When did the D70 successors arrive?

[Westside guy]

Hey, maybe I was just blind or brain-dead - but when I went to Nikon's website to check for firmware updates for my D70, I noticed they've got the D70s and the D50 listed now. When did THAT happen?

Ooh, and they've got (what appears to me to be) a new lens out - AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Ooh, gimme gimme gimme... Doesn't appear to be listed anywhere yet though (B&H, Amazon, etc.).

Edit: Now it appears I was confused about that lens - it's apparently not new after all.

 

[604macguy]

Hey, maybe I was just blind or brain-dead - but when I went to Nikon's website to check for firmware updates for my D70, I noticed they've got the D70s and the D50 listed now. When did THAT happen?

Ooh, and they've got (what appears to me to be) a new lens out - AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G. Ooh, gimme gimme gimme... Doesn't appear to be listed anywhere yet though (B&H, Amazon, etc.).

Edit: Now it appears I was confused about that lens - it's apparently not new after all.

It happened a few days ago. Check out dpreview.com for a review.
Nikon apparently "accidentally" release the user manual on their website for the D50 about 2 weeks ago and it's been the latest buzz.

There are 2 new lenses, the cheapest and lightest Nikkor lenses ever. There's a 17-55mm that's the new kit lense ($100us) and there's a 55-200.

Nothing really special. Available in June.

I say get a Canon. Cheaper everything except for quality which is just as good. Which means, more lenses!

 

[Westside guy]

I say get a Canon. Cheaper everything except for quality which is just as good. Which means, more lenses!

Well if I didn't already have the D70...

Actually if I'd waited until now the decision (Canon 350D vs Nikon D70s) would have been tough. As it was, the original Digital Rebel seemed to have enough drawbacks that picking the D70 was a slam-dunk. We more recently purchased the original Canon at work, since the $$$ difference was supreme - and I gotta say that is one SLOW camera! But the 350 seems to have addressed that for the most part.

As far as that lens goes - it was wishful thinking, but I'd thought it was a new "G" lens with the ED elements. Still no such beast though. It doesn't look like the "G" vs. the "D" means that much weight difference, in any case. Anyone got the 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED?

 

[604macguy]

I go the Rebel before the D70 came out so I didn't have much of a choice.

A few things don't like about Nikon D70 but they're kinda personal:
- no available battery grip (third party available)
- the zoom in feature for the lcd really isn't good. All that LCD space and it doesn't use up all of it.
- Nikon generally has expensive lenses.
- CCD is made by Sony.

But it is a great camera though and if it came out sooner, I'd probably have bought it instead.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually the official announcement of the new cameras came yesterday (on the 20th).

D70 users should not wail too loudly. There will be a firmware update that will give the old camera the new software. So far the two big changes on the D70s vs. the D70 in hardware are the 2" screen and wire remote. So best snap up the old D70 with the $100 rebate. My employer has also added a $100 gift card to the mix. So buy and be happy!

 

[Jo-Kun]

nikon & canon BOTH have expensive lenses (at least when you want the 'good' glass...)

the worst thing you can do is get a DSLR and use crappy cheap lenses on it... why? the better range lenses get you sharper images because digital imaging is more critical with the lenses used then film

so you work on nikon: go for DX & ED lenses
working on Canon? L-type is your call for quality imaging

but hey I'm a Pro I notice those things, maybe some of you wouldn't really see a big difference... and see no need for sharper images ;-)

 

[Westside guy]

so you work on nikon: go for DX & ED lenses
working on Canon? L-type is your call for quality imaging

but hey I'm a Pro I notice those things, maybe some of you wouldn't really see a big difference... and see no need for sharper images ;-)

I think for most of us who don't do this for a living, it ends up being a balancing act between quality and price. Heck, if I had $1000 burning a hole in my pocket I'd LOVE to have the NIKON 80-200mm F/2.8.

I think now, having seen the new introductions, I'll wait and see what the reviewers (Thom Hogan et. al.) have to say about the brand new 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor once they get their hands on it. Back when I had my old auto-nothing Pentax SLR, I bought a used Tokina lens (80-200 I think) that ended up being on my camera 90% of the time. It weighed a ton, and the single-ring focus/zoom had an annoying habit of drifting with gravity ; but the range worked well and it had amazing sharpness. This new Nikkor lens should cover the same low range (55mm x 1.5 = 82.5mm), and the size and weight certainly are attractive! So if it is reasonably sharp it sounds like the perfect second lens for me.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

nikon & canon BOTH have expensive lenses (at least when you want the 'good' glass...)

the worst thing you can do is get a DSLR and use crappy cheap lenses on it... why? the better range lenses get you sharper images because digital imaging is more critical with the lenses used then film

so you work on nikon: go for DX & ED lenses
working on Canon? L-type is your call for quality imaging

but hey I'm a Pro I notice those things, maybe some of you wouldn't really see a big difference... and see no need for sharper images ;-)

Ah, but there are alternatives. I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 that is $800 less than the Canon L series lens of the same range and it actually performs better than the Canon.

And don't forget that there are some really nice Sigma and Tokina lenses out there that perform equally as well. You just need to shop around and look at the reviews - you can find a lot of good deals out there.

D

 

[Jo-Kun]

I'd LOVE to have the NIKON 80-200mm F/2.8.

It's a great piece off glass ;-) I bought one 2nd hand wich a friend bough but didn't use at all for 700 euro... hihi

I think the pro side on the new 55/200 is -> ED & DX wich means built for digital

what i peronally see as negative (but again thats me I know) is the fact that the focus ring is sooo small so its really designed for AF use only

but I think this is a good lens for lots of users

 

[Jo-Kun]

Ah, but there are alternatives. I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 that is $800 less than the Canon L series lens of the same range and it actually performs better than the Canon.

And don't forget that there are some really nice Sigma and Tokina lenses out there that perform equally as well. You just need to shop around and look at the reviews - you can find a lot of good deals out there.

D

I know about the alternatives...

+ cheap

- if used A LOT (like in my case) they brake down much faster...

a friend had a tokina superwide zoom (equal to the nikon 18-35) she uses for pressphotography, it broke down so much she ended up paying the same amount of money as if she would have done buying the even more expensive 17-35 2,8, in the end she just went and bought the nikon

so it all depends on how frequent and in what conditions you use the equipment waether you schould go with cheaper alternatives (wich indeed in some cases seem better in quality) or go for the more expensive/reliable ones...

and last but not least: wich budget ;-)

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think for most of us who don't do this for a living, it ends up being a balancing act between quality and price. Heck, if I had $1000 burning a hole in my pocket I'd LOVE to have the NIKON 80-200mm F/2.8.

And not to mention a strong back.

I think now, having seen the new introductions, I'll wait and see what the reviewers (Thom Hogan et. al.) have to say about the brand new 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor once they get their hands on it.

I would bet even money that the 18-55 and the 55-200 are OEM'd from Sigma or some other company.