Nikon D3 Why buy ?
78
No question, the Nikon D3 is the most eagerly awaited camera of the last ten years. Finally, Nikon bring out a pro spec Digital SLR that rivals anything they ever made for the silver halide Market, putting Canon firmly in their place as second best once again.
I love Nikons – they have always been my favorite, from my first FM on. A massive range of lenses and bits to satisfy just about anyone and best of all – built to last. I kept my last Nikon for years and it was still going strong when I grudgingly part exchanged it in for a digital after coming to the conclusion that it wouldn’t be long before I would be back to hand processing my own films or paying an arm and a leg to get them developed.
So, why should you buy a Nikon D3 ?
First thing – it is hands down the best camera money can buy, and even if one of the other manufacturers fights back with a slightly better specification, this will not go out of date or wear out.
The Nikon D3 has an almost esoteric list of specifications and there have been more diatribes on this than enough, so I will not bother replicating them. The main reason to but a Nikon D3 is:
It will make you a better photographer.
It will do this in several ways. Perhaps most important is the fact that you have almost complete control over the image. In-camera. Not only that, but it can all be done automatically, so you can concentrate on the one thing the camera cannot do for you – composition.
It will take shots using ISO 6,400 and will choose automatically. You can of course override this, but, why? The camera will do a better job than you will.
Up to 11 frames per second. Realistically, 9fps is achievable in average lighting conditions. With the advent of digital, it makes a lot of sense to take this many images – no wasted film, no wasted paper. Just pick the images you want to keep and discard the others.
Better color saturation, better high- and lowlight controls, fast auto focusing and a viewfinder to die for. I think you could just about be 50% blind and still compose using this viewfinder.
Sample Images
Click thumbnail to view full-size
These images are taken from the Nikon Imaging site and the Nikon Press center – Just click on an image to see a bigger size. They are reduced quality images to cope with this site’s image size limitation. If you are interested in the full size, or details of the photographer, pay Nikon a vist. I have one word for the quality of these – WOW !
More Samples taken with a Nikon D3
Click thumbnail to view full-size
More reasons to buy a D3
A larger, wider image – in fact, the first Digital SLR that makes full use of the same format as 35mm film. An effective 14mm lens – non-fisheye.
It is faster than you are. Nikons have always been the favorite camera amongst press photographers. Because you have far less chance of missing a shot with one. The D3 has the fastest boot-up time and reaction time of any digital SLR on the market – ever ! If you miss it with this camera, you were not paying attention. | Amazon Price: $1,886.95 |
Price
It is around $5,000 and likely to increase in price rather than decrease - Body only. That sounds like an awful lot of money for a camera – and it is. But look at it this way – This camera is not going to go out of fashion, or out of date, or wear out. So you can expect that this is the last camera you will need to buy. For the sake of argument, let’s say it will last you 15 years. $5,000 over 15 years is $333 per year. When you take inflation into account, that $333 is going to actually cost less each year in real terms.
Compare that to the cost of replacing and upgrading whatever cheaper camera you might buy and this is probably going to be cheaper in the long run. So all you people out there having trouble persuading your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/life partner that you need to spend five grand on a camera, here’s the argument to use – It will actually save you money. I am a big fan of buying electronics that will last a long time. It is far better for the environment to buy one camera that will last 15 years than to buy 7 that will last 2.On top of that, you are getting the best still camera money can buy. Don’t even think about looking for a discount on this camera – if you see one advertised on eBay for half price – ignore it, it’s a con. | Amazon Price: Too low to display List Price: $0.00 |
Lenses and accessories
If Nikon don’t make it – you don’t need it. The widest lens in the range is 10.5mm. The longest lens is 600mm. It is impossible to hold anything longer than this steady, although you can add a 2x converter and try ☺
The range of zoom lenses has got better and better and depending on your interest, two lenses will probably take care of most shooting situations. Buy a 24-70 and one of the new 70-300mm lenses or another similar comination, and you are good to go. If you need a 600mm once a year – hire one. Having said that, if you shoot a particular subject, they have a lens to suit. Close up, medical, super telephoto, portrait – any thing.
