I am going to be looking for a new camera soon. Nikon D3?

[elias_scalise]

<p>I was wondering what you guys thought? I am seriously considering the nikon d3 at the moment. It seems to be the best camera for the best price. I was reading a review and I came across this. "The D3 is a professional newsman's tool, not a camera for casual shooters or professional landscape or portrait shooters." What exactly is a newsmans tool? And why is it not good for landscapes and portraits? And thank you everyone for letting me on the site, I hope to learn a lot here.</p>

[dxin]

<p>D3 is known for its high ISO sensitivity and high fps at its time, which is favored by news and sport photographers.<br /> But mega pixels and dynamic range is less-than-satisfactory.<br /> If you want a new tool for landscape and portrait, maybe a D5200 with the right set of lenses do a better job.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>Well I enjoy shooting people very much, I just would like a good all around camera. I will have to find some photos I really enjoy for you to see my photo syle.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Elias,</p>

<p>I agree with Dehuan that you might want to look at cameras other than the D3. The example he gave, the D5200, with the right lenses, would be much more useful and much less expensive.</p>

<p>Also, I just did a search for the exact phrase you quoted, and found it on Ken Rockwell's site, which is not a good one for beginners. To see why, read this quote from Ken's "About" page:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that if you don't have the experience in photography to know when he is "weaving fiction and satire into his stories" you might purchase equipment or make settings on your camera based on fiction. He can be entertaining, but for the sake of your photography, don't ever take Ken seriously. In the past, his "About" page was more clear, and he actually told his readers that they needed "a good BS detector." He didn't have that the last time I looked, but following his advice continues to be risky.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It seems to be the best camera for the best price.<br>

There is no such thing. And if there would be, I'd doubt the D3 would be it. No doubt it is an awesome camera, but it's also a heavy and large beast. It's controls aren't (in my opinion) the best for learning, they're highly tailored towards experienced photographers. And by now, it's a relatively old camera too. Not necessarily a problem, but being a professional camera, most samples you find for attractive prices will be heavily used. Again, that may work out fine, but it's a higher risk you're taking.<br>

Last but not least: being a full frame camera, it's going to be best used with the larger and more expensive full frame lenses. For a decent all-round package, you will end up with a heavy and fairly expensive bag.</p>

<p>Which camera do you currently use? Do you already own lenses? What kind of photos do you prefer to take of people - environmental portraits, events, studio portraits? Different tools for different jobs, and while the D3 is very good at some, it can be far from ideal for others.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Please bear in mind that any review of the D3 is likely to have been descriptive of the D3 at the time it was released, which was quite a long time ago. The D3 <i>is</i> a good camera, but it's much better at some things than others. It's pretty good in the dark (exactly as good as a D700, which makes it appreciably less good than a D610/D800, let alone a D3s, D4 or Df) and fast (because it was designed to capture sequences in sporting events for professional sports shooters) - that's also related to the reason it's not very high resolution: if it had more pixels, it wouldn't be able to process them so fast. Bear in mind that, if you don't need low-light performance, a Nikon V1 can keep a D3 very honest for rapid shooting, at least until the buffer fills up. The D3 is also huge, as are its relatives from Nikon and similarly-positioned cameras from Canon: if you really want the grip so you can switch between landscape and portrait orientation in a hurry, and you don't want to screw one onto the base of your camera, it has very good handling; if your idea of a fun landscape time isn't to carry 1.2kg around your neck (three times the weight of a D3300...) then "handling" may be a secondary concern. I presume you're also aware that you'll be buying used, which may or may not bother you - a lot of D3 bodies have not be handled "lovingly". You probably ought to be ready to get new batteries for it, at least.<br />

<br />

Questions: Are you specifically looking at a full-frame camera? (For example, you want the depth of field control or low-light handling, or have lenses from a film camera?) Are you specifically looking at a Nikon? (If you're buying from scratch, while I have no complaints about the D5200 suggestion, we should also consider other options.)<br />

<br />

Price/performance is generally better in smaller (crop-sensor) cameras - and I speak as someone with only FX Nikons. You get a lot of functionality for relatively little size and money. Just for portraits and landscapes, the D5200 is a lot of camera for the money. If you want to spend more for some additional features (a better viewfinder, better autofocus, better handling) then the D7200 is more of a camera for more money. If you don't need the speed or AF flexibility, and you want a full-frame camera, the D610 (or a discounted D600) is probably more useful - especially for landscapes - than the D3: it has twice the resolution and significantly more dynamic range. If you're really happy with the D3's resolution and dynamic range, as a general-purpose camera I'd still be looking closely at the D700, which is much easier to carry around (and has a flash on it). Other manufacturers have very good options as well. (I believe the Canon 5D3 is an extremely good generalist, for example.)<br />

