Choice between a D300s and D3

R

razor777

Messages
854
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Well now, I've decided that I'm going to move to the dark side (while keeping some lens for a backup Canon i still have access to) and was originally going to opt for the D3.

However, this is a the problem - I do know that for a fact if I go D3 then I will lose a hell of a lot of reach compared to the D300 but by the same token I also love the (D3) low light sensitivity and its very strong ISO capabilities which may be very handy for places like woodland or early dawn/late dusk outdoor shooting. In addition to this I do a lot of sport photography (car rallies etc) and therefore fast AF would be a requirement. However, to be honest I havn't heard many negative reports on the AF capabilities of the D300 but then again how does it compare against the D3?

So then.. what would you do? I'm not looking at this from a price point of view as its irrelevant.
 
D3 and D300 are totally different cameras.

To Edit......If you want FF, why not go a D700 rather than a D3?
 
Ok at this point I'll add I'm dipping my toe into the Nikon arena so I'm not going to go for both, one or the other. :lol:
 
D300 and D3 use pretty much the same AF module, only difference is that on the D3 it's all grouped round the center, rather than the D300 which is spread across the whole frame.

When I bought my D3x i sold the D3, and picked up a used D300 (the second one I had) and then remembered why I sold it the first time round. Compared to the D3 i was very disappointed. After a few weeks, I sold the d300 and bought another D3.

The IQ of the D3 is just so much better you won't regret it. Just get a TC and there's your crop factor back again :D:D
All this is based on the d300, not the S, but I don't seem to remember any changes to the AF module on the d300s
 
You sound quite cautious and there's nothing wrong with that so as you're concerned about the loss of reach on the D3 go for the D300 to see if you like the feel of a Nikon camera and if so get the D3S/D4? at a later point when it's been released.
 
I use the D3 nearly all of the time now. I hardly use the D300. The D3 is just superb allround.


Kev.
 
miurasv said:
You sound quite cautious and there's nothing wrong with that so as you're concerned about the loss of reach on the D3 go for the D300 to see if you like the feel of a Nikon camera and if so get the D3S/D4? at a later point when it's been relaesed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the comments so far - as far as the feel of the D3 goes I absolutely love it. The crystal clear viewfinder, the snap of the AF - basically a 'so called friend' decided to let me borrow it for the weekend so after that the Canon stuff had to go. However, before rushing out (attempting) to purchase one I thought I would hear about people's experiences with the D300 in comparison to the D3.

I do honestly think I'm being swayed by kevshore's and barneyrubble's posts, I guess a TC could save the day. Just out of interest how are the TC's for the Canon - the 1.4x (canon) was pretty good but the IQ on the 2x was spectacularly unspectacular. Same sort of thing with the Nikon or have they got it right, or do they work better with primes?

Again thanks for all the answers so far, much appreciated. :)
 
Err why not just use the D3 in crop mode? then you'll get the high iso quality and the crop factor.
 
I know you said you wouldn't get both but you could get a D700 and a D300 for the same money as a D3.
 
if it was me, get the D300 and D700 best of both worlds on nikon


i am looking at getting a d700
 
swanseamale47 said:
Err why not just use the D3 in crop mode? then you'll get the high iso quality and the crop factor.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it doesnt actually work that way where you just end up with a grey border around the picture as it has dropped to 5 megapixel? Therefore zooming/cropping in would be exactly the same as the FF as its the same amount of pixels for the square area you can see.

Or have I got that wrong?
 
Hmm d700 you say? Is it (with grip) exactly the same as the D3 or are there any more differences - D3 light sensitivity and ISO handling is second to none.
 
You could actually just about get a D300 & a D700 for the price of a D3. If you only want one body then I too would suggest the D700. I've been well pleased with mine.
 
razor777 said:
Hmm d700 you say? Is it (with grip) exactly the same as the D3 or are there any more differences - D3 light sensitivity and ISO handling is second to none.
Click to expand...

Or the same as the D700 !
 
Nice one, I heard that the D700 has slightly slower fps than the D3 due to the decreased battery current but wasn't sure of any other differences.

Makes you wonder why they have both models out at the same time..
 
razor777 said:
Nice one, I heard that the D700 has slightly slower fps than the D3 due to the decreased battery current but wasn't sure of any other differences.

Makes you wonder why they have both models out at the same time..
Click to expand...

I does but if you buy a linkdelight grip costing about £80 then you have the increased speed. (It can carry the same battery as the D3)
 
But at that point you need to buy the D3 battery for £90 (or a 3rd party one for cheaper) and the very expensive battery charger :shake::shake:

It's horses for courses really. I like the big body of the D3 and the X, but the advantage of the D700 is it's smaller size (sometimes an advantage, sometimes not) and it's built in flash. The D3 is built like a tank and has the Dual CF cards. Depends on wether you'd actually use that or not.
 
miurasv said:
I know you said you wouldn't get both but you could get a D700 and a D300 for the same money as a D3.
Click to expand...

