Selling the D3....

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
Out of interest, would you downgrade a camera to a 'lesser' machine. I refer to the D700. Inherently like the D3 but yes, I know there are no second card slots and the cycle life is less, but it takes the same photo. 95% viewfinder, but sensor cleaning so no great loss to the eye.

Would you - if it made sense.

Dont know how many shoot with a D3, but with a 24-70, flash and what not, it is one heavy camera.

Interested in your opinion.

Pete.
 
i went to a shoot last week at ISL STUDIO and had a go at the D3 with the 24-70mm and yes i can agree it was heavy bundle to handle, but thats what you get with quality.
 
Depends if you're likely to want the grip on the D700. The D3 might not seem as heavy if you do. I've been shooting all day today with the D3 and 70-200 and 1.7 conv and I must say I haven't noticed any difference from the d300 with grip and same lens setup.
I've only had my D3 for a couple of weeks, but already can't imagine myself parting with it for quite a while.
If you don't want the grip, it might just seem a bit unbalanced with the setup you use....


Kev.
 
I didn't get the D3 due to its size, and much prefer the D700 sizewise which is only a little bit larger than the D200 or D300.

If you don't need any of the D3's features (non of them seem that compelling to me) its a no-brainer.

The D3X is a "no-no" for the size reason too, just really too bulky.

If you are concerned about weight, it seems like a good move - unless you intend to use a grip, in which case it'll be bigger and heavier than a D3.
 
melevo said:
i went to a shoot last week at ISL STUDIO and had a go at the D3 with the 24-70mm and yes i can agree it was heavy bundle to handle, but thats what you get with quality.
Click to expand...


Most pro, or even semi-pro cameras will be, if you're used to the weight of a D80...
 
true (flash in the pan)
 
If you're even thinking about a grip I wouldn't do it.

I also think the D3 is a lot faster in actual use. Plus you'd take a wallop on the D3 price now (you'd do well to get £2100 right now).

I've both, and would pick up a D3 every time unless I needed the smaller camera (and it's still not 'small'). You're also going to lose a 100% VF.
 
I used to use 2 1D's at weddings, my back is much happier now I'm using 2 5D's.
 
I'm with Duncan on that one I've got a 1Ds and a 5D and often I actually prefer to shoot on the 5D. It's smaller, lighter and still produces the goods for me. I love the 1Ds autofocus though :)
 
Well he's not giving anything up on the D700 for AF.

Suck it and see I guess - can you get a loaner from work Pete?
 
i have a 1dMkIII and it SEEMS lighter than my 5D with grip! Maybe its just better balanced!
 
It all depends on the usage as said, I know it's a funny comparison
But I went retro recently and bought a FA , F5 Nikons and then a FE which is a lot lighter , I use the FE all the time as I don't need the very fast winder on the F5.
If the IQ is good on the D700 as it seems to be and you don't need the extra speed, I would go for the lighter option all the time........strokes for folks;)
 
'From outta my cold dead hands!'

I used to use a 1DmkI, the D3 is a pack of Kleenex compared to that invincible brick.
 
Cheers all

As you all know, the D3 has warranted my ownership for sometime but maybe not now. On todays shoot the shutter was way to loud and thats another factor. It slaps quite a bit, but yes, if gets the job done.
 
Personally, I much prefer the size and weight of the D3 over smaller bodies. I shot with a D300 alongside my D3 in Florida recently and the D300 always felt a little too small and toy like (and I have small hands too) compared to the D3 - but that's a personal thing.

If you go for a D700 and decide you miss the vertical shutter button a grip will make it bigger than the D3 I think.

Basically, if you prefer smaller bodies and don't need the extra's the D3 offers, then I see no reason not to go smaller.
 
Yeah, the usual letting go thing at work here, but realistically, I think that the 700 'may' now be a better camera for me. Mulling it over, no rush.

I take on board what people say, but will not hold onto kit for sentimental value or just coz' it looks big and better.
 
sportysnaps said:
the camera is a tool it is the eye and brain that make the shot. if you can find a fault with the way you need to use the d3 then it is not the right tool for what you are doing currently
Click to expand...

Don't know if you have read it, but giving up/gave up long lens based sport. Various reasons, no big deal, hence my D700 consideration.
 
I don't see any mention by the OP of him caring about the fact that the D3 has better weathersealing, higher frame rate and a built in grip (that will never "wobble", which is something I HATE on add on grips).
Assuming that to be the case and that he has no need for the benefits, he might aswell save himself the hassle of the weight, and drop to a D700.

Personally I like the handling of the pro body's along with their "can go anywhere" ruggedness, but that's just me.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I don't see any mention by the OP of him caring about the fact that the D3 has better weathersealing, higher frame rate and a built in grip (that will never "wobble", which is something I HATE on add on grips).
Assuming that to be the case and that he has no need for the benefits, he might aswell save himself the hassle of the weight, and drop to a D700.

Personally I like the handling of the pro body's along with their "can go anywhere" ruggedness, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I too hate grips, hence the reason for perhaps sticking with the 3. However, as I said, not sure. Frame rate is irrelevant to me as I only shoot in three's anyway, I no longer shoot in the rain, nor will I. I am however planning three holidays as we speak, so yes, the 700 is tempting.
 
KIPAX said:
Seems to me the answer is in the question.
Click to expand...

