I have a D3 and a D3x. One must go back and I am torn as to which. (I currently have a D2x) which I may sell or not. I have read hogan and everything else.
I shoot portraits but due to unusual coincidence I find myself on football fields in low light which argues for the D3...I suppose. Still need nice portraits however. Any random thoughts?. I have great 1.4 and 2.8 lenses.
Sounds like you answered your own question. For shooting sports under the lights, the D3 is the right tool for the job. It is also very capable for portraits as well. If you find that you really need the additional resolution, a D600 or even a D800/D800E are less than half the price of a D3X.
I have the AFS 300mm f2.8 VR and the TC-20E III. With or without the TC the photos are stunning. I had the AFS 200mm f2 for a short time but found the focal length was too short for what I shoot. So I traded it for a 400mm. But that 200 is quite the lens. On my D3X the photos were awesome. I think it was the sharpest lens I owned at the time with the 300mm f2.8 a close 2nd. So really between the two lenses it's which one you would use the most.
>I have the AFS 300mm f2.8 VR and the TC-20E III... I think it >was the sharpest lens I owned at the time with the 300mm f2.8 >a close 2nd...
Which would you use the most? I'm not a big fan of the TC line, but that's a minority poibnt of view around here.
How many bodies do you have? What sports do you shoot?
If you've got three bodies, shoot lots of football and have lots of money, get a 300/2.8, a 200/2, and a 17-35/2.8. Great sharpness all the way open in a wide range of focal lengths. Soccer you could probably get by with the 200, if you stick closer to the goal.
Or trade in the 300 for a 400/2.8...
For a recent shoot (on rare occasion when I had more money than good sense), I rented a few more D4 bodies, added a 400/2.8 to my 300, my 70-200/2.8 and a 17-35/2.8 (Maybe I should have taken the 14-24).
That covered all the focal lengths but the boring "normal".
That 400 is why you hire a lens sherpa (or a high school kid in my case). I wouldn't try the 400 on a monopod, either. A 300/2.8 is as big as I can consistently go.
Bob, if you don't need the resolution of the D3X then get the D3. But if you need the high ISO performance for night football then you really want the D3s. Given the same size photo up to ISO 1600 the D3 and the D3X have nearly identical noise performance. I have compared the same photos taken with both cameras many times. I still have my D3x but find I like the D800 better. It has higher resolution and better high ISO resolution than either the D3 or the D3X plus it's a bargain price wise.
If it were me and the choice was only between the D3 and D3X I would choose the D3X every time. But I don't shoot sports or anything above ISO 1600.
I hope this helps and doesn't add confusion to your decision.
If you like the professional gripped cameras, then it sounds like the choice is good. Have you considered a d3s as the one camera to do both low light subjects and portrait subjects? I would rate the d3s above the d3 for low light, in fact probably the best low light camera at present.