Nikon D70s

The D70S was my splurge this year. I am forever spending money on other things. So I bought the 18-200 VR. I got the camera body and had to wait 3 more weeks for the lens. I am so glad that I did. I love what that lens does.

The noise doesn't bother me for what I shoot. You might find some bargains now that the D80 has been released. I am very happy with mine and don't care there is a new one out now.
 
YEKCIM said:
Kelly,...

Say it ain't so! (Confession is good for the soul!)

~YEKCIM

Yes, it is so. That's what I get from trusting Kodak for my dSLR. They failed so badly they even dropped the price as low as $5,000 with 1 year no-interest financing. Still no buyer and so they fold their dSLR division.

Now they try to re-enter (to sneak in, actually) by creating the Four Third system dSLR for Panasonic and Olympus dSLR.
 
As a Nikon user and a D50 owner I'll contribute my measly two cents for what its worth. I went though this camera puzzlement back in December and January. I was convinced that the D70s was THE camera for me. Basically brushed off the D50. Then an article in one of the U.S. photo magazines had a cover feature on the D50 and I started looking at more and more reviews. The D50 is better than the D70 and just about as good as the D70s, except for a few things that I really didn't use and never had in the past, ie: Depth of Field preview (never had one before on my Nikon slr's, plus with digital you can take the picture and view in the LCD, also the view finder is small), the extra command dial (in the past I would set the aperture on the lens and shutter on the camera, now when I do use M (not that often) its really no big deal to use the 1 dial and the 1 button (shutter priority and aperture priority use the same dial), I guess the D70s has an easier way to set white balance, but there is a short cut button on the D50 to easily change ISO and white balance. The other 'big' difference is the backlit info lcd, yeah that would be nice, but just about all that info is also viewed in the view finder.

Biggest advantage the D50 has over just about ALL the other (D100, D70/70s, D200) is the much cleaner high ISO. I didn't really think about that part till after using the camera, nikonians rave about this feature and most hope the new D80 will be as clean.
I took some no flash pictures of the new baby today at ISO 1600. When I get a chance to download them later I'll post a few.

Kit lenses. I got the D50 with the 28-85mm lens. I used it for the first week then ordered a factory reconditioned 18-70mm off ebay and got it for $230. I use that lens with my old Quantaray 70-300mm and also got the 50mm 1.8 and the SB-600 (the on camera pop up flash is good, but the SB-600 is soooo much better)

I've pre ordered the new 70-300 with VR which is scheduled to be delived the end of October/beginning of November. Based on specs released by Nikon, nikonians are saying good things about it. Down the road I'm going to get the 80-200mm f/2.8 for the low light stuff. That lens goes for about $800 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 with VR for $1700. So the 70-300 with VR at $549 and the 80-200 f/2.8 at $800 is a lot less than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I'll just use a tripod with the 80-200. The 70-300 VR will be great for Disney.

Also the new D80 will have an 18-135mm as a kit lens. I will be getting this lens next year for Disney. Based on specs released by Nikon, those on the the nikonians board are saying that it will be very similar to the 18-70, but with a longer reach. (time will tell) Suggest retail is $399, but again, I'll probably get one off ebay referbished for much less.

You can take a look at my misc photo's in my signature. Photobucket doesn't show ISO (at least on my account), but 99% of the pics there were taken with my D50.

Just my 2 pennies worth.
Good luck with your shopping/research.
 
Hey, I took this picture with a Kodak instamatic, circa 1977, I believe. :rotfl:
disney002_edited-1_filtered.jpg
 

Fitz:

Your oldie-but-goodie is really motivating me to get out the ole scanner and digitize my old 126 Kodachromes. Once I get a few done, I'll start a thread...something along the lines of "show me your 70s WDW pix".

