Anyone have a D3?
- Thread starter ricky1981
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
Silver Penguin has one. What camera have you got now? D300 isn't it? I would get one without a second thought if I could afford it. Its worth considering that if you do a lot of wildlife, long lens work then you may miss the crop factor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 10,001
- Location
- Scottish Highlands
yup, d300 at the mo but wouldn't sell that as think the d3 would be too big to just pick up on the way out the door! Already have a d80 and an ir d70 but the d3 is calling me and price would be under 2k
under £2k would be a very nice price. I have the D300+Grip which I believe is slightly heavier and larger than the D3 and I don't find it too big at all. Might take a little getting used to as its no point and shoot either.
One of my closest pals has a D3, and uses it with a Nikkor 300 F2.8 and Sigma 800.. It really is a cracking body. I don't think you could buy one and possibly be dissapointed with it.
The IQ and colour are drastically different to the Canons, i'm now pretty good at looking at images and actually being able to tell whether a Canon 1D took it or a D3.
Being totally honest, i'd say the colour/contrast on the images produced by the D3 are nicer than any other Canon, except the 1DsMkIII, which is like shooting Kodakchrome.
The IQ and colour are drastically different to the Canons, i'm now pretty good at looking at images and actually being able to tell whether a Canon 1D took it or a D3.
Being totally honest, i'd say the colour/contrast on the images produced by the D3 are nicer than any other Canon, except the 1DsMkIII, which is like shooting Kodakchrome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,891
- Location
- Bristol
Never ever seen a D3 before :O
What about the the D700? Much better Value. With the spare cash you could buy a 24-70 or 14-24..
Yeah, this. I think the small body + grip paradigm is a much better idea, personally—especially now that grips have reached the standard of the MB-D10, and small bodies have reached the standard of the D700.
The D700 is perhaps a slightly less obvious choice financially once you factor in the cost of an MB-D10 and presumably an EN-EL4, but I'd still have one over a D3.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
Its a very very VERY good camera and the files it produces have to be seen to be believed. I still look at shots in the ISO2000+ range with amazement at how clean they can be. The focus is excellent in very low light blah blah blah blah (insert all the good things you've ever heard about the D3 here).
I was the official photographer at a friends wedding on saturday and I got shots that would have simply been impossible with any other camera due to the lighting conditions inside and last week I photographed a musical and was shooting using only the light from the stage lights, again the camera was designed for this sort of thing so got shots that I just could not have got otherwise. If your more of a wildlifer though be prepared to want longer lenses...I do miss the crop factor of DX sometimes!
Basically, now the D700 has been announced I'd give that some thought too. For me, I like the extra shutter release and would always choose a pro body over a smaller camera + grip because no matter how you look at it, built in will always be more sturdy. I'm also not bothered by large bodies/lenses though where as you may want a lighter setup, so again the D700 might be worth looking in to.
Sub £2k for a D3 is a great price though so if you think you will need the (fairly few) differences between that and the D700 then I'd say go for it - but either camera won't let you down!
I know I'll be keeping mine even when I upgrade to my next camera!
I was the official photographer at a friends wedding on saturday and I got shots that would have simply been impossible with any other camera due to the lighting conditions inside and last week I photographed a musical and was shooting using only the light from the stage lights, again the camera was designed for this sort of thing so got shots that I just could not have got otherwise. If your more of a wildlifer though be prepared to want longer lenses...I do miss the crop factor of DX sometimes!
Basically, now the D700 has been announced I'd give that some thought too. For me, I like the extra shutter release and would always choose a pro body over a smaller camera + grip because no matter how you look at it, built in will always be more sturdy. I'm also not bothered by large bodies/lenses though where as you may want a lighter setup, so again the D700 might be worth looking in to.
Sub £2k for a D3 is a great price though so if you think you will need the (fairly few) differences between that and the D700 then I'd say go for it - but either camera won't let you down!
I know I'll be keeping mine even when I upgrade to my next camera!
Last edited:
By all accounts the D700 + MB-D10 is very sturdy though—miles better than the older Nikon grips. After all, a D700 + MB-D10 is heavier than a D3.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
Oh I'm absolutely sure the grip is built of very sturdy stuff but at the end of the day its still 2 bits of equipment screwed together so I'd be far more fearful if it was to get a big whack or dropped etc...of course l'd want to cry regardless if that happened lol
Thanks for all the feedback, think I will hold fire until the D700 is available and then give them both a try. Leaning towards the D3 at the moment as had heard that the D700 is missing a few features (cropping the sensor for DX lenses amongst them) and I've already got the D300 if I really can't deal with the extra weight for a particular situation.
Hoping to order the D700 and 24-70 lens shortly (already have the 70-200 and 14-24 to follow ). The fact I already have a D300 has won me over as I can grab the grip to use on both and share batteries and I just don't quite need the extra fps or 5:4 crop mode. Will report back!
). The fact I already have a D300 has won me over as I can grab the grip to use on both and share batteries and I just don't quite need the extra fps or 5:4 crop mode. Will report back!I'm one of those weird folks who uses Pentax cameras, so I'm not at all familiar with Nikon or Canon cameras, except when I'm being sneered at by the users of said cameras...!
So, what is it about the D3 in particular that makes it good for/designed for low light photography over any other camera? Is it the ISO performance or something else?
I've been seriously thinking about switching over to Nikon, now that my wedding photography is starting to take off and earning me some cash, so would be interested to hear.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,891
- Location
- Bristol
I bet the D3 is amaizing for Skateboard sequences my D80 lags abit
The D3 is far better than any Canon at 6400, the 1DSMkIII is far worse than the MkIII due to the pixels, that said it resolved far more detail if you can live with/process the noise.
When you get below ISO 400 the tables begin to turn, the MkIII currently produces the nicest files and dynamic range of any camera, when you get down to ISO 100-200.
Many people are "living" with the still disputed focussing problems of the MkIII series, simply because the files it produces in normal shooting conditions are fantastic.