D700, D3 or D3s

[scottthehat]

well i think were gonna have to agree to disagree as the likely hood of 3rd party batterys damaging any dslr is not likely, the only case i have heard is minolta had sent out some cams with there own dodgy batterys, but i will take my chances with my 3rd party grip and batterys as i not only am a member of npu i pay alot a month to insure my gear.

 

[boyfalldown]

Err, no, not necessarily. Warranties only cover manufacturing defects. If the batteries fried the D700 because the circuitry wasn't fit for purpose or a chip was faulty then it would be covered under the terms of the warranty. If however the D700 was technically fine & the cause of the 'frying' was down to faults in the battery then this would not be covered under warranty and you'd have to recover your loss from the place you bought the batteries from.

That's the way it works in theory, in practice there are too many variables for anyone to say 'yes' or 'no' to a general question like that.

In reality though if Nikon are saying you can use any aa batteries in their grip then they are going to be on very dodgy ground if they then refuse a warranty repair after you've just done that.

 

[NorthernNikon]

Ok then whatever you say :shrug:

If reading wasn't to much for you I didn't say they'd do it for free - just that they'd make a special dispensation (look up what it means before slinging the sad little man insults) which a priority repair is

You didn't have to say that they'd do it for free, that was the whole context of the thread. Nikon will repair any kit for anyone for a charge. The only special dispensation relevant to the discussion would be for then to do the repair without charge for NPU/NPS members, which they wouldn't normally do.

To remind you, what I said was "Being a Nikon Pro member doesn't give you special dispensation for repairs outside of the warranty except at certain major events when the Nikon Pro centre will service and clean kit for accredited pros" in reply to scotthehat suggesting that Nikon would repair and damage resulting from 3rd party batteries as if it were a warranty repair.

How fast the repair is done or whether a replacement body is offered for the duration of the repair is totally irrelevant to the point in question, so I'm not sure how you got hold of that particular wrong end of the stick.

 

[Trig's]

Has this theory stem'd from printer inks :shrug: as dont printer manufacturers mention that if their ink aren't used, then it in-validates the warranty....

Prob a case of chinese whispers - someones mentioned it or even asked it then as its the net - where you can say something here (UK) & in a matter of seconds its spread around the world with everyones little addition to it....

 

[NorthernNikon]

In reality though if Nikon are saying you can use any aa batteries in their grip then they are going to be on very dodgy ground if they then refuse a warranty repair after you've just done that.

Why? Warranties aren't all encompassing. If you drop your camera you wouldn't (or should I say shouldn't) expect it to be covered under warranty. Likewise if the damage is caused by anything other than a manufacturing defect or design fault it wouldn't be covered.

Nikon wouldn't be on dodgy ground at all.

In motoring terms, it's the same as you going to a garage and your petrol car up from the petrol pump unaware that for whatever reason the pump was dispensing diesel instead. You car manufacturer wouldn't cover the damage caused, you'd have to go after the garage owners.

If however you put the right grade of petrol in your car but the fuel injection system was faulty causing damage to the engine, that would be covered under warranty irrespective of the the brand of fuel you used.

 

[NorthernNikon]

Has this theory stem'd from printer inks :shrug: as dont printer manufacturers mention that if their ink aren't used, then it in-validates the warranty....

No, I think it's just standard, sound practice. Manufacturers need to limit their liability and for any item that takes consumables there's additional risk when the consumables come form third parties. Some items such as AA batteries are so ubiquitous that any increase in liability is relatively small. For more bespoke consumables however the risk is greater.

The fact that manufacturers often have a profitably revenue stream coming in from the sale of their own consumables might make it seem more cynical than it actually is, but I think it basically comes down to sensible underwriting rather than any ulterior motive or profiteering.

 

[NorthernNikon]

well i think were gonna have to agree to disagree as the likely hood of 3rd party batterys damaging any dslr is not likely, the only case i have heard is minolta had sent out some cams with there own dodgy batterys, but i will take my chances with my 3rd party grip and batterys as i not only am a member of npu i pay alot a month to insure my gear.

I was making no judgement on whether you should or shouldn't, merely stating a fact and giving my opinion on what I would do so that the OP could make an informed choice.

 

[fixedimage]

Why? Warranties aren't all encompassing. If you drop your camera you wouldn't (or should I say shouldn't) expect it to be covered under warranty. Likewise if the damage is caused by anything other than a manufacturing defect or design fault it wouldn't be covered.

This is the bit that a lot of consumers don't understand. Hell I work in a bike shop owned by 2 guys that don't understand this, they keep trying to claim warranty for wear and tear so the problem goes beyond consumers.

 

[NorthernNikon]

This is the bit that a lot of consumers don't understand. Hell I work in a bike shop owned by 2 guys that don't understand this, they keep trying to claim warranty for wear and tear so the problem goes beyond consumers.

