also built of very strong metal vs. high quality
plastic for the d70, because professionals expect their cameras to
take a lot of abuse.

Pretty soon, Nikon is expected to come out with a d2x, which will
be a general purpose professional camera with 6 or 8 megapixels.
It will have a heavy duty metal body, and sell for a price similar
to the d2h. But unless you're a pro, it won't give much advantage
over the d70 either.

Uncle Frank said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is too good to believe, and that's why retailers can't
keep in on their shelves. Imo, it really doesn't have any major
problems.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Coolpix Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix
D-Seventy Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/d70

Click to expand...

Just decide by cheking all the galleries posted here and links.

If money is no object I think the d70 with a 30k lens. you can sell the d70 if you do not like it, probably for more than you buy it for. Like frank said there would'nt be much advantage. I think the d2h shoots 8frames a sec at 2.3mpls.

... the diffs are pretty much all in the handling. If that's not so crucial to you (like it is for a pro PJ), then the D70 is plenty good enough. I wouldn't boil it down to merely a little faster AF and faster continuous burst though. I have never handled the D2H myself, but I can definitely see how it can vastly improve over the D70 in terms of handling for pro PJ work. As I said before, the whole AF config of the D2H seems better, not just the speed. I'd imagine it performs far better than the D70 in low light situations and perhaps especially if you use lesser lenses than the top Nikkor's. Of course, one would hope that you don't only stick w/ cheap glass for such an expensive body.

Oh, one thing not mentioned is that the D70 doesn't have MLU. I'm pretty sure the D2H has it. But again, these are extra things that may or may not matter to the average user.

We can all agree that the D70 is plenty good enough for most of us, but let's not go so far as to say that the D70 is just as good. There are certainly a few things I would like to have that the D70 does not offer, but of course, I also wouldn't want to pay so much for those things.

Man

wantabe said:

Uncle Frank said:

wantabe said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

D70 must has some bad points. Nothing is cheaper and better (or as good as)... If there is no catch, who will buy D2H ?

Click to expand...

The d2h was designed to satisfy the needs of professional
photo-journalists, Wai. It has very fast focus (a little better
than the d70), and a very high continuous burst rate of 8 pictures
per second versus 3 pictures per second for the d70. 4MP is more
than enough pixels for photo-journalistic work, and keeps the
camera fast. It's also built of very strong metal vs. high quality
plastic for the d70, because professionals expect their cameras to
take a lot of abuse.

Pretty soon, Nikon is expected to come out with a d2x, which will
be a general purpose professional camera with 6 or 8 megapixels.
It will have a heavy duty metal body, and sell for a price similar
to the d2h. But unless you're a pro, it won't give much advantage
over the d70 either.

wantabe said:

As it is just not logical to me. Something looked too good to believe.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is too good to believe, and that's why retailers can't
keep in on their shelves. Imo, it really doesn't have any major
problems.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank,
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Coolpix Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix
D-Seventy Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/d70

Click to expand...

Just decide by cheking all the galleries posted here and links.
If money is no object I think the d70 with a 30k lens. you can sell
the d70 if you do not like it, probably for more than you buy it
for. Like frank said there would'nt be much advantage. I think the
d2h shoots 8frames a sec at 2.3mpls.

Click to expand...

--
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
Motto for the season: 'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

For $999 you get a well built, very fast handling body. I find the ergonomics excellent.

Buy the D70 and get a couple of great lens and have fun. As your budget permits, sell the D70 at a few hundred dollar loss and get the D2H if you need the faster AF. (I do not know if the D70 will be able to "Track" your birds fast enough, only you can determine that.)

IMHO, the D70 out performs the D100 and 10D as far as ease of use and speed. it could of sold for $1,500 except for the fact the DRebel had forced Nikon to come in with a sub $1000 camera.

Don't let the price fool you, the D70 is an excellent tool. Having owned a D30 and a D60 with expensive Canon glass, I am very pleased with the D70. I have no desire to upgrade for the time being.-
Jeff Morris

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

D70 seem to be the winner. Have decided to buy it.

Nobody got it in stock !. My local shop have promised to keep one for me when he can get any . He said that it would take about a month !

Well, nothing I can do, just wait with patience.

Wai