D700 vs D3 - how to choose?

I'm currently a D200 user and I've been concentrating for about a year on interior VR panoramas - using the 10.5

FE. In dimly lit environments. Like most users, I believe, I'm not happy about the performance of the camera

above iso 200 so I'm having to use very long exposures some of the time (HDR bracketing). Before anyone points it

out for me, I'm aware that the application of VR is almost exclusively for the web, so there are many limitations

with regard to IQ at the point of use, nonetheless I like to start out with the best results I gan get - and

there are plenty of non-VR photographic opportunities that interest me too. This winter I'm planning to put a

website together and I have some ideas about how to "monetarise" my activities. We'll see.

 

Now I don't claim to be a great photographer and currently I'm not earning a cent - either from photography or

anything else. I'm a full-time carer which limits me in all kinds of ways. So uneccessary expenditure is not a

great idea. On the other hand I don't have expensive habits so there's not a lot competing with photography for

my disposable, erm, outgoings... Which brings me to the point. I've been reading up lots and lots on the D3, and

to a lesser extent the D700. My thinking is that I'd like to set myself up with equipment which is liable to give

professional results for a long time. The way things are going I may not be able to lay out large sums of money

in the future so I'm thinking about doing it now, before I become... too poor? too cautious?

 

Clearly going to FX format entails great deal of additional expenditure. Apart from an 85mm 1.8 I have mostly DX

lenses. I also have a number of AI/S lenses but nothing of great distinction. And my age makes auto-focus even more

appealing. Using the DX lenses on a 5MP cropped D3 sensor doesn't appeal either. Likewise I have a Nodal Ninja

panhead which struggles to support my existing camera, so I don't imagine it could cope very well with a D3 -

even without a lens, never mind the 14-24 F2.8.

 

My first question is really about the high ISO performance of the D700 against the D3. Is it significantly

poorer? I simply don't recall reading a succinct analysis of this. What I do remember is that I've nowhere seen

any significant criticism of the D3. It sounds absolutely superb in all respects. Speculation about the release

of a high resolution model to compete against Canon's flagship makes me wonder if the D3 will come down

significantly in price if/when this happens. Anyone like to speculate about Nikon's likely marketing approach?

Assuming that models tend to get replaced every few years, how long does anyone think the D3 is liable to remain

a current model?

 

I'll leave lenses aside for the moment. In a nutshell, price considerations excepted, what is the critical factor

for a choice between the D700 and D3? And someone's bound to suggest the D300, but it seems to me to not be a

significantly large step upward.

 

Thanks

Roy

The D700 has the same image quality and auto-focus as the D3 in a smaller, less expensive package. Same image sensor chip -- there are plenty of comparisons online.. Bottom line: unless you are a pro sports photographer or camera abusive photo journalist the D700 is more than enough camera for you.

To the best of my knowledge, the ISO performance between the D3 and D700 is almost identical or simply identical.

The only difference I have seen on some tests (almost imperceptible, thought) is dued to a very slight underexposure

on the D700 (less than 1/3 stop) compared to the D3 (could be unit issues).

I have the D200, D300 and now the D700. I love the D700 for my night time action sports with no flash in high school stadiums. Before I bought, I asked on of the retired NIKON School Teachers, if it was your money and for your use, which one would you take home...he told me - D700.

The image quality between the D3 and the D700 is absolutely identical. And that includes the noise control, which is

unbelievable up to 3200 ISO, and even 6400, in BOTH cameras. The D3 is sturdier, bigger, a tiny bit more reactive

(pressing the shutter release is an experience in itself, it's so sudden and vibration-free. You feel like you just caress the

button), and some people swear by the little additional screen at the back for settings such as WB and ISO. I don't. I

LOVE the big LCD Info screen of the D700, with so many settings clearly visible and accessible at the touch of a button.