~YEKCIM
 
handicap18 said:
As a Nikon user and a D50 owner I'll contribute my measly two cents for what its worth. I went though this camera puzzlement back in December and January. I was convinced that the D70s was THE camera for me. Basically brushed off the D50. Then an article in one of the U.S. photo magazines had a cover feature on the D50 and I started looking at more and more reviews. The D50 is better than the D70 and just about as good as the D70s, except for a few things that I really didn't use and never had in the past, ie: Depth of Field preview (never had one before on my Nikon slr's, plus with digital you can take the picture and view in the LCD, also the view finder is small), the extra command dial (in the past I would set the aperture on the lens and shutter on the camera, now when I do use M (not that often) its really no big deal to use the 1 dial and the 1 button (shutter priority and aperture priority use the same dial), I guess the D70s has an easier way to set white balance, but there is a short cut button on the D50 to easily change ISO and white balance. The other 'big' difference is the backlit info lcd, yeah that would be nice, but just about all that info is also viewed in the view finder.

Biggest advantage the D50 has over just about ALL the other (D100, D70/70s, D200) is the much cleaner high ISO. I didn't really think about that part till after using the camera, nikonians rave about this feature and most hope the new D80 will be as clean.
I took some no flash pictures of the new baby today at ISO 1600. When I get a chance to download them later I'll post a few.

Kit lenses. I got the D50 with the 28-85mm lens. I used it for the first week then ordered a factory reconditioned 18-70mm off ebay and got it for $230. I use that lens with my old Quantaray 70-300mm and also got the 50mm 1.8 and the SB-600 (the on camera pop up flash is good, but the SB-600 is soooo much better)

I've pre ordered the new 70-300 with VR which is scheduled to be delived the end of October/beginning of November. Based on specs released by Nikon, nikonians are saying good things about it. Down the road I'm going to get the 80-200mm f/2.8 for the low light stuff. That lens goes for about $800 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 with VR for $1700. So the 70-300 with VR at $549 and the 80-200 f/2.8 at $800 is a lot less than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. I'll just use a tripod with the 80-200. The 70-300 VR will be great for Disney.

Also the new D80 will have an 18-135mm as a kit lens. I will be getting this lens next year for Disney. Based on specs released by Nikon, those on the the nikonians board are saying that it will be very similar to the 18-70, but with a longer reach. (time will tell) Suggest retail is $399, but again, I'll probably get one off ebay referbished for much less.

You can take a look at my misc photo's in my signature. Photobucket doesn't show ISO (at least on my account), but 99% of the pics there were taken with my D50.

Just my 2 pennies worth.
Good luck with your shopping/research.

Decisions...Decisions.

Kyle, I am indebted to you, sir, for your lengthy (which is a good thing, as Martha says) and informative reply. I will spend some time doing a little more in-depth comparison between the 70s and the 50. As I said before, there are some features on the 70s that I really like, like the grid view on the viewfinder, and the spot meter; however, having teh cleaner high ISO, plus obviously newer technology, would be a plus.

Thanks for challenging me to look beyond the end of my nose.

~YEKCIM
 
YEKCIM said:
Decisions...Decisions.

Kyle, I am indebted to you, sir, for your lengthy (which is a good thing, as Martha says) and informative reply. I will spend some time doing a little more in-depth comparison between the 70s and the 50. As I said before, there are some features on the 70s that I really like, like the grid view on the viewfinder, and the spot meter; however, having teh cleaner high ISO, plus obviously newer technology, would be a plus.

Thanks for challenging me to look beyond the end of my nose.

~YEKCIM

Glad I could be of service. FYI the D50 also has spot metering. Any questions at all feel free to PM or email me.
 
yeah, and Canon stupidly doesn't include spot metering in their XT.

If I have to start from scratch and just need a camera for walkaround, I'll get the D50 over 30D. Seriously. I bought the 30D due to its spot meter capability.
 
Kelly Grannell said:
yeah, and Canon stupidly doesn't include spot metering in their XT.

If I have to start from scratch and just need a camera for walkaround, I'll get the D50 over 30D. Seriously. I bought the 30D due to its spot meter capability.

And on top of it Kelly, Nikon is releasing an 18-135mm lens to go with the new D80, but will also be a great alternative to the hard to get and pricey 18-200 for the D50 as well.

There was short time when I was thinking about the Canon line with the 70-200 f/4, the 70-300mm with IS and the other IS lenses. Finally Nikon is starting to play catchup with the VR (on the 70-300mm at least, and also the just released the 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro). So I'm much more happy with Nikon lens options now and my D50, though there are Nikon users that are all upset about no new "pro" lenses recently. There's no pleasin everyone I guess.
 
