D3 or d700

Bampson

Bampson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
131
Name
Noel
Edit My Images
Yes
My d300 met a gruesome end. will be getting some money from the insurance man and have a few pennies saved.

So made a trip down to Fixation they have a few D700's and D3's used but serviced and guaranteed so i am happy to buy used from them .

what is the feeling out there ??

they are roughly the same price and both full frame. i am leaning towards the D3 but that would mean changing batteries , not a major deal but something to consider ..

i shoot mostly Portraits ,sports and some events .

any advice appreciated ..:D
 
I had a similar choice last month. I went the D3 route and very pleased.

Battery life is awesome btw so you'd probably only need 1 spare if that. Personaly think I'll get away without a spare!
 
Down to size and feel IMO, D3 is a lovely camera in the hand and has a longer shutter life expectation ... D700 has much the same inside plus sensor clean (shake) and onboard flash but is smaller without a grip.
 
thanks for that , it just confirms my thinking .. only wish i could afford the "S"
 
Just had a quick look on fixations site and the D3 bodies listed have very high mileage. I'm not usually one to get hung up on that but check the 'fr' figures.

Prices are plus VAT too in case you aren't aware.
 
Fixations used prices are usually terrible, a lot of the stuff they sell is also commission sales without warranty, MPB, Aperture and Mifsuds are much better
 
the guy i spoke to claimed they all had warranty, they have done good work for me in the past so they do make me feel confident in them .. the D3 i looked at has 65k actuations i didn't think that was too bad .. ?

who or what is a Mifsuds ??
 
Mifsuds is a camera shop in Torquay :)

65k is fine, what was the asking price?
 
mpe said:
Depending on the cost, I would rather get new D600/D800.

Sensors have done quite a step forward since 2007.
Click to expand...

looked at the D600 but really don't like the feel of it too small even with a grip. the D800 really does not do it for me , not sure what it is but £2000 is not in my budget anyway ..

The D3 i was looking at was £1100. that is the budget TBH .
 
£1100 for a D3 sound fine, there are are few around at higher prices with much higher shutter counts - if you know them, it's been serviced and comes with warranty then you could do a lot worse IMO.
 
gramps said:
Mifsuds is a camera shop in Torquay :)

65k is fine, what was the asking price?
Click to expand...

had a look on their website the only D3 they have is £1500.. only 23k actuation though , a bit too far over my budget ..
 
Bampson said:
looked at the D600 but really don't like the feel of it too small even with a grip. the D800 really does not do it for me , not sure what it is but £2000 is not in my budget anyway ..

The D3 i was looking at was £1100. that is the budget TBH .
Click to expand...

£1100 + VAT?
 
gramps said:
£1100 for a D3 sound fine, there are are few around at higher prices with much higher shutter counts - if you know them, it's been serviced and comes with warranty then you could do a lot worse IMO.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly .. thanks , lets hope the insurance money comes through before they sell it ..
 
grotty said:
£1100 + VAT?
Click to expand...

errr:shrug: good point ..
if it is then it might be out of range ..

think i was looking at the full price but cant be sure ..
will check on Monday ..
 
I would take the D700. I debated the same choice about 1.5 years ago. Went for the D700, because it's more compact (without battery grip). When I need better battery life, I include my grip to it. But it isn't that bad without it either...
 
The lowest actuation D3 on the fixation site is £1100 plus VAT has 82,000 actuations and is a commission sale without warranty, every single D3 they have in stock is a commission sale without warranty, someone at Fixation has been telling you porky pies
 
Last edited:
Bampson said:
looked at the D600 but really don't like the feel of it too small even with a grip. the D800 really does not do it for me , not sure what it is but £2000 is not in my budget anyway ..

The D3 i was looking at was £1100. that is the budget TBH .
Click to expand...

There is no dispute that D3/D700 are still great cameras. I would think twice before upgrading from them.

