how sensible would buying a D3 today be?

[dweezil]

<p>I have the possibility to buy a used D3 for a reasonable price( 800- 900 € ).<br>

I currently have a D80 and I don't like it any more as most of the stuff I do is low light like concerts and I don't seem to be able to get good shots lately. <br>

I have a 28-70 AF-S 2.8 and a 50 1.8 so lens wise I'm good. Does it still make sense to get a D3 or D700 at this point? I don't think I need the high resolution from a D600 or 800 and they are out of my reach financially at the moment. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think the D700 makes more sense for what you're talking about, as it's lighter and less obtrusive.<br /><br />Imho, it probably still makes sense for that price.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yes and no.<br /> Both D3 and D700 are still great cameras. Sure today's cameras are better in several ways, but that doesn't make these older cameras worse (just not the cream of the crop anymore). So, if the price is right, in my view, a D700 or D3 can still make a lot of sense.<br /> When is the price right? That is the difficult question - 900 euros for a D3 is not a lot, so I'd be very cautious on how heavy it is used. Do not focus only on the actuation count, but check how clean it is, if it shows signs of rough use etc. Do try this body before spending any money on it. Also to get a better idea for its weight and heft - it's quite a step from a D80 and if you have small(ish) hands, a D3 might be less comfortable.</p>

<p>Another point to the price being right - are you sure a D3 would fix the problem you experience lately in getting the right shots? Better high ISO performance could be a point, better AF could be a point, but I'd first consider properly whether the problem is really in those areas. The D80 is often critised, but it's not a bad body and its high ISO performance isn't half as bad as people like to state, certainly not with modern raw software.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Neither the D3 nor the D700 are good in low light. I used my D3 mostly in music and theater work. They suffer from a design defect that causes blooming (showing in the form of a streak) across the frame at high gain settings, which shows up in dark areas of the image and cannot be fixed. They also both produce a large amount of pattern noise. Once you get to ISO 6400, you cannot count on these cameras. They were better than other cameras at the time, but now almost every camera, even APS-c cameras, are better than this. </p>

<p>A used D3s is a /very/ good camera for this kind of work, comparable to the D4. </p>

[dweezil]

<p>just to clarify some things: <br>

I know the D3 is a beast compared to a d80, i thing i cn handle that, I have an F4S, F100 and if that still makes you doubt I have a Kiev 6C which makes the D3 come over as a feather weight.<br /><br /><br>

i've tried any thing on the D80 and it doesn't help; reset, use the auto programs instead of A; even with flash it still doesn't seem to be right.<br>

I know that a D700 would be a better fit for me but thi one is a bit cheaper than any d700 I can find.<br>

i want to move to FX as most of the good lenses I have are full frame anyway as a left over from my film days</p>

 

[luke_kaven]

<p>I strongly recommend skipping the D3/D700 and moving to the D3s for this kind of work, unless you intend to go no higher than ISO3200. Nikon gave me a D3s in exchange for my D3 for just this reason. The D3/D700 also has very strong pattern noise, and the HI-1/HI-2 settings are useless. The D3s does low light up to ISO 51200 almost flawlessly. </p>

<p>They knew what they had to fix, and they did it. I would use the D3 at high gain settings only for sports where there is even arena lighting. It was a good Olympic camera.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Though I never used them at the same time, I am sure that the D3 I have would perform much better in general and especially in low light than the D200 I had, which had the same sensor as a D80, I think. I prefer the D3 over the D700. </p>

<p>Another good budget choice to consider would be a used D600. The one I had was a solid performer.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I only have the Df which I think the low light performance is good and I don't need any better. At one time I considered buying the D3 how much of a different between the D3 and the Df in term of low light performance?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I bought an used D3 in 2010, and use it to this day. I find it meets my needs and while not a stellar performer in low light, the use of ISO 6400 still yields publishable images, if only barely. ISO 3200 is a more reasonable cap. The battery life is outstanding, and the built-in grip with controls is something I use regularly.</p>

<p>The weight of this beast and associated lenses (17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8) is getting to me. I carry a Leica M-9 or Sony A7ii kit (with Leica lenses) by preference. But when I need speed and longevity, the D3 is still ready and able to meet any task I've been assigned.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>IMO a D3 can, at the mentioned price, and in good condition, still be a (very) good buy for e.g. concert photography.<br>

In the reactions posted there's a lot of talking about the 'inferior' high ISO, but I that a) that's way out of proportion and b) there's another far more important characteristic a camera needs for good photography under bad light, and that is a sturdy/reliable AF.</p>

<p>Personally I think the whole noise thing is getting completely unrealistic to begin with.<br>