Nikon is going to further gain marketshare if Canon is being stubborn as they are right now. Most of the marketshare will be gained from entry-level dSLR. With Nikon 18-135 kit lens and Sony 18-70 lens, if Canon being adamant about the 18-55 stance and no 18-135 (IS or not) or no 18-200 (IS or not), they WILL lose marketshare.

When people ask for advice, now I no longer suggest Canon dSLR (unless they WILL go high-end lens and/or budget permits and/or they already have Canon lenses).

My suggestions right now is:

Pentax K100D body with The Kelly
Nikon D50 with Nikkor 18-135

then if you really have money to burn: Canon 30D with 18-55 f/2.8 IS.

Canon, for the time being, is really absolutely stupid.
PS: anybody notice that ISO 100 on the 30D is actually noisier than ISO 200. WTH?

now I just want to wait what are they (Canon) going to announce next week. Supposedly they are going to revolutionized the photography world once again (must be out of my reach anyway, but it's interesting to know).
 
Kelly Grannell said:
Nikon is going to further gain marketshare if Canon is being stubborn as they are right now. Most of the marketshare will be gained from entry-level dSLR. With Nikon 18-135 kit lens and Sony 18-70 lens, if Canon being adamant about the 18-55 stance and no 18-135 (IS or not) or no 18-200 (IS or not), they WILL lose marketshare.

When people ask for advice, now I no longer suggest Canon dSLR (unless they WILL go high-end lens and/or budget permits and/or they already have Canon lenses).

My suggestions right now is:

Pentax K100D body with The Kelly
Nikon D50 with Nikkor 18-135

then if you really have money to burn: Canon 30D with 18-55 f/2.8 IS.

Canon, for the time being, is really absolutely stupid.
PS: anybody notice that ISO 100 on the 30D is actually noisier than ISO 200. WTH?

now I just want to wait what are they (Canon) going to announce next week. Supposedly they are going to revolutionized the photography world once again (must be out of my reach anyway, but it's interesting to know).

Good points, Kelly. The 18-55 is just not quite enough, and I think Nikon is going to sell a ton of 18-135's, if the quality is up to their usual standards. As you may have noticed, I do not plan to go with either kit lens, but plan on substituting the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 28-200 "G", both of which get good user reviews; I've not read much, if anything, negative about either lens anywhere.

OTOH, the more I think about it, I may just go back to my trusty old Instamatic 104 (yes, I still have it!) if only I can find some 126 size Kodachrome 64 (and someone to process it!)

Have a good weekend.

~Ed
 
YEKCIM said:
Check your PM box!

~Ed

Ditto.


As for the 18-135. based on specs released by nikon, there seems to be a lot of Nikonians that think it will be on par with the 18-70 and not the 18-55 (not that its a bad lens at all, but the 18-70 is considered better). I guess we'll actually have to wait till we see pics taken with it.
 
I have always loved to take pictures. When I was 10 I got my first camera a Kodak Pocket. At that time I was taking pictures of the toys in my room and of my dog Buffy. As a teen I stepped up and bought a Vivitar with my Christmas money. Now I was taking pictures of all of my friends. When I got married we bought a Kodak 35 mm. Pictures were scarce then because we didn't have the funds to develop them but when we did they were of our trips to the park. When our kids were all born we jumped in and got a Minolta Maxxum 35mm. I didn't read the manual (with 3 kids who had time) and learned to use it by trial and error. I loved this camera and was very reluctant to change. Several years ago my husband bought me a Cannon Easy Shot for my birthday and I promptly returned it saying I wanted nothing to do with digital. A couple of years later our friends bought a Kodak Easy Share and went on and on about all of its great qualities and what nice pictures it took. So I finally gave in and we bought our first digital. This was a good camera to learn how to use digital and it does have several interesting, easy to use and helpful features but I am ready to move on.