I meant sense as in it is an option. It was not a rhetorical thing.

You hate me anyway as you think I think the Mark III is a pile of gash. Not true, only the 50% that dont work :D:D
 
There is a good deal of build qualty difference between the two. If you work in a harsh environment (Iraq, Afghanistan, riots on the streets, lots of press scrums, arctic conditions, rain forests.....) then the extra build ruggedness of the D3 will come to the fore.

Nikon have for a long time been more rugged than canon - the lighter body means it is plastic composite of some sort - this can distort in an impact. I was shooting with a colleague on helicopter duty for the Class 1 offshore championship - as we came in to land back at the field, he dropped his Nikon (ok a film body in those days) F5 with 80-200 on it out of the open doorway....it landed from about 80 feet up. The lens was broken on the body, but the camera still worked and the film inside was fine.

The old saying is a canon will bounce once, a Nikon will bounce several times. I don't trust "plastic" for camera bodies out in the field.....and Nikon use plastics too - so i don't like them either! I prefer the rugged, agricultural nature of a metal framed body. (BUT, I use a carbon fibre fishing rod???? madness isn't it!)
 
Diego Garcia said:
Out of interest, would you downgrade a camera to a 'lesser' machine. I refer to the D700. Inherently like the D3 but yes, I know there are no second card slots and the cycle life is less, but it takes the same photo. 95% viewfinder, but sensor cleaning so no great loss to the eye.

Would you - if it made sense.

Dont know how many shoot with a D3, but with a 24-70, flash and what not, it is one heavy camera.

Interested in your opinion.

Pete.
Click to expand...


Not. Even. Remotely. :D

I adore my D3. I adore the battery life, dual slots, weight, size, rugdness (sp?). Its badass, it takes awesome photos, and unless I were struggling for a little but of wonga, I would see no reason for the downgrade.

Pinch of salt, you know way more about this game than me.

Gary.
 
BUT, I use a carbon fibre fishing rod???? madness isn't it!
Click to expand...

Yup, I've heard they have terrible shutter lag.

As for which camera body is best, sometimes you have to try quite a few until you find that one that fits. Back in the olden days, I always loved to shoot with my EOS 100. It was outclassed on paper by just about everything else available for me to use but it just felt right.
 
Pete, you'll find the spinach in aisle 3 :D
 
It isn't spinach he needs - he'll need valium from the pharmacy counter!
 
Lensflare said:
There is a good deal of build qualty difference between the two. If you work in a harsh environment (Iraq, Afghanistan, riots on the streets, lots of press scrums, arctic conditions, rain forests.....) then the extra build ruggedness of the D3 will come to the fore.

Nikon have for a long time been more rugged than canon - the lighter body means it is plastic composite of some sort - this can distort in an impact. I was shooting with a colleague on helicopter duty for the Class 1 offshore championship - as we came in to land back at the field, he dropped his Nikon (ok a film body in those days) F5 with 80-200 on it out of the open doorway....it landed from about 80 feet up. The lens was broken on the body, but the camera still worked and the film inside was fine.

The old saying is a canon will bounce once, a Nikon will bounce several times. I don't trust "plastic" for camera bodies out in the field.....and Nikon use plastics too - so i don't like them either! I prefer the rugged, agricultural nature of a metal framed body. (BUT, I use a carbon fibre fishing rod???? madness isn't it!)
Click to expand...

I know there is, I use it all the time mate. All I was saying is that if people did not need the D3 specifically, the 700 does it in a smaller body is all.
 
Yes, it does - Brina Harris uses a 700.....but what does he know!!!
 
I wouldnt downgrade but if I was buying new Id go D700 - and I did :D

And the shutter on it is LOUD too for your info :D
 
If I didn't have a D3, then I'd look hard at a D700 - but I wouldn't take the hit on selling a D3 now for a D700.
 
Disclaimer, all the below is IMO...

The D700 has 2 advantages.

1. Size ( without the v-grip, if you add the v-grip and a D3 battery it's bigger and heavier )
2. Shutter noise. It is a significantly quieter shutter sound IMO.

There are disadvantages though

1. Size/weight with the v-grip
2. It doesn't feel as comfortable to hold for me. The shape of the camera is different and I find the D3 more comfortable holding.
3. It's slower. I don't mean shutter speed, I mean the camera is slower to do things. Press the review button on a D3 and instantly the shot is shown, regardless of whether it's cleared the buffer yet. On the D700 I've had a couple of times when it wouldnt' show me the shot, or zoom in to a shot because it's still saving to flash. Only matters if you take several shots in a burst.
4. Dual card slots. I love having the overflow. But it's probably not a worry most of the time.

Personally I'd never swap my D3 for a second D700.

Pete
 
<ot>

Hey Pete... gotta say that I love that #2nd shot you took at Olympia with the D3X... awesome photo, and I bet you're pleased with it.

</ot>
 
I had a play with Gary's D3, and I loved it. The handling for me was sublime, and even with the 24-70 and flash on it, it was about the right weight for me. Also, the D3 certainly has some advantages over the D700.

For me, I got the D700 simply because of funds. I have however put the grip on it and now it handles like a dream, for me. I just can't help but think that if you do swap for a D700, you'll miss the advantages of the D3 more than you will the fewer advantages of the D700 over the D3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top