However, as far as features and sensor technology, they don't play the same league as the new camaras. I think it is about priorities. I would rather have smaller body with 2.5 additional stops of dynamic range and one stop of high-iso performance, double resolution with nearly unlimited cropping freedom and all these new modern features like f/8 focusing, video, tweaked controls, smart auto-ISO, usable liveview, etc. rather than pre-owned body with older technology that's just built as a tank.

I went from D300 -> D700 -> D600 (recently). The handling of pro-glasses is not an issue. Yes, with medium pro-zooms like 24-70 or 70-200/2.8, it is a bit front-heavy, however, the grip and different strap helps. D700 is not any better. Only the D3 is better.

D600 is just a bit lighter, a bit smaller (it is actually a tad deeper than D700). The difference is not that significant compared to non-grip body. I would actually prefer even smaller/ligher body.

Obviously, there is plastic vs magnesium thing if you need ruggedness, however, I could live with that.
 
Last edited:
mpe said:
There is no dispute that D3/D700 are still great cameras. I would think twice before upgrading from them.

However, as far as features and sensor technology, they don't play the same league as the new camaras. I think it is about priorities. I would rather have smaller body with 2.5 additional stops of dynamic range and one stop of high-iso performance, double resolution with nearly unlimited cropping freedom and all these new modern features like f/8 focusing, video, tweaked controls, smart auto-ISO, usable liveview, etc. rather than pre-owned body with older technology that's just built as a tank.

I went from D300 -> D700 -> D600 (recently). The handling of pro-glasses is not an issue. Yes, with medium pro-zooms like 24-70 or 70-200/2.8, it is a bit front-heavy, however, the grip and different strap helps. D700 is not any better. Only the D3 is better.

D600 is just a bit lighter, a bit smaller (it is actually a tad deeper than D700). The difference is not that significant compared to non-grip body. I would actually prefer even smaller/ligher body.

Obviously, there is plastic vs magnesium thing if you need ruggedness, however, I could live with that.
Click to expand...

With all that said, many value the feel of a camera nearly as much as the small improvements made, if not more so. Especially if the alternative (D3 or D700) is no slouch.
 
mpe said:
There is no dispute that D3/D700 are still great cameras. I would think twice before upgrading from them.

However, as far as features and sensor technology, they don't play the same league as the new camaras. I think it is about priorities. I would rather have smaller body with 2.5 additional stops of dynamic range and one stop of high-iso performance, double resolution with nearly unlimited cropping freedom and all these new modern features like f/8 focusing, video, tweaked controls, smart auto-ISO, usable liveview, etc. rather than pre-owned body with older technology that's just built as a tank.

I went from D300 -> D700 -> D600 (recently). The handling of pro-glasses is not an issue. Yes, with medium pro-zooms like 24-70 or 70-200/2.8, it is a bit front-heavy, however, the grip and different strap helps. D700 is not any better. Only the D3 is better.

D600 is just a bit lighter, a bit smaller (it is actually a tad deeper than D700). The difference is not that significant compared to non-grip body. I would actually prefer even smaller/ligher body.

Obviously, there is plastic vs magnesium thing if you need ruggedness, however, I could live with that.
Click to expand...
OP also said he will be shooting some sports, the D3/D700 will kick the ass of the D600 in that respect, i know ive tried using it for sports and it went straight back in the box and back to the shop.
 
grotty said:
With all that said, many value the feel of a camera nearly as much as the small improvements made, if not more so. Especially if the alternative (D3 or D700) is no slouch.
Click to expand...

I agree, having handled the D800 it just doesn't feel the same - I was out yesterday with the D3S and the gripped D7000 and there is no comparison in the way they feel in my hands.
 
Bampson said:
My d300 met a gruesome end. will be getting some money from the insurance man and have a few pennies saved.