<br />

Things move on, and technology becomes outdated. The D3 was replaced by the D3s, which is much more competitive with modern cameras in low light shooting (which doesn't seem to be your priority); the D3s was replaced by the D4, which is now being replaced by the D4s. An exceptionally capable camera in 2008 isn't necessarily as exceptional in 2014, even if it was top-of-the-range at the time - and the general consensus seems to be that the styles of shooting you mention benefit from high resolution and dynamic range, which is where the D3 is weakest.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>At the moment I have a Nikon fm 35mm, and I recently got a nikon D3100. I am not really happy with the d3100 to be honest. It just isn't cutting it for me. I like to shoot people a lot, and I do shoot in the dark a lot. I enjoy shooting musicians and I never use my flash when I do so. I like street photography and also nature. Here are some of my photos, I know most of them are no good, but I have been studying and I am seeing improvement in my work. http://eliwhitney314.deviantart.com/gallery/ . I just want a good camera that will give me the best chances at capturing the photo I want, and the D3100 is not doing that for me.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>And thank you for all of your advice, I really appreciate it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Elias. Firstly, don't feel the need to apologise for your images! (You're doing more than me - I just never dare to share. :-)<br />

<br />

An FX camera would give you substantially more low-light ability than your D3100, but I'd be wary that there was a big technology step after the D3. While it was extremely good in low light compared with its contemporaries, the D7000 (DX camera) generation saw a step advantage that nearly made up for the sensor size difference. In FX, the D3s is a significant jump in low-light performance over the sensor in the D3 and D700 (though at a cost in the used market). If you're specifically after low-light image quality, I would be looking at a D600 or D610 or - at a higher price - a Df (which would also handle a bit more like an FM - though I've been partly responsible for a scarily long thread about whether that's a good thing). Sadly, low-light performance costs money. Of course, putting a faster lens on the camera helps a lot as well. If you're also being bothered by the view through the finder or by the autofocus system, that's another matter.<br />

<br />

While it's easy to be dismissive of the D3100 - and it's certainly a budget system that's been somewhat eclipsed by later and higher-end cameras - it's by no means a bad camera, and it should certainly keep a film camera very honest in terms of low-light performance. You seem to have some external light control in some of your images - I guess you're less worried about those than the musicians? Perhaps you could elaborate on which lenses you're using: faster lenses may make the difference. At least some of your samples suggest that you like the shallow depth-of-field look, which also suggests fast glass. Going to an FX camera <i>does</i> give you an extra stop or so of performance, as (from a noise perspective) would moving to the latest camera generation, but lenses may be a cheaper solution.<br />

<br />

What are you currently using, lens-wise? If you're using a kit 18-55, I'd expect some trouble with moving musicians in the dark (though there are people on photo.net with much more experience at concert shooting than I do). If you had a 50mm f/1.2 on your FM and were using that with the D3100, ignore my lens query!<br />

<br />

Are you comfortable with the way the D3100 handles? I.e. is it just the image quality that we're trying to fix? If you're feeling constrained by the one-dial interface, we should start talking about D7000s and above; otherwise, the D5200 is still in the running (if a bit more incremental in terms of improvement over the D3100). So long as we're solving the right problem. :-) (Note that a D3, in particular, is huge compared with either a D3100 or an FM - it's comparable to an F5. If you come out of this conversation still wedded to the D3 idea, I strongly encourage you to try one before buying. I have an F5, but having tried a D4 recently I found the grip was so deep I could barely reach the control buttons!)</p>

[joe_willmore]

<p>The D3 is a beast. It's big and it's heavy. But if you're a photojournalist or shooting sports (combined with the right lens) then it's a superb camera.<br>

It's not that the D3 is not a good camera for landscapes or portraits. It's that for landscapes or portraits, the D3 has no real advantages over...say...a D300. So to say that a D3 is not the camera you'd choose for landscapes and portraits is like saying that the Ferrari is not the car you'd chose to go get groceries. You could use a Ferrari to get groceries, it's just that it has no advantage over an Accord or a Minivan when it comes to getting groceries.<br>

