DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> D3 or D300
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/08/2008 10:14:47 AM · #1
I will have enough for money coming to me for either one of these cameras. Here is my dilema, do I get the D3 which I could use and be happy with for many years. Or do I go with the D300 and possibly want to upgrade again in a couple of years. If I get the D300 I will probably get some glass as well. Now I know new glass is very attractive but so is the D3. I'm don't think I will be able to afford the D3 at a later date. So what do you D3 and D300 users have to say. BTW I have handled both and love the feel of the D3.
03/08/2008 10:20:53 AM · #2
I'd compare features. If there's a feature on the D3 that you just can't live without that is not on the D300 then that's what you get.
03/08/2008 10:27:11 AM · #3
D3...D3...D3

The image quality is stunning. Go to pBase and do a D3 search. While you'll find both good and bad images but I'm 100% certain you'll be blown away by the quality of the shots.

If you're an anti noise freak or you shoot weddings and events the noise performance will blow you away. For sports it's burst rate is like a machine gun.

Where the D200 was touted as a D2x Junior the D3 is in a whole different league compared to the D300.

I played with a D3 at the Photo show in NYC and had more time to fiddle with a floor model at B&H a few weeks ago. I started to break into a cold sweat, immediately walked outside of the store and smoked an entire pack of filterless cigarettes....and I don't smoke.

I have a D300 and I'm dying to get a D3.

Message edited by author 2008-03-08 16:38:13.
03/08/2008 10:29:55 AM · #4
D3 for sure.... but what lenses do you have? You might be better with the D300 and better glass.
03/08/2008 10:30:52 AM · #5
Thanks Steve, I've seen the images and they are fatastic. So far I'm leaning more towards the D3.
03/08/2008 10:31:58 AM · #6
Questions:

Do you shoot mostly wide angle or telephoto?

The D3 if full frame, right?

If telephoto you'll lose reach but gain at the wide end with the D3.
03/08/2008 10:32:16 AM · #7
I know I don't have the best glass but I do have contacts that I borrow good glass from for those big jobs.
03/08/2008 10:34:25 AM · #8
I'm not at all worried by the lost crop factor by going to full frame. I shoot mostly sports, Pj stuff and weddings. really want the burst rate and low light ability.
03/08/2008 10:35:31 AM · #9
D3 has DX mode (abliet at lower resolution of 5.1mp) so in the mean time you'd still be able to use any DX lenses.

Plus ISO 25600 :D Maybe the way to look at it from glass point of view is that great glass is cheaper to buy in the future than a D3, and if you think the D3 will be easiest to afford now than later then maybe thats the one to go for?
03/08/2008 10:35:33 AM · #10
Originally posted by cryan:

I shoot mostly sports, Pj stuff and weddings. really want the burst rate and low light ability.


Then I'd say your decision is already made...;)

edited: I just looked at your glass list and I would suggest getting some better stuff. If you're serious enough and have the money for a D3 I think the glass should go with it. It's like having an amazing audio system hooked up to cheap speakers...or something like that.

Message edited by author 2008-03-08 10:40:40.
03/08/2008 10:36:27 AM · #11
Yep kinda what I was thinking just needed the extra push. Thanks to all.
03/08/2008 10:39:21 AM · #12
Shove ..... oh excuse me. I didn't mean to push you again.
03/08/2008 10:59:41 AM · #13
One way you may look at it is how much time you spend carying your camera vs. shooting with it.

If you shoot weddings and most of your time you shoot shoot shoot, get D3

If you go on hikes and most of the time you cary your camera and taking ocasional snapshots D300 maybe better choice. It is lighter and most features are the same.
03/08/2008 11:09:15 AM · #14
Get better lenses first.
03/08/2008 12:02:10 PM · #15
I am sort of in the same boat as you and will be going for the D3. The glass that I DO/WILL want is cheaper than the camera.


03/08/2008 12:46:28 PM · #16
I purchased both the D3 and the D300.

In my opinion, the D3 is excellent, but the D300 with the grip option also makes for a superior camera. Either are excellent choices. It all depends on the sort of photography that you are doing and what interests you the most. If I just had the D300, I would be happy. The D3 does not deliver so many extra values that is justifies the extra cost. You could purchase two D300s for the price of the D3.

If it was my decision, I would suggest the D300 with the lenses. My assortment of Nikkor lenses is extensive, I have 16 current lenses. It is the flexibility that this lens assortment offers me that I enjoy the most and realize the best return, not the camera.

With that said, I am a person who leans towards telephoto images and I prefer long lenses and close magnification. Others prefer wide angle. The D300 is better suited to my style of photography compared to the D3. But, if you are a person who prefers wide angle, then the D3 is a better choice for you.

