D3 or D700?
- Thread starter lisamcconalogue
- Start date
- Messages
- 42,075
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Pretend men?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
That makes sense. TBH that's one of the reasons I got a 5D2 over a D700 - the ability to crop hard and still get a decent print when circumstances make it impossible fill the frame as you would normally strive to do. Shooting kids is like that.
If you crop half the frame of a 5D2 you still have 10mp which makes it more or less like a 40D, which is still pretty good. That and the 24-105L lens which is just so good at so many things I use it for 75% of everything I shoot.
On the other hand, you won't get that from a 1D3 or even a 1D4
D700 is for women
Should suit the OP then
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
1DsIII Richard.
Andrew, at the time I wanted better AF and decent noise control and couldn't afford a 1dsiii or 1dIV.
Andrew, at the time I wanted better AF and decent noise control and couldn't afford a 1dsiii or 1dIV.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
1DsIII Richard.
<snip>
You keep talking about a 1D4 though - which is a road to nowhere for what you're trying to do.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Tis true, I did.
- Messages
- 3,538
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
gramps said:D700 is for women
There you go Lisa, the ideal woman camera
That said, I'd gladly have one, but would have to do the manly thing and get it gripped.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
There you go Lisa, the ideal woman camera
That said, I'd gladly have one, but would have to do the manly thing and get it gripped.
Grips are for people with issues in the trouser department.
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The23rdman said:
Strange how this 'shocking IQ' isn't more widely recognised then.
Then you're blaming the camera for your own failings. Kids aren't that fast and if you're cropping that much and that often you're doing something wrong, either in your lens choice or the way you run a shoot. Trying to say that the camera is at fault is simply highlighting your inability to achieve results that other photographers consistently get. If they didn't, it would be a commonly held gripe and forums like this one would be full of photographers bemoaning the 'low' resolution.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The reason I like to be able to crop hard with kids is that very often I find that I'm shooting two together and there will be a great capture of one, but not the other. When I got that with the 40D, the shot was lost, but I can pull out a decent solo image with the 5D2
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm out of this thread. It's pointless.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 20,408
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have to agree - the 24-70 is an amazing lens, and my 50mm prime is no slouch. No matter how good the glass or camera is, it does depend on the user.
Back on track - someone mentioned glass and this is vital. I was toying with getting a D700 instead of my D300 but went for the 24-70 and glad I did as that has probably made far more of an impact. If you can afford to buy the best glass and a D3 then go for D3, if not go for the D700. Obviously this assumes you are happy with D3 size. I would only go for a D3 if I really was shooting weddings or proper hardcore outdoor shooting. As I use my camera for personal stuff, I would not fancy carting a D3 around everywhere.
- Messages
- 2,721
- Name
- Vishal
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wow! This thread is going seriously off topic!
Maybe a new one needs to be created to argue the point of resolution/cropping/user error.....whatever it is!!
D3 or D700?
I would say the D700, gripped At least that way, if you take the grip off, its still a decent sized camera which you can carry around....Whereas the D3 is a beast!
Your money, your choice though!
Maybe a new one needs to be created to argue the point of resolution/cropping/user error.....whatever it is!!
D3 or D700?
I would say the D700, gripped
At least that way, if you take the grip off, its still a decent sized camera which you can carry around....Whereas the D3 is a beast! Your money, your choice though!
Hello Not been around much lately, too darned busy shooting and making the business bigger
And yes I did move from Canon to Nikon. From a 1DsII to a D700 and yes the loss of resolution was a concern. It was a concern I did not need to worry about in the slightest though and here is why.
The MP count of a camera is a little bit of a red herring, contrived initially to give Joe Public some idea when comparing cameras. Now if you take a 25MP camera and a crap lens and a 12MP camera and a fine lens, which will produce the cleaner image?
Yup the 12MP one. It's bugger use recording it if the lens is not capable of resolving the image sharp in the first place.
