Looking to upgrade my D70...

[SAT887]

So the last time I upgraded my camera was in 2003... When I went from my N70 to a D70... I love my Nikons, however I think it is time for me to upgrade. I need help for a few reasons, for quite a few years photography got put on the back burner... Waaaay to the back as a hobby, I bought a house, moved somewhere that lacks inspiration for me, had a demanding job, then had kids, and throw in some emotional baggage and I certainly didn't have time to go out and shoot.

So, kids are a little older, I am part time and I am thinking it's time to have a hobby again. I have not picked up my D70 as much in the past few years and have relied on my iPhone, coolpix P500 and a cheap coolpix I got for like $75... I have become weary of the quality, type of shot and lack of control. I miss taking and composing pictures.

So, I've picked up my DSLR again (and it was missed) and began shooting. However, I feel that newer DSLRs shoot a better quality photo (I can see it on my friends D90 set to auto...) So here I am wanting to upgrade my camera. I've fallen in love with the D600 however while I could budget the body, it would be awhile before I could incorporate the FX glass in - so I am thinking at this time that is too big of an upgrade. I prefer to upgrade and be able to take full advantage on my existing lenses.

So along with the D70 I have 35mm DX, 18-70mm DX (kit lens), 55-200mm DX, 15mm Fisheye(Sigma), 10-20mm Wide Angle (Sigma) and an older 105mm AF Micro (I can manually switch it from Auto focus to Manual) I also have a SB-600 speedlight.... I know it's very easy for the lenses to be compatible, but again I want to take full advantage of functionality....

Ok I'm done going on and on - just looking for some feedback. I've just looked at too many models, from D90, to 5100, 7000's... 300's, 600's and 800's.... Thank you!!

 

[havoc315]

Every current model will be a major upgrade, in almost every way. The only issue I'm aware of for the Nikons, is the auto focus motor. The lower level Nikons don't have internal AF motors, so you need lenses with internal motors. So if your lenses don't have internal motors, it may be worth looking at the D7000, which I believe has an in-body AF motor just like the d70.
Full frame cameras are certainly nice, but they have some disadvantages along with the triple price tag. (DoF can get too narrow, you lose the telephoto reach compared to using the same lens on a crop body).

 

[photo_chick]

I'm a Canon shooter so I can't answer from a Nikon shooter's point of view. But my father in law just went from a Nikon D50 to D5100 and is very happy with his new camera. It was a huge jump in ISO performance from the D50.

The AF motor issue is something I'd consider when looking. Here's a chart from Nikonians.org that gives you the run down on the lenses and what functionality you have with which body..

http://resources.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

 

[SAT887]

Every current model will be a major upgrade, in almost every way. The only issue I'm aware of for the Nikons, is the auto focus motor. The lower level Nikons don't have internal AF motors, so you need lenses with internal motors. So if your lenses don't have internal motors, it may be worth looking at the D7000, which I believe has an in-body AF motor just like the d70.
Full frame cameras are certainly nice, but they have some disadvantages along with the triple price tag. (DoF can get too narrow, you lose the telephoto reach compared to using the same lens on a crop body).

This is great info thank you!

I'm a Canon shooter so I can't answer from a Nikon shooter's point of view. But my father in law just went from a Nikon D50 to D5100 and is very happy with his new camera. It was a huge jump in ISO performance from the D50.

The AF motor issue is something I'd consider when looking. Here's a chart from Nikonians.org that gives you the run down on the lenses and what functionality you have with which body..

http://resources.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

I briefly looked at the chart- this will be very helpful in narrowing down what will be compatible and function properly.

Thanks to the both of you! There is so much info out there sometimes it's hard to find the useful stuff.

 

[Pixel Dust]

I actually started with the N80 then D70s. I bought the D7000 a couple years ago and believe that would be the modern transition from the D70. The D5100 and below does not have an auto focus motor so it won't work with your older 105mm. Handling wise, the D7000 has front and rear control dials, just like the D70. Where the D5100 and below only has a read control dial.

I borrowed my friends D5100 for a Disney trip when I needed something that took better quality than my D70. I was disappointed and felt restricted. When I needed to change settings, it seemed like I was fumbling around with the menu or discovering it didn't have a feature the D70 had on it years before. After that I went to the store to try the D7000. That was a much easier transition from the D70. It truly felt like an upgrade, so I bought it.

Now, I am not trying to bash the D5100 (D5200 now). The D5100 is a very capable camera. It seems the D7000 and D5100 were designed for two completely different types of photographers. With my personal shooting preferences, I just did not fit into the mold for the D5100.

This is just my personal experience. So, your mileage my vary.


Currently I have the D600 (which I just used on my last trip and photos are in our latest trip report in my sig). I had a couple FX lenses I can still use from my N80 days. Having used the D7000 heavily, the D600 is pretty much a tweaked D7000 with an FX sensor. An amazing FX sensor. Great for dark rides. There were some deals out there for the D600 and a 24-85mm all for $2000. I don't know if the sales are still on.

