Do I want a D3?

[colda]

Of course I do but....

 

I shoot sports (League One footy team), studio (models, portrature and a little commercial) and music (festivals,

gigs, etc)

 

Recently purchased a D300 which (after getting used to the autofocus system) I love, for local gigs where the lighting

is less than ideal I've happily shot 1/100s, f2, 50mm, ISO3200 and been very pleased with the results.

 

The D3 will give me a very welcome extra stop (maybe a little more), a pro body and all the usual benefits which is

naturally attractive but funds are limited and I fear the 'loss' of the crop factor. 99% of my footy photos are shot with a

80-200 f2.8 AF-S, most of the time I desire a longer lens but Iike to be able to zoom and a 400mm 2.8 is a tad out of

my price range. So, in reality the D3 will be used in DX mode (I'm assuming that the D3 can be forced into DX mode

with non-DX lenses).

 

For the studio stuff, it's all low ISO so as much as it'll be nice to have a pro body, will I really see any difference in

image quality? A minor point is that a lot of the work I do ends up on 10 x 8 prints so the 5:4 crop would be nice

 

Low light at live gigs is where I see the greatest benefit but I'm very concerned about the arrangement of the focus

points, it's clear that the points are the same as with the D300 but on a FX sensor, meaning that they are all rather

clustered in the center. I often us a focus point on the edge of the frame when composing an image i.e. the

headstock of a guitar as the primary focus. With the arrangement on the D3 I struggle to see how I'm going to work

well with it, unless I give up the idea of shooting in a close crop manner (which I really don't like the idea of)

 

Just for reference, my main bag currently holds:

D300

80-200 f2.8 af-s

35-70 f2.8 af-d

10-20 (Sigma)

85mm f1.8

50mm f1.4

24mm f2.8

1.7x teleconverter

SB800

 

So, I'm 'FX ready' (with the exception of the 10-20)

 

I've looked at the D700 and it's certainly an option although I find myself more in favour of paying the extra ﾣs for the

D3

 

Decisions, decisions, don't know if to keep saving for the D3, start looking more seriously at the D700 (but all the

above concerns still apply) or redirect my pennies towards a 200mm f2 (although with the higher ISO capabilities of

the newer bodies I'm questioning if I'll actually use this)

 

Additionally, sidetracking a bit here, but I keep looking at Fuji S3's on ebay - is the extra dynamic range much of a

asset? just thinking that it would make an ideal 2nd body that can step in occasionally (and save me grabbing my

wife's D200 when I want to carry a backup) - all on the assumption that I simply stick with the D300

[ilkka_nissila]

Most of your lenses would certainly work very well on the D3. I think you should get a 300mm lens to complement the range and to get those close-ups on FX. I've been extremely happy with the D3+300/4 AF-S combination. Yes, you lose one stop over the 80-200, but you gain image quality. I don't like to use a zoom for concert photography, because of flare and loss of contrast, ghosting etc.

 

If you decide to stay with DX and get a 200/2, that's certainly a possibility and you can later use it on FX, if you like. I would also seriously consider the D700, as the money saved (vs. the D3) would help you fund the 300mm, which I think you should get.

[elliot1]

>> So, in reality the D3 will be used in DX mode (I'm assuming that the D3 can be forced into DX mode with non-DX lenses).

 

DX mode doesn't give you any extra reach - it just crops the frame and effectively lowers the resolution of your image to 5mp (for the image area shot). The 5:4 mode does the same thing - I am not sure of the resolution of the cropped area but I would guess it is 9 or 10mp. If I know I am printing 8 x 10s, I just zoom out a little bit more than I normally would.

 

Except for gaining a stop at higher ISOs, your pictures won't look any different. As software improves, the advantage from the D3 to other similar cameras like the D300 lessens. For example, DXO just released a software update, V5.2, and claims great strides in image quality for high ISO images. I did a quick test with my D200 comparing an identical image shot at ISO 100, 1600 and 3200. The results are amazing, so good in fact, that I suspect a D200 ISO 1600 imaged can be processed to have about as much detail and low noise characteristics as a D300 ISO 1600 image. I plan on doing some testing and will post the results.

