Nikon D3s vs Nikon D700

[mrsshep]

I currently use a Nikon D700 with a D90 as a backup. I'm looking to replace my D90 with a D3s or a D700. IF I can find one that is.

Question: Is the D3s really THAT much better than the D700? I've read reviews that say the D3s focuses faster in dark situations, is this true?

Does anyone own both or used both that can help me make a decision. Fast.

Thanks

[tml]

Look up Thom Hogan's reviews.

Tri

[KenJulio]

Having owned both, the D3s does focus faster IMO. The biggest advantage the D3s has over the D700 is the higher ISO capability and dynamic range. Another perk is the dual memory card slots for overflow or redundancy. The D700 is on par with the original D3, the D3s is another cut above the D3 with its newer sensor.

[a2rob]

D3s is awesome!! The higher iso was a convincing factor for me. I normally shoot weddings at iso 3200.

[wasserball4]

Originally Posted by mrsshep

I currently use a Nikon D700 with a D90 as a backup. I'm looking to replace my D90 with a D3s or a D700. IF I can find one that is.

Question: Is the D3s really THAT much better than the D700? I've read reviews that say the D3s focuses faster in dark situations, is this true?

Does anyone own both or used both that can help me make a decision. Fast.

Thanks

I would stay with your D700 and D90. You probably know the reason why. The D90 serves its purpose and it shouldn't be considered a backup. It is a better landscape camera, and during daylight I use it for the 1.5x crop for sports photos. The D3s would be great for portraits and wedding. It is still a 12.1mp camera. Yes, I want one just to show off.

[Tsladaritz]

I haven't shot with either of those. I did look closely at the specs for both of them when I purchased my cameras.

I love my D3. Would not trade it for anything. It shoots like a dream.

If I had a d700, I may not be tempted because it is so close to a D3.

It also depends on what type of shooting you do. I do some wedding, some portraits, and very little landscape/nature shots.

Just know that a D3 weighs a whole lot more than a d700, especially with the flash and that big battery it uses. Put a 70-200mm on it and you are going to have some tired arms. So again, it depends on what type of shooting you do.

[wasserball4]

Originally Posted by Tsladaritz

I haven't shot with either of those. I did look closely at the specs for both of them when I purchased my cameras.

I love my D3. Would not trade it for anything. It shoots like a dream.

If I had a d700, I may not be tempted because it is so close to a D3.

It also depends on what type of shooting you do. I do some wedding, some portraits, and very little landscape/nature shots.

Just know that a D3 weighs a whole lot more than a d700, especially with the flash and that big battery it uses. Put a 70-200mm on it and you are going to have some tired arms. So again, it depends on what type of shooting you do.

The D700 is a newer camera with the same sensor as the D3. With the battery grip, it has the option of using the same EL4 battery found in the D3 (need the BL3 chamber cover) or 8 AA Alkaline or lithium batteries. With the grip and batteries, the D700 weighs more than the D3! By using one EL4 battery or 8 AA, the grip increases the burst rate from 5 to 8 frames/sec. In the menu, there is an option of whether to use the EL3 D700 battery first, or use the batteries in the grip. Of course if you select the EL3 battery, you will not get 8 frames/sec. YouTube - Nikon MB-D10 on D700 Demo 8 Frames Per Second

When I attach the 300mm f2.8 to the D700 with the battery grip (8 frames/sec necessary for sports), the combination weights 9.6 lbs. No one in his right mind would shoot all day without a monopod. I cannot justify replacing the D700 with the D3 or D3s since the extra cost outweighs the quality benefit I would receive. All three mentioned cameras have 12.1 mp sensors.

[rebardwg]

i own both and while both cameras are great cameras, The D3s is the king.

The ISO performance opens up lots of doors for you to shoot at settings you never could before.

For example, in low light, i was usually forced to shoot anywhere from f/1.4 to f/2.8. With the D3s, I easily default to f/4 and smaller to make sure my DOF catches everyone in a group shot.

