D3 or D700?

[lisamcconalogue]

I may have the chance of purchasing a D3 for 1800 now the seller has decided he may change his mind. I don't have enough to buy the D3s/D3x and wondered does anyone use a D700 and how do they find the ISO performance??

 

[The23rdman]

It's identical. Same camera bar a few features.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

D700's ISO performance is excellent. I routinely shoot at up to 6400, there is some noise if you look closely, but it's better than my old D70 was at 1600.

The D700 is less bulky than the D3 (unless you put a grip on it), but is still a big heavy camera, especially if you put a decent lens on it.

 

[smalls]

same sensor but the d3 feels so much better, theres one in the classifieds

 

[HoppyUK]

I may have the chance of purchasing a D3 for 1800 now the seller has decided he may change his mind. I don't have enough to buy the D3s/D3x and wondered does anyone use a D700 and how do they find the ISO performance??

Pretty much as good as it gets D700 is a fabulous camera - it's a smaller/lighter/cheaper D3 and has a pop-up commander flash too. Stick a battery pack on it and it rattles along at a heck of a speed.

Unless you need the D3's battleship build, D700 is probably the better buy. You can still knock nails in with it, just smaller nails

 

[The23rdman]

Okay, now I'll give my absolute thoughts. The D700 felt better in my hands than the D3 as the wheel was a little closer to my thumb. I also like the ability to remove the grip.

Personally, the high iso noise performance impacts too much on resolution. I'd rather have a pin sharp image with a little noise than one without noise that looks soft. Again imho, the D700 just doesn't produce enough resolution for me.

 

[awp]

the D700 just doesn't produce enough resolution for me.

eh? what are you trying to do - make prints 6 feet high? For anything else the resolution is more than enough.

 

[lensflair]

I may have the chance of purchasing a D3 for 1800 now the seller has decided he may change his mind. I don't have enough to buy the D3s/D3x and wondered does anyone use a D700 and how do they find the ISO performance??

I shoot a D3 and D700 for weddings, prefer the feel of the D3 but image quality from the D700 is the same. Faster frame rate and nicer shutter sound on the D3 too but that doesn't affect IQ if course

 

[The23rdman]

eh? what are you trying to do - make prints 6 feet high? For anything else the resolution is more than enough.

I'm not going to argue with you, Andrew. There simply isn't as much detail in the files and when blown up they're not as good.

 

[awp]

There simply isn't as much detail in the files and when blown up they're not as good.

compared to what?

 

[The23rdman]

My old 1DsII.

 

[awp]

You should look at a D3x then maybe.

 

[The23rdman]

Andrew, that thing is the most overpriced camera on the market. I'd rather have a 1DIV or a 1DsIII, tbh.

Also, and I'm so sorry to thread-jack, but I've been really, really disappointed with Nikon lenses. Poor range of primes, overpriced in comparison and shocking QC, in my experience.

 

[Andrew Evans]

if you need to shoot continious burst, get the D3 as it does 9fps. the D700 is inferior at this.
anyway, if you have the money and love the D3, then why not!

 

[Andrew Evans]

Also, and I'm so sorry to thread-jack, but I've been really, really disappointed with Nikon lenses. Poor range of primes, overpriced in comparison and shocking QC, in my experience.

wow, what a statement.

my nikon zooms and primes are beyond incredible. 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 135 2. all amazing lenses and leagues ahead of their third party equivalents.

in my experience, nikon lenses are truly amazing things.

 

[HoppyUK]

Andrew, that thing is the most overpriced camera on the market. I'd rather have a 1DIV or a 1DsIII, tbh.

Also, and I'm so sorry to thread-jack, but I've been really, really disappointed with Nikon lenses. Poor range of primes, overpriced in comparison and shocking QC, in my experience.

Your experience, posted here and on other threads, is hardly representative of the majority view. To suggest that the D3/D700 are anything but absolutely out of the top drawer, and Nikon lenses too, just doesn't stack up with the general view, or the large number of pros who made the massive decision to ditch their entire Canon systems and switch to Nikon with the D3.

I'm not saying they were right to do that, but they certainly weren't wrong. I'm not sure what it is you're looking for in a camera, or even that it exists.