It's not just warranties that cause confusion, insurance is often completely misunderstood and liability even less so still.

In my loss adjusting days I used motoring analogies as people seemed to grasp these more easily - they understand that if they crash their car or it gets stolen they call their insurance company but if it breaks down they call the AA. For sone reason though, many thought that if washing machines or TVs break down they should be covered under their house insurance.

 

[EMA747]

I have been mulling over either a D3s or a D3. How much difference is there in IQ between the two up to around ISO 6400? I doubt I would use anything over those ISOs. I shot some pictures last year at the Rjukan dam (of herose of Telemark fame) that I had to use ISO 6400 for but that's about the only time I have go above ISO3200.

D3 bodies seem to be about £2000 used and D3s between £3100 used and £3500 new. Is the £1000+ saving worth it if I had the funds to get either?

 

[specialman]

.... there's a lot of ****witted pedantry knocking about.....

sorry but your wrong....

....My wrong what?

....hmmmmm...

To the OP - Andy, in response to your last question I'd take the view that if you can afford the newer technology I'd go for it. The D3 may be the nuts but the D3s is newer and although not strictly more future-proof, it's probably a better buy in the long run if the money is there

 

[EMA747]

I still keep agonising over what to get. If I took video capabilities out of the equation I'm still not sure if a D3 would do me or would a D3s be worth it.
How much does the D3 lag behind the D3s in IQ up to say ISO 3200-6400?

 

[konastab01]

I don't use my D3 about 3200... I find its amazing up to that point but falls off after then!

 

[scottthehat]

Hi andy i have a d700 same sensor and its great upto iso 6400 and still usable higher up to 12800 depending on light.
this might help, these are just straight out the camera jpegs and some adjusted. from what i have seen the d3s is even better again and from gary coyles sport pics at high iso 6400 and up it looks amazing.
http://s727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/d700/
this is iso 100,000 straight from raw no noise reduction or adjustments.

crop

 

[gpa]

To the OP

Looking at your comments and needs I suspect the D3 would meet all of your requirements and then some, in reality there is little between them when it comes to shots at ISO 3200 but from 6400 and above the D3s just romps away. If you follow good ISO practice you should be able to get clean images up to 6400 and if you really nail it up to 8000 is possible on a D3. After 3 years of D3 ownership I recently moved to the "S" and have had a about a month to play and compare it to the original D3. The "S" should stand for supercharged really I like the self cleaning sensor, improved buffer and there is a def improvement in low light focus lock, not sure why but I suspect Nikon have tinkered with it a little. The main area is the improved ISO which is very noticeable, I would say with a fare degree of confidence the "S" is one and a half to two stops better than the original D3.

If you have the available funds buy the "S" if not go with the D3 you will not be disappointed, it may be 4 years old but it still sits right up there with the best of them.

A few real world shots from the "S"

ISO 25600
500mm
F6.7
1/500th
Hand Held


A Real test for both VR and ISO, shot before sunrise not run through a de noise program
ISO 51,400
700mm
F7.1
1/50th
Hand Held


This is the shot that amazed me. There has been rumors for a long time that we had an Otter on our local lake but there had never been any proof other than droppings and the odd fish kill. This was taken effectively in the dark, the camera could actually see more than I could. The image was shot from the opposite side of our lake and has had a big crop and de noise. Proof at last

ISO 102,800
700mm
1/640th
F8
Hand Held

 

[scottthehat]

gpa those look so good.

 

[gpa]

Cheers Scott, Getting to know the camera which is not too difficult as i owned a D3 for three years. I think I can eek out nice clean images at Iso's of up to say 40,000 any more and it does become questionable but still usable if needed as these pictures show.

 

[dod]

I still keep agonising over what to get. If I took video capabilities out of the equation I'm still not sure if a D3 would do me or would a D3s be worth it.
How much does the D3 lag behind the D3s in IQ up to say ISO 3200-6400?

A stop maybe, I've got both and don't bother to check which one I'm picking up unless I'm working inside in which case I'll go for the S. Having said that I was using them both at a shoot inside a few weeks ago and both were fine up to 6400.

Nobody's said it but right now, if I was in the market, I'd be tempted to go for another 1D mkIV, it produces images which are absolutely fantastic right out of the camera. It's a totally subjective thing but I prefer them to the ones from the Nikon :shrug:

Something wrong with the exif in the last one gpa, here's what it's saying. Firefox with exif viewer and fxif so it could well be a program issue? I'm definitely not questioning you so please don't think that.

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D3S
Image Date: 2011-09-29 18:52:39 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 700.0mm
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
ISO equiv: 250
Exposure Bias: +2.00 EV
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Fine Weather
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined

 

[gpa]

Hi Dod I've noticed that as well, it shows incorrect info, it seems to happen when converting raw to jpeg when I export from NX2 but only on images above 12800. The top one says iso 200 as well