So made a trip down to Fixation they have a few D700's and D3's used but serviced and guaranteed so i am happy to buy used from them .

what is the feeling out there ??

they are roughly the same price and both full frame. i am leaning towards the D3 but that would mean changing batteries , not a major deal but something to consider ..

i shoot mostly Portraits ,sports and some events .

any advice appreciated ..:D
Click to expand...


If your choice comes purely down to those 2 and you are ruling out the newer range. I would say go for the D700.

There isn't a huge difference between a D700 with a grip and a D3 and the D700 gives you the option of using it without the grip for when you want to travel lighter. Coming from a D300 size, weight and controls are all going to be very similar on a D700.

One thing to consider though is all the glass you have have at the moment going to survive your jump to full frame?

If not the new D7100 seems to be fairly well regarded although you will be sacrificing the build and some of the spec etc. that you are used too with your D300.
 
gramps said:
I agree, having handled the D800 it just doesn't feel the same - I was out yesterday with the D3S and the gripped D7000 and there is no comparison in the way they feel in my hands.
Click to expand...

I felt the same way the first few times I got to play with a D800, I just didn't like the feel of it. I actually went into Calumet about 6 months ago with the intention of buying one and changed my mind after having a play with it. However have now come round to the idea a bit more and am seriously considering jumping to a D800e.
 
I have just upgraded to a D700 from a D300 and i really like it, i wanted to go full frame for a while, and yes i am gradually changing all my glass. If you can afford the newer camera then yes all the new techno stuff is fine, but if your budget doesn't go that far then its a different ball game, if you need to change the glass then that too is more funds needed.Many people on here sell, and you can get some good deals. My D700 has only done 8000 shutter clicks, and been well looked after, and i love it, it feels and handles well. I am not dissappointed even though it is old techno in some people's eyes.
 
Gary Coyle said:
OP also said he will be shooting some sports, the D3/D700 will kick the ass of the D600 in that respect, i know ive tried using it for sports and it went straight back in the box and back to the shop.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily (unless shooting something that needs a high framerate where D3/D700 with grip and the right battery still excells).

I am not sure about D3, hut I have been shooting wildlife for three years with my D700 before I switched to D600. The D600 is indeed different, it has different focusing algorithms (inherited from D4) and require slightly different AF technique. Also the sensitive part of an AF points is longer on D600 (I am talking about actual AF geometry which is always a vertical or horizontal line, not the apparent coverage of AF rectangles in the viewfinder). I feel I can get initial AF focus lock faster than on my D600 than on the D700. I haven't found any difference in in-focus rate between D600 and D700 when using conventional AF-C in 9 or 21 point tracking mode. The more advanced AF modes (like 39point, 3D tracking, Auto Area AF or contrast AF in LV) are significantly better on D600 and plan AF-S is also faster due to faster initial AF acquisition. There is now a firmware for latest gen cameras (incl. D600) that makes the situation even better, but I am yet to try it.

The only situation where I found the D700 to perform better is when there is a busy background or foreground, like when there is a tree or netting between you and your subject. I can never get consistent AF under such conditions with D600.

A friend of mine did a step from D3 to D4 and had similar problems. There is always a learning curve as every generation of AF is slightly different.

However, in general I consider D600 AF to be superior to D700.
 
mpe said:
Not necessarily (unless shooting something that needs a high framerate where D3/D700 with grip and the right battery still excells).

I am not sure about D3, hut I have been shooting wildlife for three years with my D700 before I switched to D600. The D600 is indeed different, it has different focusing algorithms (inherited from D4) and require slightly different AF technique. Also the sensitive part of an AF points is longer on D600 (I am talking about actual AF geometry which is always a vertical or horizontal line, not the apparent coverage of AF rectangles in the viewfinder). I feel I can get initial AF focus lock faster than on my D600 than on the D700. I haven't found any difference in in-focus rate between D600 and D700 when using conventional AF-C in 9 or 21 point tracking mode. The more advanced AF modes (like 39point, 3D tracking, Auto Area AF or contrast AF in LV) are significantly better on D600 and plan AF-S is also faster due to faster initial AF acquisition. There is now a firmware for latest gen cameras (incl. D600) that makes the situation even better, but I am yet to try it.