 

[wilko]

Andrew, that thing is the most overpriced camera on the market. I'd rather have a 1DIV or a 1DsIII, tbh.

Also, and I'm so sorry to thread-jack, but I've been really, really disappointed with Nikon lenses. Poor range of primes, overpriced in comparison and shocking QC, in my experience.

Blimey, are you sure you don't need to get yourself along to Specsavers???

 

[wilko]

Your experience, posted here and on other threads, is hardly representative of the majority view. To suggest that the D3/D700 are anything but absolutely out of the top drawer, and Nikon lenses too, just doesn't stack up with the general view, or the large number of pros who made the massive decision to ditch their entire Canon systems and switch to Nikon with the D3.

I'm not saying they were right to do that, but they certainly weren't wrong. I'm not sure what it is you're looking for in a camera, or even that it exists.

And all that comes from a Canon user.

 

[scottthehat]

if you need to shoot continious burst, get the D3 as it does 9fps. the D700 is inferior at this.
anyway, if you have the money and love the D3, then why not!

the d700 can shoot at 8fps with the battery grip.

 

[scottthehat]

the d700 is awsome, yes the d3 has slihtly better build and weather sealing, but the d700 with grip feels better to me more so in portrait mode can reach the focus point selector.
also the d700 has sensor cleaning that the d3 doesnt have, but the d3 is rated to 300.000 shutters compared to 150.000 on the d700.

 

[TCR4x4]

I must admit I was suprised to read on another thread Dean was selling up again as he was not satisfied with Nikon lenses.
I think some people, myself included often find fault in gear we are not entirely comfortable with. Dean at heart is a Canon shooter, and as such will probably see faults in Nikon gear more readilly than with Canon. I have never had an issue with a Nikon lens or body, but when I briefly changed to Canon, I was not always 100% happy with every aspect and found small faults that in reality probably either didnt exsist or were of no relevence.
These small faults made me sell my gear and go back to Nikon, which I had been using for the past 6 years and so far I have had no issues with anything at all.

The faults found in the Nikon lenses could have been due to him not fully utilising the aspect of the new camera system, or just the fact he had to justify to himself the switchover and so was constantly looking, and finding faults that maybe he would not have done had he been a Nikon shooter from the start.
When you make a big decision like changing systems, you need to convince your self it was the right thing to do, which usualy ends up in micro critiquing every little aspect of the new gear and often ends up with the undesired result of wanting to go back to what you know and were used to.

 

[Gary Coyle]

wow, what a statement.

my nikon zooms and primes are beyond incredible. 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 135 2. all amazing lenses and leagues ahead of their third party equivalents.

in my experience, nikon lenses are truly amazing things.

Ive had my feet in both camps and the Nikon equipment blows Canons equivilant models out of the water in every aspect barring canon having a few extra lens to choose from.

 

[ecniv]

OP:
I don't have either. But ask youself this: If you can afford the d3 but not get any decent glass, is it worth it?

Personal preference: D700. Cheaper, which means you can get some decent glass too and unless its going to net you money back its not worth upgrading to the d3/d3s/d3x

However, that said, if you have an itch... and can afford to scratch it


Only other thing I can suggest is if you can, borrow or rent both (preferably at the same time) and compare how they feel when out and about. If they happen to have the same lens on both you can do a straight comparison and that should settle which you 'need' to get Plus it'd be cheaper than buying one and wanting the other as you would be more sure the one you have is the better for you.

So see if some one local to you can go for a walk with you as you play on their camera...

 

[jezgb]

...Nikon lenses ... overpriced in comparison...

Have you seen the RRP of the new Canon long primes?!?

 

[gpa]

My old 1DsII.

You're not seriously suggesting the 1Ds11 out performs the D3 with respect to ISO performance are you ? and the MK 1V is twice the price of the OP budget.......... yet not twice the camera, in fact other than a few extra MP I don't see any other areas the cannon out performs the D3.

