Secondhand D3 and D700 today.

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Now before I get flamed, I have searched the history and spent the last two hours reading it all. Most threads are from a long time ago, go off point very quickly and the functional differences, and lack of, are well known and pointed out.</p>

<p>Essentially, two card slots, 100% viewfinder, double shutter life, built in grip for D3. Cheaper, smaller, self cleaning sensor for the D700.</p>

<p>So my real question is, given that most people think the D700 is the "better" buy, why is the D3 $3,000 and the D700 $2,000 on the used market? What does that extra $1,000 get you? And, most interestingly, if you got a D3 after the D700 came out, why?</p>

<p>D3 FPS is higher than D700 native or with grip. Only handy if you shoot unpredictable fast things, horse eventing, motor sport etc....</p>

<p>D3 huge native battery life... D700 much smaller natively with En EL3s... but pretty similar performance with MB-D10 grip (with EnEL4). Guess you have a choice with the D700... no option with the D3!</p>

<p>D3's weathersealing is poorer than the D700's from my experience...</p>

<p>Could it be:</p>

<p>1. The D3 is a professional-type camera from Nikon.</p>

<p>2. The D700 is a high-level, non-professional camera from Nikon...for the general consumer-user market.</p>

<p>Both work very well.</p>

<p>Thanks Mike,</p>

<p>Whilst not trying to be pedantic, how has the lesser weather sealing of the D3 affected you?</p>

<p>Thanks again, Scott.</p>

<p>Jerry,</p>

<p>I am coming from a Canon background, there I have the comparable choice between a 5D MkII and a 1Ds MkIII, or $2,000 or $4,000. But for Canon there is no comparison really, the AF, build quality etc of the 1Ds MkIII made it the obvious choice for me as I don't need video. But for the Nikon comparison the choice is not as obvious, the same internals make the choice much more considered and difficult to quantify. I was hoping for specific aspects that make one easier, nicer, preferable, to use than the other.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider, I would certainly get the grip for the D700, so size/weight considerations are a non issue, also it brings the prices closer together.</p>

<p>Scott, I was out on a shoot with my 700 and my boss had his 3, his drowned, mine was fine. The water can easily get in via the aperture follower slot. Not saying the 700 doesn't have one, but it's better sealed inside.</p>

<p>The daft thing is the rubber sealing rings on the expensive lenses seal against the body inside this slot....Doh!</p>

<p>Anyone know if the D4 has the follower slot? I haven't seen a good close-up of the lens throat.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why is the D3 $3,000 and the D700 $2,000 on the used market?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The used market prices are not really $2000 and $3000. From I have seen of late, it's more like $2300 - 2500 and $2800 - 3100, d700 and d3 respectively.</p>

<p>Leslie,</p>

<p>I was looking at two packages available locally, a D700 with 17-35 f2.8 which I would sell getting me the D700 for $2,000 ish, and a D3 with 24-70 f2.8G, which I would want, combined for $4,000, so I estimated $3,000 for the body and $1,000 for the lens.</p>

<p>Both are comparable in use and condition, close to mint.</p>

<p>But if you are saying the real average price difference is only $500 without the drive it makes it even more difficult!</p>

<p>Thanks for your help, Scott.</p>

<p>Well...maybe 5-7 hundreds but less than $1k, I'd say.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The used market prices are not really $2000 and $3000. From I have seen of late, it's more like $2300 - 2500 and $2800 - 3100, d700 and d3 respectively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which means that the D3 lost a lot of value from its new sales price whereas the D700 kept its value very well; a used D3 now competes with a new D700 in price. Those who buy a used D3 over a new D700 will likely do so because they either need or want some of the features the D3 offers and the D700 does not; those who buy a used D700 instead likely have their budget foremost in mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone know if the D4 has the follower slot? I haven't seen a good close-up of the lens throat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The brochure states: combined CPU and Ai - so I suppose it's there. Can't imagine Nikon omitting it anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks Deiter, I know Nikon likes making it's flagship models FULLY retrospective.</p>

<p>BUT if this really is a 'SPORTS' oriented model, no-one on Earth is going to use an AI lens for that job. It leaves a really HUGE open slot for rain ingress. Sport guys don't usually get much choice about the weather!</p>

<p>It would only need a different front moulding with a closed front. The inside can stay the same. Just CLOSE THAT SLOT!</p>

<p>There's no benefit to upgrading to the D4 if you're an AI lens user with a D3 or D700.</p>

<p>Mike, the fact that you experienced an incident with this follower tab does not immediately mean that all D3 are weaker than D700/D300 level cameras. I think what you've seen is unfortunate, but not symptomatic. The tab is there on ANY nikon with support for AI and AI-s lenses - accidentally: all the pro-level bodies. Nikon is not that epicly silly.</p>

<p>And wildlife people may use older MF primes. The fact that the D4 is geared towards sports does not mean it is its only audience. PJs and wedding photographers may find it a very worthwhile camera too. And whether it's worth the upgrade - for some it might. MF lenses are quite useful for video, in which case the D4 is a huge upgrade.</p>

<p>Actually, at the risk of displaying my ignorance at Nikon lens nomenclature, does this mean the D3 can use any legacy non AF or electric aperture lens whereas the D700 does not support older manual focus and non electric aperture lenses?</p>

