D3x vs D3 + 24-70 f2.8

[larry_pao]

<p>My work has primarily been travel and studio as a semi-pro, and I am soon going to make the step towards fulltime pro. I have been using a D700 with an assortment of lens which include 17-35 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 85 f1.4 and 80-700 f2.8.<br /> <br /> I have a budget of about 8k to upgrade my equipment and I was wondering if I should get a D3 with a 24-70 f2.8 or go for the D3x? Which would improve my existing system the most?<br /> <br /> Thanks for your input, especially if you've had experience with both cameras.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Travel and studio are pretty different. If you're going to make most of your money out of travel the D700 is probably enough already (maybe get another as backup)- if it is studio (as in product photography) then D3X. Probably.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 24-70/2.8 AFS is a big step up from the 35-70/3.8. The extra FOV will reduce the number of lens swaps. The zoom range is nearly perfect with an FX camera for events, street and travel.</p>

<p>Do you need 24MP images? Not everybody does. It gives you additional room for creative cropping (but it's still best to crop in the camera), and resolution for huge prints. If you need extra resolution in the studio, you would be better off (IMO) to get a 22MP MF camera and back. Used backs are in the same price range as the D3x.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D3 gives identical image quality to the D700. What specifically is the D700 not doing for you that you feel the D3X would?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I have lots of experience with the D700, D3 and D3X. As Edward points out, unless you really need 24.5mp for your clients (and I have some that I do need it for) the D3 /D700 are fine.</p>

<p>To answer Elliot's question: For professional work the big advantages I find with the D3 over the D700 are dual CF slots and greater battery life per charge. Up to 9 fps can be useful to. But make no mistake, the D3 is a big bodied camera (as is the D3X) and for location work you might be better off with a second D700 + 24-70mm f/2.8G + 14-24mm f/2.8G and you'll still have money left over.</p>

[larry_pao]

<p>It actually comes down to another issue. The lenses I have right now (listed above) were top notch years ago but were designed for film. The new crop of lenses that would replace the ones listed are the 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2,8 and 70-200 f2.8. These were designed for digital and there is no question they offer the best quality today. <strong>So would my D700 plus these newer lenses actually yield better results than the D3x (which I heard is a lens killer) with the older lenses? </strong><br>

What do you think?</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>No, it won't. There is more to this than just using the newest lens technology.</p>

<p>The D3X delivers outstanding results with many of the older lenses, by the way.</p>

[larry_pao]

<p>Bjorn<br /> Intriguing post. What do you mean by <strong>"There is more to this than just using the newest lens technology?"</strong><br>

<br /> <strong>"The D3X delivers outstanding results with many of the older lenses" </strong> Does that include the 17-35 f2.8, 35-75 f2.8 and the 80-200 f2.8?"<strong><br /> </strong> <br /> All in all, the D3x will net better results with the newer lenses than the older ones right? It's just that if I go with the D3x route, I would not be able to get new glass for now, hence this post.</p>

[photo5]

<p>It's so interesting to see people say get the new body, when most of the time people here say get a new lens and keep your old body, it's all about the lens. Hee hee.<br>

I'm very happy with my D700, I feel like it has enough resolution. But being a dyed-in-the-wool pixel peeper (I do it all day for my job), I feel like I'd love to get a D3x or the same in a D700 sized package someday. But at some point you have to say enough is enough with the megapixel race. 12mp is plenty for me for now and probably many years to come.</p>

[paul_b.1]

Do you want to upgrade , or not ?! If you have the 8K to spend, the only real upgrade that I see, is the D3X. Otherwise you will keep asking yourself : WHAT IF...

[anthony_bez]

<p><strong>"The D3X delivers outstanding results with many of the older lenses" </strong>Does that include the 17-35 f2.8, 35-75 f2.8 and the 80-200 f2.8?"<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>A lot of people prefer the 80-200 for use with FX format, as the 70-200 has poor corner performance.</p>

<p>The reviewers seem to agree the new 14-24 and 24-70, have increased IQ over your 17-35, 35-75 and the 28-70.<br>

But I have no personal experience with the D3 or D3x.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>I was refering to manual-focus lenses. The 17-35 has obvious corner issues on D3 and D3x. I would not recommend this lens for FX unless you shoot PJ style.</p>

<p>Some lenses that are excellent on D3x are 24/2.8 AIS, 35/1.4, 50/1.8 AIS, 85/1.4 AIS, 105/2.5, most of the MF Micro-Nikkors, 135/2, 180/2.8, and some of the really long ones (800/8 ED). Among the zoom lenses 75-150 SE, 80-200/2.8 AIS, 180-600ED, 200-400 AIS, 28-50/3.5. These are just drawn from memory without looking through my test files and notes.</p>

<p>It's interesting that some lenses still have higher resolution than provided by the D3x.</p>

[lightsmith1]

<p>For travel the D700 is advantageous in having the internal commander flash to trigger a remote strobe without needing to carry a SU-800 or set it up and without having to carry a second strobe. You can easily leave the vertical grip at home and just carry a second battery in your bag in case you do not have time one evening to recharge.<br>

Lenses are the heart of any system and not having the focal lengths you need is a big handicap, especially the "odd" focal lengths to differentiate your images from everyone elses.<br>

I would put the entire $8k toward lenses and flash. At a minimum I would want to carry the 16mm fisheye, 14-24mm f2.8, Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 or Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR along with a 1.7x teleconverter. If I left anything at home it would be the 24-70mm lens.</p>

<p>With the high ISO capabilities of the D700/D3 there is very little to be gained by having primes and having very limited focal lengths at your disposal and more lens changes means more dirt getting inside the camera.<br>

Add in the cost for some type of portable backup (standalone data store device) for your images and a decent travel tripod.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would at least get the 24mm PC-E and 85mm PC-E for city architectural shots (if it is included in your travel work) and studio close-ups, respectively. The 24-70 is a great lens and I think it would nicely replace both the 17-35 and 35-70 for most work.</p>

<p>I would invest in lenses now and a cheaper high resolution body later unless you get specific requests for higher resolution images. You should have at least two bodies of the same format so you have a backup.</p>

<p><em>For travel the D700 is advantageous in having the internal commander flash to trigger a remote strobe without needing to carry a SU-800</em></p>

<p>The SU-800 does have greater range, better reliability, and it doesn't induce eye blinks like the built-in frequently does. <br /> <br /> <em>With the high ISO capabilities of the D700/D3 there is very little to be gained by having primes</em><br /> <em></em><br /> FX allows the primes to shine like never before. To me, zooms are large, cumbersome, obtrusive, heavy, have no real macro option, shift, tilt, or wider apertures than f/2.8. Dust hasn't been a problem for me though I swap lenses all the time, never in a sandstorm though.</p>

<p>(Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur so what do I know. ;-))</p>