 

Bottom line...go for the lens unless you absolutely want/need the extra memory card slot, the larger viewfinder or some of the other features of the D3.

[colda]

@Ilkka

 

I have thought about the 300 f4 but always dismissed it in the past as having the range covered with the 80-200 + 1.7x t/c. Of course with an FX camera's high ISO performance means that shooting at f6.7 (using a 300 f4 + 1.7x) becomes a possibility, the saving and portability makes the f4 attractive over the f2.8 - I just wonder if the autofocus will be stretched too far in the dim light of a winter or night game. Any idea on the 300 f4's autofocus speed compared to the 80-200 af's?

 

@Elliot

 

Totally appreciate the 1.5x is only a crop, but in this mode composition is easier. I like to crop close in camera (too close usually, the 100% viewfinder on the D300 exposes my errors far too often). Hmmm, the DXO update sounds very interesting, as much as I like the images from the D300 I feel that high magnification they have a much more 'artificial' look about them compared to a similar image from a D200 so it's clear that much of the strength of the high ISO performance is due to processing in the camera - that said, I've only looked at jpeg not raw files

[elliot1]

Darren, you would end up with a 5mp 'FX' image with the D3 rather than a 12mp DX image with a D300. Is that what you really want? Keep in mind the image in the viewfinder when shooting in DX mode with the D3 will be in proportion to that of the D300.

 

I doubt that you would actually shoot in DX mode with the D3 unless you were actually using a DX lens.

 

 

>>i t's clear that much of the strength of the high ISO performance is due to processing in the camera

 

This was one of the first comments I made regarding the D3 and D300 images. I agree fully. When shooting for myself, I prefer to have the NR turned off and apply NR myself. For clients (most of whom are used to disposable camera print quality, I leave it on. DXO's NR and RAW converter have been good in the past. Version 5 was touted as having a far superior converter and NR ability than others available. The initial release and 5.1 were OK but certainly not as advertised. I have processed only 4 images (2 at ISO 3200) with v5.2 and I am totally impressed, especially with the D200 ISO 3200 shot. I believe the results are far superior to anything else I have used or seen. Again, I will do a complete test with the D40, D200, D300 and 5D and post the results.

 

I suggest you get you hands on a D3 and test it out prior to your purchase. You may find you don't really need it, or that you absolutely want it. Again, except for a slight improvement in high ISO performance, you pictures will not look any different that what you are getting now with the D300.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 300/4 autofocus gets slower and perhaps a bit more uncertain with my TC-14E (II) than the lens without TC. I haven't used the TC-17E. I normally plug in my DX body (the D200) as the "TC" if I need it, your D300 would work even better for this purpose. I think you would be pleasantly surprised by the optical performance of the 300/4 both on your D300 and also with the D3/D700. The image quality is from another world when compared to the 70-200/2.8+TC-14E, probably this is true of the 80-200+TC-17E also. It's also much more hand-holdable than, say the 300/2.8, or the 200/2.

 

If you use the 300/4 AF-S without TC on the D3, the AF performance is exemplary. I know that the 300/2.8 is even better but the f/4 is quite good enough, and the f/2.8 is much more expensive and not very comfortable to hand-hold without a monopod.

[colda]

@Elliot

 

Indeed the 5mp is less than ideal, I just can't imagine changing my style such that I'm doing the vast majority of cropping in post processing. Also, with the football club I do an image drop at half time and another at full time - I have to rely on something with no time whatsoever to spare to do any cropping/processing before they hit the online gallery, if I'm lucky (and it's rare) then a bit more care is taken before the images go to print. Basically, I have to get it a close to a finished product as possible when I release the shutter. My only option would be to have a wireless connection to an assistant who can process as I shoot.

