I was going to get the D700 and my wife is pushing me to get the D3, because is it a better camera. Now I know why I love my wife so much!
My only hold out is the $1500 difference all though it is something I can afford. I just want to know if the markup is justified since I haven't used either, but I did hold a D3 last week that didn't have a charged battery in it.
My gut feel tells me that I should get the D3 to go with my D200 while my wife is all for it, LOL.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
I do beleive the D3 has a more durable shutter. Correct me if I'm wrong but I the shutter life of the D3 is twice that of the D700. That alone makes it worth the extra if you use this camera to make money.
I have a D3 and love it, and I like the dual CF cards, but I can live without the rest of the D3-specific features. The D3 is a rather heavy beast, and gets heavier still when you attach pro lenses to it. I'm renting a 70-200 this week to see if I like it - wonderful lens, but boy is the whole package heavy.
If the D700 had been out at the time, I would have gone with that. I didn't have problems with the XX% viewfinder on the D200, and I actually like having the ISO and WB controls at the top of the camera rather than on the back. Plus having the built-in flash as a commander would be nice.
>Just to be a contraian to the D3 love-fest here > >I have a D3 and love it, and I like the dual CF cards, but I >can live without the rest of the D3-specific features. The D3 >is a rather heavy beast, and gets heavier still when you >attach pro lenses to it. I'm renting a 70-200 this week to >see if I like it - wonderful lens, but boy is the whole >package heavy. > >If the D700 had been out at the time, I would have gone with >that. I didn't have problems with the XX% viewfinder on the >D200, and I actually like having the ISO and WB controls at >the top of the camera rather than on the back. Plus having >the built-in flash as a commander would be nice. > > > Me too!
D3 is amazing, but to have "95% of the D3's goodness" (Michael Reichman) in a much smaller, lighter, less expensive package? WOW!
And while the D3 is available at US1 for $4K, it is still $4700 at B&H and other more reputable sellers, so there is enough of a difference to get a D700 PLUS a 24-70 or 14-24 for the same price!
Be a good husband: obey your wife. What a lucky man you are. Ps you might just try to hold both in your hands, the D3 and the D700 and ask yourself: which <i>feels</i> better? I am sure that your "littel voice" will tell you the answer.
>You know that you will want an MB-D10 for another $250 so >now the difference is only $1250. > > >Mike
For a moment, let's assume no price difference (D700+Grip price = D3 price) even if this is not really the case. I am looking for general thoughts on what would be the better choice for someone who does a mixture of shooting. Does dual CF trump onboard flash? Does dust reduction trump 300k shutter actuations? Looking for general feedback from everyone on why they would choose one over the other.
I can attest to all of the above. I would also like to point out that there is a D3 for sale on the WTS forum for $4000 by jreed. I can vouch for Jon, he is one of the best around and I'm sure his D3 is in perfect condition, and a great buy. With all of the buzz about the D700, I still think the D3 is the way to go. I wouldn't hesitate at all!
While the D700 has a great feel and build quality to it, once you get used to the feel of the flagship body, the D700 feels a little flimsy.
It's not, it just feels that way. I was just playing with one about 10 minutes ago. (Nikon is here at BH Today for the launch, and I tested it about three weeks ago when the tech rep was here showing off).
Although I own the D3 if I were buying now I would go for the D700. My logic is I do a lot of backpacking and rarely shoot 5 fps. With this in mind the D700 delivers the same image quality in a smaller body with less weight - and about enough saving to buy a 24-70 or 14-24. As to comments about the D3 being a "mans camera" (women do photography too ) in it's era the F100 was a "mans camera" in that mine have given me 9 years service in often harsh environments. Nikon claim build quality closer to the F6 for the D700 so, if the D700 is right for you, go for it.
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.
After looking at the specifications for the D700 it would be hard to argue that the D700 is not a fantastic camera for the price, compared to the D3.
I do feel the D3 is worth the additional cost. For most of the reasons that have already been stated.But I have one more reason that I haven’t seen mentioned.
I can see a large percentage of the new D700 users also getting the MB-D10 battery pack, and that’s when I see a slight problem. I have the D300 with the MB-D10 and with my copy I have a slight flexing between the camera and the battery pack. It’s not near as bad as we had with the D200 with a battery pack attached, but it’s still irritating. Seeing the D700 uses the same battery pack is the D300 it may be an issue. If you don’t use a tripod or only use a tripod with long lenses it’s not an issue.
Put my D3 on a tripod and I can use a 24-70mm or my 85mm1.4 and its rock solid. If I’m shooting on a tripod with my D300 using medium to wide angle lenses I take the battery pack off.