The D700 has a built-in flash, wich many «pros» scoff at as «non-pro-like», but it's very useful for triggering remote strobes in Commander

mode. If you go out a lot with your camera, the D700 is obviously smaller and lighter. Unless you add the MB-D10 power

grip. It may not be absolutely as water-resistant as the bigger one, but it is supposed to be sealed. And some people

don't like the sliding CF card ONE-slot cover (the D3 has a latch and spring affair, and two slots.)

 

Again, image quality is exactly the same. The D3 is a fabulous camera. The D700 also, in a more modest package.

 

My advice? Go with the D700, save the additional money and get yourself the wonderful Nikon 24-70/2.8 FX zoom. You

won't look back.

As mentioned above, the D700 has the same sensor etc. and thus the same image quality as the D3. If shooting a lot more frames per second is a high priority for you, that's where the D3 starts to pull away. Wondering why you aren't considering the D300? I am a night photographer and it has high ISO performance plenty good enough even for me. Another thing to consider is if you are stitching shots together, I'm thinking the 10.5mm is about the last lens I'd pick, because of distortion. Almost always the lens is the single most important thing. Are you aware of the new Nikon 24mm f2.8 PCE (tilt/shift) lens? If I were doing the shots you seem to be talking about, that would have been the very first thing I would have bought. I think a D300 plus 24mm PCE would do what you want and you would have money left over to develop your website.

 

 

Kent in SD

For tripod mounted HDR interiors for the web I don't see how you can justify the expense. The only thing you

will gain is shorter exposure times if you want to up the ISO to get there. Think about maybe spending part of

the $1000s on advertising to get your business up and running, and start making money instead of spending it.

Just a thought. I feel for you, though. I'm in a similar situation trying to get a business going. I have to

constantly remind myself that it's ridiculous to spend money on gear that "I need" for my "buisiness" when I'm

not even making any money at it in the first place.

They both pretty much the same camera... except for the fact that the D700 has a built-in sensor cleaner and the D3 has

none. I'm going for the D700.

 

Besides, I cannot afford the D3. I already have an F5, so I hope getting a used D3 some time (or years) later. You could do that too.

<I>My first question is really about the high ISO performance of the D700 against the D3. Is it significantly poorer?</I><P>I am now shooting with a D700 as well as a D3 and have done side by side , real world A/B testing. The answer is that there is virtually no difference. if you shoot 14 bit per channel NEFs and, in my experience, process them in the Adobe Raw Converter (the current version as used in Adobe photoshop Lightroom 2.1) you get access to an extraordinary dynamic range. Dpreview.com says 12 stops -- I don't have there measuring facilities but yesterday i did some real world test shooting of a silver painted fire hydrant against a very dark background. <P>By using the Active D-Lighting feature set to high, and through careful use of the recovery and fill light sliders as wel as settign the black clipping point to 3 (the default is 5) I was able to get full detail from what I thought were specular highlights to the deep shadows in the fabric barrier behind it. I'll have more about this in my blog -- http://vener-photo.blogspot.com/ -- later today.<P><I.Speculation about the release of a high resolution model to compete against Canon's flagship makes me wonder if the D3 will come down significantly in price if/when this happens. Anyone like to speculate about Nikon's likely marketing approach? Assuming that models tend to get replaced every few years, how long does anyone think the D3 is liable to remain a current model? </I> I think the D3 is going to a very viable camera for sometime to come. Beyond that we are in the land of speculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin stuck into the mote in the eye of a camel that is trying to pass through a needle's eye.

"what is the critical factor for a choice between the D700 and D3?"

 

Mainly dual memory card slots but there are other subtle differences. If you plan on getting the battery grip,

extra battery and charger, I would suggest looking for a great deal on a D3 - the price difference will be minimal.

 

I also suggest you give DXO version 5.3 a try if you shoot RAW. Their software can give incredible results for

high ISO images on the D200 that may enable you to get the results you are looking for without the huge expenditure.

 

I am not sure if you are aware that they dynamic range of the D700/D3 is about the same as the D200.

