D70 or Coolpix 8700

[ldoubell]

Hi there

I posted this question in another format on the general msg forum, but with no respones - thought I'ld try the Nikon forum as it seems that Nikon users are more fanatical :) In a good way of course.

I am a complete novice at photography, currently own a 35mm compact camera :-), but am now thinking of buying myself a digital camera for personal use. Basically, I want a camera that can take pictures of images at a distance (wildlife, scenery etc), as well as close up , that will be easy to use, but will also have enough "features" to allow me to grow with it and become a decent "serious amateur photographer".
With everything I've read so far on different web sites, I am leaning towards the Nikon D70, but before I commit I'ld just like to clarify something which I'm not sure about - besides for the features, clarity etc advantages that a DSLR has over a all-in-one digital camera - what I'ld like to know is what is the difference between their lenses
eg: The Nikon COOLPIX 8700 has a focul length of 35-280mm, does this mean that I would be able to take more or less the same pictures at the same distances with the COOLPIX that I would be able to with a 28-70 and a 70-280mm lens on the D70. Or would their be a substantial difference?
If the focal length on the COOLPIX is equivalent to the D70 with the above 2 lenses, then I assume it would be more practical to have the COOLPIX so that you don't have to carry around all the extra equipment etc.
As both cameras are not far apart when it comes to price, even though the D70 would eventually cost more with the added lenses etc, this is not an issue, I am more interested in the pros and cons of the 2 cameras as to there worth regarding value for money. Also, if there is an alternative camera that I should consider, even if it's not a Nikon - let me know.
Also , on the topic of lenses - how far away (feet/meters) in real terms would you be able to take a picture of a person with a 280/300mm lens so that it appeared that it was a closeup?

Thanks in advance
Leroy

[skyfree]

the d70 is a digital slr. The quality is really better than a compact camera. Instead of considering the 8700 I would go for the 8800. The real advantage of the 8800 is the optical image stabilization (image stabilized lens are available also for d-slr but cost a lot, more than the cost of the camera..) . Your image will look blur, shaky if you don't use a tripod with high zoom (or you are in lowlight). The focal lenght of 8800 is 35-350 mm. So you lose some wideangle capability compared to the 28mm of d70. Overall I will buy the 8800 or the panasonic fz10/fz20 or the minolta dimage a200.

[lumixfan]

I have a Nikon N65 and 4 lenses for Nikon (50/28-105, 70-300,17-35). I was also contemplating D70/8700 for a while. But going to digital first time, I did not want to invest in $ 1000 first time. Also another factor I considered was I will be replacing my 35mm point and shoot with a digital, my wife will also be using digital. So based on my requirements, I opted for Panasonic FZ20. Also it is more portable for casual shooting than a SLR. Once the price of digital SLR drops to $ 500, I am going for a digital SLR. That may not happen in next 2 years. But I will continue to shoot film and digital over next 2 years.

I have an investment of Velvia's and Portra films for film world. When I started into photographt 2.5 years back, Nikon D100 was $ 2000 and photo magazine touted as "affordable" SLR. My Nikon N65 was $ 200. Then top of line film F5 was $ 2000. Now D70 is $ 1000. I am sure D50 be in $ 500 range.

[Rhys]

I have a Nikon N65 and 4 lenses for Nikon (50/28-105, 70-300,17-35). I was also contemplating D70/8700 for a while. But going to digital first time, I did not want to invest in $ 1000 first time. Also another factor I considered was I will be replacing my 35mm point and shoot with a digital, my wife will also be using digital. So based on my requirements, I opted for Panasonic FZ20. Also it is more portable for casual shooting than a SLR. Once the price of digital SLR drops to $ 500, I am going for a digital SLR. That may not happen in next 2 years. But I will continue to shoot film and digital over next 2 years.

I have an investment of Velvia's and Portra films for film world. When I started into photographt 2.5 years back, Nikon D100 was $ 2000 and photo magazine touted as "affordable" SLR. My Nikon N65 was $ 200. Then top of line film F5 was $ 2000. Now D70 is $ 1000. I am sure D50 be in $ 500 range.

My gut feeling having had several digital cameras is that the price will keep dropping.
My Olympus C200 Zoom cost me GBP 235
At the end of its run it was selling for GBP 100
the replacement (the C300) was selling new for GBP 175
My Nikon 995 cost me GBP 400
The replacement (the 4500) was selling for the same
My Nikon 3100 cost me GBP 235
At the end of its run that was selling for GBP 100
The replacement (the 3200) is selling for GBP 150.

I note that the S1 which was I believe about GBP 3000 sells now secondhand for GBP 500.
The s2 was selling for GBP 2000.

I'm looking to the day when a Nikon digital camera that takes all of my lmanual focus lenses and works well with them costs around GBP 300. If Canon gets there first then so be it - Nikon's lens compatibility is compatibility in name only at the moment.
There's a downward trend overall.

[fastcamera]

D70 is the way top go.
:)

[alperin1]

In the long run you will be better off with the D70. You will be able to purchase many types of lenses. Also, the ASA range is much wider and the F stop allows for more flexibility. You will not get such a wide verity of options with a camera that has a fixed lens.

Also, when you attach a lens to the D70 the lenses have a multiplier of 1.5 because of the size of the image snesor. This causes a lens to go rom say 70 - 300 to 105 - 450.

Darin