D3?

Hey!

This is a very simple question! For the past 2 days I've been shooting like 7 hours per day after dark. I use a D300 and I am very happy

with it, Tonight, I was using my friends Canon 5D and seems like a very fine camera. I haven't seen the shots on a computer yet. But

anyway, my question is very simple, a D3, 5 G's give or take. is it worth it?

 

Rene'

Simple answer.....Yes!

Without knowing what you were shooting, a difficult question. The D3 at ISO 4000, 5000, and 6400, works. The FX format is well designed. I'm a "used" D3 owner. No complaints so far.

Worth every penny!

After dark low available light photography? The D3 with it's 3200, 6400, and above abilities is worth it. Since you are already familiar with the D300 body, if you don't need the built in vertical grip, dual CF slots, 100% viewfinder, 11fps drive, take a look at the D700.

Rene , are you camera collector or you like take pictures? I thought you wrote that you are gettin D700? lol ...- raf

Rene, I suggest you visit the various Canon forums. When the D700 was announced a couple of months ago, there were a lot of complaints about Canon not updating to some "5D Mark II" and some even sold their 5D and switched (back) to Nikon. For a while the 5D was available well below $2000.

Why would people pay $3000 for a D700?

I used a D200 for about a year and went to a D3 this month. I'm very pleased with my decision.

<b>"...For a while the 5D was available well below $2000. Why would people pay $3000 for a D700?..."</b>

<p>

Better - almost legendary Nikon ergonomics. A much better auto ISO feature. Much better performance at high ISO (6400) as well as extended high ISO settings. Live view feature. Faster - more frames per second. A much better (and larger) LCD screen. A much better and more accurate flash system. Much more accurate auto white balance performance.

<p>

There is more - but you get the idea.

The main difference I find between my 5D and D300 is that at higher ISO, the 5D images have more detail (the D300 applies a fair amount of noise reduction).

 

The 5D has one two BIG features that still makes it attractive to many - exceptional image quality as well as highly accurate and consistent metering. I would be interested in hearing your comments on image quality after comparing yours and your friend's images on a computer.

 

I can't imagine a mass migration of 5D users to Nikon. Most 5D users love their cameras and love Canon lenses. With the 5D replacement right around the corner, I imagine many of them are playing the waiting game. I am in the process of upgrading my Nikon bodie(s) yet I don't know if I can/will part with my 5D.

I am mostly a night photographer, although I tend to use massive amount of flash from big battery powered monolights more often than I do available light. I've been using a D80, mostly at ISO 800. I too am looking at the D300/D90 vs. the D3/D700 sensors. From what I can tell and from what I've read, I would gain about 1+ stop by buying a D700/D3 over the DX sensor. For me, that just isn't worth it. It was cheaper for me to just buy faster glass for the available light stuff and MO' POWER for the strobe shots. My current lens line up is Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8--all first rate pro lenses. They are giving me the quality I was looking for. I have the cash for a D700 (can now be found for $2,650 BTW) or a refurb D3. However, to maintain the image quality I now have I would certainly sell the 11-16mm and 17-55mm. That would give me about $1,300 to put on new lenses. However, the new lenses I want are 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8. In addition to the camera body, I'd have to come up with cash for a new lens too, so total would be at least $4,300. I just can't justify that with the sales I make from photos. More than that, I've learned over the years to not put big $$ into cameras because the values drop SO fast. Yes, I have the cash to buy a D700 but I won't. I don't have the lenses to support one. My strategy is to first get the FX lenses in place, then buy the body. All the while, the price on the cameras drops, so I'm way ahead doing that. I've been following this strategy for the last three years (after wising up!) and it's starting to really pay off for me. Very few people have the capability for night photos that I have. That puts me into a kind of photography that has fewer competitors for sales. I have no doubt that eventually I'll move to an FX body, but I'm in no big hurry. I just don't think the stop or so increase is worth that kind of money to me. Prices continue to fall though!

 

And here's where the Canon lens selection begins to look better than Nikon's. Yes, Nikon's pro lenses (mentioned above) are every bit as good or better than Canon's. Canon users are buying the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, LOL! However, between Nikon's best lenses and their "consumer" lenses there isn't much in the middle at all. Canon has the 17-40-mm f4, 24-105mm f4, and 70-200mm f4. While one stop slower, these are pro quality. But then again, you buy a 1-stop faster camera but put a 1-stop slower lens (f4 instead of f2.8) on it, what't the point? For me, that's what it is boiling down to. What's the point of buying a camera that shoots clean at ISO 3200 (instead of ISO 1600) and then putting a cheap slow lens on it? No point in that, I think. So, I continue getting my lenses in place for now.

 

 

Kent in SD<div></div>

Elliot says, "The 5D has one two BIG features that still makes it attractive to many - exceptional image quality as well as highly accurate and consistent metering. "

 

 

The BIG advantage the 5D has is the fact it can be bought for $1,500--about the same $$ as a D300! D700 is coming down though. Already available at some legit places for $2,650.

 

 

Kent in SD

Kent, love your photos, and good point, but...

 

The cost of using a camera involved much more than the body. Most avid Nikon users have lots of Nikon glass/accessories and most Canon users have lots of Canon glass/accessories. I suspect that someone who has invested heavily in Nikon pro glass would not switch to a 5D because it is $1000 less that a D700 and a host of other reasons (as per Russ' post). And I doubt that a lot of 5D user would switch to Nikon for the same reasons (obviously this does not apply to everyone).