Anybody remember or maybe still have a copy of the Nikon Pro Digital Special that Nikon issued at the presentation of the D1 (I do), and what the high ISO pics of the D1 looked like?<br>

It amongst others featured several pictures shot at the 2000 London Fashion Week shows, and if anybody would today show similar quality pictures, he'd get immediately slammed and be told that anybody with a mobile phone could easily make better ones.<br>

Yet at that time they were a revolution, beating the IQ of the high ISO films of those days (anybody remember the 3M 640T? A big jump ahead in high ISO compared to eg Kodak's 160T EPT, but you could play marbles with the grain), despite the funky colors and lacking contrast.<br>

Still nowadays ISO 6400 is considered the 'new' ISO 400, and expected to be grainless, even if it's no less the 5 stops more sensitive them eg the high ISO film standard Tri-X (which BTW wasn't grainless at 400 ISO to begin with. Back then Tri-X users usually got slammed by Panatomic-X and MF shooters)) </p>

<p>One reaction mentions the good lowlight performance of the DF. I have that body too so can make a fair statement on that camera when I say that definitely doesn't go for the AF. While it indeed has an excellent IQ at high ISO, the AF is only so-so under bad light, and basically only the center AF points are up to the job under those circumstances (that said, it's still much better then the internet hype makes it, and performs well under e.g. normal stage light).<br>

But the AF of the D3 absolutely stands its ground under the worst circumstances (= near darkness), and is IMO superior to the D700 (which like the D300 and D800 simply doesn't snap into focus like the D3 does)</p>

<p>Here's an example of how the D3 performs in real world horrible light shooting.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110618_academie_antwerpen&page=all<br>

The Academy of Art in Antwerp has one of the leading, even worldwide, fashion colleges. The yearly shows are major spectacles that draws tv, press, critics and established designers from all over the world.<br>

The shows themselves however are, as you can see, an absolute photographer's nightmare: heavy backlighting, smoke, 'artistic' light designs varying from high intensity lighting one moment, to near pitch dark the next.<br>

As you can see the D3 is up to the job, even if there is noise at ISo 6400 http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/136095082.</p>

<p>Sure, a D3s will/can be better in capable hands, but you won't find one for 800- 900 € (where I leave the lowest price is around 1800 € for a heavily used, to 2700 € for a 'near mint' one). </p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the possibility to buy a used D3 for a reasonable price( 800- 900 € ).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether that price is "good" or not highly depends on the condition of that particular used D3. The D3 used to be a professional work horse type camera; I am sure that a lot of them have gone through heavy usage. I wouldn't pay 800 Euros for one that is about to fall apart, for example.</p>

<p>Additionally, the D3 is a big and heavy camera. If you want low light results with a limited budget, I think the D700, which has essentially identical electronics, is the better buy. The D3 uses the EN-EL4/EN-EL4A battery that is big and expensive. Should you need additional batteries, they will be costly or you'll have to take a chance on third-party clones. The D700 is smaller and uses the far more common EN-EL3e battery that the D80 also uses. The main advantages for the D3 are dual memory cards and 100% viewfinder.</p>

<p>We all know that the D3/D700's low-light capability, while once state of the art back in 2007-2008, is no longer that special. However, the OP is on a budget and is coming from a D80. The D3/D700 is clearly a major improvement. (Yes, I also have a D200, which has a similar sensor as the D80. Their high-ISO capability is rather poor, even back in 2007.)</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Although the photo world has moved on to better DR models + resolution, etc., I often use my D700 files and they still look good....and a D3 in decent shape would do the same. Much depends on what your specific needs are. Personally I didn't feel I compromised much by getting D700.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>coming from a D80, a D3 would be a huge improvement in every performance metric (except for weight). i also consider the bigger body and better ergonomics a boon when shooting fast action -- it gives you stability, especially with a longish, bulky lens like the 28-70 (aka "the beast"). However, Luke is right about a D3s being a better benchmark for low-light concert photography. the question is, do you need that level of performance or will you be satisfied with the improvement from your current camera?</p>

<p>just to put things in perspective, i had a D80 and was shooting low-light concert stuff, and had to upgrade. i opted for the D3s over the D3/D700. IME, the D80 maxes out at about ISO 800-1000; above that it's noisy and blotchy. the D3 gives you two stops better performance, up to about ISO 3200. the D3s is still clean in shadow areas up to 6400, and 8000-1000 are quite usable.</p>

<p>so it comes down to budget, ultimately. IMO if you do a lot of low-light work, its worth the extra investment in the D3s, since it is still only (barely) surprassed by the D4/D4s in terms of low-light. if that's more than you can pay, then a D3 will still give you better performance than your current body.</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>Nikon sensors have improved since the D3, BUT image processing software has made noticeable improvements over the same time span, making high ISO images (ISO 6400) from the D3 remarkable good, delivering excellent color and detail without any noise IF you are a RAW shooter. These advances in image processing has given the D3 (and other similar and lesser Nikon bodies) a bit of a reprieve. </p>