 

The more I ponder the more I'm thinking of sticking with the D300, having been shooting for a while it's not often that I'll use burst mode prefering to get the timing right with single shot for the majority of the game, last season ISO 1600 was just not quite enough with the D200 - I'm confident that the D300 and ISO 3200 will be fine, 6400 would of course be a luxury but then if I'm losing a stop on the lens then there's no real gain for me

 

For all other shooting then I'm fully in control and will certainly be taking a look at DXO - i'll look forward to your test results

 

 

@Ilkka

 

As much as the 300 f4 tempts me I think I'll have to pass, even with the 80-200 (with no t/c) there are shots that I miss because the AF can't lock on quick enough. Although, I will have a word at my local shop and borrow one for a day (assuming they have one) to give it a fair trial

[ShunCheung]

If you shoot under low light a lot, first of all make sure that the lenses you use are f4 or faster. That is not at all an

issue for those who mainly use 85mm, 50mm type lenses. Once you get up to 300mm, f2.8 comes with a cost.

If you use an f5.6 lens, AF will be an issue under dim light. A low-noise image that is out of focus is not going to be

very useful.

 

Take care of your lenses first and then consider the body. Until perhaps a year ago, ISO 3200 performance from the

D300 would have been considred excellent. Obviously the bar has since been raised by DSLRs such as Canon's 1D

Mark III and the Nikon D3.

 

Obviously I haven't used a D700 yet, but as far as I can tell, if cost is a concern, the D700 should be just fine for

anybody who wants a D3 but would like to save some money. The differences between the two are mostly features

that I would consider as luxury items that are certainly nice to have, but you should be able to live without them.

Joseph Wisniewski started an interesting thread on that topic over in DPReview:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28515672

[walterh]

Darren you can discuss this over and over again. You can make a long list of all the pro and con.

 

BUT if you get a D3 I bet that in no time you will be hooked to use the full frame. Shoot a few hundred images

and you are sold. Then you have a problem. You want that 300mm lens and get all the lenses to fit the FX size. I

sold my D200 even though it is a great camera and it went with some great lenses but using two systems with two

different formats did not make sense to me. If you shoot all day as a pro this may be different but one complete

system is any time better than two half systems.

 

The D700 is an alternative as pointed out already and so is a D300 based system. A full pro FX system is the best

but is costs a lot. I have no idea what you want to spend and what is useful for you :-)

[wpahnelas]

yes, you want a D3...

 

that's the easy part.

 

the $1,200 to $3,200 premium you pay over a D300 is to help focus the mind... yes, better image quality. yes, better low-light performance. yes, the field of view of FF lenses is as they were designed for.

 

the better question, it seems to me, is: are you at the point in your journey as a photographer where an FX camera will allow you to fully attain your vision. if you need a D3 (or a D700), you probably know it.

[marcus_andrewes]

I have a D3 and a D200.

 

Since I got the D3, I have not even turned the 200 on. I will probably trade that and my last film body (F5) against a D700 as a second

body.

 

The D3 is amazing - most assuredly the best camera I have ever used in respect of handling, speed durability and flexibility. It is heavy,

cumbersome and sometimes too clever for its' own good. The battery life is awesome, especially if you are in Single frame advance and

the revised autofocus is also pretty outstanding.

 

The DX crop serves little purpose for me unless I borrow a DX lens - it is one of those things that sits there waiting to be used on odd

trips! It does serve to show just how much you loose in a DX sized view of the world though!

[wuyeah]

Seriously we don't need our opinion on this. Honestly.

 

I'll say if you have the money, buy it; you don't have the money, don't buy it.

If you do have the money, why do you buy D300 recently and not D3?

If you bought your D300 recently; why do you want to buy another camera so soon?

 

What is the point telling you not to buy it when you really want to buy it to a degree you want to post it?

Even if you don't have the money and you want it, you will swipe your card, borrow money to get it.

 

The end, do you need to buy it. do you have the money to buy it. how much do you want it.

[colda]

@Shun

 

No worries about the lenses, everything in the bag is at least f2.8 (with the exception of the 10-20 which itself may be replaced by a 10.5 fisheye - but that's for another thread), only time this is compromised is with the use of the 1.7x t/c but only when conditions allow. If I already owned a 300/2.8 then the decision would be simple. In the main I'm happy with my lenses but need to decide on a route for the future, If I choose a lens based on life with a DX today how will it work with an FX tomorrow.

 

@Walter

 

No doubt I'll be hooked!

