D3 as an investment for wedding work

With the incredible ISO performance and dual card backup it seems like this

camera will last for a while. When I picked up my d200's I could see the ISO

noise was still a problem. I am trying to wonder if the D3x and D3Xs would be

worth waiting for, any thoughts on what the D3 is short on?

 

I can't really see any faults from all the review I have read. Could this be a

3-5 year camera? I can't see any faults with needing much with what this camera

delivers. The dual card is the biggest thing along with the low noise for me.

The biggest problem IMO is that dx lenses do work but yield only 5mp, so my workhorse 17-55 dx will need to be replaced by the new 24-70. I'll continue using my 10.5 dx fisheye having to accept the lower resolution for those few special shots. Also, my fav 70-200's maximum zoom capability will be reduced by 50%, which I will miss!

steve - I don't know about you, but, IMHO, there are a lot of 3-5 year cameras on the market. My 20D bodies were two year cameras, but I could have made them 4 if I wanted to. I was just too tempted to get the 40D bodies, and I did. it had the upgrades I wanted - quieter shutter, bigger viewfinder and bigger raw buffer.

 

If you ask me, a lot of it is what you need. if you dont' need anything more than what the D3 offers, then great. use it and love it. if you need something else, then you gotta wait.

Steve,

 

Assuming that the only significant differences from the hypothetical D3x or D3Xs will be more megapixels, I can't see any reason to wait. 12MP is plenty for any wedding work I can imagine (probably a sign I don't have much imagination). Also, cramming more pixels into the full frame sensor would mean smaller pixels and what effect would that have on noise?

 

I think, seeing large images from the 4MP D2h and how great they look, that 5MP images from the center of the FX sensor will be just fine.

 

I intend to continue to use a DX body for my long shots.

 

Paul

That new 24-70 lens looks like a winner, would certainly be a workhorse on FF just as the equivelent Canon is for wedding shooters.

 

12 Megapixels is a lot. It's rare that it won't be enough for wedding work, the 12.8 megapixels of my 5D is crippled by the glass (the 85L @ f4 made my 24-70L look like a milk bottle in comparison!) and my technique rather than any lack of inherent resolution. I wouldn't want more megapixels for wedding work, I couldn't realise them unless on a tripod with primes and the extra processing/computer time would be a killer for resolution I just don't need.

 

With that in mind and my 5D's are two years old and look unlikely to be upgraded any time time soon, I doubt that there would be much point in waiting for the few extra megapixels of a D3x.

Like Suzanne, the 17-55 DX lens is my workhorse, so an upgrade from my D2x to D3 also means getting the new FX wide zoom as well. Yes, you can switch to DX format in the D3, but you lose megapixels as a result.

 

I fully agree that 12 megapixels is more than enough for weddings, and I'm very happy with the noise performance of my D2x. A future D3x with more megapixels might be desirable for landscape or fine art work, but I don't see it as necessary for wedding work. The larger capture size is just going to take up more CF card space. When I'm shooting 1,500+ captures at a wedding, CF space is important.

 

The biggest reason that I would consider an upgrade to a D3 is the dual-CF slots. With that feature I could have images record to both cards creating an in-camera back-up should a card fail. Since I'm now using 12 and 16 gb cards, creating in-camera backups is very desirable to me. I don't like the idea is having all my eggs in one basket, but it's a risk I must accept with my D2x.

 

Having said all that, a used D2x body as a backup (or even a third body) to my current lineup is a much more cost effective choice for weddings. I would rather spend $2,500.00 on a solid and capable wedding camera that takes my current DX format lenses, than spend 6,500+ for a D3 and new zoom. The dual CF slot isn't worth $4,000 to me.

I hear you guys, No more MP - don't need that, computer time will already be slowed down, the AF system and low light foucs is great too. It is hard to see the future sometimes and this camera is making that possible. It is a lot of $$ but imagine one CF card going bad at a wedding, even shooting with two cameras the bulk of the shots are on my main one with the 17-55dx and there goes that wedding if a major card failure. Makes the D3 worth consideration. Imagine a 2k refund and the trade in value of a d200 body and it is not such a stretch but that might be me talking myself into finally having THE BEST camera in my bag for a change instead of the runner up. I also think explaining the dual card system to a potential bride could be a huge selling point on a close. Virtually guarentee the images.

