One D3 or 2 D300

[Guy Mancuso]

Probably should have bought Kurts D3 but short on cash at the moment . I just bought a MF system but thinking ahead for my Nikon system , I do need a 24-70 for the event stuff but my real question is backup and primary. I have one D300 and maybe get a second backup or just screw it and get 1 D3 and call it a day. I hate not having a exact backup but is the D3 good enough not to fail. i always figure this with Nikon or Canon i am ten minutes from a store that can get a D300 either via rental or just buy it. Something to think about

Now for me this system is to do certain jobs like corporate meeting and such and the MF can do some of it but not all. The D300 does a good job so not overly worried about file quality. I am leaning at D300 backup

 

[DonWeston]

Probably should have bought Kurts D3 but short on cash at the moment . I just bought a MF system but thinking ahead for my Nikon system , I do need a 24-70 for the event stuff but my real question is backup and primary. I have one D300 and maybe get a second backup or just screw it and get 1 D3 and call it a day. I hate not having a exact backup but is the D3 good enough not to fail. i always figure this with Nikon or Canon i am ten minutes from a store that can get a D300 either via rental or just buy it. Something to think about

Now for me this system is to do certain jobs like corporate meeting and such and the MF can do some of it but not all. The D300 does a good job so not overly worried about file quality. I am leaning at D300 backup

Hey Guy, maybe I can be good at spending YOUR money and say just go for the D3, you know you want it.....haha.

Seriously, with all the gear you have ,and already having a D300, what use for a D3 with the MF stuff for the high end images you want to make. Is a D3 going to compete with that. Also would you mind carrying another type of battery and charger??? or just add another D300 body?? NO..

The other side of the coin, is you gain a FF, fast accurate, pro body that might replace the MF gear for some work you might think of bringing the MF big guns....just more food for thought....good luck....Don

 

[harmsr]

Guy,

That is really an easy answer. One D3 is the winner.

For event and low light stuff, the D3 really is a better and faster camera.

You know that ISO performance is better, DR is better, tonal range is better, the camera has two cards, is FF on the sensor, has a battery that lasts forever, brighter & better view finder, more accurate manual focus, it can shoot in the 14 bit mode without the slowing down of the D300, etc....

Do you want to play with mine and the 24-70? It will convince you which way you really want to go.

Another point on ergonomics, the vertical grip of the D3 is really nice and when using the 24-70 (which is rather large) the balance is better on the D3.

Best,

Ray


PS: On the D3, you could really have two lenses to do all the work for which you want that system. 24-70 & 70-200

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You guy's are deadly. LOL

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You both make great points but I am not so worried about quality in the Nikons , I want quality i would shoot the MF. We all know these event things never get past a 8x10 too. I would rather put money in the MF were it counts more. See the mental debate goes on . LOL

 

[Chris C]

... I am not so worried about quality in the Nikons , I want quality i would shoot the MF. ... See the mental debate goes on .

Stop torturing yourself man and pour yourself a beer. I'm going to differ with the Sirens luring you on to the D3 rocks and say get another D300. Then your three kits will be clearly defined for at least two years [normal photographers it would be longer but we have witnessed your suffering with Aquisition Syndrome]. The Nikon scene in two years time will be quite different to the options available now, and in your shoes I would not buy a D3.

But the actual bloke in your shoes probably will.............................CAN SOMEONE GET A NURSE..................

............. Chris

 

[Terry]

A different answer from the amateur peanut gallery. If you don't need the backup just yet what is the harm in waiting to see what happens to either new pricing or the used market if/when Nikon comes up with a FF sensor in a D300 type body or some other D3 variant.

 

[Greg Seitz]

Guy,

I think it all boils down to high ISO quality. This is one advantage that the D3 has that I think everyone can agree on. If you plan on shooting sports that would also tip the equation in favor of the D3 - even there you can gain a couple of fps with the D300 grip.

Many of the other differences are pretty minor and come down to personal preference. If you're going to be shooting in crappy light the D3 is the winner without a doubt. In decent light or with flash you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. As you know the crop factor on the D300 can work for and against you depending on your lens lineup so that can end up being a wash as well.

Having said all that, I love the combination of both. But if your goal is simply to have a backup I think I'd go with an identical system.

Greg

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Guy
It's obvious you should get a D3 with the 24-70 - but you must know that! It's all very well saying you don't need the quality . . . but surely you'd rather have it, and the high ISO . . . .

After all, if you find after a month you'd rather have two D300's, then you shouldn't lose that much money on the deal. If you just get another D300 you won't know what you're missing.

Personally, I find the DX left me changing lenses all the time - 24-70 is fine on a D3 for most circumstances, but 36-100 on the D300 is neither wide enough nor long enough.

 

[woodyspedden]

Guy

I think Terry's advice is spot on! Even if you had to rent a D300 as backup for the next few months until Photokina or whenever Nikon announces it's new product line. I think the new product will be the higher Mpx version of the D3 which will probably result in a flood of D3's hitting the used market and thus getting you into one at a much reduced price. I doubt there will be a D300 with the D3 sensor as it would pollute their marketing position. If they bring out a $7000 D3x they will have viable products at $1800, $5000, and $7000 with clearly differentiated performance. Obviously they will also be looking at what Canon will do regarding a 5D replacement and that could dictate a lower priced FF unit. However they could simply reduce the price of the D3 to $3500 as opposed to investing research into yet another body. Anyway, we'll see about all of our speculations but I would wait until the dust settles before committing to another body.