The problem is I have no idea where to start! I read these suggestions, I look up the different cameras web sites, I ask my friends for advice, I constantly compare notes and it is as if I am reading a foreign language. Like I said I was never a manual reader, learned by trial and error and have no idea what to look for or beware of when I go to buy a new camera. Having said that I also want to by something that is useful to me, isn't more than I need and is at the most economical cost. I thought I had it narrowed down to the Nikon D50 or the Canon Rebel XT but honestly I am so confused I am ready to just throw my hands up and say forget it. You might ask what am I looking for? Here is what I have determined I need in a camera something to take stills of my family, pets and landscapes, action photos of my daughter cheering and playing soccer in a gym and sometimes outside at night, the ability to zoom in at my sons wedding (if he ever picks a date) and of course inside, outside, light dark, still and moving pictures on our vacations to Disney (hopefully this Christmas). Please enlighten me to the terms, fill me in on what I want and don't need and give me some advice on what camera to buy! Thanks in advance!!! ;)
 
I really don't like to read manuals either, more of a"hey how can I do this?? Guess I can look it up" If you are interested in either one of these cameras go your local bookstore, grab a cup of coffe and thumb through these books. They basically take the user manual and put it into Engish. I have one for my D50 and I love it. Good luck with your hunt.


Canon

Nikon
 
Disneypal said:
I have always loved to take pictures. When I was 10 I got my first camera a Kodak Pocket. At that time I was taking pictures of the toys in my room and of my dog Buffy. As a teen I stepped up and bought a Vivitar with my Christmas money. Now I was taking pictures of all of my friends. When I got married we bought a Kodak 35 mm. Pictures were scarce then because we didn't have the funds to develop them but when we did they were of our trips to the park. When our kids were all born we jumped in and got a Minolta Maxxum 35mm. I didn't read the manual (with 3 kids who had time) and learned to use it by trial and error. I loved this camera and was very reluctant to change. Several years ago my husband bought me a Cannon Easy Shot for my birthday and I promptly returned it saying I wanted nothing to do with digital. A couple of years later our friends bought a Kodak Easy Share and went on and on about all of its great qualities and what nice pictures it took. So I finally gave in and we bought our first digital. This was a good camera to learn how to use digital and it does have several interesting, easy to use and helpful features but I am ready to move on.

The problem is I have no idea where to start! I read these suggestions, I look up the different cameras web sites, I ask my friends for advice, I constantly compare notes and it is as if I am reading a foreign language. Like I said I was never a manual reader, learned by trial and error and have no idea what to look for or beware of when I go to buy a new camera. Having said that I also want to by something that is useful to me, isn't more than I need and is at the most economical cost. I thought I had it narrowed down to the Nikon D50 or the Canon Rebel XT but honestly I am so confused I am ready to just throw my hands up and say forget it. You might ask what am I looking for? Here is what I have determined I need in a camera something to take stills of my family, pets and landscapes, action photos of my daughter cheering and playing soccer in a gym and sometimes outside at night, the ability to zoom in at my sons wedding (if he ever picks a date) and of course inside, outside, light dark, still and moving pictures on our vacations to Disney (hopefully this Christmas). Please enlighten me to the terms, fill me in on what I want and don't need and give me some advice on what camera to buy! Thanks in advance!!! ;)

DisneyPal...

Digital photography *is* more complex, in many ways, than film photography, but the flexibility is much greater, as well...or at least, it can be. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the basic "lingo" of DP, before you dive into the reviews. You might find this glossary helpful: http://www.steves-digicams.com/digi_dictionary.html.

Also, sit yourself down and have a talk with same. With pencil and paper, try to write down features and capabilities you really need/want in a camera, and others you'd like to have but are not essential. Once you have a better grasp on the lingo and what you really need in a camera, you may find it easier to narrow your choice to one camera.

I'm personally having a real struggle, trying to choose between the Nikon D50 and D70s. I like the more pro-oriented features of the D70s, but Kyle's point about the quality of the D50's ISO1600 images is very compelling, as well. I avoid high ISO like the plague, but there *are* times that it can't be avoided. In the end, I'll probably go with the 70s, but I'm still on the fence.

