RE: to D3 or not to D3?

> >What features make the D3 much more expensive than the D300?
>
> full frame, low noise high-iso and it *is* a *pro* body:
> heavy, large, or's everywhere, records on 2 cards at the same
> time, includes dials and buttons to shoot vertical images and
> much more. i seem to remember the af subsystem is different,
> too, but i wouldn't bet on this.
>

Let me add a few items, as a new D3 owner:

Overall build quality, large viewfinder that is like my F2s and much better
than say a D70, 9 fps continuous shooting with auto-everything working,
really, really good image quality at ISO 3200 and 6400, with the ability to
shoot at 25,600 (with lots of noise). Plus two crop modes, plus, plus, plus.
I can take useable images in light that is so dim I can't even try to read a
printed page. Voice memo recording.

Also, no built-in flash, which is a negative if you want to use an SB-600 or
-800 off camera.

> if you need a *pro* body, you can't got with a d300.
> if you don't, d300 is a great camera.

Even if you are not a pro, if low-light photography is important to you, as
it is to me, then the D3 is the right choice. Of course, the operative
phrase is "important to me." Also, I have all the lenses I could possibly
need, with the exception of the 14 ~ 24 mm f2.8 zoom. Now, "need" and
"want"; are two related but distinct concepts, as anyone who suffers from NAS
knows quite well.

Phil Burton

Messages in this topic (11) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Another observation in this D3/D300 'Pro-camera' discussion involves
financing and the flow of money. From 'Nikon Corp's' viewpoint, if the
photographer makes his living through the use of his camera, and there
is a high probability that the costs of purchase and use of this
camera may well be subsidized by an employing entity spending pre-tax
dollars (as opposed to a private citizen spending after-tax
discretionary savings), then Nikon wants a piece of that financial
action. At the very least, tax deductions can be had by professional
photographers in the purchase and use of their equipment. Thus, in
part, the high cost of the truly professional slr body.

-CS

--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, "Phil Burton&quot; <philip-b...> wrote:
&gt;
> > >What features make the D3 much more expensive than the D300?
&gt; >
> > full frame, low noise high-iso and it *is* a *pro* body:
> > heavy, large, or's everywhere, records on 2 cards at the same
> > time, includes dials and buttons to shoot vertical images and
> > much more. i seem to remember the af subsystem is different,
> > too, but i wouldn't bet on this.
&gt; >
>
> Let me add a few items, as a new D3 owner:
&gt;
> Overall build quality, large viewfinder that is like my F2s and much
better
> than say a D70, 9 fps continuous shooting with auto-everything working,
> really, really good image quality at ISO 3200 and 6400, with the
ability to
> shoot at 25,600 (with lots of noise). Plus two crop modes, plus,
plus, plus.
&gt; I can take useable images in light that is so dim I can't even try
to read a
> printed page. Voice memo recording.
>
> Also, no built-in flash, which is a negative if you want to use an
SB-600 or
> -800 off camera.
>
> > if you need a *pro* body, you can't got with a d300.
&gt; > if you don't, d300 is a great camera.
>
> Even if you are not a pro, if low-light photography is important to
you, as
> it is to me, then the D3 is the right choice. Of course, the operative
> phrase is "important to me." Also, I have all the lenses I could
possibly
&gt; need, with the exception of the 14 ~ 24 mm f2.8 zoom. Now, "need" and
> "want" are two related but distinct concepts, as anyone who suffers
from NAS
> knows quite well.
&gt;
> Phil Burton
&gt;

Messages in this topic (13) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.