Review Of Nikon D70

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1598981,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1598981,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"Last year, Canon created a stir with the Digital Rebel, the first digital SLR (D-SLR) for under $1,000 (including lens). Nikon's return of serve has tremendous heat on it. Instead of creating an amateur-oriented camera like the Rebel and competing directly on price, Nikon has produced a slightly more expensive D-SLR with the features, functions, versatility, and image quality to appeal to budget-minded professionals as well. In fact, not only is the 6.1-megapixel Nikon D70 more camera than the Rebel, it even bests our previous Editors' Choice in the category, the Olympus E-1."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/d70.jpg" /><br /><br />We have already talked a lot about the D70 already so I am not going to get into the details about it, and this review from PCMagazine points out what we already know so far. This is an extremely fast camera and it is absolutely fantastic given the price/performance ratio. The article compares the D70 to the Olympus E-1 and it looks like the E-1 is overshadowed in most categories.

[SassKwatch]

Does anyone here have a D70? I was VERY intrigued by this one until I saw the tech specs w/ a low ISO of 200......which really surprised me when all the other mfrs seem to be offering 100 or better.

Am I being overly concerned about this?

[rtrueman]

Yeah, I've had the D70 for a few weeks and although I haven't had the time to shoot as much as I would have liked, I'm extremenly pleased with the photos I'm getting. This is a fantastic camera and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a D-SLR.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Why is slower better? I for one think digital's greatest strengh is in effectively grainless high ISOs, and then there are people who insist on ISO 50 or ISO 100 speeds..

[SassKwatch]

Why is slower better? I for one think digital's greatest strengh is in effectively grainless high ISOs, and then there are people who insist on ISO 50 or ISO 100 speeds..
Only because thus far lower ISO's = less noise (grain). If the D70 (or any other device) can achieve noise profiles at 200 that equal or match 50/64/100 on other devices, that's great.....but it still makes me wonder what they could achieve if they offered a 50 or 100 option.

I certainly would agree that *IF* higher ISO's were effectively grainless (noiseless), that would be the best of all worlds for most shooting situations. Unfortunately, many seem to become perceptibly noisier starting at ISO 400....or 800 in a smaller number of cases. And an awful lot of them would become effectively useless at 1600.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

They're not effectively useless at 1600. They're much better than film at 1600, and I've done prints from such film at 4x6, and it looks really smooth.

Scan your old photos taken with ISO 400 film; you'd be shocked to see some of the grain there compared to DSLRs at ISO 400. Yet they do fine even for 8x10s (with the exception of the absolutely horrible Kodak MAX 400).

Point here is that the digital generation has gotten too obsessed with excpecting perfect quality at 100% magnification even though no one looks at prints in that manner.

[SassKwatch]

They're not effectively useless at 1600.
I should clarify...

For *me*, it's effectively useless. Compare these....D70 @ 1600 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/Compared/Studio/d70_iso1600.JPG) and D70 @ 200 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD70/Samples/Compared/Studio/d70_iso0200.JPG). The 1600 shot is considerably noisier and only increases the shutter speed to 1/15s vs 1/2s for the 200 shot.....which means a tripod is still absoultely required for both.

But in the case of both the D70 and 300D, I will admit the ISO 1600 shots provides much better clarity than I would have guessed. If I tended more towards the 'action' shooter genre, I'm sure I would find that ISO much more effectively useful.

They're much better than film at 1600, and I've done prints from such film at 4x6, and it looks really smooth.
You're preaching to the choir now.:) I doubt I will ever shoot another roll of film. ISO 1600 wouldn't have even qualified as 'effectively useless' in the film world for me....it was 'totally useless'....unless the resulting grain was deliberately incorporated into the overall desired effect one was trying to produce. And I've certainly seen interesting results using that technique.

But your overall point is well taken. My previous comment was too reflective of my own personal preferences as opposed to the 'big picture'.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

That is relatively noiseless to me still. Take the file and print to an 8x10; you'll be pleasently surprised. It'll start to pose problems from 11x14s and above.

Here's a sample of a photo that printed very nicely to 6x8 from an ISO 800 film (100% crop).

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/media/users/30/iso800crop.jpg

To be able to see that kind of grain clearly, you'll be staring at an 8x10 from a distance of a few inches.. not how most people view photos!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

And I must mention Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/) and Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com) are good tools for critical work involving large prints and high ISOs.

[SassKwatch]

To be able to see that kind of grain clearly, you'll be staring at an 8x10 from a distance of a few inches.. not how most people view photos!
And if your goal is to satisfy 'most people', that's fine. But if that's the case, there's really no need to purchase anything greater than a 3mp digicam. I've printed 8x10's from my first diigicam, an Olympus C3030Z, that more than satisfied 'most people'.

[SassKwatch]

And I must mention Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/) and Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com) are good tools for critical work involving large prints and high ISOs.
I found Neat Image first, and it's served my needs well enough that I've never bothered to check out Noise Ninja....though I've heard excellent comments about it as well.

It can be pretty easy to overuse these tools though and make the reduced noise result almost more offensive than the original noise.