In your case, the D50 or the Canon XT either one would probably be more than adequate for your needs, although I have not even considered the XT due to widespread ergonomic complaints. I have not heard ONE complaint on the D50 and very few on the D70; everyone seems to love their Nikon and Nikon has, in my mind, at least, always been the "Cadillac" of pro cameras and, at least in the past, it seemed that most pro's used Nikon.

BTW, if you do go Nikon, and your budget can stand it, you might consider getting the D50 body only, and buying a better lens separately. The 18-55 is not a bad lens, from what I read, but the 18-70 that is the std kit lens on the D70s and D200 has a little more tele reach and has better image quality. The ideal lens may be the aforementioned 18-135, but it is not yet available. My choices for lenses are the Tokina 12-24 (35mm equivalent: 18-36) and the Nikon 28-200 (42-300 equivalent). I may add a 50/1.8 at some point, but I think the two zooms will cover my needs for a long time to come.

Good luck with your continued search; please post back with specific questions. This board (as well as the dpreview.com forums) is an excellent resource, due to the many knowledgeable forum regulars (of which I do not consider myself one, by the way) and their willingness to help.

~YEKCIM
 
and as far as wedding photography... leave it to the professional. It takes years and countless photography session to master it. It's a common misconception that once you have a proper equipment you can do every type of shots.

Wedding vs corporate vs concerts vs choir, vs landscape vs journalistic photography are ALL require different technique. Slight, but really makes a lot of difference.
 
Disneypal, you are not alone in your confusion. I spent about 4 months at the end of last year researching and reading on the dSLR's. For me it was really down to a choice of 3, all Nikon, D50, D70 and D70s. I never considered Canon only because I had been using Nikon SLR's for the previouse 18 or so years and had lenses that would work. I ended up with the D50 for a few reasons; #1 was cost, at the time it was $300 less than the D70s, other factors included the D50 having an upgraded digital sensor over the D70 & D100. The D50 is the highest rated of the Nikons for straight out of camera pics. Meaning after you get it home the first time you don't have to play around with the imagine optimizing features. Most say the D70/D70s need some tweeking. Also the biggest thing I came away with after reading reviews was that the D50 is far from an "Entry Level" camera. It is a powerful camera that will give amazing results. At a Nikon users web site, many nikonians compare the other Nikon dSLR's to the D50 and wishing they had the same quality at high ISO's. The D50 has the same megapixel count as the D70/70s, but it does have a more improved digital sensor. The extra money you would spend on the D70s is for the extra command dial, backlit LCD info scrren, faster maximum shutter (1/4000th vs 1/8000th) and a few other things. They did make the menu on the D50 simpler to use and I've found getting to different options (changing meter setting for example) very simple. You don't need the menu to change ISO or white balance, there are seperate buttons to help with that. SD cards vs CF cards. Wasn't an issue for me even though I had CF cards with my Canon S30. SD cards are very inexpensive (about $30 for 1 gig and even some places have 2 gig for about $40)

There was a recent article in one of the United Kingdoms photo magazines that did a side by side comparison with the D50 and the Canon digital XT. Both got about the same score, but they chose the D50 over the XT mostly because of the way the D50 handles auto white balance and also is cleaner at higher ISO's.

I'm sure I would have been very happy with the D70s, but having used the D50 for about 8 months now I'm glad I went the way I did. I saved some money and I like the pictures I take. Some of the money I saved I spend on the 50mm f/1.8 lens (its only about $100) and also got the SB-600 flash (it is sooooooooooooooooooooo much better than the on-camera pop-up flash) for about $190.

Since you do have some experience with SLR's in the past, I would also recommend to you the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. No matter what camera you end up getting this book might help you to better understand how to use the different setting and in which situations to use them or to at least help you use them better (I'm talking about manual, shutter priority, aperture priority and program, not any of the auto or preset "icon" settings).

Good luck and keep the questions coming.
 
Keep the advice coming I have learned more in the past 12 hours than I have in the past 12 years. :thumbsup2

I hadn't even thought about the SD cars which we have 4 of because of our Kodak.

I am heading to the library this afternoon to check on the recommended book.

As for the wedding pictures I wasn't going to take the official ones just the ones for our use. I am definitely not experienced enough to handle that! :cool1:
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top