D3 + 70-200mm = jumping in at the deep end?

Hey guys nd gals,

I currently have a m4/3 kit with a couple of lenses and love it for travel and days out etc. I have tried shooting sports with it once or twice though and inevitably the focus struggled to keep up.

Now I've been looking at whats can be had second hand and have gone through the internal debate that I'm sure many have of "should I get the D3 or D300?" and have decided that the D3 would complement my m4/3 kit better (as well as using it for sports I could get a fast prime and do some of those shallow DoF portraits that everyone seems to love oh so much) whereas the D300 would be little better at this than my m4/3.

Now if I hunt around for a while on ebay there seems to be the occasional D3 that doesn't go for too bad a price (although not as cheap as the D300) and a 70-200mm lens isn't too bad, especially if I go for one without IS. Will I just be at a complete loss trying to use this though? I've shot with my m4/3 alot, and shot with film SLR's (and a DSLR but not as much) and am worried that I'll just get lost in all the focus options, etc. Are they really that hard to use in comparison to consumer cameras or if I sit down and work through it is it all pretty accesable.

Thanks for any advice you can give.

You'll be fine. You can set it for point and shoot if thats your preference. The controls are easier to use and more intuitive than the consumer bodies and there are no stupid (in my opinion) "scene" programs.

If value 12Meg sports/lowlight is your goal consider the D700.

D700+grip will get you 8FPS, go light option without the grip, sensor clean, slightly different ergo and of course not the build of the D3 line but really good. Prices look like they have stabilized around 1600-1700 at the moment plus a grip for 150 and you are about 2K

D3 got to believe you are looking at 2500 or more but prices look like they continue to fall with both the D3s and D4 clearly superior to it.

Not sure what 70-200 without stabiliziation you are looking at but I'd say only off brand to consider is the sigma. Next inline but more expensive is the 70-200 VRI and finally the 70-200 VRII.

I agree with considering the D700 as well. If you don't need the few additional things that the d3 offers you can save a decent amount. It also was in production longer so you might have a better chance finding a lower shutter count unit than the D3.

As for AF the d300,700 and d3 all have the same level of customization so it's not any harder to use the FF cameras.

You didn't mention the sport you were interested in. Just make sure the 70-200 ion FF is long enough. It'd it's indoor your should be fine.

regards

i use a d3 just about all the pics on my site have been taken with it, it's a superb camera for sports much better than the specs would suggest over a d700 spend a happy hour reading the manual play about with it and you will soon get the idea

I have the d700 and it is a wonderful camera but for sports it can't compare to the d3s. I shoot indoors in low light and the d700 just can't cut the speed of my subjects. The d3s handles the low light much better.


--
Laurie

chipmaster said:

chipmaster wrote:

If value 12Meg sports/lowlight is your goal consider the D700.

D700+grip will get you 8FPS, go light option without the grip, sensor clean, slightly different ergo and of course not the build of the D3 line but really good. Prices look like they have stabilized around 1600-1700 at the moment plus a grip for 150 and you are about 2K

D3 got to believe you are looking at 2500 or more but prices look like they continue to fall with both the D3s and D4 clearly superior to it.

Not sure what 70-200 without stabiliziation you are looking at but I'd say only off brand to consider is the sigma. Next inline but more expensive is the 70-200 VRI and finally the 70-200 VRII.

Click to expand...

On UK ebay once buying a grip is taken into account the difference is maybe only £100, something I can happily stomach. The sigma is also the lens I was considering.

DWEverett said:

DWEverett wrote:

I agree with considering the D700 as well. If you don't need the few additional things that the d3 offers you can save a decent amount. It also was in production longer so you might have a better chance finding a lower shutter count unit than the D3.

As for AF the d300,700 and d3 all have the same level of customization so it's not any harder to use the FF cameras.

You didn't mention the sport you were interested in. Just make sure the 70-200 ion FF is long enough. It'd it's indoor your should be fine.

Click to expand...

Well I'm going to want the protrait grip and like the sound of the complete bombproofness of the D3 tbh.

I'm going to be shooting a bit of field sport as well as indoor stuff but figured the 70-200 was a nice cheap starting point. Once you get to lenses with 3-400mm range there is quite a big pricce jump (although I may not be aware of some of the better deals out there)

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:

Dheorl said:

DWEverett wrote:

I agree with considering the D700 as well. If you don't need the few additional things that the d3 offers you can save a decent amount. It also was in production longer so you might have a better chance finding a lower shutter count unit than the D3.

As for AF the d300,700 and d3 all have the same level of customization so it's not any harder to use the FF cameras.

You didn't mention the sport you were interested in. Just make sure the 70-200 ion FF is long enough. It'd it's indoor your should be fine.

Click to expand...

Well I'm going to want the protrait grip and like the sound of the complete bombproofness of the D3 tbh.

I'm going to be shooting a bit of field sport as well as indoor stuff but figured the 70-200 was a nice cheap starting point. Once you get to lenses with 3-400mm range there is quite a big pricce jump (although I may not be aware of some of the better deals out there)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any better deals either. I have been using my Sigma 70-200 with a 1.4tc and I'm getting some decent shots but I do miss the range when I had a 70-300 on a crop sensor. I'm having to crop quite a bit in PP and while that's okay for screen viewing it's less so when my wife wants prints.

I'm always temped to buy a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which I could then use with or without the TC. With the TC it would be similar (though I'm sure not quite as good) as a Nikon 200-400 at about half the cost and I'd have the 300 f2.8 option as well. Still, that's $3,000 -- not an insignificant amount. I don't think I could offset it by getting rid of the 70-200 either because I wouldn't want to deal with the larger lens all the time for the indoor shooting -- it would be fine for gymnastics but it's overkill (and too long) for some of the drama performances.

The nikon 80-400 is an option but I've never read great reviews of it -- coming from the sony side where they have a quite good 70-400 makes it more difficult for me to go that route. This is one place where I think Canon has an advantage with a few more options at semi-reasonable prices.

I'm not going to do anything this fall but depending on what Nikon comes out with I might go with a second body which will be DX. I can't bring myself to buy a d300 at this point. I was coming from a sony a700 which used the same sensor way back when. The d7000 is a good camera but I'd prefer the AF system of the more "pro" oriented lines. If nikon does come out with a d300 replacement that's the route I'd probably go rather than the longer lens route. Having a backup body for me would be a nice bonus anyway.

I'm also considering the d600 and just giving myself some more cropping room. The specs on the AF were a concern but everything I'm reading now indicates it's probably on par with the d700. I'm not worried about the lower number of points specifically -- for sports I'm usually using a grouping around the center anyway.

Raul said:

Raul wrote:

regards

Click to expand...

Is the D3s really worth it over the D3 for what I want? They both have the same build, same autofocus and to my eyes the image quality of the D3s isn't noticably better. Is there something I'm missing (I don't mean to sound rude, tbh there probably is something I'm missing).

Dheorl said:

Dheorl wrote:

Dheorl said:

Raul wrote:

regards

Click to expand...

Is the D3s really worth it over the D3 for what I want? They both have the same build, same autofocus and to my eyes the image quality of the D3s isn't noticably better. Is there something I'm missing (I don't mean to sound rude, tbh there probably is something I'm missing).

Click to expand...

The D3s is much better in low light situations , its a briliant camera , but i of coarse have to say that , sins i own one .

I agree the d3s is a better camera in low light. In using a long lens it sometimes requires a high iso setting to get the shutter speed fast enough for action sports. The d3 is also one heck of a camera though. I do recommend the d3 series of cameras over the d700. I had the d700 and also the d3s.

Larry