<p>The D3 still beats out all current DX bodies in high ISO performance and still rates pretty well when compared to the newest FX bodies (according to the DXOMark site). The D3 is a great body and still represents a good value.</p>

[steve_renwick]

<p>If possible, rent a D3 for a weekend and see how you like it.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I still have a D3 in the heard. I use it quite frequently as a backup to my D4. It is quite good in low-light. You will really enjoy it in comparison to the D80. </p>

<p>The price you are mentioning is very low. If the camera is in excellent condition it is a great deal. All things being equal, I would always take the D3 over the D700. So if the cameras are in comparable shape that is not a hard decision at all. The D3 is a much better camera than the D700. (I have owned both.)</p>

<p>The irony is that the D7100 or the D7200 are right in the sweet spot for what you want to do except that you have the 28-70 F/2.8 which is constraining you quite a bit. </p>

<p>Just for fun consider getting a D7100 and selling the 28-70 to buy a good F/2.8 17 to something. </p>

<p>If you have never used one of Nikon's pro bodies you are in for a treat. You are going to seriously love the ergonomics, speed and capabilities of the D3. On second thought. Get the D3 if it is in good shape. You owe it to yourself. </p>

[5711]

<p>howdy<br /> <br />i had quite some experience with d3, d3s and d3x over the last years.<br /> this series of cameras is outstanding..also today.</p>

<p>there are a couple of things not mentioned here that you should look out for</p>

<p>- does the viewfinder show what then will be seen on the image</p>

<p>sounds crazy, i know, but one of my d3's has it. i got it smashed on the back of my head...yeah i know..sounds crazy..the stroy is even more crazy than you would suspect, but thats for another time.<br /> what happened was, that the viewfinder now is off.<br /> you can test it.<br /> frame something, using a tripod, where some elements, lines, run into every corner of the image.<br /> like an x or something..whatever.<br /> frame it through the viewfinder and look at the image.<br /> in the case of my camera, you would have framed the x to run out in the corners of your frame, but they will not do so on the image.<br /> test it with live view now and you will see that they now do.<br /> if this happened, the camera got smacked over someones head, or concrete real hard.<br /> not good</p>

<p>did it recieve an upgrade.</p>

<p>use this settings:<br /> high iso NR - off<br /> long exposure NR- off<br /> active d-lightning - off<br /> raw recording - 14 bit, lossless compressed.</p>

<p>set it to ch, make sure it is set to 9 fps on full frame<br /> and point it towards a scenery, lamp that gives you atleast 1/1000th</p>

<p>if you hit the shutter button slightly it should now show you, dependeing on the settings ofg the camera, in the viewfinder or on the top screen, or both, hoe many shots can be taken.</p>

<p>if the number is 16 - the d3 did not recieve a buffer upgrade<br /> if the number is 28 to 31 - the d3 did get a buffer upgrade.</p>

<p>d3 cameras over some certain serial number do have this bufgfer upgrade already.<br /> i am not sure what number that was..maybe google on that topic</p>

<p>nikon does not perform any buffer upogrades since..i guess it was may 2014? something like that.</p>

<p>i got one d3 without and one with the buffer upgade.<br /> both are fine, one requires more bursting than the other..boohoo..so freaking what.</p>

<p>next thing would be<br /> aperture mechanismm, does it work or sometimes meter wrong and close the aperture.<br /> for example.<br /> set the camera to meter off delay - off or the longest possible setting and set it to Av (av is very important here), i think its 30" and use it at f2.8 or bigger and and meter everything near you. <br /> just hold hold the camera infront of you, set it to matrix, wheel on the viewfinder case on top set to the middle position, and "meter about" for 1 or two minutes.<br /> hit the shutter button slightly now and then to refres the time.</p>

<p>if you are on f 1.4, 1.8, 2.8 and the camera suddenly switches to f3.5* somewhere during that time, the aperture mechanism is broken and needs to be fixed.<br /> f3.5* is usually something you see in P mode, when you change exposure.<br /> however the image will be -5 stops underexposed if you are on av. <br /> the stats will be some random time, and f 3.5* even though that the aperture was set to..something else.</p>

<p>this error however is hard to reproduce and only shows frequently when the camera really is damaged..i had this issue a couple of months back and it was around 400 euros to repair.</p>

<p>some people wrote that the iso performance of the d3 is not great<br />.<br /> compared to a d4s, thats true.</p>

