Back to serious matters...
#jaun, would you be wanting that 10.2 Mp Nikon mostly for astrophotography? The D70s, like the D70, has 6.1 Mp, which is more than enough for anything I thought I was likely to do with it. Photography through a telescope isn't something I've ever tried, though I've been curious about it for years. I'm a binocular-using backyard astronomer, I've never had time to get into it seriously enough to justify the cost of the telescope I'd really like, and I'd rather have no telescope than a cheap one that frustrates me 'cause it won't do what I want. But all kinds of possibilities are opening up to me since I retired a year ago, around the hobbies I used to have in my youth but didn't have enough money (kids, cars, mortgages, you know...) to properly indulge. I had a cheap 'scope as a teenager, a 2" refractor with a hopelessly unstable mount. It was good for looking at the moon and Jupiter's Galilean satellites, and not much else.
Got some good Web references I could go to to find out about things like telescopes, photographic attachments, exposure calculations, things of that nature? I've got some useful books on some of that stuff, like Terence Dickinson's NightWatch, but it doesn't tell me everything I want to know. For instance, I know that about 4 Mp in a digital camera is good enough to print an 8x10 image from, of the sorts of things most people usually photograph, but I have not a clue about any analogous information regarding photography through a telescope. Except for the obvious: more pixels means more information in the image. I assume my D70s would be at least adequate for astrophotography; am I right?