jon Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 They finally announced it. From what I've read it looks better overall then the D100. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 How much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 MSRP $999. This blows the digital rebel out of the water. The digital rebel is crap when you realize how much stuff they stripped out. Nikon was smart, they left all the features on and there is no sensible reason to choose the digital rebel over this. Among all of it's other benifits, it also looks quality, which the digital rebel doesn't. As for being better than the D100, I bet this is the foreshadowing to a D100 replacement. They aren't goint to leave the two cameras that close in features, it would be a bad marketing choice. They will most likely upgrade the D100 with the new features and add some new stuff. Remember, after all, that the D100 is still a much nicer body than the D70. It's also a full metal body where as the D70 is going to be a much cheaper (plastic?) body. The features don't outweight the benifits of a better body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 ...there is no sensible reason to choose the digital rebel over this.... I've got one VERY sensible reason to choose the Rebel...I've got about $2000 in Canon EOS glass already. I'm staying with film for now though, because in 3 years a full frame 11mp SLR will be about $500. And besides, I can get 7 fps on film with what I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted February 1, 2004 Author Share Posted February 1, 2004 JoshK all metal body = heavier. I have an N80 and it has all the features I'd want from the N100, depth of field preview, gridlines, plus a built-in flash, and is much lighter. The N80 became Galen Rowell's camera of choice for these reasons. Nikon is selling the D70 camera with their new DX lens which will be over $500 regular but only $300 more if you get the body. Now who wants to give me $1300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONCHO&LEFTY Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 because in 3 years a full frame 11mp SLR will be about $500. And besides, I can get 7 fps on film with what I have. MAYBE, the D30 is still $500 used, and the 1DS is still 8grr I wonder how much more the metal frame weighs over the plastic? I doubt that the durabiltity of metal means that much. I know it feels alot better though. That new Nikkon looks good compared to the Drebel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 JoshK all metal body = heavier. I have an N80 and it has all the features I'd want from the N100, depth of field preview, gridlines, plus a built-in flash, and is much lighter. The N80 became Galen Rowell's camera of choice for these reasons. Nikon is selling the D70 camera with their new DX lens which will be over $500 regular but only $300 more if you get the body. Now who wants to give me $1300. Yeah, the D100 is the same body as the N80, right? Anyway, yes, the D70 and other plastic bodies are lighter, but the D100 body is a better camera, period. I really want to see the new version of the D100. I imagine they'll have to add several new things to seperate it from the D70. End of story, tho, the D70 is a sweet ass camera for that price. It's gonna sell *really* well. And, Will, yes, you make a good point, but if you have $2000 in canon glass you'll want to pay the extra money for the D10. My friend has the digital rebel. It's crap...period. It's a very low end SLR. I gotta imagine Canon is going to have to come out with something better to compete with the D70. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 If you dont know how to take a great photo and are not subjecting yourself to such then you are only limiting yourself. You can buy the best camera available and still have only 5-50 shots a year anybody might look at as awesome at best. A good ratio to taking awesome shots for me is about 10 a year. I have digital and slide capable cameras. I prefer digital convenience but to compare a digtial image of truly lesser quality than a superior slide or such is comical. You can quote whomever you want. Digital has not yet caught up with film an users of the film on some scales. Even if they do next year doesnt mean I am going to go out and buy an 8-12000 camera that still has limitations still so. It's like apples and oranges at this point. I could waste my time and argue but the truth is both formats - digital and film have their pros and cons. I'll use both and enjoy. note: to compare a scanned slide to a digital image is comparing something that has been diluted with a bad filter to something filterless..... Argue technology if you are a techno is fine. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 (edited) One of my shitty shots that I might look to emulate on a piece of photo paper that just doesnt work for me sometimes... Edited February 1, 2004 by Cpt.Caveman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Timely post! I'm mulling a digital camera purchase this year and I'm on the fence about it. My old Canon takes great slides, but digital is so damn convenient. I've been looking at the digital Rebel, too. the Nikon looks nicer. Useful info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 The effective resolution of a single slide is equal to a digital image of approximately 40 megapixels. The 40 megapixel camera is probably 5 or 6 yrs away (moores Law) considering the max out there right now is about 8 Mpix I believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 The effective resolution of a single slide is equal to a digital image of approximately 40 megapixels. The 40 megapixel camera is probably 5 or 6 yrs away (moores Law) considering the max out there right now is about 8 Mpix I believe? True, but the quality of the photo doesn't matter if you didn't take it. I take many, many more shots now that I've got digital, so I'm more likely to get more good shots. Plus it's cheaper, more convenient, and overall, better. I have no need for film. Then again, I'm not going to be giving slideshows or anything, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I like my digital for taking quick pics but for anything "archival" I use my slide cam and I'm not gonna shell out for a really good digital until digi quality equals or exceeds slide quality. Just my own personal opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Another nice thing about slides is that the color doesn't fade with time if stored properly. Slides are awesome, if inconvenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Another nice thing about slides is that the color doesn't fade with time if stored properly. Slides are awesome, if inconvenient. Are you saying that digital pictures have color fade over time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Ummm yeah, I guess that's what I was saying. Wow. I really meant, uh, actual, um, photographs. I need to stop eating expired Lucky Charms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I can't wait when the press gets their hands on the D70 and do a full comparo with the 300D. On paper, it sounds loads better than the 300D. Built from scratch > stripped down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunglehead Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 That'll be interesting to see. I had some blowhard in one of the local camera shops spewing some shizzy about how Nikon "has really gone downhill". He was spraying about their optics being shitty. Whatever. I don't know if it's true or not, but I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 considering the max out there right now is about 8 Mpix I believe? Canon 1Ds has a 11MP CMOS capture. Kodak DCS 14N has 14MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONCHO&LEFTY Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Not to get into a digital v film debate, because it is old and tired, but.. These arguments for film compared to digital I am assuming are based on comparison with point and shoot dcams. A newer dslr is a different story. I used to carry my film camera with slide film along with my Canon 10D. Well I gave my camera away because their is no comparison in my opinion. I bought a digital camera because I got sick of spending too much money on film and proccesing, but even if I had a photo lab in my basement I wouldn't switch back. Don't get hung up in megapixels, it is pointless. Check out these links for another opinion. pixelcounting yes some even go so far to compare mf with digital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gslater Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 I can't wait when the press gets their hands on the D70 and do a full comparo with the 300D. On paper, it sounds loads better than the 300D. Built from scratch > stripped down. Me too. For Nikon's sake (and the sake of competition keeping everyone on their toes) I hope the D70 doesn't fall flat on its face like the Sony 828 has regarding image quality. The D. Rebel may be "stripped down" from the 10D, but it still takes some damn nice images. For the record, I'm a Dig. Rebel owner since December. Haven't really had much of a chance to use it yet in my typical environments, so I can't offer up too much in the way of an opinion. Have mainly just done the holiday season interior candids thing. Have taken a few shots at the Oregon coast that came out really nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020303nikond70handson.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr666 Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 With as fast as digital technology is moving, are cameras going to be like computers where you have to buy new ones every 3 years? I still use a film camera that is 10 years old, and it still takes great pictures, and more or less compares with cameras of similar price today... I am thinking of purchasing a digital, I would like a SLR, such as the Rebel or D70, and a small point/shoot for casual shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONCHO&LEFTY Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 A digital camera that takes good pictures today will still take good pictures when a better model comes out. But there is no question that a digital camera purchase is alot more temporary than a film camera. If you want to stay current it seems you have to be ready to sell your old digital camera, take a few hundred dollar loss (although I wouldn't consider it a loss) and update. You could wait forever for the next great thing to come out, and there always will be now, but think of all the great pictures your missing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONCHO&LEFTY Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 No not Lee Mann! LINK -NOOOOOO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.