Ok...I feel a bit better. Seems most people would opt for a D3 given a small $$ difference. Fact is, I have been a bit undecided because both have certain advantages and at that, both have advantages I wish I could get in one single body. (eg Dust reduction + longer-life shutter, flash (for commander mode) + dual CF). I actually managed to somehow pull off a miracle and got a new D3 USA version for $3500 + shipping. I just wanted some reassurance that I didn't "do the wrong thing" pouncing on that deal if somehow the D700 would have been a better choice.
And yes, I'm still pinching myself to ensure that it's not a dream.
Let's face it - good times are over. You do not buy a DSLR for your lifetime. The question should be: Are you ready to change when Dx will have more pixels and light? I upgraded my D2X to D3 and it works great. But there is always room for improvement. I'd get a D700 today, shoot great night shots and better wait for the pixelmonster in three years. The next level is not 20 MP but 40 MP. Enjoy in the meantime what you have. Best wishes memephoto
I wish it was a storefront so I could share it with everyone but in fact an ebay seller posted it starting at $3400 and change but for some reason put a buy it now of $3600. I had been searching over and over for a D3 because I wanted to see if I could get one close enough to a D700's cost to make it worth while for me. I also think it was somewhat self-torture. It just so happened it popped up just before one of my searches. I had recently received a paypal coupon from eBay for 10% off, up to $100 total...so that brought me from $3600 to $3500. Amazingly (to me, anyway) it really turned out to be new and not grey market. The Nikon USA stickers were there and the unit had no dust or finger prints, much less any marks/dents/scratches.
If it's any consolation, I have seen D3s selling new on ebay around the $3900 - $3950 mark up until I just made my purchase. I assume it was partially because of D700 anticipation.
I did try D700 2 days ago. IQ's is the same as the ones by D3 delivered. For me, personaly, D700 was not convenient. Didn't fix well in my hands, the camera is too small. Balance lost with any 2,8 pro lens. Very good balanced with 24-120 and such. Beautiful, really amazing little camera, but not for me. D3 is very well worth an extra $1500 - for the pros! Your wife is smart person - listen to her! Good luck anyway! Dimitri.
This same type of thread appear numerous times when the D200 came out....i.e. D2X vs. D200. Just like what you have seen in this thread, the answer does vary from person to person.
I do have a D2X. I have held off getting a D3 for various reason but namely because I am awaiting to see what the mythical D3X brings to the table.
Now eith the appearance of the D700, I am thinking of breaking my years of getting the top model (film/digital) and instead get the D700. I for one want a smaller body to shoot with at times. I wouldn't even bother getting the battery pack to accompany it. This would be contrary to my desire to have a smaller body. While I have carried around "big" bodies for 30 years, I want something that would be less conspicuous. Perhaps with its high ISO performance, the D700 is what I have been waiting for since I have put off getting the D200 and D300. I have a project that I want to start that a small body would be more appealing to me but high ISO performance is just as important.
You have a tough decision but the "is it worth it?" question has many answers as you see. There is not just one simple and correct answer. It all depends on what the person wants/needs.
Just get a D3. I am a freelance who also has two D200's. The D3 is just on another plane and while the picture is everything, it better helps you get there with mechanical depth and emotional confidence
I love my D3 too but one thing I want to know, and would definitely influence any future purchase decision, is the shutter quieter on the D700? For weddings the D3 shutter is way too loud to walk around without being noticed. It may seem a minor gripe but it can kill "moments". Cheers Mark
It doesn't matter what other people think or if the shutter is designed to last longer. Maybe you should ask yourself a couple questions 1) Do you want to pay extra to get a heavier, more complicated camera, with more professional and some unnecessary features? 2) Do you??
my 2 cents Joel
>I was going to get the D700 and my wife is pushing me to get >the D3, because is it a better camera. Now I know why I love >my wife so much! > >My only hold out is the $1500 difference all though it is >something I can afford. I just want to know if the markup is >justified since I haven't used either, but I did hold a D3 >last week that didn't have a charged battery in it. > >My gut feel tells me that I should get the D3 to go with my >D200 while my wife is all for it, LOL.
I love my F5, but I also love my F100. To me, the D3=F5 and the D700=F100 (although I know the digital models are more advanced than the film counterparts). This is what makes the decision more difficult. Also, most of my lenses that I use are the pro f/2.8 zooms (17-35, 28-70, 80-200).