And the Nikon lenses really do cut the mustard (IMHO) I have not had to upscale a single image in over a year of ownership. In fact part of my PP REDUCES the image size! I output my RAW to JPEG at longest edge dimensions to fit the album I'm working on> Why store any extraneous imformation I don't need. I have cropped images with no problems at all and I've not run any noise reduction in nearly 20,000 images. Not even when I shot a reception in a banquet hall at ISO 6400 and the curtains were red. Still no problems, clean as a whistle.
The other thing I am seriously impressed with is the Nikon metering. I am so much closer to spot on exposures on my Nikons that I ever managed on my Canons. I have learned to see the world as the Nikons do very quickly and can dial in exposures really easily now.
I love the D700's so much I've added a D3 to the stable for using in a studio because the only downside I have found is that I really don't like the D700 grip. It just does not suit my hands so the D3 buttons in portrait mode are much easier.
The D3 can be backup on weddings and the D700's backup the D3 in the studio.
I have no qualms on using either for BIG prints in the studio or I'd have bought a Canon
I'm fine on cross platform, it's a box with a hole in it but those Nikon lenses.......oh my!
Not been around much lately, too darned busy shooting and making the business bigger And yes I did move from Canon to Nikon. From a 1DsII to a D700 and yes the loss of resolution was a concern. It was a concern I did not need to worry about in the slightest though and here is why.
The MP count of a camera is a little bit of a red herring, contrived initially to give Joe Public some idea when comparing cameras. Now if you take a 25MP camera and a crap lens and a 12MP camera and a fine lens, which will produce the cleaner image?
Yup the 12MP one. It's bugger use recording it if the lens is not capable of resolving the image sharp in the first place.
And the Nikon lenses really do cut the mustard (IMHO) I have not had to upscale a single image in over a year of ownership. In fact part of my PP REDUCES the image size! I output my RAW to JPEG at longest edge dimensions to fit the album I'm working on> Why store any extraneous imformation I don't need. I have cropped images with no problems at all and I've not run any noise reduction in nearly 20,000 images. Not even when I shot a reception in a banquet hall at ISO 6400 and the curtains were red. Still no problems, clean as a whistle.
The other thing I am seriously impressed with is the Nikon metering. I am so much closer to spot on exposures on my Nikons that I ever managed on my Canons. I have learned to see the world as the Nikons do very quickly and can dial in exposures really easily now.
I love the D700's so much I've added a D3 to the stable for using in a studio because the only downside I have found is that I really don't like the D700 grip. It just does not suit my hands so the D3 buttons in portrait mode are much easier.
The D3 can be backup on weddings and the D700's backup the D3 in the studio.
I have no qualms on using either for BIG prints in the studio or I'd have bought a Canon
I'm fine on cross platform, it's a box with a hole in it but those Nikon lenses.......oh my!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 400
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- No
I use a gripped D700 and tried a D3 several times, would still take the D3 every time if I had the money even with the lack of the commander and cleaning sensor. It just feels more comfortable in the hand. The gripped D700 is heavier than a D3 I can assure you of that.
IQ is identical, iso is great ..... A D3s on the other hand is for me nirvana.
IQ is identical, iso is great ..... A D3s on the other hand is for me nirvana.
- Messages
- 1,555
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the D700 gripped with 24-70 and 70-200 VRII glass and I can't fault them in any way. I carefully considered both the D3 and D700 but the choice of having a smaller body, with option to increase it to D3 size with a grip was the deciding factor for me. I wouldn't hesitate on buying another D700 so I can pair both of my lenses on FX bodies.
Either camera would be highly recommended, they are both top performers with the right glass in my opinion.
Either camera would be highly recommended, they are both top performers with the right glass in my opinion.
- Messages
- 292
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- No
ISO performance on the D700 is top notch. There isn't much difference (if any) when compared to a D3. Differences between the two lie elsewhere.
