Buying a used nikon 70d

[Nitrouspizza]

Hi folks. I have the opportunity to buy an old Nikon 70D. It has been fairly used i think and is in great shape.
The question i have: Is it still up to the standards today? i mainly do photography as a hobby but im also looking to start doing little jobs. It's still worth to invest in? the main reason for me would be resolution

[Manfred M]

I think that model was introduced about 9 years ago, so it is quite old and should cost you virtually nothing. The D70 was replaced by the D70s, which was replaced by the D80, followed by the D90 (which I've had for almost 4 years), which in turn was replaced by the D7000. In reality it is three or four generation's ago technology. I think it is the first consumer DSLR that Nikon introduced.

It is a 6MP sensor and a maximum ISO ot 1600, so very low resolution sensor and very slow maximum ISO by modern standards; so to answer your question; in my view it is nowhere near "modern standards".

[Graystar]

If you're going to do portrait work then you'll be far better off spending the money on a D3200, which has just over two EV less noise. Shooting the D70 at ISO 200 is like shooting the D3200 at ISO 800.

Go with the D70 if the additional noise isn't an issue, and if it has features that you need that you can't get from an entry-level camera. For example, the D70 has a Flash Commander for controlling Nikon wireless flash units. The D70 can use AF lenses because it contains a focus drive motor (the D3200 requires AF-S lenses for auto focus.) The D70 has two command dials. The D70 has FV Lock and a flash sync to 1/500s, but no Auto FP operation (and neither does the D3200.) And there are a handful of other features that the D70 has that are missing from entry level cameras.

I'm not sure what you're inferring by resolution being your driving factor, but the idea that big photosites and low MP counts are better is simply wrong and has been proven to be wrong...both mathematically and in actual experience. Other than faster processing on slow computers, there's no advantage to be gained from a low MP count.

[Nitrouspizza]

I was asking because I still don't do any "big" jobs or anything, I'm still at some amateurish stage but looking to get professional. I currently have a Canon A-1 and a CanoScan 9000 and I don't get really decent images, I think, but being a broken college student I can't really afford (yet) a good DSLR. I got the opportunity and was asking if it is a good idea. By the resolution I mean that if it matches the 7000x6000 images that I get with my current equipment and stuff. I hope the context helps guys

[rawill]

Annoying things about a D70s, (I have one) is the ISO max, and the small screen.

I think it would need to be really cheap to be a good deal.
However taking good photos is all about your eye and what you see.

Of course good gear helps, there is a thread on here about this.

[AB26]

It cannot be a bad camera, I see many other folks in this forum still shooting with a D70. If it is the best you can afford and it is in a very good condition, why not buy it. It is easy to say you should rather go for a D300s or some other prosumer camera, however if you are on a very tight budget you have to buy what you can afford. Maybe if you look around you can pick up a good D80 at a very good price.
Just remember with Nikon the D is in front and Canon the D is behind.

[Manfred M]

Your maximum resolution will be 3008 x 2000 pixels, which is tiny by current standards; my current Nikon produces a 7360 × 4912 image. I suspect that your current film Canon will blow it away from a quality standpoint. If you are not getting decent images with your Canon, getting this camera is not going to make any difference per se; quality comes from the photographer, not the camera. The upside will be that it should be far less expensive for you to use than film, so practice will be relatively inexpensive.

[Black Pearl]

So long as its VERY VERY cheap I don't see a problem.

My first DSLR was the Nikon D70 with an AF-S 18-70mm, I had great fun with it and got some very nice images. No way I could go back now as the very limited ISO range would be hard to get used to after using more modern (but admittedly more expensive) bodies. That said if you're still using film then you're used to being stuck with one ISO for 36 shots so it may be a revelation - it was when I bought mine...about nine years ago for £1000

It all boils down to price. It would need to be very inexpensive before it became a bargain.

[Polar01]

My first DSLR was the D70, used it for about a year and a half, when it came out it was top of the line. I did have a problem with the small viewing screen on the back, I still use it today as in IR camera, I had it converted,it is one of the easiest cameras to convert to IR and gives stunning results. So if you do purchase it, and in the future you upgrade, keep it and convert to IR to have a play toy. Sometimes it is hard to find a D70 as a lot are converted to IR.

Cheers:

Allan