Change in Nikon Gear D700 vs D3X

[jdengo]

<p>Dear friends,<br>

Currently I have a Nikon D700, which is a great camera in my view, but I just got some extra $ available and was thinking about changing it to a D3X (I am an amateur, I don't need two bodies IMHO). I use my camera mostly for portraits, dance events (low light, without flash). Would this makes sense? How does the D3X ISO capabilities rate against the D700? In addition, I was thinking of buying the new 70-200 VRII lens (currently have the previous 70-200 version). Has anyone tested this lens, what is your opinion?<br>

Rgds, </p>

<p> </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>The D3x seems to have high ISO capabilities a little better than that of the D300. By the time you're getting up to 3200, you're going to lose what makes the D3x magical at lower ISO numbers. If you regularly shoot in that range, or close to it, I'd stick with the D700.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jorge, d3x is not as good as d3/d700 in high-ISO. so if that's a big part of your shooting style, no,it wouldn't make sense.</p>

<p>i'm sure D3X would be better if you are printing really huge and actually need the extra MP, or for pro studio work, but i'd have to question what it is about your d700 that you dont like.</p>

<p>if it were me and i had 8 grand just to spend on photo stuff, i'd probably get a D300 to take advantage of the 1.5x crop for telephoto lenses and spend the rest on lenses and maybe some exterior lighting. you could utilize CLS with a bunch of speedlites, get some monolights, etc. this would probably result in better portraits than upgrading your body IMO.</p>

<p>also, AFAIK, the 70-200 II isnt out yet. but that wouldnt be a bad choice, regardless of body.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I also would not worry too much about upgrading to the latest and greatest 70-200 lens either, since the last one is so good. Improve your lenses, lighting, printing and computing. </p>

[tholte]

<p>If you have the money, why not get a D3X? A D300 would probably do you just as well though.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As far as I know the new 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II won't be available until October.</p>

<p>For the OP's applicatoins, if you need to make huge portrait prints, the D3X maybe a plus. For high ISO dance work, it is essentially a step backward from the D700, especially if you also use 8 frames/second on the D700 (the D3X maxes out at 5 frames/second).</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Jorge, it's your money, and you do what you want, of course. But, you say you are an amateur. Don't you think that you rather should use more of the money to upgrade your stock of lenses? Or attend interesting and inspiring photo courses?</p>

<p>Newer and better cameras come all the time, I fear that if you don't <strong>need</strong> a D3X for your shooting , but rather would <strong>like to have</strong> a D3X, you'll regret that desicion later. Not knowing what lenses you have, I'd buy the better lenses. (That's my sensible me talking - of course I also would like to have a D3X if I could afford it ;) )</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Consider what happened after the introduction of the D3: months later there was the generally equally well performing D700 for half the price. That does not take away the awesome quality of the D3, but makes the investment something more seriously to consider.</p>

<p>The same thing will probably happen to the D3X: how disappointed will you be when the D700x/D800 will be introduced at less then €3000 within half a year?</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>"The same thing will probably happen to the D3X: how disappointed will you be when the D700x/D800 will be introduced at less then €3000 within half a year?"<br>

Quite right - I got stung on the D3/D700 thing (the D700 being much more what I wanted to begin with but had to get to it via the D3). Although I flatter myself that I actually need the D3x I am not willing to pay for it and will wait for the D700x.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>buy glas, the d700 is plenty of camera.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>In the dark with high iso, the D700 or D3 will be much better choice than the D3x.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I think you really want the D4: including the HighISO capabilities of D3 and the 24MP of the D3X ;) ;)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The D700 is good for high ISO, the D3X is better overall. I'd say that for low light the D700 is preferably, while for portraits the D3X would be far better.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

Jorge, if you have money enough to get another high-end body... just get yourself a ticket to a nice photographic

destination instead. Take your camera and lenses; use them, burn some cards, get some good images. That'd be money

and time well spent! Cheers!!

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Wow, can I please have your choice on how to spend money? :-)</p>

<p>Personally, I really wonder: when do you need 25 MPixel (as an amateur especially)? What real world benefits does it bring? Even ultra-large prints, those usually use a lower 'lines per inch' printing resolution anyway, so 12MPixel can give enormous prints without looking bad. So are you really going to use those extra pixels? If it is to crop more, then better off buying a longer lens, or a DX body. <br>

Personally, I fail to see the advantage of 20+ MPixel cameras given the trade-offs versus the 12MPixel ones, and I do not think the D3x is better overall package at all. It's a specialist camera, and worse in many places compared to the D3/D700. I find the D3 more allround than a D3x. So, if the reason to upgrade is also to get a Dx-style body, the D3 makes much more sense to me, since it has enough resolution, the build quality, the speed and the high ISO performance; but in the end, it depends on shooting style I guess. I like Francisco's recommendation best, though.... that's what I'd do too.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Talking about quality differences, if one compares medium format (film) to a D700 in a 16x20" print, the MF wins hands down in terms of detail and apparent sharpness. So I would say that in largish prints it's safe to assume that the D3X will give a significant advantage compared to a D700.<br>

In portraits detail is important; one doesn't want fuzzy hair, the eyelashes and eyes should be detailed. A good eye is very sensitive about these things.</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>I have a D700 and a D3. I like having a standard zoom on one, and a telephoto on the other. What I DON'T like is switching between the two cameras.<br>

The ISO, zoom preview, and other buttons are in different places. It's confusing.<br>

I like the way the D3 handles and the viewfinder better than the D700. I also really like the ability to change the aspect ratio (for shooting stuff that will be printed, I.E. group shots). Other than that, image quality is the same.<br>

Get two of the same bodies would be my suggesstion.<br>

Spend the money on lenses if you need to.<br>

Or get another D700 with the extra battery grip. One with, one without.</p>