 

[photo_chick]

Now, I am not trying to bash the D5100 (D5200 now). The D5100 is a very capable camera. It seems the D7000 and D5100 were designed for two completely different types of photographers. With my personal shooting preferences, I just did not fit into the mold for the D5100.

That's because they are. The first entry level DSLR's were designed for enthusiasts who knew a little about using an SLR. But then Canon and Nikon both released their stripped down entry level models (Rebel XS and D40) that were the DSLR's anyone could use with the emphasis being put on auto modes and point and shoot type bells and whistles.

 

[SplashMo]

Currently for the APS-C Nikons the D7000 sits at the top. The D5100 sits right below it. WIth the D5100 being $550.00 with lens it is hard to go wrong. The D7000 can be had for under $1000.

 

[YesDear]

I have shot Nikon's for 40 yrs now. Boy I feel old. My first DSLR was a D70. I now have owned or own a D200, D300, D700, D800 and D4. If you do not want to make the move to full frame then the next question I would ask is do you have any interest in video. If yes then I would look at a used D300s or a D7000. The 300s is a very full featured and rugged camera that would be an amazing upgrade from where you are. The D7000 is very similar in specs but was physically designed more for a consumer camera. Not as rugged.

If you have no interest in video then I would also look at a used D300. It is still a great camera, far above the D70 and you can find them used in the 5-600 range. That would give you a chance to hone your skills again without breaking the bank and still be very far above where you are.

If you want to look at full frame the D600 is a great deal right now. I would not recommend the D800. It is a great camera but your practical skills have to be better because of the high MPs of the image.

I would also recommend that if you have a local camera store that may have used equipment go and play. The feel of a D7000 in your hand vs a D300 or D300s vs D5200 are very different. I think the old D90 was a great camera but it did not fit my hand. It felt like a toy to me.

Good luck and enjoy.

 

[SAT887]

More great feedback Thank you!

I have shot Nikon's for 40 yrs now. Boy I feel old. My first DSLR was a D70. I now have owned or own a D200, D300, D700, D800 and D4. If you do not want to make the move to full frame then the next question I would ask is do you have any interest in video. If yes then I would look at a used D300s or a D7000. The 300s is a very full featured and rugged camera that would be an amazing upgrade from where you are. The D7000 is very similar in specs but was physically designed more for a consumer camera. Not as rugged.

If you have no interest in video then I would also look at a used D300. It is still a great camera, far above the D70 and you can find them used in the 5-600 range. That would give you a chance to hone your skills again without breaking the bank and still be very far above where you are.

If you want to look at full frame the D600 is a great deal right now. I would not recommend the D800. It is a great camera but your practical skills have to be better because of the high MPs of the image.

I would also recommend that if you have a local camera store that may have used equipment go and play. The feel of a D7000 in your hand vs a D300 or D300s vs D5200 are very different. I think the old D90 was a great camera but it did not fit my hand. It felt like a toy to me.

Good luck and enjoy.

Yes I do need to hone my skills again! Unfortunately my local camera store is a Best Buy worried: and I don't like them-had a very very bad experience) So I am hoping to find one on my trip to NJ in a few weeks. I agree that the feel is so important too.

 

[fitzperry]

I'm also lusting after the D600 but can't justify the expense right now, although I have limited myself to buying FX glass the past couple of years in anticipation of switching to full frame .

I started out with a D70, moved to a D300, and am currently shooting with a D7000 and I'm quite happy with it. The high ISO performance will blow you away compared to the D70! It's one of the reasons I switched from the D300 (primarily that and the video capability, which I know many people don't care about, but it's a handy feature for me).

 

[SAT887]

I'm also lusting after the D600 but can't justify the expense right now, although I have limited myself to buying FX glass the past couple of years in anticipation of switching to full frame .

I started out with a D70, moved to a D300, and am currently shooting with a D7000 and I'm quite happy with it. The high ISO performance will blow you away compared to the D70! It's one of the reasons I switched from the D300 (primarily that and the video capability, which I know many people don't care about, but it's a handy feature for me).

Now do you have any issues with the FX glass on your D7000? I don't think logically to me there would be but my logic isn't exactly perfect...

 

[fitzperry]

Now do you have any issues with the FX glass on your D7000? I don't think logically to me there would be but my logic isn't exactly perfect...

Not at all. There are people here who can explain this much better than I (in fact, I think someone once posted a diagram that illustrates it), but I'll give it a shot: DX lenses are designed for the smaller DX sized sensor, so if you put one on an full frame body, it will have the narrower DX field of view (because the lens' field of view is smaller); in other words, you would not be taking advantage of the larger sensor. Conversely, when you put an FX lens on a DX body, you get the "cropped" field of view of the DX sensor and are not seeing everything that the lens would "see" if you put it on an FX body (this is the "crop factor" that you hear about). In that case, I guess you're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer. As I understand it, the performance of the lens is not affected in either case.

