Help! I need a "new" DSLR

[genazzano]

My apologies beforehand.  I realise that this is a very common and uninteresting question, but I want to buy a camera to replace my dear old D70. The D70 has a CCD which, though is less sensitive to light and has higher noise at ISO's above 600, yet provides beautiful images though they may be small. Further, the D70 has a built in motor to accommodate the widest variety of lenses, and the autofocus function works even when using old manual lenses through purely mechanical adapters.  Unfortunately the use of the CCD array and internal motors to drive AF lenses in DSLR's at Nikon ended with the D200.  

I don't care about video functions nor do I care about use of very high ISO values.

I wish to spend no more than about £350 if possible. Since I have many Nikon F mount lenses and adapters, I am limited to Nikon cameras, I suppose.

May I have some suggestions (regarding Nikon cameras that is)?  It seems that whenever I select a model I read in somebody's blog that it is terrible for one reason or another.  

[philbirch]

Not necesarily limited to Nikon, if you want AF with the lenses you have, then you must go to a higher model, D90, D300, D300s i.e those that have the focusing mechanism inside the camera. Or a used D200.

Alternatively if AF is not such a problem, then one of the lower end models with in-the-lens focusing. Naturally you would have to manual focus but auto exposure will remain. I use old AF film lenses on my D3200 and indeed pre-ai lenses too in manual mode. It is easy to get a 'dandelion' chip which glues onto the lens mount for non-electronic lenses, I have a couple and they work just fine with the camera.

Alternatively a Canon DSLR will work with adapters, no AF and manual aperture control. Or think about a mirrorless. The Sony A6000 is a contender, again no AF but adapters can be bought that will allow you aperture control on your AF lenses. It has a built in EVF with focus confirm and is nice. A little out of your price but if you can manage without the kit lens maybe a little cheaper.

Re blogs, opinions are like bum holes, we all have them! Ignore. I would only buy from a shop where I can try and ask the salesman his opinion.

[Stan]

I think you have the answer already in-hand. In your situation, I believe I'd simply go the D200 route. I started with the D70, moved on to the D200 and is currently using the D300. Looking back, I found the jump from D70 to D200 astounding, but the upgrade to the D300 not nearly the same level of improvement.

Besides which, the price of D200s are ridiculously low these days!

[genazzano]

I have a serious block against wasting money on cameras with so many useless features (for me) that are obsolete a month after you buy. Are images better today than 60 years ago when they used dumb cameras without GPS? Excuse me but I feel a rant coming on...

The D200 is the best choice for me, I agree. Basta... Grazie.

Ciao!

David

[Stan]

Prego David.

[genazzano]

The DSLR that has everything I want and none of the stuff I do not want is the Nikon Df. FF, no video, takes all of my Nikkors, and has an alloy body instead of plastic. Basta a punto.

David

[paulhofseth]

Agree with GPS,WiFi etc., useful for a number of non-pictorial purposes, but not essential for what comes out on your memory card. AND will be another gizmo to stop working and bring the whole system down in a year or five.

BUT have you considered whether you really NEED a mirror and a prism to frame and focus? If you use autofocus the viewing method is irrelevant. If you go the manual way, the screen will place a limit your capabilities.

Do try a (relatively) less expensive second hand EVF. It might perform better than a SLR. Adapter rings may take care of your optics if you are used to manual focussing and can set the aperture.

p.

[Deleted]

D300 has much better battery life than the D200 and I have seen them listed as low as $500 U.S. (which thrills me since I paid $1,700 for mine new and use my D50 as much as I use it).

[genazzano]

I settled on a Sony A7 so I can use all the Leica and nikkor lenses.

...or maybe not. My wife wants AF and that lens makes everthing to costly. Maybe a D610.. Or not, I need therapy.

[truls]

Sony A7 full frame is not a bad Choice, and a Choice for the future. Most likely it will last for 10 years before upgrading is Worth the Investment. Why did you discard Nikon?

[hannes]

I was in the same situation last summer. Looked for an upgrade from Nikon D70s. New D7100 was too expensive so finally I got a used D300 and I do not regret it.

[genazzano]

There are some things that I have decided are important but for no damn good reason: FX full frame; metal body; I cannot avoid AF but the rest of the things unrelated to simply maximizing sensor performance and capturing a raw digital image are useless; can take my Leica screw mount lenses, old Contax lenses, Nikon RF lenses, my manual F mount Nikkors; did I mention that AF is an expensive and useless feature when I am more than capable of looking through a viewfinder and deciding myself what I want to focus on.

The D610 probably beats the A7 in many areas is may be the better camera if you are so lazy you can't focus your own frame. Well, my dear wife wants AF which puts my A7 plans in danger.

[philbirch]

A7II is the latest, and much cheaper than the A7 was. Body only, who needs AF anyway. We cut our teeth on manual focus lenses.

[truls]

Nikon Df looks like a real camera - very handsome too! It could be a new trend in design and ergonomics of digital cameras?