D700 vs D3

[summitar]

I would guess that D3 owners watch the wonderful TV detective known as "Monk" and regard him as perfectly normal rather than as a compulsive and obsessive individual. I can't believe any soon-to-be bride would care about dual memory card slots. I have never had a memory card fail. I was using film 40 years before digital and never used anything with a higher ISO than tri-x at 400. I don't use cameras as a sledge hammer. I will not exceed 300,000 thousand shutter activations if I has as many lives as a cat. I think many of us live in a fantasy world of Uzi's.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I can't believe any soon-to-be bride would care about dual memory card slots..."</b>

<p>

Every bride cares about her wedding pictures. Dual card slots provide one more piece of insurance that her images will NOT be lost. And despite your experience with memory cards (and our experience) - there are many documented cases of card failure (even from people in this thread). Why do you think that Sandisk includes recovery software with their high end memory cards? Sandisk is trying to provide assurance and a tool for photographers for the day when even their card may fail.

<p>

Believe what you may - but we have received the same positive response from every prospective bride that we have discussed this aspect of how we make sure that their images will not be lost. It is just another marketing tool that is easily understood by everyone that does also provide an immediate backup in camera without the need for immediate download to another storage device.

<p>

Perhaps it would be better for you to have some personal experience with the D3 before you make childish, derisive comments directed towards the owners of the Nikon D3.

[Davide Baroni]

"I don't use cameras as a sledge hammer."

Hmmm... and you always recognize hyperbolic metaphors used as a paradoxical exemple, too, huh? :-)

BTW... I personally had card failures. And I lost some photos I'll never have a chance to take again... I'm no professional, though, so it's only a "personal deception". But I couldn't imagine ANY pro dismiss a "default backup" tool like D3's dual slot as "useless".

And, also BTW, I come from 30+ years film photography. And I had more than several films lost or ruined by the labs, either for mistakes in the treatment or in the postal service or... And you know what? There was no backup. :-D

I saw one of these labs deliver a fully blank lot of slides (somebody mistakenly put the wrong chemicals in the wrong sequence) to a guy who had just done the journey to Africa he always dreamed of... No backup either.

A friend of mine had a whole wedding service with a line in the middle, because something went wrong in the lab's machine making a rectilinear scratch all along the film... And he had to retouch it ALL by himself: a nightmare.

So the "support failure" is NOT a "CF cards only" problem, and the dual slot IS a plus, IMHO. And more so for a professional photographer who would lose a lot of money on card failure. Even if it's not a probable event, one time is enough. Murphy rules! :-D

Davide

[walterh]

To add to David's story:

 

- I had always gotten a new film as a replacement for a film that was ruined by a lab - so it was not really a

problem ? :-P

 

- I had several films lost in the mail - the shipping was without insurance (regular letter) and I got no

replacement. But the price for film was low if bought in large batches - no real problem here either.

 

- I have seen several photographers who download their images directly from the camera and never (again*) take

out their memory card. * Never again: in one case I know why. The person dropped the card on the floor and must

have gotten some dirt into the contact slot. I took the card apart and cleaned the contact from a microscopic

fiber and rescued the images. A clear indication that a backup card is not needed - right?

 

- Even if the need for a backup is only in the photographers imagination it might give him a steady hand while

shooting. That would be a help for sharper pictures would it not?

 

I hope you can live with my sense of humor :-)

[wpahnelas]

someone above posted that the D3 is weather-proof. i have been advised that NO nikon DSLR is in any way weather-proof, weather sealed or in any way waterproof. some of these assertions get made and then repeated without any basis in fact. i thought the D300 was weather-proof when i bought it, as a matter of fact. you can find articles on the web asserting it and other nikons are, too. don't trust them. water damage is not covered by your warranty. and that would be a costly lesson to learn, especially on your D3.