To the OP
D3 has the following over the D700
1. Dual Mem cards
2. 100 % viewfinder
3. Fab battery
4. Unparalleled build quality and great weather sealing
5. Better feel in hand
6. Slight fast AF ( IMHO )
7.Better buffer

D700
Small in hand idea for travel
Same picture performance as the D3
Off camera flash control and pop up flash
Self cleaning sensor

Take your pick both great cameras

 

[NorthernNikon]

Personally, the high iso noise performance impacts too much on resolution. I'd rather have a pin sharp image with a little noise than one without noise that looks soft. Again imho, the D700 just doesn't produce enough resolution for me.

Fair play to you, you've almost done the impossible and rendered me speechless with that!

How big do you print and from what distance are your prints being viewed from?

 

[menthel]

You're not seriously suggesting the 1Ds11 out performs the D3 with respect to ISO performance are you ? and the MK 1V is twice the price of the OP budget.......... yet not twice the camera, in fact other than a few extra MP I don't see any other areas the cannon out performs the D3.

Read the thread and I think you will find that was not what he was suggesting...

 

[NorthernNikon]

I may have the chance of purchasing a D3 for 1800 now the seller has decided he may change his mind. I don't have enough to buy the D3s/D3x and wondered does anyone use a D700 and how do they find the ISO performance??

The performance of the D700 should be the same as a D3. The differences lie in the build quality of the body, weather sealing and a few other features such as the LCD screen on the rear, voice memo recording, the fact that it comes with the EN-EL4a battery and charger etc that make the difference.

When I bought my D3, the cost of a D700, grip, battery and charger wasn't far off the cost of the D3 so I thought the saving wasn't worth losing the extra build and features. I'm not sure what the difference would be now but it's worth totting up the extras to see.

 

[awp]

but I've been really, really disappointed with Nikon lenses. Poor range of primes, overpriced in comparison and shocking QC, in my experience.

Have you ever considered it may not be the tools that are the problem? Nikon lenses prime and zoom - especially the pro range - and I have a few of them - are nothing short of fabulous.

 

[lensflair]

wow, what a statement.

my nikon zooms and primes are beyond incredible. 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 135 2. all amazing lenses and leagues ahead of their third party equivalents.

in my experience, nikon lenses are truly amazing things.

Yeah I have to agree nothing wrong with nikon glass, to each his own and all that but I don't I own quite a bit of nikon glass and its incredibly good IMO.

 

[johnnypanic]

Well done Lisa you started a really lively debate

Don't have either (poor ole d90 user ), but one suggestion I would make is go to Jessops, or elsewhere and have a play about with both camera's.

You may well find that the d700 physically suits your needs, or vice versa. That said, also remember that the d700 can take a battery grip, so keep that in mind also.

All the best spending your hard earned money

 

[The23rdman]

bloody hell, you go away for an hour and the fan boys go crazy. I don't give two hoots about Canon or Nikon. I have no affiliation, I just want the best tools.

Perhaps I'm just disillusioned because I've had nothing but trouble with my Nikon lens purchases. A problem with every single one.

Of course I wasn't saying the 1DsII has better iso performance. Read better and it'll be obvious. I said it has better resolution. That is a fact. More detail.

you know, it may just be possible that I had a faulty D700 because my D3 seemed a little better. Perhaps I expect too much from my gear. Perhaps I'm mad. to be honest I don't give a **** any more.

 

[canonjen]

d700 is lighter and easier to handle than the d3

 

[The23rdman]

d700 is lighter and easier to handle than the d3

I wish I'd just said that.

 

[NorthernNikon]

bloody hell, you go away for an hour and the fan boys go crazy. I don't give two hoots about Canon or Nikon. I have no affiliation, I just want the best tools.

It's got nothing to do with anyone being fanboys, more a reaction to a ridiculous statement. The below holds true for any manufacturer:

You may well prefer noise to loss of detail, but the fact remains that noise degrades detail. Improved high ISO performance isn't just about noise reduction but more the resolving of fine detail. Producing less noise is the first step, but the larger pixels are able to suck in more light helping to resolve more detail.