My favorite Nikon lenses have always been their 85mm and 105mm portrait lenses. If you are shooting portraits, these are just about perfect. The 105mm AF DC-Nikkor even has built-in defocus control.
Just can’t afford one?
If you really can’t justify this much money, consider the D-300. It’s as close to professional standard as you are going to get without buying a D-3. Not quite the same thing, but will certainly satisfy most people’s needs. It doesn’t have that extra kick the D-3 has, and is certainly slower, but $5,000 is a lot of money, however you justify it. It uses some of the technology of it’s big brother along with some of the digital image processing features.
It’s built to Nikon’s usual high standards and utilizes all the same range of lenses, flashes and parts. It’s built of magnesium alloy and will also last the course. I haven’t listed the specs for either of these cameras because I don’t see the point of repeating the same stuff everyone else has written. If you want them, they are here at Nikon’s website. But quite honestly, both of these cameras are more than the sum of their specifications and to a certain extent, they are meaningless – especially with the Nikon D3.
Nikon on eBay
|
**USA STOCK**NEW Nikon Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Lens ***BEST PRICE**
Current Bid: $99.99
|
|
Nikon COOLPIX L15 8.0 MP Digital Camera - Silver
Current Bid: $25.00
|
|
Nikon COOLPIX S4 6.0 MP Digital Camera
Current Bid: $33.05
|
|
Brand New Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR bundle Free Lens Hood 10335
Current Bid: $109.00
|
|
Nikon COOLPIX 2500 2.0 MP Digital Camera - Silver
Current Bid: $1.30
|
|
LOT - Canon AE-1 Nikon D40 Other cameras and Accs - NO RESERVE! - FREE SHIPPING!
Current Bid: $52.58
|
CommentsLoading...
LOL If you are a Canon girl, you are a Canon girl and that's the end of it. although, this is a better camera :)
Mark, I really enjoy reading your hub pages.If I was in the market for a new camera I would follow your advice, you are very persuasive without being pushy and right to the point I like that very much in your writing.
I like both Nikon and Cannon. My first Nikon a D80 quit working. Sent it into Nikon and they lost it so I got a brand new one. Yeah Nikon. At the Holidays this year I was given a Cannon EOS40D not as much as the Nikon you are talking about but it is a full frame good by Nikon Film... Yes some of us are very slow to move. Anyone else still using old film cameras?
Oh stop it Mark - that is just not fair! One of the issues I have with paing that much money, apart from the bank balance, is what if I loose it / have it stolen - and don't say insurance - the one time it happened they would n't pay - backpackers are always "loosing" cameas so the insurance companies tend to deny claims
Lissie - You know it makes sense :) Just get some insurance. lol
I compared specs on the D3 and D300 about a month ago. I was suprised, considering the price difference, just how similar they are. They share many of the same features/specifications.
Quite right. But, like I said, they are both more than the sum of their specifications. The D300 is a good budget alternative but it's not a D3.
When I was considering to buy a DSLR last year news about D3oo & D3 was just out. But it was way out of my budget and so I got the nearest best choice, a Canon EOS 40D. I love Nikon but it's way too expensive for me.
It is a lot of money, that's for sure :)
Those pictures are very clear. Unfortunately I cannot afford a 5,000 camera. Ha. It is digital though?
Yes, it is digital. These pics are SMALL versions. If you go to the Nikon website, you can see the fullsize ones. Hubpages cannot cope with the size of them, and they are incredible.
And yes $5,000 is a lot of money. Maybe next year?
Very cool for a digital camera. Yes. Maybe next year. Ha.
