>The D3 also has a more durable shutter, which is something >that most don't remember. It's not a problem if one upgrades >every couple of years, but if you plan to run it into the >ground, a D3 will be more cost effective over time. > >There are other things, too. Two AF processors, not one. >Probably not a big deal for those who don't use stuff like >51-point group dynamic, but it is real in those configs. > >More obvious are things like frame rate, buffer depth, etc. > >Do I think it's worth it? Clearly I must have thought so, >since I have a D3 rather than a D700.
Hi Brian, As I discovered just recently unless the D3 has had the buffer upgrade the D700 has a much larger buffer depth!