D700 or D3

Craig2008

Craig2008

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,092
Name
Craig Thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,
A question for all of you is the difference between the D700 and the D3 really worth the extra money?

the reason I ask is that my dad in thinking of up grading his D300 to either a D700 or a D3, I personally think he should go for the D700 and can get a quality piece of glass too for the same price as the D3, maybe someone who has used both could enlighten me if this is not the case

Cheers

Craig
 
The main obvious difference between the two is that the D3 has the battery grip and EN-EL4a "ninja battery" as standard.

Adding the battery grip, the ninja battery and the ninja battery charger as genuine Nikon parts to the D700 is practically the difference in price between the two!

The D3 also comes with a double charger for the EN-EL4A too I believe...

If your dad already has the MB-D10 battery grip and ninja battery for his D300, obviously he won't need these for his D700 because they are the same...
 
I've found the high burst rate on the D3 very handy too... but the one bonus of the D3 over the D700 I really like is the dual CF card slots. It doesn't sound like such a major feature but if, like me, you're a 'glass half empty' kind of guy and you're always expecting your card to fail then it's great for peace of mind to have a live backup in your camera.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Besides, the D3 just sounds badass.
Click to expand...

It does indeed. But it's also like carrying around a brick. :D

Which I suppose, now that I think about it, is also badass.

But if it were me - I'd go for the D700 and the glass. Probably the 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S.
 
I'd choose some glass that was actually going to be the right length for your shots :D
 
Personally no its not.

If you intend to inflict a grip on the D700, then get a D3 instead as the grip eats into the price differential, otherwise I can't think of any good reason for the £800 price difference tbh.
 
i prefer the d700 as i dont like the battery grip all in one on the d3

sometimes its better to have a smaller unit and the d700 i rarely use the continuos speed anyway
 
What you're paying for:

Outright build quality (as good as the D700 is it's not D3 class), dual card slots, 100% VF, battery life, overall speed.

Whether that's worth the money to you only you can answer. Having both I always pick up the D3 first - it's just a faster camera in use IMO.
 
Radiohead said:
What you're paying for:

Outright build quality (as good as the D700 is it's not D3 class), dual card slots, 100% VF, battery life, overall speed.
Click to expand...

Indeed, also twice the shutter life expectancy too.

(Nice web site, great images Radiohead! :thumbs:)
 
I'm a canon man. I almost went for a nikon. I didn't because I couldn't find a store with the 24-70 in stock. (so I stuck with canon). It would have been a D3 for a few reasons, most already mentioned.

Dual card slots - piece of mind. If is wasn't pro, this may not be a problem. My canons have this.
Weather sealing is better on the D3.
Faster frame rate (although this can be boosted with the bat pack)
Shutter life.
When handling both cameras the D3 felt better built, the D700 is still good, but the D3 just tipped the scales.
 
Weather sealing is better on the D3.

The weather sealing is a red herring, and there are no Nikon lenses that have proper weather sealing. At best they have a gasket near the mount.
 
The first sentence of Ken Rockwell's review of the D700:
The Nikon D700 is Nikon's top new amateur camera. Unless you're a full-time sports, news or action pro, the D700 replaces the D3 for studio, wedding, portrait, nature and landscape pros, as well as all advanced amateur photographers.
Click to expand...
He might be a bit of an idiot at times, but nobody could ever accuse him of sitting on the fence.
 
StewartR said:
The first sentence of Ken Rockwell's review of the D700:He might be a bit of an idiot at times, but nobody could ever accuse him of sitting on the fence.
Click to expand...

So he reckons the security of two cf cards isn't worth it for wedding tog's? Not worth minimising the risk of a corrupt card on the most important day of someone's life? Sorry, Ken, but I think that's :cuckoo:
 
Many wedding Pro's carry a backup body though, one lens on each often.

How often do CF cards really corrupt?

I'm pulling this out of my arse, but I bet there is more chance of getting mugged post wedding and losing the camera (with both cards inside) than there is off a CF card corruption tbh?
 
puddleduck said:
Many wedding Pro's carry a backup body though, one lens on each often.

How often do CF cards really corrupt?

I'm pulling this out of my arse, but I bet there is more chance of getting mugged post wedding and losing the camera (with both cards inside) than there is off a CF card corruption tbh?
Click to expand...

I assume it can depend on what brand of CF and if the user re-formats instead of deleting.

I colleague of mine never formatted a card in his life and always uses the cheaper brands of CF, he experienced 2 card failures at one match, all corrupted files and a format didn't help either.

That's the only time I've personally heard of a card failure though.
 
I carry two backups, one on me and one in another bag.

That said, it's the sheer convenience of having 2 cards and not worrying about swapping them that I like.
 
does he take it abroad...does he use it professionally?
I think the D3 is overkill for non-pro use. it's like people saying they need a 1DsIII for taking pictures of their cat. D700 and glass for general use would be my vote.
for pro's taking wedding shots then the D3 would be very handy
 
it's like people saying they need a 1DsIII for taking pictures of their cat.

You must have been visiting DPReview :)
 
DizMatt said:
does he take it abroad...does he use it professionally?
I think the D3 is overkill for non-pro use. it's like people saying they need a 1DsIII for taking pictures of their cat. D700 and glass for general use would be my vote.
for pro's taking wedding shots then the D3 would be very handy
Click to expand...