It's all very well talking about resolution, but unless you know why you need it more what's the point in having it? The reason I asked how large you print to and what distance your prints are viewed from is because unless you have a an unusual requirement to print very large images which need to be viewed from far closer that normal (some sort of technical evaluation purpose say) the basic premise that the larger you print the further away you have to be from it to view it properly means that any perceived extra detail in higher resolution images would hardly be noticeable from those distances. Once you get to a threshold, and 12MP is certainly well above that for A3 prints if not larger, any increase in resolution offers increasingly diminishing returns and the only people who will notice the difference are pixel peepers.

You've every right in the world to say that you think the D700 doesn't have enough resolution for you, and that you think that Nikkors are 'disappointing' with a 'poor range of primes' and 'shocking IQ', that's your opinion after all. Just don't expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when thousands of artists and highly respected professional photographers, better than you or I could ever hope to be, use them day in, day out, out of choice, because they produce and delivery the quality they need.

When you get to pro-level gear, the quality of kit isn't the limiting factor in anyone's photography here, it's the photographer, but I guess it takes a photographer to realise that.

 

[david357]

I can see why Dean is looking for more resolution, as what (I think) he effectively appears to want to do, is to crop (for example) a 9" x 12" section out of an image, then blow it back up to 15" x 20", which would mean that the original image would have been enlarged to about 25" x 33".

This is better done in camera with tighter and more effective framing at the taking stage, which will be more difficult with primes than it will with good quality zoom lenses. Primes are great but need a lot more care and work if you want to fill the frame with the subject.

To the op, the D700 has given me some absolutely fabulous images, and I would prefer to have a D700 with good glass than a D3 with third party equivalents.

Dean is a Canon man, full stop, and is never going to be happy with a Nikon.

Where is Alib? Alison also made the change from canon to nikon, and I'm sure that she purchased another D3 on here recently. Ali's work is brilliant and attention to detail is second to none, and I'm sure that if she had reservations about the quality of the images, she would not have invested more in Nikon.

 

[The23rdman]

It's got nothing to do with anyone being fanboys, more a reaction to a ridiculous statement. The below holds true for any manufacturer:

You may well prefer noise to loss of detail, but the fact remains that noise degrades detail. Improved high ISO performance isn't just about noise reduction but more the resolving of fine detail. Producing less noise is the first step, but the larger pixels are able to suck in more light helping to resolve more detail.

It's all very well talking about resolution, but unless you know why you need it more what's the point in having it? The reason I asked how large you print to and what distance your prints are viewed from is because unless you have a an unusual requirement to print very large images which need to be viewed from far closer that normal (some sort of technical evaluation purpose say) the basic premise that the larger you print the further away you have to be from it to view it properly means that any perceived extra detail in higher resolution images would hardly be noticeable from those distances. Once you get to a threshold, and 12MP is certainly well above that for A3 prints if not larger, any increase in resolution offers increasingly diminishing returns and the only people who will notice the difference are pixel peepers.

You've every right in the world to say that you think the D700 doesn't have enough resolution for you, and that you think that Nikkors are 'disappointing' with a 'poor range of primes' and 'shocking IQ', that's your opinion after all. Just don't expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when thousands of artists and highly respected professional photographers, better than you or I could ever hope to be, use them day in, day out, out of choice, because they produce and delivery the quality they need.

When you get to pro-level gear, the quality of kit isn't the limiting factor in anyone's photography here, it's the photographer, but I guess it takes a photographer to realise that.

Thanks for that. I am only speaking from MY experience of the gear. I am perfectly capable of taking in focus shots, thank you. My direct experience is simply that my 1DsII and Canon primes produced sharper shots with more detail than my Nikon D700 and Nikkor primes. Perhaps 'shocking IQ'

I shoot children and babies and often times they're moving FAST. This means I often have to crop because obtaining perfect composition and smiles is hard work. Once I crop reasonably hard on a 12mp sensor and then the client asks for a large (18x12 and over) print I feel the quality is compromised.

I'm aware of viewing distance. Trouble is a big crop and an 18x12 can look pants.

 

[awp]

One has to ask why you moved from Canon in the first place if the equipment was so fantastic?

 

[gramps]

d700 is lighter and easier to handle than the d3

D700 is for women

 

[scottthehat]

D700 is for women

what about if it has a grip.