[Davide Baroni]

William, "weather-proof" doesn't mean in any way "water-proof". You can't put your camera into water and expect

it to escape without any damage. But many pros I know, who work in sports photography and particularly soccer,

let their D3s on tripod and remote control under heavy rain for the whole game, and they keep working, If you saw

the recent European Champioships, you saw PLENTY of them on TV too. To me, this IS to be weather proof. :-)

And anyway, I'm nor trying to convince you, nor anybody else. There's only ONE way to actual knowledge, and it's

personal experience. I went under a waterfall with my non-weatherproof D70s, and took some photos, and came back

as wet as I get. It still works perfectly. I didn't change lens while I was under the waterfall though. ;-)

Shouldn't I think that weather proof D3 is capable of much more? :-) Sure, if you use a D3 with a

non-weatherproof lens, you're looking for troubles. Ditto if you change lens in heavy rain without any caution.

But that would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Of course, you can think whatever you like. I'm pretty sure top Canon cameras (among others) are weather proof

too. But when somebody "advises" you such a thing, please, verufy it by yourself. :-)

Trust only direct experience. If you SAW it, then it's more likely to be true. Who knows what's in the head of

the guy advising you... :-D

[andreapacella]

One year more of age. Simply, D700 was not yet born when I finally had the possibility to use a full format camera without having toi switch to canon. Honestly, if I had the possibility to choose, I would have bought the D700 over the D3 only because of size and weight (and less money). On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with my D3 now.

[wpahnelas]

davide, i am one who sincerely WANTS my camera to be weatherproof. while i use a D300, not a D3 or D700, i felt quite secure in my "knowledge" that this camera was sealed against the elements. so imagine my surprise when i asked nikon support about whether the MB-D10 was weatherproof, as well as the D300, and was referred to page 377 of the manual.

 

"This product is not waterproof, and may malfunction if immersed in water or exposed to high levels of humidity. Rusting of the internal mechanism can cause irreparable damage"

 

the tech went on to advise me that the exact same wording appears in "all current Nikon DSLR manuals, including the D3."

 

with that, i'm no longer so confident about my camera's imperviousness to the elements. am i never going to take it outside, for fear that a few raindrops will fry it? of course not. on the other hand, i'm going to think very hard about walking around in heavy rain taking photographs (not something i do anyway, but never mind...). i'm just not in the same class as the guys shooting the euro championships, whose employers can afford to absorb the loss of a camera, if that's what it takes to get the story. i'd love to get a D700, but it's not going to be because i fried my D300...

[Davide Baroni]

William, what I notice again is that you asked the support about your camera being "weatherproof", and the Nikon support (and the manual) answer about it not being "waterproof". OF COURSE any camera would malfunction if IMMERSED in water (or any other liquid, for what matters)". But who in the hell would "immerse" his camera in water??? :-)

 

To be weatherproof just means that you can take your camera out in the rain and, given that the lens you're using is also weatherprrof (has O-rings "sealing" the possible infiltration passages against water), take as many photos you want without any major problem... Of course, as soon as you're done taking the photos, you take care of your camera and dry it out with the proper clothes, and any other care that may be appropriated.

 

That line in the manual, to me, is just a way to discourage people who don't really know how to take care of their camera about taking photos in adverse weather... and, even more likely, to put a "safety" against claims of malfunctioning from unexpert photographers who ACTUALLY took their photos without the required cautions and/or the post-session caring for the gear. :-)

 

OF COURSE, extreme humidity can, and often does, damage your gear, and more so in this high-tech electronic era. I still remember 26 years ago in the Amazon jungle... how many people with non-weatherproof cameras, first-ever electronic stuff (e.g. Canon AE-1 Program, among many others) totally unable to take pictures because their electronic gear went mad or was blocked. And I remember a French pro, with his two Leica III bodies, who spent at least half an hour every day taking mould away from the curtains of the shutters by means of a patient and delicate work... BTW, my "weatherproof" Pentax LX never gave me a single problem in about 6 months there. :-)

 

So, be serene. If you want "those" pictures, you'll have to take the risk. But if you take proper care of your camera, and NEVER "immerse" it in water ;-) , I'm pretty confident you'll get out of it without damages. :-)

 

As Brazilian people used to say about travelling on the Amazonas' muddy roads, "You won't get there if you feel sorry for your car!"... You could paraphrase it into "You won't get those photos, if you feel sorry for your gear!".