I think a D3 body handles better than a gripped D700. It's lighter and you also get 100% viewfinder coverage and faster fps out of the box.
I think a D3 body handles better than a gripped D700. It's lighter and you also get 100% viewfinder coverage and faster fps out of the box.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Okay, I've slept on this and wonder what's been going on because I damn well know how to take a decent photograph and my experience seems to have been very different to you guys.
Perhaps my D700 was faulty? I do know the AF wasn't anywhere near as effective as I was led to believe. Not as accurate and hunted a lot even with top range lenses.
I certainly had bad luck with my lenses, which definitely wore me down and has left me incredibly frustrated.
As it is I don't really want to move again because functionally it's a wonderful camera. So adaptable and customisable.
I don't, however, appreciate being attacked for my honest experiences.
Perhaps my D700 was faulty? I do know the AF wasn't anywhere near as effective as I was led to believe. Not as accurate and hunted a lot even with top range lenses.
I certainly had bad luck with my lenses, which definitely wore me down and has left me incredibly frustrated.
As it is I don't really want to move again because functionally it's a wonderful camera. So adaptable and customisable.
I don't, however, appreciate being attacked for my honest experiences.
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dean i live in Birstall nr Leeds, feel free to nip over and compare my D700 against yours to see if there is a difference.
- Messages
- 42,075
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Hope my 'women' comment didn't come across as an attack, it was of course tongue-in-cheek.
- Messages
- 3,434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
architectfadi said:
Sorry, this is miles off the mark. I have no affiliation. I'm no canon fanboy and I spent plenty of time getting used to my D3 and D700. Cameras are just tools to me.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Gary Coyle said:
Thanks mate. I don't have one anymore now, but I still might take you up on that.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
gramps said:
Not at all. Didn't even bat a beautiful eyelash are it.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
NorthernNikon said:
I have a very small home studio space with very little room for maneuver. Sometimes the greatest expression is a grab shot that needs work and a large crop.
I don't have a vast range of lenses because I've had to send them all back for focus issues or soft one side problems or the AF motor died. That may well just be bad luck.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
awp said:
Used. I'm well aware that this probably hasn't helped but much of it was from here and I've rarely had the same issues before. Just bad luck.
If I could afford new Nikon glass I'd buy it.
- Messages
- 949
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well i have to say, i have only ever bought new Nikon gear, and never had a problem with mine. Perhaps you have been a little unlucky? But then, how much bad luck can one person have?!?!?:shrug:
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
wilko said:
That's why I've become so frustrated. I'm almost phobic about buying owt now. One reason for considering the switch back was new Canon lenses tend to be a little cheaper.
- Messages
- 20,408
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you have small space I dont see how you can crop that much - I work in homes and often struggle with limited space and cropping is a big no there!
It depends what your expectations are. I have mainly used a nikon 50mm prime and that is stunning. Hard to nail focus wide open when so close though so a lot of bad shots are purely down to me. I have started using the 24-70 and that is a lovely lens. Not quite as sharp as the prime wide open, but you only notice that when pixel peeping, and i think you will aloways spot errors doing that.
Sounds to me the camera was a dud then, as you cant have that many lens issues.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Neither of my 50mm primes were stunning. Both my Canon 50's were better. That was on D3 and D700. Sorry!
I can't really comment on the 24-70 because I obviously got a dud.
I can't really comment on the 24-70 because I obviously got a dud.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
TCR4x4 said:
The lenses all went back. I'm buggered if I'm going to chase them. The D700 went on eBay with a transferable warranty.
- Messages
- 1,555
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I feel for you Deano you have obviously had very bad experiences for what ever reason with faults. The fifty for me has always been a little star even on the D200 and S5 pro even when shooting in manual.
The 24-70 is a cracking piece of glass, but you do hear stories of a few duds. Could have been passed down the chain, always wary of purchasing 2nd hand models.
Don't get too disheartened:bang:
What are you shooting with now or is on the hit list?