Woody

 

[charlesphoto]

D3. I shot Nikon film cameras for years, and resisted the lure of full frame Canon digital cameras and invested in an Imacon, M8, and D200 instead. But on getting the D3 it was like coming home again. There's nothing like looking through that full frame finder and knowing that your 24 is a 24 and so on.

Reliability? Probably about the same as the D300. I really feel 100% confident in this camera, something I couldn't say about the M8 (at all). Yeah, there's a few reports of shutter problems, but that's par for the course for any camera. And Nikon turns it around in a week. I haven't had any oil on the sensor and very little dust even though I use primes and did a really dusty shoot in the Dominican Republic. It's an amazing camera. Do wish it was a bit smaller though!

I just went out on a limb and shot an editorial portrait all at 1600. Something I would never have dreamed of doing before the D3.

 

[Chris C]

Ah, the sound of itchy feet. I take my advice back. The Syndrome will have it's day. Guy - go on; we all understand, go and buy two D3s and be done with it.

.............. Chris

 

[TRSmith]

Unless you have an overwhelming need for high ISO performance, another D300 is cheap insurance and a solid choice. You would be able to hang both around your neck at any event with your most used lenses mounted, switch between focal lengths without a lens change, and end up with very similar files to process in post. Besides, you've got the mad skillz to make 'em sing!

 

[DonWeston]

Guy - one question - having never attended a workshop with you yet, do you have a sherpa to carry all this stuff....???

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No I carry all my own gear . I resemble the hunch back of Notre Dam. LOL

You guy's are being too logical , I hate when you do that. LOL

I am just going to sit tight and see what comes out or really maybe do nothing except I do need the 24-70 which actually is good on the grip and grin stuff on the D300. I really don't want to put to much money in the Nikon system but the damn D3 is tempting that is for sure. See how much I can really do with the MF stuff too.

 

[jonoslack]

No I carry all my own gear . I resemble the hunch back of Notre Dam. LOL

You guy's are being too logical , I hate when you do that. LOL

I am just going to sit tight and see what comes out or really maybe do nothing except I do need the 24-70 which actually is good on the grip and grin stuff on the D300. I really don't want to put to much money in the Nikon system but the damn D3 is tempting that is for sure. See how much I can really do with the MF stuff too.

Yep
Quite right, wait - it makes complete sense.

But do get the 24-70, because it might just be the best zoom lens ever made. Yep, no question.

Hmmm. but on the D300 it's a rather boring 36-100 . . . . maybe you should get the D3 to go with it and make the most of it
:ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:. I just love having you around , you certainly make me laugh on a daily basis. Your getting worse than me. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[jonoslack]

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:. I just love having you around , you certainly make me laugh on a daily basis. Your getting worse than me. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Thank you! That's my role around here too (making everyone laugh).
Still, if you got my email, you'll know that the $16,000 on the car for your daughter is the real important thing . . . . :thumbup:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes i did and let me reply here even though it is OT . I bought her a used VW Jetta 2004 and after a month she had a really bad accident , not her fault either but 8 k in damages and she T-Boned a Camry hard and she walked away untouched. She still has it and i checked with my insurance agent and he actually told me to buy that car for her because of the safety factor. He was right. I agree Jono don't risk your kids life on some junk that won't protect them. Spoil them and get something your comfortable with when it comes to being safe . We have protected these kids since birth and no reason to stop when it comes to driving.

 

[jonoslack]

Yes i did and let me reply here even though it is OT . I bought her a used VW Jetta 2004 and after a month she had a really bad accident , not her fault either but 8 k in damages and she T-Boned a Camry hard and she walked away untouched. She still has it and i checked with my insurance agent and he actually told me to buy that car for her because of the safety factor. He was right. I agree Jono don't risk your kids life on some junk that won't protect them. Spoil them and get something your comfortable with when it comes to being safe . We have protected these kids since birth and no reason to stop when it comes to driving.

Small Engine, Big Air Bags!

For others who didn't see it . .. As is traditional in the UK, we had our two youngest driving around in old jalopies . . . until I chickened out after a scare, and we bought a couple of Renault clio's (ex demonstrators) as they have excellent safety records. Even the guy in the garage thought we were spoiling them, and as for our friends!

6 weeks later one of the boys clipped a rising grass verge at 50, went straight across the road and into a tree (didn't even have time to touch the brakes).

The engine ended up under the car, which caught fire; this is deep dark countryside, so there was nobody around to help. The air bags had done their business, the doors all opened properly, and no injuries (beyond a graze from the seat belt). He would almost certainly have been killed in the old corsa he was driving (hitting trees is a favorite way to die on the road around here).

Unfortunately we hadn't changed the insurance from the 3rd party of the jalopy, so it was a financial write off . . . . best money I have EVER spent. I actually find it quite hard writing this down it scares me so much!

Moral of the tale is (I guess) that if you're wondering whether to buy your kid a decent car . . . consider it as spoiling yourself, not them. It won't be worth $16,000 after 10 years (or even 10 weeks in this case!) but it certainly can be worth it.