<p>If so that seems a big plus for the D3, some of those older Nikon lenses are a bargain.</p>

<p>Wouter, I specifically said 'in my experience', not symptomatic. I didn't mean to imply that.</p>

<p>So, do you think that the open slot is <strong><em>not</em></strong> a weather sealing compromise? The pro-lens' rubber seals fit concentrically <strong>inside</strong> the tab/slot, so if you have a G lens mounted, it almost directs water down the nice curving slope straight into it. Sure, no rain into the shutter box, just straight into the electronics..</p>

<p>Epicly silly, no.... just regretting not changing it's mount like Canon did..... ;-)</p>

<p>There seems to be a general consensus that the high-res D4 (X or whatever) will be out eventually, and that SHOULD be fully retrospectively fitted out. Fine for studio, landscapist etc. For the sports model, I'm not so sure; it's job is being outside in all weathers with modern fast lenses, AF-S or G Type.</p>

<p>Now <em><strong>if</strong></em> there's to be a true D4S any time soon, it's better weather sealing without that tab/slot would be a major selling point, especially for the upcoming Olympics in the UK... :-)</p>

<p>Scott, AFAIK, there's no difference between the D3 & D700 with regard to legacy lens use.</p>

<p>The D4 is not just a sports model; just about anyone who needs top high ISO performance and increased resolution (over most previous Nikon FX cameras), video, etc. would find it close to optimal. Concerts, weddings, general documentary photography etc. And assuming that the "D4X" will be priced significantly higher than the D4 it will lead many people to choose the D4 (or a lower priced compact FX model) over a D4X even if the latter is a better fit for their needs.</p>

<p>For video (which seems to be a high priority in the D4 design) manual focus lenses are in many cases easier to use than AF lenses.</p>

<p>In any case when shooting in rain you should use appropriate protection and not expose your equipment directly to pouring rain. It's not just about the Ai tab ... there are lots of places in cameras and lenses which will eventually get water in, with sufficient exposure. Kata make rain protection for big glass and cameras; works fine even if operation is slightly less comfortable. Of course umbrellas etc. can be used for an additional layer of protection.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>does this mean the D3 can use any legacy non AF or electric aperture lens whereas the D700 does not support older manual focus and non electric aperture lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, they can both use all the same lenses, including the old manual focus ones, though neither can use the very old non-AI lenses unless the lens is modified.</p>

<p>(Edit: Oops. I see Mike already answered this,)</p>

<p>Thanks, Kent and Mike, for not going off topic :-)</p>

<p>Oooops!....sorry Scott.... ;-(</p>

<p>Kent.. No problemo, at least we were consistent :-)</p>

<p>Indeed, the D700 is a good buy compared to the D3. Both are now, or very soon to be, replaced. That makes them about to drop a little in price, making them very worthy bargains.</p>

<p>Depending on whether speed ie FPS or weight is important to you, will decide your choice. Heavier, faster more money D3. Lighter, slower less money D700.</p>

<p>No seriously Mike, I wasn't being sarcastic. I live in the Canon forum mostly and in there I would have been crucified several times over and there would have been half a dozen fights over totally irrelevant non factors :-) (and I am not totally immune to the stupidity!)</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks all, it really does seem there is practically no real world general use advantage to the D3, which is borne out by more general pricing differences of $500-700 before buying a grip for the D700.</p>

<p>Scott.<br /> One thing not mentioned, Noise, not photographic, but from the shutter! The D700 makes lot more noise when the mirror moves than the the D3 does. If you shoot indoor concerts or other arrangements it might be a parameter.</p>

<p>Thanks Jen, it all helps.</p>

<p>No probs Scott, some of us are always apologizing to the Mods for wandering off on our own agendas!</p>

<p>And as you say, if you have to buy an MB-D10 and choose the High Capacity and High Speed En-El4 battery, you'll also need a Bl-3 Grip 'end' & a MH-22 charger, the new total eats up the difference and some....</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Now that is very helpful to know, so an extra $600 (at B&H prices) to get the full potential out of the D700.</p>

<p>Now I truly understand the secondhand pricing of these two cameras.</p>

<p>Obviously pricing varies depending on deals etc, but there's no getting away from the cold sound of HARD CASH!</p>

<p>Without stirring up the hornet's nest, there have been <strong>a few</strong> problems with the MB-D10 and batteries, just search for MB-D10 woes on here and stand back!! and it's not always cheap clone grips and batteries either.......</p>

<p>The MB-D10 is about $260, the En-El4 are about $120, the MH-21 about $120, the BL-3 about $40 roughly $540</p>

<p><em>In case you were wondering....</em> Here in the UK, that's<em></em><strong><em> ....MB-D10 £270 + Bl-3 £40 + EN-EL4 £110 + MH-21 £176 = £596 x 1.5 = $890</em></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now that is very helpful to know, so an extra $600 (at B&H prices) to get the full potential out of the D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The En-EL4a isn't necessary to get the full potential out of the D700 - two EN-EL3e (one in camera and one in the grip) should generally be sufficient unless you really need to shoot 4000 shots on one charge; there really is no need to buy the more expensive En-EL4a setup for the D700/MB-D10. Of course, for a D3, you don't have a choice, the camera cannot use an EN-El3e.<br>

If you do need the MB-D10 and the EN-El4a - then the D3 is the better choice for you.</p>