 

Frankly since you are taking stationery subjects, a good tripod and patience may be all you really need. While

high ISO images look great on the D700/D3, low ISO images still look better than high ISO images even on the

D700/D3. For best IQ, you will still want to shoot at low ISO and the IQ will be pretty much the same as the D200.

I have both the D3 (bought at the end of 2007) and the D700 (bought 2 months ago) and since the D700 has arrived the D3 has stayed in the cupboard. For what I photograph (landscapes/travel predominantly) the D700 does everything I need it to and more. Put another way, if the D700 had come out first I would never have bothered with the D3. The only advantage, for my purposes, that the D3 confers is probably its handling of adverse weather but I think the D700 is probably already good enough as I never have/need/want to photograph in a deluge as sports/paparazzi photogs have to.

 

In fact I may well sell the D3 and just wait for the D3X whenever that shows up.

 

From an image quality point of view they are essentially identical and so if there is some feature about the D3 that you absolutely require then the D700 will do you just fine.

"I am not sure if you are aware that they dynamic range of the D700/D3 is about the same as the D200. "

 

Definitely not true.

The only slightly bothersome thing I find with the D700 is the 95% viewfinder but it is pretty minor.

Thank you everyone. That's just about conclusive I think. Something that can seldom be said where discussion of

photographic hardware is concerned! Impressive in fact. It's hard to discount comments from people who own both

cameras!

 

I have to confess that in consequence of previous professions I am always tempted by robustness and weather

proofing. I used to be a part owner of Caterpillar hardware... But to be honest I don't absolutely need it.

I pretty well wrecked a point-and-shoot with water (a Canon Powershot Pro 1) so I'm paranoid. Having said that

I don't forsee taking an FX SLR fishing with me.

 

One small point, Kent wrote:

"the 10.5mm is about the last lens I'd pick, because of distortion."

I did specify VR panoramics, but not spherical VR panoramics - which is what I'm doing. For this the 10.5 (X

1.523 on DX cameras of course) is about the longest lens that's practicable. Most people prefer the Sigma 8mm

circular FE which enables 4 shots round, whereas the Nikkor requires six (a total of ten shots times the number

in the bracket - usually 7). The Nikkor is more generally useful

though, even if when defished (I use PTGui because I have

it) it produces unpleasant results. It looks better as an undisguised fisheye.

 

Which brings me to lenses. The Nikkor 14-24mm has had amazing reviews, and would be useable for both sphericals

and general ultra-wide use. Buying a D700 would effectively enable me to buy this "free". Ho ho. I was then

thinking about the 24-120 as a general purpose walk-round lens. It hasn't had the best of reviews though.

 

On the D300, my thinking is simply that it's sure to be replaced relatively soon - this market sector gets

"refreshed" far more than the pro end. And if I'm buying something to last, I'd prefer to have the best I can (or

cannot!) afford.

 

Again, thanks for so many considered and helpful responses. I really appreciate the time taken.

 

Roy

Ellis, according to DPreview, the D200 has a range of 8.2 stops and the D3 comes in at 8.5 stops.

 

"There's a not a lot of difference between any of the cameras near the top of the market; all offer somewhere in

the 8.5 stops region"

 

According to their testing, the best they could achieve (using extreme ACR settings) was just over 11 stops with

the D200 and 12 stops with the D3.

 

My own testing indicates that both cameras will give pretty much the same IQ and dynamic range at low ISO (this

applies to pretty much all recent Nikon cameras).

The D700 is approximately $1900 to $2000 cheaper than the D3. Even though you buy the MB-D10 grip ($240) and

the expensive EL-EL4a batteries and charger, the D700 is still the much cheaper option.

If I didn't aleady have EN-EL4 batteries and charger from the D2X, I would just use rechargable AA batteries to get 8

frames/sec and avoide the very expensive EN-EL4(a) batteries.

 

Unless you somehow must use dual CF cards or you are a big time sports shooter, the D700 is the easy choice:

you get mostly the same camera for $2K less and you don't have to deal with the big and heavy D3 all the time.