If someone has earned their dosh they can spend it however they see fit.
A 'pro' doesn't have exclusive rights to experience high end gear.

It's not our right to judge how others pay checks are distributed.

The issue of wether hard earned cash can be spent more wisley and more economically is up for debate but in this instance it's beside the point.
 
Agreed - plenty of people driving around in Ferraris that aren't driving like Schumacher. Your money, your choice.

You're a long time dead.
 
A 'pro' doesn't have exclusive rights to experience high end gear.

Agreed. Nikon and Canon wouldn't be in business if only Pro's bought the high end stuff anyway.

Personally I think if you need to ask the question "D700 or D3?" then the answer is almost always D700 though.
 
Radiohead said:
You're a long time dead.
Click to expand...

Amen.

"Life's too short to consider anything but the best"


puddleduck said:
Agreed. Nikon and Canon wouldn't be in business if only Pro's bought the high end stuff anyway.

Personally I think if you need to ask the question "D700 or D3?" then the answer is almost always D700 though.
Click to expand...

Indeed, The main element I consider before offering advice on which option is whether budget is of priority or whether money is no object.
Time and time again I hear, "Buy the best you can afford"
If it so happens you can afford the best then so be it.

I agree that the skint but talented photog may display a certain shade of green towards another who has less ability but more dollar and more/'better' stuff, but the reality is simply this
= tough tit.

P.S, I am a skint flint and I'm jealous of all your stuff!
 
he does a few weddings a year for family and friends does not charge a huge amount, the rest of the time he uses it just to take photo's because that's what he loves doing! so i think that the D700 would the the option for him to go for, Thanks for you opinions guys much appreciated
 
puddleduck said:
A 'pro' doesn't have exclusive rights to experience high end gear.

Agreed. Nikon and Canon wouldn't be in business if only Pro's bought the high end stuff anyway.

Personally I think if you need to ask the question "D700 or D3?" then the answer is almost always D700 though.
Click to expand...

I asked a simple question on Flickr "Is the D700 too noisy for weddings?", some "professional" replied back with the argument that I didn't deserve the equipment.

Wonderfully amusing watching him rant, the single-minded, materialistic bigot that he was. Of course I didn't say that to him, but the thread turned into a mess as you could imagine.

How true.
 
some "professional" replied back with the argument that I didn't deserve the equipment.

What a ******!!

Do you have a link for comedy value!
 
rdh said:
Indeed...

Clicky

His (noki's) second post/rant is just golden. After much resisting, I had to post (only to be shot down, mind you - by one of the most frequent posters no less) :¬)
Click to expand...

note to those amateurs here
you clearly don't know how annoying it is to professionals now that digital photography is so easy to get into
its YOU people who are making us lose money
hence why i said SELL IT
just stick to a freaking point and shoot and leave the DSLR stuff to us
we've worked our asses off to earn this gear
why the hell should you guys have it?

:lol::eek::cuckoo:

I can't decide if he's a comedy genius, or being serious!
 
The sad thing is that he should just shut up and let his pictures speak.

On topic - unless there are compelling reasons to buy the D3 such as frame rate or the second card slot it seem to me that a D700 with a battery grip is a more flexible option - if you need the grip you can bolt it on - if you don't you can leave it at home and have a lighter less obtrusive bit of kit to carry.

If you don't expect to need the grip the price difference is a decent chunk to spend on glass (or whatever else you need).
 
rdh said:
Indeed...

Clicky

His (noki's) second post/rant is just golden. After much resisting, I had to post (only to be shot down, mind you - by one of the most frequent posters no less) :¬)
Click to expand...

It's amazing isn't it, the dudes attitude almost has to compensate for his safe and linear work. Comedy gold!

Radiohead said:
What an absolute tool. I'm going to have to add something when I'm home tonight.
Click to expand...

Couldn't say it any clearer than that really.
 
my point would be regarding amateurs and pro kit is...do you need it? not because of expense...if I had an unlimited credit card or oodles of disposable income I'd have a lovely line up of canon gear and both the aforementioned D3 and D700...just because they are great cameras. i'm quite poor and have the best I can manage reasonably for what I want.

My point that I was trying to make, albeit poorly, is that the D3 is an expensive piece of kit and rather large. My parallel would be a 1Ds...love to have one, and if I was interested in studio kit then fair enough (amateur or not). But for travel I'd go for something lighter and more portable. I carry my 40D around all the time on holiday and remove the grip for most purposes. Is it more onerous having a D3 on holiday, being a greater target for thieves and worrying perhaps about damaging such expensive kit? If he prefers doing gigs or sports perhaps? less walking, get good low light kit with rapid fire shots then the D3 would be awesome.
If I had a 1Ds and a 40D I'd still most likely only take the 40D out on city breaks if only for the sake of my poor back.

My original opinion stands. For general enjoyment of photography I would go for the D700 and spend the spare cash (if he's allocated the whole budget to a purchase) on more lovely nikkor glass. As a keen photographer I thought he would get more out of that.
 
What's wrong with the Sony cybershot on my phone then? Takes a good enough picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top