Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 29, 2003, 1:08 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383
Default about to upgrade camera

I currently have a once top of the line but now really old Olympus D-500 .7 mega pixel digital SLR. I am a casual photographer and want to be able to shoot family events and my children’s school and sport activities. The Digital rebel ($999 with lens) seems like the best camera for my needs but talking with a few friends they all tell me I can’t go wrong with Nikon.

The D100 seems to be the logical choice for me from the Nikon series but I am concerned as the technology is about a year and a half old for the $1,400 (no lens) price tag. The reviews seem to have the two cameras very close in image quality. I know Nikon is working on the D70 (to be released in spring 2004 with a less than $1000 cost) and am wondering if it will be as good as the current D100 since the D100 will be almost two years old at that time. Have they improved the D100 since its original release? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 29, 2003, 7:50 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 659
Default

Have a look at http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ic.php?t=16518

It may help.

Regards,
Graham.
checklg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2003, 11:44 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383
Default

:shock: was that my twin posting the other message or what?

It definitely helps, however I am still intrigued about the upcoming Nikon D70. Since the Rebel is on backorder at all the local camera shops and it's not imperative I upgrade immediately...do you think Nikon will try and surpass the Rebel or just offer basically the same camera with their name on it? Thanks and I invite as much dialog as possible.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2003, 5:47 PM   #4
Red
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 29
Default D100 or D70

The D70 could easily be 6 months away and we know virtually nothing about it. Nikon felt rushed to get a promise out to compete against the Rebel. With the D100 at $1400, you'll get an established camera with a good reputation. If you can wait 6 months, or a year, then you'll have a choice.
Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2003, 4:11 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
The Conqueror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 164
Default Mmmmmm....

I don't know how can Nikon D70 will compete with the Digital Rebel with a almost double price.

Digital Rebel has a very good quality lens and the price is
1090 Euros, example: in Mediamarkt - Germany.

And the prices will go down after the new year.

At least every shop has to clear as much stock they can because PMA is near and tens of new cameras and dSLR's are on the way.

I believe the new succesor of DR will be with lens and more MP and I'm affraid it's price will be the same or less than D70. Just to hit Nikon and gain more market share.

Nikon D70 body only will be 1000 Euros and Lens between 400-600 Euros. Total allmost 1400-1600 Euros. Expensive.......

I would like to upgrade my CP 4300 with a Nikon D70 but the price is important for me. Nikon - Canon both they offer good products.

I will wait the PMA, after that I will decide what to buy. Nikon has to be very carefully and have to think twice before they release the D70.
May be that's the reason they anounce 4-5 months before
the release just to hear the peoples or market reaction and may be they want and need the time to design and offer the D70 with a custom designed good quality lens.

Otherwise Nikon will loose lots of their lovers and their Dollars or Euros. Marketing is a different game and I'm affraid Canon is playing the game very good.

Yes, I love Nikon but Nikon doesn't put money in my pocket it's the opposite. If they offer their product with a reasonable price it's ok but if not I think like me everybody will choose another one.

These are my ideas. I respect everybodies ideas too........
The Conqueror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2004, 12:03 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383
Default

you both bring up some good points. I decided not to wait and ordered the Dig Reb. supposed to be here on Tuesday and I can't wait.

I hope the D70 does well to keep the competition alive and well. I also hope that Canon does not produce a second generation Rebel yet for the 2004 convention as I will want to scream "If I had only waited two more months!"

Thanks for the interesting dialog.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2004, 10:34 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
The Conqueror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 164
Default Mmmmmm.............

Do you see NIKON??????????????. :evil: :evil: :evil:
The Conqueror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2004, 5:06 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
Default Re: Mmmmmm....

[quote="The Conqueror"]I don't know how can Nikon D70 will compete with the Digital Rebel with a almost double price.

The D70 will not be near double the price of the DR.

Nikon D70 body only will be 1000 Euros and Lens between 400-600 Euros. Total allmost 1400-1600 Euros. Expensive.......

Oh, I see, you are comparing apples and oranges here. You are looking at the DR with its "stock" lens and comparing it to a similar Nikon body with a top of the line Nikon Professional lens. Try putting a similar lens on the Nikon (low end 35-70 AFG for example) and you can have the Nikon for about $1125 US. That's even less in Euros, but assume it to be the same with less competition (and higher reseller margins) in the European market. Now you're about 10% higher than the DR for the N70. That is hardly material from a price standpoint. The issue now becomes which of the two cameras do you like better? (FWIW, I would buy the Cannon 10D over the DR any day of the week despite the price difference!) The other possibly determinative factor would be when you want/need the camera. The DR will probably take about 3 months before you would get it (assuming the backlog is similar in Europe) and the D70 will be at least six months before a consumer could expect to have one in his or her hands...

There are differences between the cameras. They may or may not be significant, but the price differential is not one of those significant differences...

<TED>
tedj101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2004, 8:39 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
The Conqueror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 164
Default Mmmm....

I don't think I am comparing apples and oranges here. :shock:
If Nikon D70 was a stereo set and Canon 300D was a Camera you were right. 8)
Buth both of them are apples or oranges. :P

Why? Because they say Nikon D 70 will compete with 300D.

To compete with something, your price must be very close.
Plus, Nikon D 70 is a new product sure it must have more features. That's normal.
300D Lenses are not bad. Nikon can do something like that too....
If Canon can do Nikon can do also.....

If you want, after some time you can buy a better lens...

A 300D kit with lens here in my town costs 1069 €.

I can expect 1200€ - 1250€ for the Nikon D 70 with lens. Because it's new and has more features. But who knows??????

Not, 1400€ - 1600 €. I can't accept that.
Everybody has a limit to spend.

Sure if it fits my budget I'll buy, but if not I will look somewhere else. To buy or not It's my right I think.

Yes, I like Nikon and I have a Nikon now but as I say Nikon or Canon doesn't put money in my pocket it's the opposite.

If Canon announces a new 300Ds with 8MP and more features with kit lens with 1400€ - 1600 € what will happen. Who knows???

These are my ideas, I respect everyones too...

I think we are just speaking to the air. Better to wait PMA..
After 30 Days and see whats the reality....
The Conqueror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2004, 1:30 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
Default Re: Mmmm....

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Conqueror
I don't think I am comparing apples and oranges here. :shock:
If Nikon D70 was a stereo set and Canon 300D was a Camera you were right. 8)
Buth both of them are apples or oranges. :P

....
You aren't addressing the point that I made. I said you are comparing apples and oranges because you are comparing a 300D with a kit lens -- that is a cheap lens: a decent lens, but a cheap one: also known as a consumer lens -- with a Nikon body and a lens that you say will cost $400-600. That is an expensive lens: also known as a professional quality lens. The kit lens is an apple, the Pro lens for the Nikon is an orange. Now, Nikon makes cheap lenses too (they are aimed at the hobbyist market rather than the professional photographer). You can get a Nikkor that is the equivalent of the kit lens in the 300D for about $135. If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare the 300D with a Nikon with an equivalent lens.

Having said that, when I say cheap, I don't mean bad or poor quality in the sense of optical quality. Some of the low end Nikkors are incredibly sharp -- witness the 50mm F 1.8 which sells for under $100 US. It is one of the sharpest Nikkors in the entire range. However, it is not a professional quality lens in the sense of build quality. It is much more cheaply made and is no where near as strong as a pro quality Nikkor. However, used carefully, as most hobbyists do, it will produce very high quality images for the foreseeable future.

That's why I said you were comparing apples and oranges in your post. The Nikon with equivalent lens is very close to the 300D in price -- not almost double the cost...

<TED>
tedj101 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:33 PM.