As someone else mentioned, the primary lens compatibility concern with Nikons is that some (all?) of the entry level Nikon DSLRs lack a focus motor, so lenses that don't have an internal motor won't autofocus on those models. That is not a problem with the D7000 though, as it has a focus motor. There are some metering issues with older lenses too. This chart is a useful tool: http://resources.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

Hope that helps!

 

[photo_chick]

Now do you have any issues with the FX glass on your D7000? I don't think logically to me there would be but my logic isn't exactly perfect...

Using full frame lenses on crop bodies has one small advantage actually. Since crop bodies only capture the center off the projected images you don't have the soft corner issues that you might with a full frame lens on a full frame body.

 

[fitzperry]

Using full frame lenses on crop bodies has one small advantage actually. Since crop bodies only capture the center off the projected images you don't have the soft corner issues that you might with a full frame lens on a full frame body.

Yup. The disadvantage, I suppose is that FX lenses are heavier and more expensive.

 

[photo_chick]

Not at all. There are people here who can explain this much better than I (in fact, I think someone once posted a diagram that illustrates it), but I'll give it a shot: DX lenses are designed for the smaller DX sized sensor, so if you put one on an full frame body, it will have the narrower DX field of view (because the lens' field of view is smaller); in other words, you would not be taking advantage of the larger sensor. Conversely, when you put an FX lens on a DX body, you get the "cropped" field of view of the DX sensor and are not seeing everything that the lens would "see" if you put it on an FX body (this is the "crop factor" that you hear about). In that case, I guess you're not taking advantage of everything the lens has to offer. As I understand it, the performance of the lens is not affected in either case.

As someone else mentioned, the primary lens compatibility concern with Nikons is that some (all?) of the entry level Nikon DSLRs lack a focus motor, so lenses that don't have an internal motor won't autofocus on those models. That is not a problem with the D7000 though, as it has a focus motor. There are some metering issues with older lenses too. This chart is a useful tool: http://resources.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

Hope that helps!

YOu must have posted when I was typing earlier. I'm a slow typer. LOL

I can't take credit for this image. I've had it forever and have no idea where I got it from.

Where crop and full frame lenses differ is in the projected image. An image enters the front element and comes to a point inside the lens where it's in focus... that's the focal point or node. That distance from the front element to the node is what makes the focal length. The image is then projected from the node to the recoding media... that's where crop and full frame lenses are different. Crop lenses are shorter in this area because they don't have to make the projection as large as a full frame lens would.

 

[SAT887]

Well it's good to know my logic wasn't flawed. I like the idea of picking up lenses and having a few to work with on a future upgrade! Now if I go to the city while in NJ might force a little side trip to B&H

 

[Gr8lander]

One big reason to consider D600, despite everything is the sensor. If you have kids who do much performing in low light situations (theatre, dance, etc), the D600 is the way to go. You can really crank that ISO with minimal noise. I switched recently from the D90 to the D600, and the difference is remarkable.

I know that the expense of changing everything is daunting, but it's a real possibility that you will quickly wish you had bitten the bullet and gone for the D600.

 

[rossb]

I've owned a D50, D90, D7000, and D800. If you find yourself asking if you need an FX body then you really don't. A D7000 would be a substantial upgrade for the OP and her existing glass can be used with it.

 

[photo_chick]

One big reason to consider D600, despite everything is the sensor. If you have kids who do much performing in low light situations (theatre, dance, etc), the D600 is the way to go. You can really crank that ISO with minimal noise. I switched recently from the D90 to the D600, and the difference is remarkable.

I know that the expense of changing everything is daunting, but it's a real possibility that you will quickly wish you had bitten the bullet and gone for the D600.

You're not just seeing the difference between full frame and crop here though. You're also seeing the difference between a sensor designed for a 2008 model camera and one designed for a 2012 model camera. I'm not saying full frame doesn't have advantages, I'm just saying I think the technology jump also plays some part when you're talking about a difference of 4 model years in a time when sensor technology has been progressing rapidly.

 

[fitzperry]

You're not just seeing the difference between full frame and crop here though. You're also seeing the difference between a sensor designed for a 2008 model camera and one designed for a 2012 model camera. I'm not saying full frame doesn't have advantages, I'm just saying I think the technology jump also plays some part when you're talking about a difference of 4 model years in a time when sensor technology has been progressing rapidly.

And the op is moving from a ~2004 model. I had a D70, and I hated to shoot over ISO 400 with it. At 3200, the D7000 looks better than that. Don't get me wrong--I'd love to move up to the D600 as well, but the D7000 would still be a significant upgrade for the op. The D7000 is light years ahead of the D70 in low light.