 

The irony is that I need to spend the most (getting something like a 300/2.8) on the area of photography where I earn the least - I've never claimed to be a good businessman though :)

 

The logical thing at this point would be to stick with my current kit for sports (as I know it works well and everyone is happy with the images) until I can afford a full capable FX kit, but honestly, who could own a D3 and not use it for something like that?

 

@William P

 

Totally agree on using lenses as they were designed but like many, many others I've come to know my lenses on a DX crop (although I have enjoyed them on my F-801s getting through a few rolls of Velvia/Asita on occasion). Another thing that DX life brings is that we get to enjoy the sweet spot of the lens covering our frame, like the 70-200 seems to have suddenly come into question on it's edge performance.

 

As for being at a point in my photographic journey, good question, to answer I'll have to bore you with a bit more detail on my current (changing) situation, as I posted originally the main areas are sports (football or soccer if you prefer), studio and music. To expand, with the football, for the last 2 years I've been the club photographer, this pays very little but I'd happily do it for free to be there. With the start of the new season I'll be getting FA accreditation, this means that I'll also be covering away games in stadiums where the light might be poor, where I might not be able to shoot from my preferred pitchside spot etc. it'll also mean I'll be submitting to agencies and my images will sell, my thinking till now has been to work with the kit I have and put all earnings towards getting a nice big pro lens. With the studio work we (my wife and I - we work together) are getting more commissioned work to the point that we're currently starting to put together a glossy brochure and upping our game to expand that side of things. Music, things are starting to really take off and we're about to sign up with a agency such that our work will be sold to the national (and international) press. So, in essence, we're going through the transition from semi-pro to pro, this process I expect to take 6 months to a year with my wife giving up her job sometime in Autumn and myself facing the decision when my current day job contract comes to an end next March. Is a move to FX the way forward? - like a politician I've managed to expand and talk about your question but an unable to provide a straight answer

 

@Marcus

 

I'm certain the same thing will happen to me, I dragged my heels with getting a D300 as I was so happy with the D200, getting a D3 will mean I'll not look back for sure but I will be in need of a lens I can't afford for the football

 

@William W

 

Ah, I have to disagree, opening up my quandary to the forum like this has greatly helped, I've looked seriously at using a 300/4 and although I've basically dismissed the idea of using one, it's now a subject that's defined for me rather than wondering around in the foggy back of my mind thanks to Ilkka. My finger is hovering over the 'Buy Now' button on the DXO website thanks to Elliot, Shun needs no thanks as even a lurker like myself knows what a great asset he is to this site so he's already overdosed on appreciation *grin*, Walter, William P and Marcus all provide a valuable contribution and help keep things in perspective, I don't have co-workers around me and I've already driven my wide to near insanity on the subject so having a forum such as this where I can bounce ideas if only just to help clarify things in my own mind is invaluable, your comments that over simplify and almost dismiss the topic serve to help me appreciate the assistance received.

 

As mentioned above, things are taking a strong turn towards pro, the D300 was bought a couple of months ago before our first festival, it was shooting at that festival that opened up new opportunities on the music side, we have also been lucky with other work over the past few weeks. When I got the D300 I had a budget of �1500 this got me the body, a 18-200 for my wife and a 24/2.8 to fill the gap between my 10-20 and 35-70, a D3 at the time was out of my reach, the plan was to look to get the D3 early next year. As things are moving so fast we have decided to drop another project, this was live music promotions, we have about �2-3k worth of PA gear which will be split and sold via the usual means, so in a month or so we should have the money available to make such a purchase, obviously the D3 will wipe out the entire pot - maybe the funds would be better assigned to other things (2nd D300 + 17-55 + 10.5, new laptops, 200 f2, ????)? - this is what I'm trying to decide, with my wife giving up her job, unless we fall lucky with good work it could be a long while before I'm able to make any more investment so maybe I'm wiser to stick with DX and have all bases covered rather than FX and be exposed (well - not exposed but gagging for more kit - you know what I mean).

 

I suppose at the end of the day I'm just the same as so many other people that are at the FX/DX crossroads - I just want to do everything that I can to ensure I take the right path for me :)

 

[colda]

okies - am 95% sure - going for a D700 but will wait up to 6 months with the plan that they will hit �1,600 before then and will also go for a 24-70/2.8

 

...now to start another thread :)