1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

very interesting

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR Forum' started by Randy, Jul 3, 2008.

  1. Michael Reichmann wrote:
    For Nikon to enter this arena so soon (just over a half year) after shipping its first full frame Pro offering, and by doing so with a camera which offers all of the image quality and almost all of the features of the D3, at some two thousand dollars less, is either a master-stroke or misguided.

    I think the D700 definitely has a place in Nikon's line-up. The one thing I would have liked to see is better communication from Nikon of their short term plans. People who bought the D3 might have waited (without "defecting" to Canon) if at the D3 announcement Nikon also indicated that a D300 body with FF sensor was coming out in 10 months. As it is, I'm sure some D3 buyers are a bit put off by the D700 release in the heels of the D3.
  2. I guess it depends on who you ask ;) 

    Personally, I am very pleased that the smaller FF body came out so soon. It means I will spend more on a Nikon digital body, and sooner, than I expected. So as far as I am concerned (and assuming the financial gods keep smiling on me until Xmas time or so), it's a masterstroke ;) 
  3. yea, they shuda told us about the d700 when they released the d3 so I cuda waited

    i got a d3 and i would prob have got a d700 instead but maybe not
    5k vs 3500 and the 5k body lasts 2x as long....hmmmm
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2008
  4. For 20% more, you can get two D700's for the price of a single D3, right? If a D700 is $3K and a D3 is $5K? What significant features are in the D3 that one would not get in a D700?
  5. i am not going to get into a d3 vs d700 contest but
    I would rather have the grip builtin...I like my d3 in my hand better than my d300...
    The d3 is also faster than the d700 and has a better VF
    You can also get a used D3 for 4k now, no used d700's around....

    Now if I didn't own a D3 now I would buy a D700, not a D3,,, so go get one and have some fun
  6. Sandro Bravo

    Sandro Bravo

    Nov 18, 2005
    When the shutter goes, you can always get a new one if the camera is still fine. :smile: Anyway, most of us won't reach the camera's shutter life-cycles.

    But it is very true that the D700 would have dampened the D3 sales a bit, if released at the same time....i wasn't expecting it, i won't be buying one soon, but i'm glad to have this option.

    The D300 is already a killer camera, as good as DX format can get you, for the fraction of a new D2Xs, and i still have lots of miles to put in it....can't change cameras as i do with shirts, i did that with the D200, but for my needs, the D300 was the new "D2hs" (which i also have) i was waiting for, with improved AF, even lower-noise, much cheaper and 3x the resolution...
  7. Chris_B


    Mar 12, 2006
    Arlington, VA
    The D3 is faster and likely will have quicker, more accurate AF if the D700's AF is like the D300's. If the D700's AF is literally the same as the D3's then the differences are truly minimal.
  8. mdg137


    Aug 7, 2007
    Michigan, US
    Maybe its me, but the dual card slots have been a tremendous benefit for me-- often, when I do a TFCD shoot with a model I do jpegs on one card, raw on the other-- so I can quickly download and burn the jpegs, and send them home with her that moment.

    That feature alone has made the D3 worthwhile. Id love to have the D700 as a back up, but replacement? Not quite...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.