Nikon D1x or Canon EOS300D

Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2 lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH


Why not read the review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

I had the 300D and just upgraded to 20D. I absolutely love it.

If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70 w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear. You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com
Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light Flash
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly


"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this
vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed
of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

"Seymore" wrote in message
...
If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70 w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear. You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com

I don't need a D1x per se, I'm not even close to a professional. I guess I'm
just freaking out after the EOS300D went sick after not even a month
(although I know it was used already, psychologically it sucked) and when
you're seeing a camera like the D1x suddenly selling for $1500 or so, it
draws your attention.

Any other tips?

LRH

Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light Flash
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly


"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this
vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed
of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

"Seymore" wrote in message
...
If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70 w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear. You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com

I don't need a D1x per se, I'm not even close to a professional. I guess I'm
just freaking out after the EOS300D went sick after not even a month
(although I know it was used already, psychologically it sucked) and when
you're seeing a camera like the D1x suddenly selling for $1500 or so, it
draws your attention.

Any other tips?

LRH

Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light Flash
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly


"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this
vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed
of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

For CDN $1550 you can buy a new 10D, for CDN $1170 a D70 body (($1500 with
18~70) any of these would be a better choice than the older D1X (The D1X is
a tank of a camera and will accept AI-S MF lenses). Simple answer is a new
camera has a warranty.

"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

For CDN $1550 you can buy a new 10D, for CDN $1170 a D70 body (($1500 with
18~70) any of these would be a better choice than the older D1X (The D1X is
a tank of a camera and will accept AI-S MF lenses). Simple answer is a new
camera has a warranty.

"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the $1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or "this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the 6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me, as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness, and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

Hi, I am in the US and I am wondering if you can send me a link to any
reputable Canadian sites selling the 10d for $1550 CDN.
Thanks

Darrell wrote:
For CDN $1550 you can buy a new 10D, for CDN $1170 a D70 body (($1500
with
18~70) any of these would be a better choice than the older D1X (The
D1X is
a tank of a camera and will accept AI-S MF lenses). Simple answer is
a new
camera has a warranty.

"Larry R Harrison Jr" wrote in message
news:EzOvd.13703$1%.9373@fed1read03...
Let me preface with this: I already have an EOS300D. Just bought it
used
last month, but I already had to repair it--the secondary reflex
mirror
failed, will cost me around $130 via a private repair shop in
town--so
that
has made me look around at what else is out there. I only have 2
lenses--the
kit lens and a Canon 80-200 I paid $90 for, and $17 for the wired
remote.
Not much committed. No dedicated flash yet, or fancy L glass etc.

Meanwhile, I've seen Nikon D1x cameras showing up for close to the
$1500
level. One I saw is for sale body-only at $1300.

Okay, this may seem like a silly question (plus "this or that" or
"this vs
that" questions get tired to some extent) largely because the D1x
is a
top-of-the-line professional type of camera loaded to the hilt with
features
and a tough-as-nails body, while the EOS300D is a basic bottom-line
D-SLR
with crippled features (though the Wasia hack takes care of
some--but not
all--of that) and a plasticky type of body. So it shouldn't even be
a
question, right?

Then again, it seems that D-SLRs as opposed to 35mm SLRs etc
experience
MUCH
more changes from one generation to the next, to the point that
most
people
I talk to would never consider, say, the Nikon D1 (not the x) over
even
the
EOS300D or the Nikon D70. The D1 is only a 2.7 megapixel model vs
the 6
megapixels of the D70/EOS300D and most people I know wouldn't take
the
toughness of the D1 over the higher resolution of the D70 or
EOS300D. So
there you go.

The D1x of course is a 5.5 megapixel model, not much less than the
6MP of
the D70 or 6.3MP of the EOS300D. But it's still older technology
overall--having come out in 2001--and I hear of its vertical
resolution
being the same 2.7 megapixels of the previous D1. That concerns me,
as
photo
quality is by far the main factor for me. I've actually found the
speed of
the EOS300D to be fast enough for me, I don't require the D70's
speed (or
D1x's, whatever it happens to be) for what I do although of course
I
wouldn't complain if I had it. While I would LOVE a tough-as-nails
body
like
the D1x, and even the D70's is way better than the EOS300D's, the
EOS300D's
is actually tough enough for me; I really baby my equipment, I
don't take
it
to the trenches.

In short, image quality is 85% of what I consider important. But
having
the
other 15%--the huge manual parameters of the D1x, its toughness,
and the
fact that many professionals consider it a great camera--would be a
nice
bonus. For the record, I have read the dpreview.com reviews for
these
cameras and many others, and also own the Nikon CP5700.

And even at $1300, the lowest price I've seen the D1x priced at so
far--you
could get a Canon EOS20D for that much. And wouldn't that be a
preferred
route to go? That complicates the question even more.

What do you guys think?

LRH

If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70
w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear.
You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with
its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...

I don't need a D1x per se, I'm not even close to a professional. I guess
I'm
just freaking out after the EOS300D went sick after not even a month
(although I know it was used already, psychologically it sucked) and when
you're seeing a camera like the D1x suddenly selling for $1500 or so, it
draws your attention.

Any other tips?

LRH


Yea... Find a local (to you) certified Nikon Supplier and buy it new. Can
you say Warranty? (o:\ If anything goes wrong, you'll have a live body to
go address the problem with. But, the D70 has been a good cam all-in-all.
Every cam that I know of has had their issues out of the gate, but the D70
had been out long enough to have many of the bugs worked out.

Also, you can use older manual focus lenses on the D70. The lens mount has
not changes in over 30 years. Sorta says something for consistency.

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com
Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly

If you're going to spend that type of $$$, why not look at a new D70
w/kit
lens. Then sell the Canon glass/remote and invest in more Nikon gear.
You
may even get a few hundred from the 300D, as a parts cam... even with
its
problems. BTW, why do you need a D1x?

Seymore...

I don't need a D1x per se, I'm not even close to a professional. I guess
I'm
just freaking out after the EOS300D went sick after not even a month
(although I know it was used already, psychologically it sucked) and when
you're seeing a camera like the D1x suddenly selling for $1500 or so, it
draws your attention.

Any other tips?

LRH


Yea... Find a local (to you) certified Nikon Supplier and buy it new. Can
you say Warranty? (o:\ If anything goes wrong, you'll have a live body to
go address the problem with. But, the D70 has been a good cam all-in-all.
Every cam that I know of has had their issues out of the gate, but the D70
had been out long enough to have many of the bugs worked out.

Also, you can use older manual focus lenses on the D70. The lens mount has
not changes in over 30 years. Sorta says something for consistency.

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com
Sony F717 / TRV70
Nikon FM2, SB22 Speed-Light
Nikon MF 50mm 1.4 -- AF 24-50mm 3.3-4.5
Nikon AF 60mm 2.8 -- AF 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Tokina AT-X 100-300mm 4
remove "REMOVE" to reply directly