 

And to answer the OP question about the D3 or D700, there is no simple answer based on the lack of information you have given. What types of shots are you taking, what ISO and other settings are you using. If you are shooting or need to shoot significantly above ISO 1000, I would say yes. If you are using a tripod with time exposures under ISO 1250, no. If you need the extra reach of the DX format, then the D3/D700 may not be a good choice.

Rene,my business plan is written so that any investment on camera equipment must be recovered within 6 months of

the purchase. If you drop 5k on a D3 do not be overwhelmed in < 3 years when you find out your D3 has dropped in

re-sale value over 50%.

You have a D300 now. I myself, am a glass man. I have a D3 and a couple of D2x's but prior to the purchase of the

D3 I invested in some stellar glass. One of the lenses is the 200mm F/2 Vr it was less than my D3 and I can assure

you I will still be using my 200mm F2 long after my D3 is old-school. I also purchased the 200-400mm F/4 prior to

putting the D3 on the must have list. It was a little more than the D3 yet another stellar hunk of glass that I

predict will out live the "D3s' usefulness" in the professional world. I purchased additional lighting modifiers

for my studio set up prior to the purchase of the D3.

Now in no way do I want to misrepresent my eagerness to purchase the D3, 2 days after the camera was released on

the market it arrived on my doorstep. Furthermore I have to constantly remind myself that my D2x is still a great

camera, I have 30"x40" prints in my studio that are magnificent most captured with the D2x. I also have a

plethora of exposures from my old D-70 hanging in the studio. It all starts with the lens.

So the question remains is the D3 worth it? Yes it is, if you are a professional photographer and the

camera is going to pay for itself (generate additional income), and you have the $$$ to INVEST in the body. I

would say no if your lens selection is limited. Buy Glass, Buy Glass, Buy Glass.

I must confess that I really get an internal laugh when I witness an aggressive amateur photographer aka "DWAC"

strutting around with a D3, and they have a low end lens mounted to it.

Do you need 9fps?

 

Do you need 14 bit per channel NEFs at 9fps?

 

Do you need dual CF slots for in camera back up or overflow?

 

Do you need incredible battery life per charge?

 

Will the extra weight and mass of the camera not bother you?

 

Do you need cleaner results over ISO 1600?

 

If the answer to any 3 of these is yes then yes the D3 is for you.

Nice said, Ellis !, raf

This shot was taken obviously at night with Nikon D300. I didnt have to spend 20k ( just kidding ) :- ) for a camera to get it...By the way this is $ 3,3 mln view from Panorama Towers , Las Vegas. I was shoting the condo for RE broker .<div></div>

<b>"...From what I can tell and from what I've read, I would gain about 1+ stop by buying a D700/D3 over the DX sensor...."</b>

<p>

In our experience - with proper exposure - the D3 at ISO 6400 is very close to the D300 at ISO 1600 - <b>TWO</b> stops better!

This is bigger image, sorry..:), raf<div></div>

Rafal... Uhmm! Collector? Kind of! Last weekend I bought a Canon A-1 lol And yeah! I love shooting. I wish I didn't have

to work and could shoot all day instead!

 

 

Well, I am not planning to drop 5k on a camera coz I don't make any money out of them. I am really please with my

D300 and as I said, I thought my friend's 5D is really good too. But it really makes me wonder if these 2 cameras are

this good how much improvement you can get with a D3. According to you guys it seems a D3 is just fantastic and

worth every penny. I wish as I was lucky enough to shoot with one, at least for a weekend! :)

 

Rene'

"Do you need 9fps?

 

Do you need 14 bit per channel NEFs at 9fps?

 

Do you need dual CF slots for in camera back up or overflow?

 

Do you need incredible battery life per charge?

 

Will the extra weight and mass of the camera not bother you?

 

Do you need cleaner results over ISO 1600?

 

If the answer to any 3 of these is yes then yes the D3 is for you."

 

The above questions give the reason for a D3. I have recently shoot the Olympic Equestrian event (most at night

time) in Hong Kong. I used D3 with 300mm/f4 or 70-200mm f/2/8. In order to be able to freeze the movement of the

running and jumping horses. I needed to use 1/500-to 1/1000. Even with F 2.8 or F 4, the ISO needed is around 800-

1600. Step down the lens only means high ISO if high speed is needed. Even shooting JEP fine, I easily shoot for

than 1000+ve picture per/night, and easily use up two 8 GB cards with me. The battery is still ok after one night of

shooting of nearly 1500 picture with lens nearly coninutous hunting the moving horses for 4-5 hours. I don't need to

use my back up battery at all.I bought two 16 GB cards few days later as there were few more competition to go. I

am a serious hobbyist and rarely shoot sport anyway so I have not got those 300mm f/2.8 or 400mmf/2.8, but even

with those lenses, the ISO requirement would be still high, and the quality of high ISO is stunning.

 

Once I was in a Marine park. I was able to shoot the fishes in the tank (in a drak room) usign D3 (I pressed the lens,

with UV filter on it onto the glass in order to prevent reflects from the glass and to stablized the camera for slow

speed.) I didn't think that I can get any image from that, but I want to try the limit of the camera. The image are

reasonable with high ISO.

 

.

"This is bigger image, sorry..:), raf"

 

Obviously I don't know how much of a crop, but I have to say, that image has *zero* detail, and considerable heavy NR "smearing" in the foreground.

Keith, D300 does not need NR @ 800 ISO...trust me,( noise level @800 ISO is extremely low-: 1.1- - I can send you TIFF file of this picture and you see for yourself how much better it is...raf

This is the RAW file of above picture, raf --

This is the TIFF file of above picture, raf --