I'm giving some consideration towards buying either the D3 or D3s. As far as cost goes the D3 is a lot cheaper than the D3s. I'd like to know why you would choose one over the other. I like my 12mp D700 without grip, either camera seems like a good compromise. Do you think a D700 and D3 or 3s would make a good kit? If not, would you choose the D3s because it does video? Another question, is the maximum fps the same for both camera's? Are both cameras capable of 9 or 11 fps? I currently use my D2x in HSM mode to photograph kids soccer.
D2x, D300s, D700 & D800
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Mon 03-Jun-13 10:56 AM | edited Mon 03-Jun-13 10:59 AM by blw
The main improvements of the D3s over the D3 are:
- another stop of ISO, both better quality in the mid-range ISOs and absolute capability (meaning 12800 in-spec compared to 6400). At base ISOs or nearby the difference is hard to detect if not impossible.
- video. The D3s has it, the D3 doesn't.
That's about it. They both do 9 fps, 11 with no AF between frames. The D2x is a great camera but the D3 really is a lot nicer to use and is a LOT faster and more responsive.
Personally I hesitate to use a D3/D2/D4 with a D700/800/et al because the control layouts are so different. It's nothing that I couldn't work around eventually, but for me a higher res solution is probably a D3x, which has identical controls to the D3/D3s and similar to the D2x. (Along with compatible batteries, chargers, L-brackets etc.) Note that *I* use two bodies at the same time at many events, such as motorsport, equestrian or social events. When I'm shooting other types of things, such as in a botanical garden, I'm really only using one body; the other one is a backup and probably doesn't make it out of the car. In those cases, a D700/D3 kit is no problem at all - even if it takes me a couple of minutes to reorient at first, that's no big deal. Even that is rare, since I nearly always would go to the D3 first.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#2. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 0KnightPhoto Nikonian since 18th Dec 2006Tue 04-Jun-13 01:18 AM | edited Tue 04-Jun-13 01:22 AM by KnightPhoto
You wanted to know what I think: the D3S was one of the most amazing cameras ever produced. It took the already leading camera of the the time and dramatically improved it. Casting back to that time this was completely unexpected. My feeling, at least for me, I wouldn't think twice
I'm primarily talking high ISO response, but for me video would also be a very important factor also.
Best regards, SteveK
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog
#3. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 0PSAGuy Nikonian since 04th Nov 2008Tue 04-Jun-13 01:30 AM | edited Tue 04-Jun-13 01:30 AM by PSAGuy
As a loyal D3 shooter who once thought he needed the D3s, I'll give you my opinion. I rented a D3s and although a very nice tool, it did not give me $1500 more of an advantage in indoors sports shooting over my current D3. I routinely shoot my D3 at ISO 3200-5000 and it does great. I shoot 99% basketball and hockey.....so if you are shooting something darker, the D3s might be the ticket.
Personally I am waiting I think for the next generation D4 that hopefully will offer me huge resolution with the superb high iso performance of the D4.
So D3 vs D3s.....the D3s wins (all prices equal).....but not at $1500-$2000 extra.
#4. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 3RRRoger Charter MemberThu 20-Jun-13 01:12 PM
Unless you are needing extremely High ISO at a lower price,
I would get a D800 (similar layout to the D700)
or the D4.
They are both a lot better for Video than a D3s.
I have a D800 and plan on adding the e.
It more than fast enough for my Sporting Events.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#5. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 0
The important question not yet answered is, what are you looking to gain over what you already have?
Unless I am forgetting something important, given that you already have the D700, I would just get the detachable grip for it to bring up its frame rate (8 fps) before I got a D3 (11 fps). Otherwise the D3S does bring in the ISO boost if you need it.
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
#6. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 5Wingman Nikonian since 02nd Dec 2002Thu 20-Jun-13 09:38 PM
I regularly run a D3 and D700 (and sometimes a D800) at the same time and have little trouble with differing control layouts. I have thought about moving from the D3 to D3s but decided that the s offered nothing I needed, as I have never wanted to shoot video with a DSLR and almost never shoot over ISO 1600. The D3 is still the best general purpose workhorse camera I've ever owned...
#7. "RE: D3 versus D3s?" | In response to Reply # 0
A grip for your D700 would be a lot cheaper. The IQ of the D700 is the same as the D3.
I have a gripped D700 which uses the EN-EL4a batteries and shoots 8 frames per second. The only reason I also have a D3s is to shoot bands in dark bars where the extra high ISO capability allows me to get shots I could not get with the D700. Naturally, since I have it I use it all the time. My typical landscape kit is the D700 and D3s each with a different lens. I have no trouble going from the D700 to the D3s and back. I also have a D2x and a D2h and a D300. I find the FX cameras to be far superior.
You might consider having a kit of one D700 with grip and one D700 without.