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>

<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>

<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>

<p>I'm delighted to note that we can now assign ISO sensitivity to the movie record button.</p>