It all depends...
03/08/2008 01:07:10 PM · #17
Don't get either one. Keep the D200 and buy 5000 bux worth of glass.
If I had 5k for lenses right now I'd get a used Nikkor 600mm F4. I'm seeing them used in this range. If I didn't have the jones right now for a long tele I'd probably get a 10.5 fish, the 10-20 sigma, 70-200 F2.8 (why the hell did I sell mine?), a 80-400 F4.5-5.6 VR, 85mm F1.4, and 50mm F1.2
manual. That should just about eat up 5k. :)

Oh, and while you're enjoying your glass for the next couple of years the D3's will drop to about 2500 bux and you can get one used to go with all your neat glass!!!!!
03/08/2008 03:08:23 PM · #18
Originally posted by fir3bird:

Don't get either one. Keep the D200 and buy 5000 bux worth of glass.
If I had 5k for lenses right now I'd get a used Nikkor 600mm F4. I'm seeing them used in this range. If I didn't have the jones right now for a long tele I'd probably get a 10.5 fish, the 10-20 sigma, 70-200 F2.8 (why the hell did I sell mine?), a 80-400 F4.5-5.6 VR, 85mm F1.4, and 50mm F1.2
manual. That should just about eat up 5k. :)

Oh, and while you're enjoying your glass for the next couple of years the D3's will drop to about 2500 bux and you can get one used to go with all your neat glass!!!!!


Also, a very rational suggestion.

In addition, you can purchase a Nikon D2x for a very good price right now too, new or used. So, the message here is that chasing the leading edge of the digital sensor innovation curve is sometimes a fool's game. As they say, lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Personally, I prefer to take up the leadership position, but there is a definite cost to doing so. Trailing in a following position makes a great deal of economic sense, but you never get to play with the new toys when they launch. I love the toys...
03/08/2008 03:20:45 PM · #19
When it comes to handling noise in low light situations, how much better is the D3 than the D300? Is there a significant difference?
03/08/2008 03:51:18 PM · #20
Originally posted by yakatme:

When it comes to handling noise in low light situations, how much better is the D3 than the D300? Is there a significant difference?

reports say yes / a large difference 1-2 stops worth
(i.e. d300 is good to 1600 d3 good to 6400)

/ i fought over the same decision (300+glass vs. D3)for the last 3 months
i've had the D3 for 5 days now .. & i am not sorry i did
(had buyers remorse big time between saying yes & having it delivered )
the handling is superb / focus is awesome / low light-hi ISO is absolutely amazing

i've mainly been shooting people since getting it & mainly with the 55f1.2 & 85f1.8
(both 55mm f/1.2 but plan on doing more macro work "real soon now"

my deciding factors :
upgrading from the d200 the d300 was not a large step (d3)
D2x might have been a good choice but i enjoy the low light stuff (d3)
liveview for focusing the telescope & 1000mm reflex (both d3 & d300 have this but knocks out the d2x )
view finder (d3)
as i mentioned in another thread the amazing focus with manual lenses (d3) but to tell you the truth i didn't know about this till i bought it ..
full frame for my macro lenses (d3)

post purchase the down side is i need more/different glass
i need a 16mm fisheye to replace augment the 10.5mm
& i want the 70-200VR and the "beast" and and and and ...

03/08/2008 06:26:29 PM · #21
Originally posted by ralph:


& i want the 70-200VR and the "beast" and and and and ...


"The Beast" is a great lens, I use it as a walk-around and for food work. The 70-200mm VR is the coolest and IMHO a must have, if you have the cash.

Morgan-"The D3 does not deliver so many extra values that is justifies the extra cost."

That's the only line I disagree with. The image quality is noticeably better and the noise is almost non-existent at ISO 1600 from the test shots I've taken myself. That's not to say that the images from the D200 or the D300 aren't great but the D3 is far better to my eye and well worth it if you can "justify the extra cost".

Message edited by author 2008-03-08 18:32:23.
03/08/2008 08:33:35 PM · #22
Get better glass always. If you must get a new camera, then get D300 with grip and some good glass. To buy the D3 now with your current lens line-up would be like putting a $5.00 hat on a nickel head (no offense, my glass ain't great either). And unless you are shooting in very dark areas or areas with funky lighting, then fast glass with the D300 at 1250 to 1600 iso should work great in most situations. Just my .02
03/08/2008 10:24:57 PM · #23
Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by ralph:


& i want the 70-200VR and the "beast" and and and and ...


"The Beast" is a great lens, I use it as a walk-around and for food work. The 70-200mm VR is the coolest and IMHO a must have, if you have the cash.

Morgan-"The D3 does not deliver so many extra values that is justifies the extra cost."

That's the only line I disagree with. The image quality is noticeably better and the noise is almost non-existent at ISO 1600 from the test shots I've taken myself. That's not to say that the images from the D200 or the D300 aren't great but the D3 is far better to my eye and well worth it if you can "justify the extra cost".


For the sort of everyday photography that I do, I have not noticed any advantage yet regarding the low noise characteristics of the D3 versus the D300. Sure, there is a lot written about it, but both are superior to previous cameras.

I struggle to even consider taking any image at 1600 ISO in the first place.
03/27/2008 04:54:52 PM · #24
I once had an old photographer tell me..."camera's come and go, but really great glass will stay with you for a long time"!! Go with some really great glass...and wait on the new camera.
03/27/2008 05:08:40 PM · #25
It is a difficult question, glass+D300 or a D3. I would go for the D3, because I hate flash and find myself wanting more than ISO1600 at f2 often. Plus I have some good glass already. :)

It does not matter much that you can not afford a D3 later. In about 5 to 10 years time the D3 too will be old technology and its low light quality and speed will be in a D300 like/priced body.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:41:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:41:30 AM EDT.