nikon d70 review

Have a picture of Nikon D70?, please send it to us.
 

Average Ratings

Value for Money	8.5/10
Reviewer Rating	8.8/10
Overall Rating	8.7/10

88% Recommended14 out of 16 Reviews

• Overview
• Spec
• Reviews
• Verdict
• Write your review
• Ask a Question

By FuzzyTalz on 10th Oct 2005

FuzzyTalz's Ratings

Time Digital Camera Owned	1 - 6 Months
Image Quality	6/10
Battery Life	8/10
Features	8/10
Ease of Use	8/10
Value for money	5/10
Overall value	7/10
FuzzyTalz's recommendation

Good Points

Compact. Ergonomic. Comprehensive feature set. Long-lasting battery.

Bad Points

Ultimately, the image quality suffers from a weak anti-aliasing filter. No provision for mirror lockup. Viewfinder image is small and relatively dim.

General Comments

I was a real fan of the last generation of Nikon 35mm AF SLRs, which atoned for weaknesses in their feature set (no built-in ability to leave the film leader out of the cartridge upon rewind, no mirror lockup) with superb ergonomics and useability. Plus, most Nikon lenses, also despite their often hamfisted engineering, do manage to put as fine an image onto film as any other - better with wide angles, indeed. Alas, with digital trending to more-or-less supplant 35mm (and even medium format) film within the course of the next couple of years, image quality is far less clearly defined by the quality of ones lenses, and the characteristics of the film used. Rather, in the digital realm, the camera's (or digital backs) themselves - and the complex algorithms deployed to created a full color photographic rendition from the limited, monochromatic data siphoned from the sensors of modern digital cameras - impacts image quality far more dramatically. In this regard, I find Nikon, as a company, consistently makes the wrong decisions. The first wrong step is in not recognizing how essential the sensor itself is, to the quality of a digital image. This has lead to a situation where Nikon leaves the development of the sensors used in its cameras (and to some extent, the design of those sensors as well) to other companies. Consequently, not only is Nikon not in control, ultimately, of the quality of sensor that goes into its digital cameras, but they are missing valuable opportunities to learn and grow from the process of their design, manufacture, and integration. This is the reason why the D100 and the D70 have such drastically divergent image quality, although each uses the very same sensor. The D100 is notorious for its soft images - the result of a very strong anti-aliasing filter. After hearing the complaints, Nikon - not really being in control of the manufacture of the sensors and, thus, without sufficient internal resources to affect a redesign had it wanted to, did the only thing it could to improve image sharpness in the D100's successor: weaken the anti-aliasing filter. This did improve the crispness of the images the D70 makes, but it also, sadly, highlights the reason the D100's low pass filter was so strong to begin with: to control the moire and color aliasing inherent in the sensor design.

With it's weaker anti-aliasing filter, I'd say more than a quarter of the images I made with my D70 were so badly marred by moire and/or color aliasing, as to be unusable for prints beyond 5" x 7". And I owned two of them, so if you're wondering if I got a bad sample, I didn't. And the problems I experienced are so well documented by other reviewers, and illustrated in the many sample images available for review online, I have to wonder how and why so many people are buying this over-hyped, under performing digital SLR?

Granted, I am extremely discriminating about image quality, and being digital rather than analog is no excuse for poor image quality. And, yes, the D70 is very handy, fast to use with its superb ergonomics, and has a very nice set of features to keep the average user on the road to discovery for quite some time, in these modern times, getting high quality digital images demands much more of a camera. The sensor and the image processing algorithms used to create a full-color image from its data, are second only to the lens in determining ultimate potential image quality. It is here that the D70 falls well short. Yet, it's just another in a long line of arguable Nikon image quality compromises: the D1X with its odd-shaped rectangular pixels that enhanced horizontal resolution which reducing it vertically; the D100 with its anti-aliasing filter which not only controlled moire and color aliasing at the expense of fine images detail when its competition managed to achieve both from its sensor design; the D2X which is hopelessly low on resolution (especially viewed against its competition) and comparatively noisy.

I've read on Nikon's website, in reference to the moire issues with the D70, that because they are committed to providing the sharpest possible images, they are willing to allow a certain risk (reality?) of moire. Yet, while acknowledging its undesirability, Nikon provides no real solution beyond the laughably ineffective Color Moire Reduction function of their hideously clunky, buggy Nikon Capture bloatware, instead leaving the user to rely on equally ineffective third-party tools to deal with the problem they created. I don't know about you, but to me, this seems contradictory to their much-ballyhooed Total Image Quality marketing spiel, apparently designed to seduce amateurs into the Nikon system with promises of image quality, which thus far, has only really been seriously approached by a single, "pro"- priced product: the D2x.

No, the D70 isn't a great camera. But it IS a triumph of marketing for Nikon.

Kudos?

Total Respect: +2