Nikon FX upgade

[maria_zark]

<p>Will be upgrading my DX to an FX camera in the coming month. I do a range of photography from sports and special event. A photographer is selling his Nikon D3 for 2,500. Is it worth me buying this (body only) or another for a bit extra? (D800/D600). Wouldn't want to upgrade for a while after this purchase as I would be focusing on buying suitable lenses. <br /><br />Any advice would be appreciated.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>For sports the D3 is much better than the D800 or D600, simply because of the 9 frames per second capability. It's a great camera and has a much nicer viewfinder than the D800. Of course it's much bigger and heavier.</p>

<p>As to whether it's worth buying the particular one that you refer to, that depends on a number of things. How much has it been used? (How many actuations) What currency is the 2,500?</p>

<p>Personally I would tend not to buy something so expensive second hand. I'd like to have the security of a valid warranty.</p>

<p>A final thought: the D3 is fairly old technology now, not that it is not perfectly adequate for almost every possible photographic application, but again, personally, I would prefer to go for something a little newer.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I currently have a D800, bought to replace a stolen D3 and I can tell you that the quality of D800 images makes D3 photographs look ordinary. To provide a non digital analogy it's pretty much the difference between 35 mm and medium format. The resolution of the 36 megapixel sensor is stunning. Actual size images are too big for a 27 inch iMac!<br>

But as I say, for sports, the D3 is better. And the down side of shooting raw with the D800 is the huge file sizes. You need a computer with a fast processor and plenty of RAM.</p>

 

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Another difference between the D3 and the D800 that I noticed is the improved colours. This is a subjective impression, but it seems to me that the D800 provides more natural colours. Also I found that the D3 tended to struggle with colour balance in certain situations. I seem to recall that there was a firmware change to deal with this, but my camera was stolen before I had updated.</p>

<p>Another obvious difference of course is the D3's lack of video capability.</p>

<p>Live- view photography is much simpler on the newer cameras too.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I have a D3, D800, and D600, and shoot a lot of sports. For action especially in low light, the D600 has become my go to camera for stills. I use the D800 as a second camera, usually with a wide angle for a different prospective. I can crop the D800 images a bit if need be.</p>

<p>Also, I shoot a bit of video, so the D800 is often set up as a dedicated video camera. I will say that the D800 really is just a little slow for sports in full frame mode as a primary sports camera.</p>

<p>The D3? Still a great camera. I don't find all that much difference looking at similar images from the 3 cameras on my 22" monitor, if all are exposed/WB the same and the ISO is 1600 or below. Most often, for sports especially, imperfect focus, motion blur, imperfect exposure or WB makes more difference in the final image than the MP difference. Some difference would likely be visible in larger prints, and the MP density allows for a little more cropping room with the 800/600.</p>

<p>The ergonomics, and speed of the D3 are better than the other two, and AF system is probably better than the one in the D600 but not the D800. The auto WB and high ISO are better in the D600 and D800. No video in the D3 as pointed out above.</p>

<p>You might want to see a post I did a couple of months ago with pros and cons of these 3 cameras. I still can't decide which camera to sell. (not the reason for this post)</p>

<p>$2500 seems like a lot for a D3. I would not worry too much about the shutter count. My D3 has 235,000 clicks and works perfectly. But $2500 puts you in the shopping range for a D3s which probably is the 2nd best Nikon sports camera, after the D4. The D3s improves the high ISO capability significantly and adds (limited) video capability vs the D3, as well as some other improvements.</p>

<p>If you do wind up with a D3, using DXO software to operate on the D3 raw images seems to extract the most from the camera when ISO and WB are less than ideal. If your low light shooting is under broadcast quality illumination, the D3 will deliver great results.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maria, what camera do you currently have, and equally important what lenses? What are the reasons to move to FX (it's not an upgrade in every single sense)? What do you expect the new camera to do better than your current gear? You state you will be getting suitable lenses after getting the FX body; I'd certainly do it the other way around, at least for all principal, most-used lenses. Using DX lenses on FX cameras is a waste; for sports, loosing the 1,5x crop can make a lot of difference (and the D3 in DX mode leaves no further room for cropping, realistically).</p>

<p>The D800 lauded above could be a choice (and can be found for $/€2500), but for you could also have a brand new D610 with warranty and some more spare cash to get the right lenses. If the top speed of the D3 isn't a strict necessity, second hand light used D700 could also be an option given you do not seem to mind buying second hand.<br>

And for a lot of people and a lot of uses, sticking to DX is also a completely valid and sound option. Photo forums have the tendency to pretend only full frame is the real deal, but reality is DX holds its own in a lot of scenarios for a lot less money - so it really matters what you hope to improve with the new camera.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>+1 to Wouter's comments about DX format if you are shooting daylight field sports such as soccer. But, having moved from a D700 to a D3s several years ago, I would strongly recommend the D3 over a D700 for sports with the current pricing for the two cameras.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>It's important to have the lenses for the FX format. Some people although using DX format cameras but own mostly FX lenses. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is one that is owned by many DX users. </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>In case you hadn't seen it here's the link to the post that Robert refers to above:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cQ9H</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you're mainly doing sports and special events, a D3 is plenty of camera. the 12mp FX sensor might be a little dated, but speaking as a D3s owner, it's still quite good. an 800 wouldnt be my first choice for sports b/c of file size/buffer issues. the D3 has better AF than the d600, which would be a key consideration if it were me. besides the price of the D3, tho, you might want to check the actuations. a low-mileage D3 might be worth $2500, but how many of those are there left out there?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is a pretty big difference between the D3 and D3S' sensors. As far as I can tell, the improvement from the D3/D700 to D3S is much bigger than from D3S to D4 for still capture. As a result, used D3 is a lot cheaper than used D3S.</p>

<p>See this thread from two months ago: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cU5k<br>

If you want a D3, refurbished ones with a reasonable number of actuations should be around $2000.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the D3, D3S, D4, and D4S are considerably heavier than the D800 and D600. I would make sure that you are happy with the size and weight.</p>