I recommend you not get a D3. It's crazy to look for the "best camera." That's like looking for the "best tool" (hammer? saw? level? drill?). Start by identifying what it is you want to do, then find a camera that does that well. A D3 is incredible for somethings that inexperienced photographers typically don't do (photojournalism or sports photography with pro lens). </p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Have you checked out the D7100. It is a great camera and a bit less bulky than the D3.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>I only have the basic kit lense at the moment, which I did figure it has a lot to do with my image quality. I am not sure exactly what kind of lenses to get, but I am in the market for those as well. I guess I am content with the way the 3100 handles, just not the image quality. I honestly like the quality my nikon fm more, I am just tired of spending the money on film and developing.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>No Barry I haven't looked into the D7100, I will now though. I wish I could do a better job of explaining the type of style I want work on so I can be better help to you. I will have to send a few links of photos that really speak to me.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>I really want a camera that has great color quality. These are some photos I really enjoy and i love the contrast and way the colors really pop in some of these.</p>

<p>

http://eliwhitney314.deviantart.com/art/Distortions-424575504</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>Just so it is clear these are not my photos, these are photos I really enjoy.<br>

Featured There are some nudes in here, but I figured this would give you all a great idea of what I want to take photos of.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>For the links you shared, the D7100 combined with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 would be perfect for you. This is an amazing lens - one of the best ones out there for DX cameras. Not cheap as the D7100 body will cost you $1,200 and the lens is about $1,400. </p>

<p>Think also about investing in a high quality tripod and head, which will cost you $500 - $1,000. Don't even think about a cheap tripod as they are a waste of money.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Joe: If the D3 is a Ferrari, it's a Testarossa. Spectacular and lusted after in its day, and still reasonably fast, but you can out-accelerate it in a relatively inexpensive Subaru or BMW, and you can match its performance with something much less exotic that can go over bumps and seat four people. Saying the D3 has no advantage for landscapes over a D300 is like saying a Testarossa has no advantage on the school run compared with a Toyota MR2. It's true, but neither are really the right tool for the job, except possibly for posing reasons.<br />

<br />

It's not just that the D3 has no advantages over a modern camera for landscape or portraits: for landscape images, for which the priorities tend to be dynamic range and resolution, the D3 is <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5200-versus-Nikon-D3100-versus-Nikon-D3___850_664_438">actively worse</a>. To be fair, comparing against even a modern DX camera, the sensor size still keeps the D3 competitive at higher ISOs (less for dynamic range, but for colour sensitivity), but the <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Df-versus-Nikon-D600-versus-Nikon-D3___925_834_438">modern FX cameras</a> give it a bit of a kicking on image quality. And bear in mind that, for landscapes, you're usually shooting at lower ISOs (because you can take a longer exposure).<br />

<br />

The D7100 is an extremely good camera, with essentially the same sensor as the D5300 (and very similar to the D5200). It's got the autofocus ability of the D3, too. It also has two-dial handling, if you like that, and a pentamirror, meaning that the finder will be brighter than a D3100. It's also quite a bit bigger, heavier and more expensive than a D5200 (or the D3100 or FM) - make sure you want it. It's tiny compared to the D3, but then so is a minibus. The D7100 might work more nicely with any lenses from your FM than a smaller body.<br />

<br />

Assuming that your concerns are with the images in low light being grainy (?) then the kit lens won't be doing you any favours. It's not particularly that it's a bad lens (kit lenses are actually generally quite good, at least for the budget, because manufacturers know their cameras will be tested with them), but the aperture is small enough that you're not going to get much light in - and, if you extend the shutter time to compensate, the VR will only stop blur from your hand tremor, not freeze action. If you can live with a prime lens - and I'm guessing, if you used an FM, you might be used to one - then you might like to invest in a 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8, all of which are reasonably priced. If you need more speed, Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty good consideration, as is their 35mm. You'll be reducing the depth of field with these, which is the cost you have for capturing more light - if that bothers you then you <i>are</i> looking at a camera body upgrade.<br />

<br />

I suspect it would be good if we can get to the bottom of your image quality concerns. While not perfect, the D3100 is a pretty good camera; working out how to make it behave as you need is another matter. It may be as simple as adjusting the colour tone (perhaps DxO's film packs?) It may be the reduced depth of field from the smaller sensor, or the bokeh of the kit lens, which we can fix with other lenses. What lenses are you using on your FM? Have you tried them on the D3100?</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>Oh I admit I have a lot to learn still of course, very very much so. I shoot in raw and jpeg, and always in in manuel. I have tried using the lenses from my fm but they didn't seem like they would fit on my 3100 and I didn't want to force anything. Thanks Barry by the way, I guess I have some saving up to do.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Barry: The 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor is a very big and expensive (and old) lens. Again, it's not that it's a bad lens, but it's very much worth looking at the (generally sharper and much cheaper) Tamron 17-50mm, or - at the loss of some range - Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8. The Nikkor also only gains you a fraction of a stop at the wide end over the kit lens, although it's admittedly much faster at the long end. I'm not dismissing it, but I'm certainly not prepared to say "what you really need is an expensive and elderly f/2.8 zoom" for solving a low-light shooting problem without more information!<br />