The only situation where I found the D700 to perform better is when there is a busy background or foreground, like when there is a tree or netting between you and your subject. I can never get consistent AF under such conditions with D600.

A friend of mine did a step from D3 to D4 and had similar problems. There is always a learning curve as every generation of AF is slightly different.

However, in general I consider D600 AF to be superior to D700.
Click to expand...

You do realise Gary is a professional sports photographer and that basically what he has said is the same as pretty much every review I have read on the D600? :lol:
 
How'd did you kill the d300 if you don't mind me asking
 
mpe said:
Not necessarily (unless shooting something that needs a high framerate where D3/D700 with grip and the right battery still excells).

I am not sure about D3, hut I have been shooting wildlife for three years with my D700 before I switched to D600. The D600 is indeed different, it has different focusing algorithms (inherited from D4) and require slightly different AF technique. Also the sensitive part of an AF points is longer on D600 (I am talking about actual AF geometry which is always a vertical or horizontal line, not the apparent coverage of AF rectangles in the viewfinder). I feel I can get initial AF focus lock faster than on my D600 than on the D700. I haven't found any difference in in-focus rate between D600 and D700 when using conventional AF-C in 9 or 21 point tracking mode. The more advanced AF modes (like 39point, 3D tracking, Auto Area AF or contrast AF in LV) are significantly better on D600 and plan AF-S is also faster due to faster initial AF acquisition. There is now a firmware for latest gen cameras (incl. D600) that makes the situation even better, but I am yet to try it.

The only situation where I found the D700 to perform better is when there is a busy background or foreground, like when there is a tree or netting between you and your subject. I can never get consistent AF under such conditions with D600.

A friend of mine did a step from D3 to D4 and had similar problems. There is always a learning curve as every generation of AF is slightly different.

However, in general I consider D600 AF to be superior to D700.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, i seem to recall we had a similar discussion here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=473924 and you went AWOL, give it a rest, the D600 is a prosumer grade FX camera and whilst it may well have in your opinion (and only your opinion) better AF than the D700 you need to ask yourself which body a professional sports photographer would choose to cover all bases, fact is all would choose the D700, probably gripped for the extra FPS but definatly the D700. :bang:
 
mpe said:
However, in general I consider D600 AF to be superior to D700.
Click to expand...

I know I've not had my D600 for long but in my experience the D600 AF is noticeably worse than my D700. Not to the point where I'd send it back but it does hunt where I know my D700 wouldn't with the same lens.

In fact I tested it out the other week when photographing a band. Same lens, same lighting conditions. The D600 hunted, D700 never missed.

The new firmware upgrade is supposed to have improved AF tracking though. Not sure I'd recommend the D600 if you need fast and accurate AF.
 
To Gary: My apologies. I take it back. After re-reading my wording, I agree that it was too strong to say that the D600 is not superior to D700. Still, there are some AF aspects I like more about the D600 - like faster contrast AF in live view, more reliable 3D tracking mode (I find that unusable on D300/D700). I also like a number of small improvements, like easier switching between focus patterns, fact that I can see the initial point in Auto area AF-C mode, so that it can be finally used, etc.

Perhaps it would be better to write that after using my D700 for 3 years (and D300 for five years) and now the D600 for about month side by side to my D700 I found D600 AF performance perfectly adequate and decided to keep the D600.

Your mileage may vary. I am neither a pro photographer nor a sports shooter (although still a Nikon NPS member). You are likely more qualified to assess suitability of cameras for sports. Is it reasonable to expect that experiences from shooting birds can be extrapolated to shooting sports?
 
The D600 is not in my thoughts , it seems very light and non pro like to me ..
I would rather replace my D300 than go with the 600.

Sorry if some don't agree but that's my thinking ..
 
