I am totally confused. I am a hobbyist with Pro/semi-pro ambitions. When I heard about the D3 I started saving and almost bought one but needed a new computer more and I stayed with my D200. But now with the D700 I looked at it and for the life of me I can't see why I would get the D3 over it. What is there that makes the D3 two grand more? Or is it one of those things where you pay a lot more for a little more performance, kind of like lenses?
#1. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 0delaneyb Charter MemberSat 05-Jul-08 01:43 PM
Exactly.... the question you need to ask is 'is there anything on the D3 that the D700 lacks, that I need?'
its unlikely - in which case Nikon have just saved you $2k. I got the D3 in February. If the D700 had been there I would probably have got that instead. I'm not complaining as I've had a brilliant 6 months with it and I needed to get a new camera then not now. Oh and I'm keeping the D3 - but its nice to know there's a FX smaller body I can add at some stage in the future if I want.
Nikonian in London (Tower Bridge area) UK
Brendan Delaney Photography
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: An important issue is" | In response to Reply # 0Len Shepherd Nikonian since 09th Mar 2003Sat 05-Jul-08 03:11 PM
- do your photographic needs best match the unique advantages of DX, the different unique advantages of FX, or the advantages of being able to use either?
In the Nikonians poll and feedback to similar threads the majority of DX owners intend to stay DX only. What the majority perceive as best for them should not influence you - whether or not you need FX should.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
#3. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 0
Perhaps the real question is why you need the D3 or D700 at all?
If you have pro/semi-pro ambitions, you need to think like a pro and say "will this investment make me money, and if so how quickly?" Unless you are shooting photojournalism, sports or weddings, the FX format may be offering you nothing.
I took my D3 and the 70-200 VR with me today to shoot my brother-in-law completing a half-marathon. It was only when I got there I realised I would have been much better off with the additional reach of the D2X. It didn't bother me much because it wasn't a paying job, but it would have been the wrong choice if it had been.
Obviously, most of us haven't tried a D700 yet, but if it performs like the D300, but with an FX chip, then it will differ from the D3 in more or less the same way that the D200 differs from the D2X.
The D200 is a fine pro camera. Unless you need something else, then the pro decision is to maximise profit by minimising unnecessary investment, and also by buying as late as possible: time is money.
M A R T I N • T U R N E R
Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera
My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, https://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/
#5. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 3Sat 05-Jul-08 04:57 PM
>Perhaps the real question is why you need the D3 or D700 at
>If you have pro/semi-pro ambitions, you need to think like a
>pro and say "will this investment make me money, and if
>so how quickly?" Unless you are shooting photojournalism,
>sports or weddings, the FX format may be offering you nothing.
>I took my D3 and the 70-200 VR with me today to shoot my
>brother-in-law completing a half-marathon. It was only when I
>got there I realised I would have been much better off with
>the additional reach of the D2X. It didn't bother me much
>because it wasn't a paying job, but it would have been the
>wrong choice if it had been.
>Obviously, most of us haven't tried a D700 yet, but if it
>performs like the D300, but with an FX chip, then it will
>differ from the D3 in more or less the same way that the D200
>differs from the D2X.
>The D200 is a fine pro camera. Unless you need something else,
>then the pro decision is to maximise profit by minimising
>unnecessary investment, and also by buying as late as
>possible: time is money.
That first question is what I have been beating myself over the head with for some time. The main thing is I know can do the vast majority of hobby/work with my D200. It's the noise/ISO characteristics that I really would like to be better especially if I'm getting paid for work. Would it make me money? Not much if any but I guess its a pride and quality thing. Also I would just love to have faster focusing (I like shooting sports and other fast moving events)
#7. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 5Jess Sturgeon Registered since 28th Oct 2005Sat 05-Jul-08 05:31 PM | edited Sat 05-Jul-08 05:57 PM by Jess Sturgeon
>It's the noise/ISO characteristics that I really would like to be
>better especially if I'm getting paid for work. Would it make
From the D200, there are a solid 2 1/2 stops of ISO improvement in the D3, which changes your 1/30th of a second shots to 1/200th of a second shots. If you are shooting indoor weddings with limited lighting (majority are), you are going to capture significantly more 'keepers' with the D3.
Whether or not you will make more money will depend on your clients... if they are buying a $1200 package, you will make the same amount of money even if you use a P&S -- no matter what camera you use, you will still get your 'n' best images for their album and they still spend $1200. However, you may get more referrals, and thus more business if you have more images to choose from and all are of better quality.
If you are shooting in a studio, the D3 probably won't be that significant a gain over the D200 to warrant $5k. In this case, I'd look at a used D2X or D300 for improved AF... or wait for the D3X which should hopefully be announced soon.
