What next ?

Author
Discussion

grumpy52

Original Poster:

5,598 posts

167 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Hi all,a bit of advice please .
Slowly getting more into photography and I am looking to replace my current cameras.
I have 2 nikon D70S's at the moment that I enjoy using but would like to update to something a bit newer .
I will stick with Nikon and would like to use my current lenses .
I photograph mainly motorsport ,aircraft and coastal views .
I am on a budget of whatever the D70S 's fetch plus £100.
What do you recommend ?

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

255 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Not sure what you will get for £120?

Simpo Two

85,529 posts

266 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
D200? May be old, but a big step up from a D70.

Turn7

23,624 posts

222 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
MBP have used D300's for £189 - and theyll probably take the D70's as PX.

noell35

3,171 posts

149 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Perhaps a D3100 or D3200 at that price.

Craikeybaby

10,417 posts

226 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
How do you feel that your D70s are holding you back?

grumpy52

Original Poster:

5,598 posts

167 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
The display screen is too small on the D70S's and some more megapixels wouldn't hurt .
Have looked at a D3200 and will make an effort to try one .


RobDickinson

31,343 posts

255 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
D70s was still in nikons dark ages where the sensor is concerned.

The D90 an D300 dragged them out a little, anything after those is pretty sweet.

D300 can be great if you are careful with exposure even for higher iso. its also a god performer

Not sure how the D3200 range goes but I suspect its a fair step up over the d70s but backwards in body size/ergonomics?

a340driver

230 posts

156 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
You can still take great pictures with a D70 (I have a D60 and a D7000). Any of the more modern cameras will show an improvement. My reasons for upgrading were the hugely better low light performance and the better rapid fire shooting capabilities.

Have a look at the types of photos you normally take. That'll give you a clue as to how best to upgrade. I would say any more modern body will give you a better overall experience.

You will get more Megapixels but in this company unless you're producing enormous prints that should be at the bottom of your list of priorities.

When I'm hiking I sometimes take the smaller body and a couple of decent lenses. Prime and zoom or prime and wide angle. The lighter body means I shed a few grams despite the extra lens.

Simpo Two

85,529 posts

266 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
grumpy52 said:
The display screen is too small on the D70S's and some more megapixels wouldn't hurt .
Have looked at a D3200 and will make an effort to try one .
I think Rob is right - if you go for a D3xxx (entry level) you'll find that everything you want is tucked away in menus and damn annoying. A D200 or D300 has much more on the outside where you can use it.

D200 is good up to ISO800, D300 to ISO1600. Screens get progressively bigger and scroll faster. Personally I never liked the CMOS sensor of the D300 and it threw some crazy exposures, but your mileage may vary.

budfox

1,510 posts

130 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
D300 would be my suggestion too. You might need to add another £20-£30 to your budget though.

Golaboots

369 posts

149 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Love my D200 at low ISO, there's just something about the output of that CCD & processor that works.
Sadly things aren't so good above 800ISO.

grumpy52

Original Poster:

5,598 posts

167 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Low light and rapid for are more important to me .
I tend to photograph moving objects so multiple shots are what I tend to do .Usually with a lens upto 300 or 500 .

Simpo Two

85,529 posts

266 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
grumpy52 said:
Low light and rapid for are more important to me .
I tend to photograph moving objects so multiple shots are what I tend to do .Usually with a lens upto 300 or 500 .
The D200 does 5fps - enough for most things I'd suggest unless you're in the pits at F1. But no good in low light. I think to get the best low light performance you need to look at the newest camera you can afford - but that will be entry level so you lose out on useability as well as fps. In short you can't get both for £125.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

255 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
D90 and D300 are better in low light I think?

grumpy52

Original Poster:

5,598 posts

167 months

Friday 22nd January 2016
quotequote all
An update, I have updated a bit to a D90 ,seems all good ,as soon as I get rid of these throat ,cold +cough bugs I will get out and try it out .