D7000 for D3 or D3S

[christopher_leonard]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I'm a newbie here, and quite love the site. I currently have a D7000 and quite love it, however, my dream has always been a D3S or D3 (if the budget shrinks!!)<br>

Bottom line question, is it worth changing???????<br>

I have a feeling i already know the answer, but would love your opinions......</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Chris</p>

 

[wogears]

<p>Insufficient data. What do you shoot? What is your D7000 not doing that you need it to do? What lenses do you own?</p>

<p>Forgive me, but most of the time it is the photographer that needs 'upgrading'. That <em>definitely</em> includes me.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>get glass and education; it'll take you farther than a D3 at this point</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>The d3 is now what, five years old? You'd probably be better off with a D7100. It all comes down to what you photo, and what lenses you have. It's mostly lenses that determine what you can photo, and how.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>It is worth changing?</em> Yes, if you really want it!</p>

<p>Although I tend to agree with Kent, especially for casual users, there are numerous advantages that the D3/D3S bodies have over the D7100 (and D7000), such as but not limited to better ergonomics, direct access to the most important features/functions through exterior buttons, more [advanced] features, larger viewfinder, full frame, built-in grip and better high ISO performance. And of course a better AF module over the D7000 (The D7100 has the same AF module apparently as the D3/D3S.) There are other features/difference that as well you might want to consider. Yet the D7100/D7000 bodies has some advantages over the D3/D3S bodies, such as smaller size, lighter weight, perhaps better video (D3 does not have video), and lower price.</p>

<p>Are you having issues with your D7000? If so, what? Why specifically do you want a D3/D3S?</p>

<p>I still have and enjoy using the D3. Which is the right choice for you? It really depends on your needs. I had and used the D7000 for a year and although I liked it, I much preferred the D3 over it. Frankly, I would not necessarily consider going to the D7100 from a D7000.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Consider first WHY you'd want a D3 or D3s. If it's because they look cool, then I'd stick with the D7000. If it is because you routinely find yourself in situations where you need lighting fast AF and long bursts of continuous shots, a D3 or D3s starts to make sense. Or if you want really very shallow depth of field and have the very right lenses to do that (f/1.8 and faster); even then I'd probably get a D600 instead.<br>

But most people who have to ask if they need a full frame camera don't really need one. If you need one, you know.</p>

<p>I fully concur with Les that most of the time, it is the photographer that needs the upgrade; too true for me as well.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>As the others have said - it depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. If you find that you are continually running into buffer full situations and have good / great Fx lenses - then go for it. </p>

<p>If you find low light shooting is your sweet spot - then it may be worth it. </p>

<p>But if you have a ton of Dx glass, don't shoot low light a lot, and don't shoot sports - then no, probably not worth it. </p>

<p>I see this question (and get this question) a lot - should I upgrade to full frame? I always answer with the question - What isn't crop sensor doing for you that you think full frame would? Usually the answer is a variant of "make me a better photographer" - No - Fx won't do that by itself. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I always remember that day very well: Nikon announced the D3 and D300 simultaneously on 23rd August, 2007. That was about a year before the global economic downturn and Nikon spent a lot of money to invite the press to Tokyo for the introduction. Bjorn Rorslett and Ellis Vener were among like 100 international guests that went to Tokyo on Nikon's expense plus many more from within Japan: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00MKgI">Tokyo report: D3 and D300</a></p>

<p>Nikon started shipping the D3 at the end of November, 2007, so it is just over 6 years old.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, it doesn't sounds like the OP has any photographic needs to use a D3 or D3S. If he wants one for the sake of having a camera that was "flag ship" once upon a time, that is a personal decision. If that makes you happy, by all means. Otherwise, I agree with Howard:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>get glass and education; it'll take you farther than a D3 at this point</p>

</blockquote>

[christopher_leonard]

<p>Thanks guys,<br>

I will also have to change my main lens (which I adore) which is the 17-55 2.8 DX, but I intend to replace it with the 24-70 2.8<br>

I am primarily a wedding shooter (first wedding shot in 1986) and some sports. I love the D7000, however, I feel that I am finding myself more and more unhappy with the low light results, initially I was delighted compared to my old D90, but I feel I have outgrown the 7000. I have also found the small buffer in the 7000 to be a real pain at time.<br>

Hope this sheds some light!!<br>

Chris</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Christopher, the low light situation could merit looking into a full frame camera, but even there: proceed with caution. Quite a lot of people expect miracles like noise-free photos of candle-light dinners, and no need ever to use flash. Not going to happen - even with the D3s which is as good as things get in low light.<br>

Even so, at this point, I'd rather look at a D610 than a D3; budget allowing a D800 for the better AF. The D3s still makes a case for itself, the D3 a bit less so (age, and whatever is available second hand will probably be seriously used; a D700 might make a better deal).<br>

But you really have to judge carefully if higher ISO performance is really going to "cure" the problem, or whether it's not really just a case of too little light, too little contrast, too murky noisy photos - no full frame camera will solve a single thing if the light you work with isn't any good.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D3 is Nikon's first FX format DSLR and 6 years ago, its high-ISO results used to be ground breaking. While I am not a regular wedding photograher, when I tested the D3 for photo.net back in 2008, I used it to capture a friend's wedding as a second photographer to get some real-life images for the review: <a href="/equipment/nikon/D3/D3-review">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3/D3-review</a></p>

<p>After using that heavy D3 with fairly heavy lenes such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S all day at that wedding, I developed some shoulder pain that lasted a couple of days.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>After using that heavy D3 with fairly heavy lenes such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S all day at that wedding, I developed some shoulder pain that lasted a couple of days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and therein lies the problem with big body FX cameras and pro lenses: they're super-heavy.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Prior to that D3, which was a loaner from Nikon, I have had (and still own) an F4, F5, and D2X, so I am quite familiar with those large bodies, but I typically use them with long lenses on a tripod or at least a monopod. I hand hold also but rarely continuously for the whole day.</p>

<p>If I were to shoot a wedding for the entire day, I would opt for a lighter body such as a D600 or D700.</p>

[christopher_leonard]

<p>Ok Guys,<br>

You may have convinced me to re-examine and possibly opt for the D600 having read some reviews including Ken Rockwell. I can get a new 600 for the same price as a (old!!) D3!!!<br>

I'm slightly turned off the D800 because of the 36MP (ludicrous IMHO) and the sluggish 4FPS<br>

So, I'm between sticking with the the D7k and the D600.....<br>

I think!!</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I've always been happiest with the top of the line. I tend to prefer a little bigger and heavier and find that design level to be better, easier to use. Doesn't get in the way of my work which is how I define good design. There are a lot of things that a fancier camera won't cure but there are quite a few things it will. My experience has been that a generation old body will provide excellent results. I still use D2xxxxx series bodies for a lot of things and generally don't find them wanting.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[leicaglow]

Howard said it perfectly. I think you might be disappointed at the difference between

a d3 and d7000.