<p>you wrote that you own a 50 1.8g</p>

<p><a href="https://500px.com/photo/95743721/homeless-by-norbert-wabnig?from=user">https://500px.com/photo/95743721/homeless-by-norbert-wabnig?from=user</a></p>

<p>made it into the editors favourites on "the night"- assignment on national geographic.<br /> doesnt look that bad, now does it?</p>

<p>basic raw editing only.</p>

<p>buy a d3 if it is not broken.<br /> it is an awesome camera and will blow your mind to oblivion coming from a d80 :)<br /> enjoy !<br /> cheers</p>

<p> </p>

[5711]

<p>ere i forget</p>

<p>your first ferrari always is a used one.</p>

<p>that's true.<br>

i trashed some,... not so very good.<br>

dont do that.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>your first ferrari always is a used one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably.</p>

<p>Actually a Ferrari is a good analogy. If a nice sports car is what you want, a Ferrari is among the good options (although I am sure some will disagree, but that is another topic). The problem is if you don't exactly need a sports car but there is an opportunity of a somewhat cheap Ferrari around. Well, you may have just given yourself an opportunity for lots of repair and maintenance. And regardless of whether that particular car (or camera) needs repair, you'll be paying for Ferrari-type gasoline cost, insurance ....</p>

<p>Similarly, you'll need different batteries (EN-EL4a, expensive), CF cards (fortunately not so expensive since the D3 is old and you don't need the latest CF cards), not to mention that the D3 is a big and heavy camera that you'll be carrying around. Some people like that weight and size, some don't.</p>

<p>My personal experience is that in early 2008, I reviewed the D3 for photo.net. By August/September, I was all set to buy a D3 myself, but the D700 became available around that time. The first time I saw a D700, I talked to a Nikon rep about its AF system, and he assured me that the AF system is identical to the D3's, and I already knew that the electronics are the same. So I bought a D700 on the spot, mainly to save about $2000 and also some weight.</p>

[5711]

<p>very well spoken.<br /> however, it doesn't make this any more easy.</p>

<p>d700 vs d3<br /> i would also say that the build-in flash, the architectual grid that can be turned on and off in a d700 is an argument.<br>

<br /> unless the speed and rugget build qualities of a d3 are crucial in some way, the d700 is the cheaper way to go.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>d700 vs d3<br />i would also say that the build-in flash, the architectual grid that can be turned on and off in a d700 is an argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

depends on what lenses you use it with, but D700+grip = D3, pretty much. ergonomics overall are _slightly_ better on D3. if it were me, i'd say it comes down to condition of camera. there may be more low actuation 700s out there, but then D3 is rated for 2x shutter life.</p>

[5711]

<p>well..my current shutter count on the d3 says 283k. second shutter.<br>

not the last one...going to be my backup...<br>

i am not so very sure but people that do not work as a photographer usually do not tend to go through 170k something photos in one year, at least as far as i came to see it.</p>

<p>so in that respect, if build in flash is interesting (faster way to learn flash systems off camera and cheaper too) and the lesser weight i would go for the d700.</p>

<p>i would go for the d3 if speed is needed. (faster shutter release and fps rate)<br>

but then only..</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>well..my current shutter count on the d3 says 283k. second shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait, doesn't Nikon reset the shutter actuation count to 0 when they replace the shutter?</p>

<p>The D3's shutter is rated to 300K, and your current 283K is from the second shutter alone, right?</p>

[5711]

<p>yes it is.<br /> i take alot of pictures. <br /> i can't today as all my batteries are emtpy and someone, who shall not be named, did not charge batteries yesterday.<br /> shuttercount mainly comes from concerts and demonstrations, also sports and animals. lots of testing and generally going crazy.<br /> i need to improve, so i take images everyday, sometimes from the same thing and try to do it differently.<br /> some might say this is madness, to me it is training as a digital camera allows me to do so.<br /> the only problem is the editing. so i am a big fan of "get the shot in camera"...some might call this lazy.<br /> to sum things up, i am a madman with a camera who is lazy when it comes to editing..clarity +15, exposure +-1ev, contrast +15, reducing highlights..and whats that colour thing that makes colours more saturated but doesnt as it is not the saturation?, export...it's safe to say i hardly got any idea of editing whatsoever, unless it is for prints..</p>

<p>however, the d3 is still clicking.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>Ok I bit the bullet today, and I went to take a look at the camera; <br>

apart from some "brassing" on the eyepiece shutter lever on the camera is more or less pristine(previous owner wears glasses). <br>

Needles to say GAS gotthe betterhand of me so I'm 850€ poorer and a D3 richer. Thanks everybody for the information. <br>

B.T.W in the pictures some early shots of an unwilling model </p><div></div>