 

May the Light be with you

Davide

[dizeman]

<p>You've all probably seen this already... I don't know where this kid gets all of this equipment, but he always has the finest of everything and doesn't mind destroying it to prove a point. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpiTJ3_Jugo&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpiTJ3_Jugo&feature=related</a><br>

Regardless of what has been said about Joseph Nicholas Spina, the FACT is, he sure has access to some excellent, high end quipment, in fact, pretty much the newest and best of everything Nikon, much of which he does not mind throwing off the top of stairs, pouring anything and everything fluid on, using as a hammer. Real? Not real? Lunatic or liar as has been suggested, his access to the equipment and extensive testing cannot be denied. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Lilkiwiguy87">http://www.youtube.com/user/Lilkiwiguy87</a></p>

<p> </p>

[timothy_du_vernet1]

<p>To throw a wrench in the works here, supposing you were going on the trip of a life time, a canoe trip into the arctic regions of Canada. What camera would you take? Space and weight are at a premium, but so is durability and quality. The D3 or D3x would work really well for the first couple of days, until the batteries died, at least if you could carry it. I suppose a portable solar panel with charger might be possible. I know... a good old Leica SL2 with an 19 Elmarit, 28 Summicron, 90 Summicron and a 180 Apo Telyt. Throw in some close up lenses or an extension tube and you would be set for life. Talk about using it as a hammer. The SL2 is one of the few cameras with a focal plane shutter that will last forever. That was real photography. Any one of those lenses will put the Nikon crap to shame, except for the PCE lenses, which cost as much as the current versions of the Leica R lenses anyway. </p>

[leess]

<p>Nobody mentioned faster focusing on the D3, and the ability to use all the PCE lenses without worrying about damaging the body?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody mentioned faster focusing on the D3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why people keep on suggesting that. I have used the D300, D3, D700, and D3X. As long as you use AF-S lenses that do not depend on the in-body AF motor, I find little difference among their AF speed. Eventually I check with the head of Nikon USA technical support, and he confirmed that the D3 and D700 have exactly the same AF capabilities.</p>

[trygve1]

<p>The viewfinder alone is worth the extra money in the D3 if you ask me. Then you dont have to crop your photos, because you only get what you see.</p>

 

[cortney_bodnar1]

<p>I shake my head at the people saying that a memory card will never fail... "I've been in this business 40 years..." blah blah.. its electronic. It will fail. Eventually. ALWAYS reformat your cards. Always.</p>

<p>And thank you for the amazing insight on the cameras! Iwas asking myself this very question a little while ago and am going to go for the d3</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[steve_mundy]

<p>The question today is the D3s vs, the D700 if you are looking for FF.<br>

The D3s has several advantages over the D3. Most importantly double the buffer size. Other less important things are higher ISO, video,self-cleaning sensor, virtual horizon, and quiet shutter mode.<br>

Advantages of the D3 and D3s over the D700 have been listed. An important item to me is the fact that the dual cards are both CF. The models where there is a mix of CF and SD is just dumb.<br>

Of course the D3 is better than the D700, and the D3s better than the D3.<br>

The only question is whether the advantages are worth the large price difference to YOU.<br>

I need the bigger buffer and the 11fps, but I need it on a DX body. So I will likely wait for the D400/D500 or whatever the next flagship DX body will be. Hopefully it will have the same buffer and speed of the D3s.<br>

For wideangle and portrait work the D700 should be ample for most people. <br>

If you are shooting sports or action or weddings, the D3/D3s is a no-brainer.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_minick1]

<p>D3 has 100% coverage viewfinder, the D700 95%. All my Nikons have 100% viewfinders. This, and the more rugged build of the D3s, pushes me in that direction. It seems more like the cameras I'm used to--F5s, F3s, etc.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D3 and D700 have identical electronics inside and also the same AF system. I verified that with Nikon technical support. Therefore, you should see no difference between them in terms of image quality and high ISO behavior.</p>

<p>The differences are in the pereferals such as the D3's higher construction quality, 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards, built-in vertical grip, and higher frame rate. Meanwhile the D700 has a pop-up flash that can server as a CLS (Creative Lighting System) master. (Once I forgot to bring my SU-800 and that pop-up flash came in handy.)</p>

<p>Two years ago I was choosing between the two and I came very close to getting a D3, but eventually the lower price and the smaler body tilted the balance and I got the D700.</p>