So I too am obviously a Canon girl...but really how can you compare Nikon's newest pro camera against Canon's newest pro camera the EOS 1Ds Mark III and say it is better. The 1Ds has a full frame sensor with a whopping 21.1 mp. I mean seriously a 12.1 mp full frame sensor...the 5D has that!
You are correct about Nikon having the speed advantage so sport's photogs are no doubt salivating but I'm a fine art photographer. Resolution, noise and image quality and size are everything. Being able to generate a larger file in camera as you can do with the 1Ds means larger format prints with no upsampling. Nikon doesn't offer that as of yet.
So I remain a staunch Canon-ite. :)
They are certainly well matched. For me, the speed of the Nikon wins out. Also, I have a feeling that the Canon image size will be unnecessarily large. Gueess I'm just a Nikon boy at heart.
And really, it also depends on the sort of photographer you are.
Nikon for me :)
Yes, there are two kinds in the world...Nikon people and Canon people. Lol.
And you're right, it really does depend on what kind of a photographer you are. I need as large a file size as they can make without sacrificing quality. Then I can print large format without upsampling. Extremely important for my photography. Completely unnecessary for other photographers.
Love your reviews even if you are one of 'them'. (Nikon-ite) :D
LOL I have even heard that there are Olympus-ites. Horrors~!
But if you want the best, I would recommend a larger format. Have you tried a bigger format camera. Although this guy might disagree with me:
Arghhh no my ears are burning...the horror, the horror...at least I can respect your (*wrong*) choice in life. We need to bring those people in for de-programming.....shock treatment would probably work.....everytime they touch an Olympus we zap them....it's for their own good, really it is!
Sadly my finances are tied up at the moment so no Hasselblad's for me....it would be awesome to shoot and compare though! Too many toys so little time. :)
That article was interesting, by the way.
Yeah, he's good. I used to be a photographer in a previous life, and there nothing like a big format. No beating it .
You can pick cheap 5x4 s up used though.The problem now is paying to get the negs scanned or storing th eimages if you use a digital back.
Yep, it's more economical to fork out for a scanner and do it yourself in the long run. As for digital storage, it is always a dilemma. I have large hard drives in my Mac but you still need to store a copy off site. Unless you have a proper fire proof safe. (Which i don't have.) Then there's the issue of what format to store it in, if archival dvd's will actually do what they say and last, if the place you're storing it at will protect your images....okay now i have a headache.
And we actually agree. Medium format does rule!
We can both be Hasselblad-ites then :) Or Toyo-ites.
Great Idea! Okay now i'm drooling. That's a cool camera.
Great pick, Mark. I was a wedding photographer for 25 years and I always owned Nikons. Looks like Nikon has done it again. Great review!
Thanks - weddings - I hated doing weddings when I was a working photographer - too much stress for me LOL Give me an industrial insurance claim any day LOL
Hi Mark
I took the dive into digital SLR photography about 2 years ago and currently have the Sony a100 which I am fairly happy with but obviously anything with Sony written on it means that the accessories are expensive, but by the look of things there isn't that much difference between the Nikon accessories and the Sony when it comes to price.
Having never actually had the opportunity to use the Nikon and looking to take the next step up with my photography, would you say that the D3 or the D300 would be the next step up from the Sony a100?
Great post by the way.
Thanks, Steve
Thanks.
Well, I guess the D300 is one step up and the D3 is 10 steps up :)
One of the good things about these is that most of the accessories are interchangeable - so if you buy the D300 and then upgrade later, they will all fit the new camera. My thinking is to go for the best you can afford - That way you will be less likely to need to buy another camera next year. They are both awesome cameras though.
Thanks Mark great advice.
And I think I ALWAYS need a new camera :)
LOL - Not if you buy the D3 you won't - as soon as I have scraped the 5K together, I am buying one. :)
For me it's the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. Only $8000. Lol.
Of course I love my 5D, so I'm waiting with baited breath to see if the rumours of a Mark II are true. If they upgrade the megapixels and properly weatherproof it I may stick with the 5D line.