I can shoot with flash at settings as low as 1/128 power. This gives me a lighting fast recycle time and allows me to pop 9 fps with barely noticeable variances in exposure.

The buffer can handle 48 raw images before it quits.

Iso and buffer were the 2 main reasons I got the D3s. I expected hi performance iso, it surpasses everything I was expecting.

***correction. I did not count the fps when shooting with flash... but it was very fast. Max speed on the d3s is 9 fps.

[wasserball4]

You got a Red Ferrari driving on Rodeo Drive. Hey, if I could afford a D3s, I would carry it around my shoulder as well. But, I haven't found the D700 to be lacking such I would want to trash it, yet. There are many situations where I prefer to use the flash rather than bumping up the ISO, particularly when I want to emphasize people at receptions or formal functions.

Have you checked out the dxOMark comparisons among the D700, D3, and the D3s? It is hard for me to justify spending $5900 for better ISO.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...(brand3)/Nikon

[Tom]

When I attach the 300mm f2.8 to the D700 with the battery grip (8 frames/sec necessary for sports), the combination weights 9.6 lbs. No one in his right mind would shoot all day without a monopod.

I shot 20-something football games last year without a monopod. Never use it. Only use it for baseball where I have to stay pretty stationary. It is not only doable, but I think I get better results that way.

[rebardwg]

Originally Posted by wasserball4

You got a Red Ferrari driving on Rodeo Drive. Hey, if I could afford a D3s, I would carry it around my shoulder as well. But, I haven't found the D700 to be lacking such I would want to trash it, yet. There are many situations where I prefer to use the flash rather than bumping up the ISO, particularly when I want to emphasize people at receptions or formal functions.

I'm not bashing the D700 at all. I love my D700 and will grab that camera first. Its light weight and can handle almost everything I throw at it. It just has a smaller buffer and slower write speed for times when I really need it.

I have run into too many situations where flash photography was not allowed or the subject was too far for the flash to reach, so turning up the flash was not an option.

[wasserball4]

You're stronger than I am. I have not seen any sane photographer at football or baseball games without a monopod. But, hey, there is always one. What do you use and where do you shoot?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by wasserball4

You're stronger than I am. I have not seen any sane photographer at football or baseball games without a monopod. But, hey, there is always one. What do you use and where do you shoot?

I'm insane for hand holding a 300?


A lot of guys hand hold this equipment. It really isn't a big deal. In fact, Mark Rebilas hand holds a Nikon D3s+600 4VR or D3s+400 2.8VR.

Baseball is a different story because you are stuck at one station for at least a half inning at a time. It isn't like you follow the action down field like in Football. Pretty much everyone hand holds the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 (or 200-400) in basketball.

I'm not especially strong. Probably not even average. Just your typical overweight, out of shape photographer.

I shoot all the Texans home games as well as a lot of Texas A&M, Texas, Rice and UH home games. I use the Canon 7D or 1D3 and the 300mm 2.8L IS as well as the 70-200mm 2.8L IS I.

[wasserball4]

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

I'm insane for hand holding a 300?


A lot of guys hand hold this equipment. It really isn't a big deal. In fact, Mark Rebilas hand holds a Nikon D3s+600 4VR or D3s+400 2.8VR.

Baseball is a different story because you are stuck at one station for at least a half inning at a time. It isn't like you follow the action down field like in Football. Pretty much everyone hand holds the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 (or 200-400) in basketball.

I'm not especially strong. Probably not even average. Just your typical overweight, out of shape photographer.

I shoot all the Texans home games as well as a lot of Texas A&M, Texas, Rice and UH home games. I use the Canon 7D or 1D3 and the 300mm 2.8L IS as well as the 70-200mm 2.8L IS I.

I don't think you were here...Beijing 2008 Olympic Games

[Tom]

Originally Posted by wasserball4

I don't think you were here...Beijing 2008 Olympic Games

Do you have anything relevant or insightful to add?

Like I said, when you are stuck in one place - like a baseball game [or apparently the Olympics] it makes sense to use a monopod.

But for football, many top photographers do not because it restricts movement when you do have the freedom to move.