Each one has a few minor features the other doesn't have; that is just a wash.

 

Another word of caustion about the 14-24mm/f2.8. I bought a month ago knowing that it is a very limited lens. I went

on two trips in the last month: one week in New England and one week in Mexico. As expected, the 17-35mm/f2.8 is

by far the more useful lens between the two. The 14-24 is great for certain building interior shots, but 14mm is simply

too wide in most situations and its long end 24mm is also limited. The fact that you cannot use filters is too a major

limitation.

 

P.S. The D3/D700 should have much better dynamic range than the D200 because of the far bigger photosites in the

12MP FX sensor.

Shun Cheung said:

"The 14-24 is great for certain building interior shots, but 14mm is simply too wide in most situations and its long end 24mm is also limited."

My thinking is that it's around the same price as the Nikon 14mm lens and therefore more generally useful. It's basically for spherical shooting. Of course I could buy the Sigma 8mm circular FE and save lot of money.

In my experience the dynamic range of the D3/D700 is far superior to that of the D200. This is from shooting 14-bit

uncompressed NEF. Especially obvious is the difference in DR when you shoot at ISO 800-3200.

 

AFAIK dpreview.com report the dynamic range using JPG, which has really nothing to do with the real dynamic range of

the camera. I can't for the life of me understand why they do this; anyone who cares a lot about dynamic range isn't

going to be shooting JPG with this camera.

 

I just read on dpreview that in some countries in Europe, Nikon reports the 17-35 as discontinued. It's still on the Finnish

website, but they might just have some stock left. I can understand that Nikon pushes the 14-24; it really shows the FX cameras in good

light. Lhe lowest price of

that I've found is now around 1200€, which is great (some places here sell it for 1800€), but I'm reluctant because of its

handling and also the fact that I don't have the visual intelligence to cope with 14 mm on FX/35mm.

Roy, 14mm is simply extremely wide on the FX frame and therefore its usefulness is very limited.

I had an opportunity to test a sample 14-24 on loan from Nikon so that I knew its pros and cons very well, but I use a lot of extreme lenses on both ends so that I got one anyway. For most people, the 17-35 is a much much better choice. You could be an exception (just like me), but that is a decision you need to make for yourself.

Some comments on dynamic range - according to dpreview, the D3 encodes more dynamic range in the out-of-the-box JPEGs. JPEGs from the D700 are made to look more attractive ("punchy"), and are some 5 stops lower than what wold be possible from the RAWs. Wih RAW shooting, this difference (D3 vs. D700) does of course disappear. D-Lighting can occasionally produce halo-artefacts. The D200 can be expected to have less DR encoded in RAW because it uses 12bits (versus 14bits for D3/D700).

Shun,

You keep steering people away from the state of the art 14-24 and toward the perhaps to be discontinued 17-35.

To proclaim that 14 mm is too wide and that the 17-35 is more useful is a subjective call. For YOU it's too wide.

YOU find the 17-35 more useful.

 

I used to have a Sigma 10-20 for my D200 (15-30 equiv) ...used it at 10 very frequently. Never thought to myself,

"Gee, I wish this wide angle lens wasn't so wide."

 

It is an objective fact that if you often use a polarizer, grad filters and work in an environment where a

protective front filter is needed, the 14-24 comes up short.

 

Now that I have a D700 I have discussed replacing the 17-35 I used to have with Bjorn Rorslett: His advice, based

on optical performance: Get the 14-24. No question.