Bampson said:
The D600 is not in my thoughts , it seems very light and non pro like to me ..
I would rather replace my D300 than go with the 600.

Sorry if some don't agree but that's my thinking ..
Click to expand...
Was my thinking as well, feels very light and plaskicky, theres no way i would be fitting a heavy 400mm f/2.8 to that lightweight body then need to rotate it into portrait mode on a monopod, i fear the mount on the camera would collapse because the front part of the D600 body shell is only made from plastic unlike the D3, D3S, D700

D600

8376106609_27952582d9_z.jpg


D800

13_d800_mgbody_2_620x631.jpg
 
gadgeteer said:
I know I've not had my D600 for long but in my experience the D600 AF is noticeably worse than my D700. Not to the point where I'd send it back but it does hunt where I know my D700 wouldn't with the same lens.

In fact I tested it out the other week when photographing a band. Same lens, same lighting conditions. The D600 hunted, D700 never missed.

The new firmware upgrade is supposed to have improved AF tracking though. Not sure I'd recommend the D600 if you need fast and accurate AF.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that's saved me £1500 or cost me rather more! I was on the point of getting myself a D600 but will now wait for the slush fund to spring for a D800 or maybe a D900 (if and when!). For the time being, I'll stick with my D700.
 
Nod said:
Not sure if that's saved me £1500 or cost me rather more! I was on the point of getting myself a D600 but will now wait for the slush fund to spring for a D800 or maybe a D900 (if and when!). For the time being, I'll stick with my D700.
Click to expand...
Hi Nod, if it helps the AF is woeful in poor light compared to the D700
 
Bampson said:
fell down the stairs .. (a lot of stairs ):'(
Click to expand...

Yep that'll do it, sorry to hear of your loss they are a great camera. Good luck with you new camera but beware the stairs ;-)
 
I had this choice a while back and I was unsure which to go with, until I looked into the two cameras. I am a D300s user.

I have a few things that are important to me, especially since this camera is a workhorse.
1) Layout : Now it has to be similar in layout to my D300/D300s, so I can use to at the same time with minimal fuss. D700 and D3/D3s fulfilled this.
2) battery Life : D700 has respectable battery life and with the grip is greta, but the D3 is a winner from the word go.
3) Weight : I will always run with a grip and the D700 requires an extra add-on, and once added on it weighs in at about the same as the D3
4) Low Light: Both the D700 and D3 are excellent in low light and really in this I consider them equal.
4) Robust : The D700 is considered reliable and loved by many for this, the D3 is considered to be built like a tank and able to handle just about anything and still keep going. I like that is gives me a nice fuzzy feeling and adds to peace of mind.
5) Memory slots : D700 only has one CF slot while the D3 has 2 CF slots, for me this is the most important, in facts its a deal breaker. I need to know I have redundancy ( peace of Mind ).

I have for the reasons mentioned ended up with a D3.

I have video on my D300s if ever I want video and even then its would not be for anything but fun. Rate of fire is not a biggy for me although the D3 at 9-11 fps is tops. New tech is great and is does affect image quality, however the images and the quality I am putting out I am happy with and for now thats good enough for me.

Decide why you want your want your camera, what you want it for and once you know this deciding will be a lot easier. Sometimes it is actually simply how it feels, ergonomics can be very important.
 
What's the difference in price these days between the 600 and 800? About £600? Less than the price of a pro lens really. If I was buying a second body today, and was also thinking on an extra lens, I'd sacrifice and get the 800 and save for that optional extra lens. Just one way of looking at it.

I just wouldn't want an FX body to feel like DX extra ... no offence whatsoever to the D600 - I'm sure it's an excellent camera, but i always felt like it was merely a gap filler.

If you really want to go FX, then it's a no-brainer. Chances are you're going to be plumping on FX lenses, to get the best from whichever body you choose. Why not get the better body option too?

If budget is a massive issue, DX may be the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top