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
Sat 09-Aug-08 09:22 PM | edited Sun 10-Aug-08 01:06 AM by gregd80
Ok...I just got back from the Camera store. I specifically tested a few specific points on the D700 in relation to the D3. However, I will provide my personal overall observations (not just the specific points I wanted to check). I did have my D200 with me to do some D200 vs D700 comaprisons too. These are my observations that were "unknowns" before doing a comparison (as opposed to the "knowns" such as built in flash, one CF card slot, etc)...
Portability/totablility (for snapshots/candids or a day wandering about). This is obvious as far as size...D700 < D3. But there are a few other factors here to me. The first is weight. I expected based on the D700 specs showing weight almost halfway between the D3 and D300 that it would seem noticably less portable than my D200. The reality is that even with it noticably heavier than my D200, it still feels much lighter than the D3 and far more livable for wandering around with as far as weight. I attribute this to the specs showing "without battery". Since the D3 uses the 4 series and the D700 sharing the 3 series with the D300/D200 cameras. Second, the shutter on the D700 is much more in line with the D300 and D200 shutter volume. Granted this is a given based on specs (I believe this to be a D300 shutter) but to me it makes it more totable in the sense that it doesn't draw attention to itself like the D3. Favor D700 here for weight and volume in addition to the obvious size advantage.
Build quality. This is a departure for me. The D700 I expected based on price to feel more solid. To me the D700 feels like a D300 in build, rather than like the D3. This does make sense since you have to be giving up something for the money difference. However, to me I still expected a more solid feel from a camara priced between the D300 and D3. I also wasn't a fan of the D300 style shutter. This shutter sounds to me like it will go out of spec quicker. That in and of itself might not be an issue but after using the D700 I wouldn't personally use a D700 (or D300) if I ever planned to use more than the base 5 fps with any regularity. Favor D3 here if doing a fair amount of continuous shooting.
Auto active d-lighing. I wanted to try the D700's new "auto" setting for active d-lighting. I personally found this to be underwhelmingly unagressive. But, it is probably typical-nikon accurate and only seems to gain up when a scene absolutely demands it. Personally, I would like to see this brighten shadows and compress highlights on high dynamic range photos even if it is not entirely necessary. ie, increase dynamic range at least some even if highlight clipping "should" be the correct exposure. For me this is a tie, but for others the D700 might have the edge. I would likely end up setting this manually even on the D700. But then, I'd probably use "auto" as my new "off" position.
Autofocus performance (AF). I have read differing conclusions. Personally, going back and forth with the same lenses in the same lighting and scene did yield some difference. I found both the initial focus and focus tracking to be slower than the D3. In all fairness, it did seem to have most of the oomph of the D3 compared to the D300. The D300 I tested prior had noticably slower AF than either the D700 or D3. This was the single biggest item that made me question the D3's value over the D700. Essentially, unless you shoot sports as you primary subject matter, I don't think the D700 sacrafices anything important. But, if any difference would cause you to pause then I say go compare them for yourself. Edge D3, even for me.
That's the big unknowns for me. As it stands, I am going to have to do an all-day trip with my D3 to see how lugging it around 12+ hours straight feels to me. At this point, I would probably only downsize to the D700 if the D3 turns out to be too much to lug around. If not, I plan to keep it for the slightly better shutter and AF performance.
A D3 now is OK or a D700 now with a D300 for Christmas is fine with me financial wise and my wife. The financials are about even for both options. I would sell my D200 if I did option 2, which makes option 2 less money.
I am still taking my time deciding as falling prices seem to be the result of my patience.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
What? It would be too much trouble to switch cards in a camera with a single card slot?
Seriously. That makes a D3 worth the price?
>I think everthing is pretty much covered. > >I don't think you can go wrong with either camera, as to which >to go for, it depends on how important the differences, (both >financial and operational) are to you. > >For me having had a card die on me whilst on a paid job the >twin CF slot makes the D3 the winner. > >Of course xmas is not far off so a D3 now and a D700 then >would be nice, or is that pushing the 'better half' too far? > >Jon
Not double slot only. Robust body, better V/F, well balanced for heavy pro lenses, better shutter, better in hands - mine, at least, faster AF, better battery life! Yes, it well worth the extra $$, no doubt - for the pros! Dimitri.
>What? It would be too much trouble to switch cards in a >camera with a single card slot? > >Seriously. That makes a D3 worth the price? >
It's not about storage capacity...it's about redundancy. The D3 can write to both cards as backup or can be configured to write RAW files to one and JPG to the other. This is a real selling point for anyone who either makes money with their camera or simply wants to be as redundant as possible. Even if it's a small percentage, to some photographers I am sure the price of admission for a D3 is justified for this feature alone. Admittedly, I am not one of those people. I can't personally justify the price spread for that single feature. On the same note, not everyone can justify a D700. So, it's all relative.