D3 or D2Xs

[Tintop]

Hello everyone.

I'm looking at buying a D3 + Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lens. Problem is, with the crap exchange rates at the moment it's going to be in the region of £4,300 so I'm considering second hand or a D2Xs instead.

There seems to be a lack of second hand D3 bodies (Grays have one listed but it's more than the new price from other retailers!).

Has anyone used both the D3 and D2Xs? Did you find the D3 much better?

This is primarily going to be my main body for paid portrait and wedding work so I'm drawn towards the D3 for the much better low light capabilities.

What do you reckon? :thinking:

[RobDickinson]

Buy a D700?

What does the D3 give that you need?

[jec]

I think you may find the front page of www.bythom.com interesting reading. In particular the note entitled A Look Backward from Mar 30.

As part of a project that I'm working on, I've just spent a lot of time in my digital image archives, which pretty much covers the full spectrum of Nikon mount DSLRs since the D1 appeared. A common question I get via email is "if I were to buy a used Nikon body, which one should I purchase?" Well, I think I have a pretty good handle on that answer today.

Later on he outlines:
Another way of looking at things is "is it time to upgrade?" Here, I'll look at each body and make a judgment about whether it's time to move to a newer generation.

[downhillbiker]

The light sensitivity of the D3 is epic. I can't state that enough. If you are shooting in low light - be that forests, music venues, fashion shows, weddings - whatever - it is light years ahead of the likes of the D200 (not the same level I know, but is the closest camera to the D3 that I've owned). It was talked up a lot on launch, but I've had my D3 for a while now, and it continues to impress me.

Of course, if low light isn't an issue, then I'd take a serious look at the D2 range. Or as has been mentioned, a D700 - although be aware that if you want the grip etc, you will start pushing toward some really nasty prices when you factor in a new battery and charger for it.

[silverpenguin7]

I used to have a D2X (not the 's') and loved it...at the time. Looking back now at files from it, and having now shot with a D3 since launch and now a D300 backup, the noise levels on some of my shots at ISO 400 were awful. As DHB said, if you don't need high ISO and will only be shooting around base ISO then a D2X may be a smart option for the price. Personally however, I would get one of the newer generation of bodies - the D700 might be a good choice but again as DHB points out, stick the grip and D3 battery/charger etc on top of that and your looking at quite a high cost.

EDIT: What about a D300? I've been shooting mine happily alongside the D3, it's a very good camera for the money just with not as good noise handling. I don't like shooting over ISO 800 with the D300 but thats just because the D3 spoils you...however, the D300 is still night and day above the D2X for high ISO noise as even shooting at ISO 400 on that was pants if the exposure wasn't absolutely spot on!

[Radiohead]

Sensor wise they're not even close. So unless you live at IS100-200 all the time I'd take the D3. It's also FF and that makes a big difference in the VF.

Just saw it's for wedding work. I'd discount the D2x for that straight away. A D300 would be better. A D700 doubly so.

The prices are a killer now though I agree. I was looking at a 200/2VR this week. For about 5 minutes.

[RobDickinson]

If you cant manage a D700/D3 how about a 5D?

[silverpenguin7]

I was looking at a 200/2VR this week. For about 5 minutes.
I want one of those, it's been a secret lust for ages...so your not allowed one :razz: :p

On topic, I didn't notice it was for wedding work earlier so would defo say don't get the D2Xs.

[Radiohead]

£3k now. Ouch.

[Sprout Crumble]

Check out the Canon price and cry me a river.............

[Radiohead]

£4300

Gulp.

[Tintop]

Well I've already got a D50 and D2H (which I bought to shoot decently lit motorsport, which it's great for). I much prefer the larger body and built in portrait grip of the D2H and want to standardise on a single body/battery type. Which is why I was considering the D2Xs.

The noise at even ISO400 on the D2H is shocking. At 1600 it looks like a Jackson Pollock painting!!

I think I'll go with the D3, sod the cost, and use the D2H as backup.

Cheers guys.

[Sprout Crumble]

D700 and grip is a shedload cheaper and whats the real difference for the uses you'll put it?

[downhillbiker]

D700 and grip is a shedload cheaper and whats the real difference for the uses you'll put it?

It's not shedloads cheaper, it's a bit cheaper... when you factor in the price for a D700, the grip, the battery (same one as a D3), and the charger (again, same one the D3 uses), then it's still a lot of cash!

[Sprout Crumble]

But you don't have to buy it all at once.

Besides, even a cursory look at Amazon has the grip at £208, a battery under £90 (even less for a good Uniross version) and the charger at £130. With the D700 at £1700, that barely £2100. A D3 runs nearly £900 more. Thats an 85/1.4 (nice portrait lens) and change, or a great lighting setup for example.

Plus an un-gripped D700 is a damn sight lighter than a D3 when shuffling around a wedding for hour after hour.

The D3 is a fine bit of kit, but its built around a different kind of photography to portraits and weddings. I'd save the money and get the D700 in a heartbeat. Same argument applies to the 5D-II and the 1DsIII.

[Radiohead]

well speaking at a wedding shooter I'd take the d3 every time....

[Sprout Crumble]

But if funds were limited would you consider it a grand worth struggling to get together?

[Radiohead]

Not sure, but that's one for the OP.

[Tintop]

Sprout, what do you think the D3 is built for then if not portraits and weddings?

Seems like a perfect use for it to me. D3x would be better of course, but that's waaaay to expensive :)

I've never really liked using gripped cameras, I'd like to have a play with a D700+grip in case if feels different to what I've used before, but as Radiohead says. The price adds up when you consider all the extras you need on the D700.

Certainly a lot to think about and I may well end up with a D700 and D50 as backup. We'll see how it goes :)

[Sprout Crumble]

D3 is capable of anything, but is predominately built for extreme speed and conditions. A large, heavy, ultra-strong construction, along with 10fps operation are in no way necessary for portrait/wedding work. As Radiohead said, there's always personal preference re. handling and only you can decide if the money and weight negatives are overcome by that. The D700 is extremely well-specified for the money and I can't imagine a single situation in that field it couldn't cope with. I'd have thought the removable grip (thus smaller and lighter camera) would've been an advantage at some weddings, but its not my thing and RH would be the one to clarify.
Plus, as I stated above, the price doesn't add up to anywhere near a D3 body price. Far from it. A gripped D700 leaves £900-1000 change for some extremely nice kit or a fatter wallet.

[Radiohead]

I've yet to use my D700 at a wedding. I love the handling of the D3 so much that it's always my preference and with a 50/1.4 on one body it's not that much heavier. The D700 ends up as backup but it is the camera I tend to take out and about like a trip to Winchester with Jess today.

I'm pretty sure I could shoot just as well with a pair of D700's though, it has to be said.

[Tintop]

Do you not use both cameras at a wedding then? I find that having two bodies with different lenses on gives me more flexibility than using a single body and swapping lenses.

[Radiohead]

I do use two, a pair of D3's

[Tintop]

Hi guys,

Thanks for all your help, I've ordered a D700+grip and 24-70 lens. And Sigma 50mm f1.4, err, and Nikon 85mm f1.4 :doh:

Cheers :thumbs:

[RobDickinson]

Wow nice! :D