<br />

The tripod is good advice for landscapes, at least if you're shooting in limited light (most DSLRs can be hand-held in daylight at minimum ISO except in extremis). For candid portraits, probably not so much. For concert photography, it's likely to be impossible, and it certainly won't help with a moving artist. I don't want to be confrontational, but I'm not sure that it helps the problems Elias is having - which may be my misunderstanding.<br />

<br />

Elias: Looking at the images you've picked, the first has a bit of a film-like colour cast, but the overall impression I'm getting is of a relatively shallow depth of field, at least in most of them. An FX camera helps with this, but so does a faster lens. Good news: if you get a faster lens for your DX camera, it'll be faster still if you later decide to upgrade the body - just be sure to pick one that's not a DX lens if you want to make the most of it. That's another reason to be slightly wary of the 17-55, by the way. I'd seriously be considering giving a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S a try, on the basis that it's a cheap option and still useful if you decide to upgrade the body anyway - at least unless you want to jump to a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma instead (disclaimer: I'm not so impressed by the Sigma on FX). But what lenses do you have with your FM? If you have a fast-ish lens there, you might just be able to try it for free - with the proviso that you won't have metering, so you might have to check the histogram on the LCD a bit.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I'm also getting an impression of saturated colours, which may be telling me something about the film you like (yes, I shoot Velvia sometimes). You can adjust the image settings in camera (or afterwards, if you're shooting raw) to give the image more punch, if that's what you're after; the default settings are relatively restrained, but you don't have to live with that. I hope that helps.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elias: Sorry, we crossed over. Which lenses do you have, exactly? If they're at least "AI" (it should say this on them, and there are some other ways to tell that we can go into if you need), they should fit, they just won't meter. If they're pre-AI, you have to be a bit careful - but it can actually be easier to get a lens on a D3100 than on something that talks properly to AI lenses (like the D7000 and above). Not that there's harm in a bit a healthy paranoia.<br />

<br />

I don't guarantee that your older lenses will do the sensor of the D3100 justice (it depends on the lens and its condition), but it seems worth a try. And I don't guarantee that we can solve all of your problems on the cheap, but hopefully we can make a start without the cost of a D7100/17-55 combination.</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>It helps yes, although I am still lost on a lot of vocabulary with this field. Different numbers and lense sizes, it gets a little overwhelming sometimes. I agree about what you said, I can get a lense and always use it with my next camera. "Looking at the images you've picked, the first has a bit of a film-like colour cast, but the overall impression I'm getting is of a relatively shallow depth of field, at least in most of them." Could you elaborate that a little for me please Andrew?</p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>Well my nicer lense for my fm is back in Washington state, so I am not sure. The one I have with me is pretty basic, 1.8 to 22? </p>

[elias_scalise]

<p>Well there you go, I just tried this lense again and it does work.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Based on the description of your application, I would think the full-frame cameras best suited to task would be (in order):</p>

<p>1. Nikon D<em>f</em>: leading low-light FX imager; compact body; pricey.<br>

2. Nikon D610: significantly improved low-light performance over Nikon D3/D700; lowest-priced FX body.<br>

3. Nikon D3s: former low-light leading performer; big and heavy; pricey (still $3,000+ USD, used).<br>

4. Nikon D700: smaller than the Nikon D3s, but about 1.5-stops behind D3s in low-light performance.</p>

<p>The just-released Nikon D3300 is the new low-light performer among Nikon's crop-frame DX bodies, besting even the D7100 and D5300. However, even the "worst" FX body (e.g., Nikon D700) will have at least twice the low-light performance of even the best DX body.</p>

[shutterbud]

Hi Eli. The advice you are getting is good, although likely to dent your wallet significantly. I'd also check out some Canon forums as many photographers find Canon colours more to their liking than those of Nikon. It's purely a personal thing. I personally find the Nikon colours a bit cold at times, although when I was using my Nikon I found the Canon colours a bit overdone, so it's swings and roundabouts. The work you linked to is good. Please bear in mind the photographer in question could have captured equally goo shots with many different cameras.