But just ask yourself why? Because the D3 is worth the extra! Every penny.
 
If you want to shoot wildlife, small birds the D300s is the answer, for anything else the D3 would be the choice.

Nikon also do a 1.7x TC, as well as the 1.4x and 2x, I have used the 1.4x for a few years now and it is superb, I have just got a 1.7TC and have yet to use it in the field, but initial testing looks good.
 
awp said:
But just ask yourself why? Because the D3 is worth the extra! Every penny.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking of the D700 or D3 as my next camera so please can you explain why the D3 is worth the extra. The reason I ask in this thread as it may help the OP make a decision too. Thanks in advance.
 
awp said:
But just ask yourself why? Because the D3 is worth the extra! Every penny.
Click to expand...

Well I did really like the D3 when I tried it but on paper it looks like the D700/D3 are very similar. Even with all the bits and pieces to make the D700 'D3 Spec' there is still one hell of a margin in price differential unless the D3 has something else?

D700 is actually a contender as just about everywhere is sold out of the D3 but will still go for the D3 'if its worth it' :)
 
It's a camera - why try to be logical?:D To me the D3 feels much better - looks much better and works better - it's a 'whole' camera - I always felt my D300 was missing a bit! If you work with them day in day out I think you'd grow to appreciate the difference.
 
Mmm......d300 or d3, money no object ?.....thats a difficult one !:thinking:

seriously, if your not worried about laying out for a d3, why worry about loseing the reach on a FF camera, just buy a longer lens, you can obviously afford it. if you cant... buy a d300, i did and i think its awsome !
 
If you have the money, go for a D3. If you want D3 IQ and AF performance for less money, get the D700. There's more to it than that however IMO that's the long and short of it.
 
brookers said:
Mmm......d300 or d3, money no object ?.....thats a difficult one !:thinking:

seriously, if your not worried about laying out for a d3, why worry about loseing the reach on a FF camera, just buy a longer lens, you can obviously afford it. if you cant... buy a d300, i did and i think its awsome !
Click to expand...

Pricing was irrelevant for the money I wanted to spend between the two, however I dont feel upto spending 6k-7k on a 500mm F4 right at this very moment ;)

The wise voice in my head is saying D700 + bits but the other voice (what I'm listening to) is swaying me towards a D3*

Cheers,

Mark

* As these voices have not yet attempted to persuade me to start kicking puppies down stairs/bludgeoning grannies to death with the yellow pages (or was it the blue thomson directory - I forget) then I guess its fine to omit the pills for the time being.
 
razor777 said:
Well I did really like the D3 when I tried it but on paper it looks like the D700/D3 are very similar. Even with all the bits and pieces to make the D700 'D3 Spec' there is still one hell of a margin in price differential unless the D3 has something else?

D700 is actually a contender as just about everywhere is sold out of the D3 but will still go for the D3 'if its worth it' :)
Click to expand...

A gripped D700 will not "feel" as good as the D3 (at least my D300 which is the same body didn't).

The price difference is about £1000.

If you buy OEM nikon gear (which you should if you are paying out that much for a d700) then to get the high speed you are talking £2242, which is only £500 off the price of the D3. (using warehouse express prices as they are easiest to find)

Then you get the better viewfinder, Dual CF slots, better build quality, better feel (when gripped) than the D700
 
Ok thanks all - that last comment does it for me. The D3 is the one I'm going for and the granny at 23 periwinkle street lives another day.
 
Wait !! Nikon will be bringing out the D4 or D700x hang on to your money!! till then
 
peterjones00 said:
Wait !! Nikon will be bringing out the D4 or D700x hang on to your money!! till then
Click to expand...

:)

I could do but I will be without a camera for the main stuff I like doing. I suppose I could get a SH D3 so as not to lose virtually anything on resale but if I'm paying that much for a D3 I'm probably better off trying to source a new one.
 
razor777 said:
As I understand it, it doesnt actually work that way where you just end up with a grey border around the picture as it has dropped to 5 megapixel? Therefore zooming/cropping in would be exactly the same as the FF as its the same amount of pixels for the square area you can see.

Or have I got that wrong?
Click to expand...

No - you got it right. :thumbs:
 
peterjones00 said:
Wait !! Nikon will be bringing out the D4 or D700x hang on to your money!! till then
Click to expand...

I was speaking with a nikon pro the other day and he has been told to e pect a D800 some point in the not too distant future. He said it will be very different from what's on the go just now. He was told this by nikon uk. Be mentioned something about it being based around a D3X or something??

As a canon guy I know nothing about this so take from it what you want.

Arron
 
D3s are built like proverbial brick &*%*&houses, I couldn't imagine having issues with a second hand one, if you can find one for a decent price (there was one in classifieds here a few days ago...might still be around)

and as you've said, D700 vs D3, once you've bought accessories, even if you buy an OEM charger/grip etc rather than the £190 nikon one (eek) is still not *too* bad, especially if you buy second hand - plus you don't have to live knowing you've got second best ;)

man I wish arkady was in this thread already :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top