<I>"...according to DPreview, the D200 has a range of 8.2 stops and the D3 comes in at 8.5 stops. "</I><P>

 

That is for 8 bit per channel jpegs and is about what one would expect for a JPEG. <P><I>

 

"According to their testing, the best they could achieve (using extreme ACR settings) was just over 11 stops with

the D200 and 12 stops with the D3. "</I><P>

 

Using the auto tone feature i n ACR / Lightroom - which is what dpreview.com does to test actual dynamic range

with their Stouffer target shooting --is hardly extreme, and 12 stops is double the dynamic signal to noise

range of 11 stops . You see the advantage of the D3 /D700 imaging system over the D200 or even over the D300 at

the top of the range. <P>

 

Translation: Difference is detail and in the D3 /D700 highlights there's more recorded tonal differences in the

upper highlights before the difference in tones becomes imperceptible. This can be very important in

architectural work like Roy is asking about, Even if you take that 14 bit per channel NEF in a large color space

(either lightroom's "Melissa" version of Pro Photo RGB or Pro Photo itself and reduce down to an 8 bit per

channel JPEG for delivery to a client. It is simply a matter of starting with more data to start with.

Joe, there are very good reasons that I steer people to the 17-35, which is not discontinued as far as I know, and it is

widely available as a new lens anyway at least in the US. As I said, that is your individual decision, but I believe that for the majority of the people (I am talking about perhaps 80% to 90% of us), the 17-35mm is a far more useful range than

the 14-24, and most people do use polarizers, which is impossible on the 14-24.

 

As Ellis Vener pointed out a few years ago, back in the film days, few people needed anything wider than 20mm.

Therefore, even 17mm is very wide already. If you have some special needs as I do, the 14-24 is an excellent lens,

but before I got the 14-24, I already had (and still have) the 17-35 to cover 95% of my wide angle needs; I use the 14-

24 in some rare occasions just like I use the 10.5mm fisheye in some rare occasions. If someone gets the 14-24

without the more useful 17-35 (or something equivalent to the 17-35), again I can't speak for your needs, but most likely that is a big mistake.

 

P.S. I don't know what Bjorn Rorslett said, to me, the 17-35 is clearly the better lens for most people.

The greatest optical performance at the wrong focal length is not very useful. I have a lot of respect for Bjorn, but his recommendations are not always right, especially when he disagrees with me.

"As Ellis Vener pointed out a few years ago, back in the film days, few people needed anything wider than 20mm."

 

 

I am unsurprised to hear this and it continually bemuses me that there is so much intellectual energy put into the 14-

24 vs 17-35 pro zoom debate as it relates to FX bodies.

 

 

I will readily admit to not being a user of extra-wide (the widest my lineup goes is 18mm on DX, and most often I limit

myself to a 35 prime on DX - effectively 50mm once the crop factor is factored in).

 

 

As such I would have thought that for 80% of fellow photographers the wide end of the 24-70 would have been plenty

wide enough in FX format, and that the need to go beyond this amazingly useful and high-quality lens is really

for 'niche' applications and for a sub-set of photographers. I certainly cannot imagine myself feeling limited very often

by a wide end of 24mm on FX - indeed for my style I would regard 24mm as very, very wide indeed!

 

 

Of course, this is just my 2 cents worth and based on my own preferences. But is the question really 14-24 vs 17-

35? Or should we occasionally also be asking people whether they really need to look beyond the 24-70 as a great

fast zoom that - lets face it - when mounted on FX goes plenty wide enough...

I agree with Bernard, the 24-70 range is great and 24mm is already very wide for all but extreme effects and

interior photography. To me, it is difficult to find adequate foreground for wider lenses and make it look

natural. At 24mm I already have to use shift to reduce the empty space in the foreground in architectural shots.

A wider lens with no shift option has, to me, low appeal - I know from experience that I would hardly use wider

lenses. For people photos I think 28mm already feels very dynamic.

 

But times and people's preferences change. I can see that a lot of people now like/use the extreme converging

vertical effect in wide angle pictures and deliberately distort people to add a sense of artificial dynamics to

the scene. I prefer an approach in which people are photographed to look natural and at their best, proportions

are not deliberately distorted and verticals do not converge except, when occasionally used for dramatic effect.

 

There are successful users of such lenses, of course, just that they aren't as many good superwide angle pictures

as the discussion on these lenses would seem to suggest.