If you are shooting sports, a novice like myself will have almost twice the probablity of getting 'the shot'. I've argued against this in the past, but after shooting more sports this summer, I've changed my stance. There are a hundred images to be had at 1/100s in a 1 second sequence; with a D3 you'll get 9 frames and with a D2X you'll get 5 (not sure about the D200). (I could have extended this argument to thousand shots at 1/1000 or a million shots at 1/1000000s, but I think if I had 100 shots for every second of a sporting 'event', I'd be assured of having 'the shot' that I wanted.)
I respectfully, but strongly disagree with all the posts that suggest someone buy a camera based on their ability. You'll hear arguments that a 16 year old Ansel Adams will make better images with a Kodak one-and-done, than a novice with a D3. While this is a true statement, its a completely FALSE analogy. The proper comparison is between images from the D3 and Kodak one-and-done, shot by the same 16 year old Ansel Adams. Better cameras make better images, period. Buy the best camera you can reasonably afford, but realize, that only time, studying and practice will make you a better photographer (I think this last sentence is along the same lines as Martin's post above).
#4. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'm in the same boat as you. The advantages for the D3 (in order as they apply to my wants/needs) are:
* build is a little more solid
* easy access to settings (e.g. bracketing ).
* dual CF card slots
* viewfinder coverage is 100% (vs. 95% on the D700)
* 9 fps (vs. 8 fps D700+MB-D10 grip)
* shutter life is 300,000 vs. 150,000 (of all the Nikon DLSR's, I've only heard of a few having shutter failures -- and for the price savings, you could probably have Nikon replace the D700 shutter 3 times and still have extra money)
* has a 5:4 mode (worthless to me, because I only shoot NEF and PP everything)
* size (call me weird, but I prefer a heavier body; with the MB-D10, they will be close enough)
The D700 has the self-cleaning sensor and built in pop up flash. On camera flashes are always limited, but can be handy for fill flash. There are other minor differences, but these may have been fixed in the firmware upgrade for the D3 (e.g. number of WB presets 5 vs. 4, saturation levels 7 vs. 5, hues 5 vs. 4; again, I PP so these offer no benefit to me).
I might pay $4k for a D3 now, but otherwise I'll be buying a D700 before the end of the year -- unless the D3X is announced at/before Photokina. I have much more use for high ISO, but I'm a pushover for resolution.
#8. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 4PedroS Registered since 29th Jul 2006Sun 06-Jul-08 10:50 AM
Well... money is everything!
But money apart (can we do it?) I can easily see a difference in image quality between The D3 and the others Nikon bodies.
If the D700 will came with the same quality, I do not know yet.
#10. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 4acphoto Basic MemberSun 06-Jul-08 10:29 PM
"* build is a little more solid"
I think that is a little understatement. Especially when you add the grip on D200 which feels cheap and caused me number of problems.
Coming from the F4 and F5 models I always preferred the feel of that size build cameras. Comes together with long shutter life which is important to me going trough 1000-2000 shutters a week.
This camera is clearly targeted for professional use, but I would probably have one even if I wasn't making income with it.
#9. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 0
If I were in your shoes I would spend zero time thinking about a D3. It is a top-of-the-line professional tool with a professional price. If you were in business, making steady income from photography, you could justify a D3's cost and write it off (if, as a pro, you decided you need the D3's features). Until then, $3K is more than enough to spend on a camera (the D700) whose sensor and image quality will be identical (so it appears from the stats) to that of the top-of-the-line pro model.
The D3's big advantages over the D700 are 1) speed -- if you're shooting sports you want that 9 fps or even the 11 fps option but imagine if this were the film-days, 9 fps would eat through a roll of film in 4 seconds -- how often would you, as a hobbyist, need that? 2) The extra CF slot is great but how often do you NEED to take 1200+ RAW shots at a pop without taking a minute to change CF cards? 3) battery life -- but you could add a battery pack to the D700 and get the same 4) 100% viewfinder -- one of those things you don't know you're missing right now anyway 5) possibly ruggedness but the D700 will be plenty tough.
(The FX/DX debate is another issue but if you think you'll be a wide-angle-mostly photographer FX has advantages in available glass.)
#11. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 0
What I'm about to comment on is most assuredly not a good *reason* to choose one camera over another.... but I've got to say I LOVE having two card slots. I use 2 8GB cards, and back one up to the other. The peace of mind of not worrying until I get my images off the card, and double backed up is HUGE to me. Probably sounds a bit silly, but I really do relax now when I take out that card and want to look at pics before backing it all up....
"No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the
photographer it has chosen" Minor White
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#12. "RE: Why a D3 over a D700?" | In response to Reply # 11acphoto Basic MemberMon 07-Jul-08 12:18 AM
>What I'm about to comment on is most assuredly not a good
>*reason* to choose one camera over another.... but I've got to
>say I LOVE having two card slots. I use 2 8GB cards, and back
>one up to the other. The peace of mind of not worrying until I
>get my images off the card, and double backed up is HUGE to
>me. Probably sounds a bit silly, but I really do relax now
>when I take out that card and want to look at pics before
>backing it all up....
I do and use exactly the same thing!