 

I would keep my d200 as a second using my 70-200vr. The 17-35 2.8 might be in demand with the D3. 24-80 just does not seem wide enoough for formals.

I'm curious to know how many of you use a camera with a dual card reader? And do you really use this as a selling point to your clients? I never bring up my camera gear, unless the client asks. To me, it seems like if there is going to be a malfunction in writing to the cards, it could potentially happen to both slots/cards, in which case it doesn't do you any good.

I always use dual cards Julie ... especially when shooting alone. I adhered to that policy

after my partner did a wedding solo and had a Lexar card failure where none of the images

were recoverable.

 

While anything is possible, lost images seem far more prevelant due to card failure ( which

you wouldn't know until it's too late) than camera malfunctions while writing to the card (

which you are more likely to be alerted of while shooting.)

 

Card failure can happen at a number of steps along the way, not just in-camera, so the

odds go up.

 

I usually don't use this feature as a selling point unless a clients asks about the legal " hold

harmless" disclaimer in my contract concerning 3rd party product failure.

I had a similar dilema and I decided to wait for the D3x with increased MP. I am not doing this because I need more than 12MP for the wedding work but because of potentially being able to use the new higher MP camera in DX format and get the 12MP that would allow for nice enlargements and crops. This way I can use the camera with whatever lenses I need whenever I need them. Switch to the 20-25MP for fine art work, large portraits, landscapes, commercial work, etc.

In my opinion the D3x is worth waiting for.

I think its perfect for weddings. I thought that about the d2x till I saw the noise from it.

 

I will add one and see what its like. I look forward to the optimal ergonomics of Nikon and to the FF.

 

As far as investments go, this is not the industry it once was. You are almost obliged to upgrade digital gear regularly just to keep all the parts working together. Computers, software, bodies, etc. I don't think any body is going to last (excluding mechanically or wear and tear wise) so long that it can be considered a 'long term investment', so you probably need to consider if you will get the ROI by the time you quit using it.

 

Best, D.

Can someone please clarify..... are you all saying the D3 will not work with the old Nikon D lenses? And one must now purchase an new type of lens "fx"?

 

Not that in the market for the D3.... I'll be upgrading to the D300 once they've got the kinks worked out, but I've yet to a "digital" lens for my D70 or D200, and of course they work great on my N90S as well......

Sorry my grammer sucks tonight....

 

"Not that I am in the market for a D3...."

 

And " but I've yet to buy a "digital lens"....

Michelle - FX is just Nikon's acronym for what we are calling a "full frame" sized digital sensor. There are no FX lenses, the D3 should work fine with any AI capable lens (with some caveats here and there I'm sure). Assume D lenses should work just as great with the D3 as with any other Nikon camera.

 

The DX format, on the other hand, indicates a sensor that is smaller than the size of a frame of 35mm film. Some recent lenses are made for the DX format, meaning they produce a smaller image circle that will not always cover all of an FX sensor or all of a frame of 35mm film (producing vignetting at various levels depending on the lens/zoom setting of zoom capable lenses).

There are no "FX" lenses, pretty much all Ai (1970s+) lenses that are not DX should work on the D3. Some wide angles may perform not so well, just as some full-frame wide angle lenses do not work well on the DX cameras.

I think this camera will be great for 3-5 years of use. You don't need anything higher in

resolution for wedding work and the camera looks like it will handle high ISO settings nicely.

 

I personally wouldn't wait for a D3x unless you are doing commercial work. For weddings

and portraits this will be a great camera. And the D300 looks to also be a great camera for

2-4 years.

Garry & Ilkka..... thank you for the clarification.

Just need some wide quality fast primes now...

Zeiss makes 25/2.8, 28/2, and 35/2. These are manual focus but at least the 25 and 35 are excellent. The Nikkor 28/2 is not too hard to find second hand. The 28/1.4 AF Nikkor is expensive and somewhat hard to find. D3 performance with these lenses needs to be assessed but I would guess that at least with the Zeiss lenses there will be no problems.