Now I just need to win the lottery :)
I can't wait until I can lay my hands on one! I've been shooting with a Nikon D70s for the past couple of years, spent some money on lenses. I spent almost that much on a new laptop almost a year ago, just gotta keep saving my pennies.
I wonder what will be available by the time I have $5000 to spend on a new camera? I've got this one in my sights for now, though. Thanks for writing this, Mark.
Long time ago I bought a Canon Rebel film slr. I settled for Canon cause it was more affordable than Nikon. Then 5 years ago when I went debt free I started buying nikon equipments. I had a nikon pix5700, D70s, D200 and now D3. As Mark said, if you can afford it get it. I've invested only on fast lenses and has done me well, although I want more, more, more...lol. I coach girls' club volleyball and also photograph our players in action, of course when I'm not coaching. There are some shots I would love to get but couldn't because of speed limitation of the D200 so I hope the D3 can do the job. Even though there are good 3rd party equipments out there, I haven't had success with them trying to cut cost. By the way, still debt free though the D3 took a big bite of the bank.
Great review of the D3. Do you know anything about the new D700? I was originally looking at the D300 because of the price of the D3 but now I am thinking about the D700. Is it worth it? Thanks
I have been considering buying a D300 and the ones I have been looking at come in a bundle with a 70-300mm, 18-55mm and a 50 mm lens. Is this a good combination to have? I am still in the learing process, but would like to learn "with" my camera rather than before I get it it...so any help you could give me would be great. Thanks
That sounds like a great idea, although I do not see the need for the 50mm lens. You already have that covered.
Thanks so much.
I own a Nikon D3. Hands down the best camera I have ever seen. The funny thing is, a friend of mine had a 50mm f2 lens that dates back 30 years on his film camera, and it fit and worked perfectly on my D3 with metering etc. and it even recorded the Exif data for aperture and shutter speed. If a 30 year old lens still works on a D3, I can imagine that a D3 in 30 years will still be workable with new lenses? Anyways. Once you have seen the crisp quality of photos taken with the D3, you will immediately look down on anything that's not full frame. It's simply in another league altogether.
When it comes the digital platform I don't think its appropriate to justify price over an extended time frame in the way that was written up. I can agree if it was a film body as the body was just that, a body, but with film, the sensor was the film and as such it was independent. With Digital this isn't in the case and if you look at the progression from the D1 (1999) to now = 11 years with the D3s than imagine the progress within a 15 year period. How many pros do you know that are making a living with there D1?
I think a better way to rationalize cost is this way: If you have the income to support it, if you have the money to buy it flat out or if you have the ability to make payments without causing financial stress or pain within a timely manner.
I give total props to Nikon for the ISO achievement they made across the ISO board and speed, it's amazing and it's a camera I would love to be the proud owner for many years to come, but I don't have the ability to justify the price with the amount of business I'm now doing professionally with my Company.
Regardless of my bodies, I'm a Nikon Guy, like you I always have been but I don't trash my bodies I keep them for Backups should I need them or else if it's a body I can let go then I pass them on to someone who shows an interest in learning photography and has a computer but not a DSLR mainly because they can't afford them. In the other words I pass them on teenagers and kids.
I agree with you that camera is anything but but an amazing technological wonder but look at how people are already going over their D3 (2007) for a D3S (2009) and that's only within a 2 year period, now Imagine a 15 year period.
Ah - well - I was looking at it from the amateur perspective. I was quite happy with my last Nikon for many years, but I feel we have reached the point - at least where amateurs are concerned - and most pros - where enough is enough. Unless and until something changes in the printing technology - what use is a 20 megapixel image printed at 8x10 over 12 mp?
Sybille Yates 4 years ago
Sorry, on this one I am not with you Mark, I am a dyed in the wool canon girl ;-) And if I could afford it I would be a Hassy Girl THAT is the best camera money can buy! SY