How many amateurs bought the D3?

[paratom]

...if you have the money and if you want the camera -> buy it
For work we have to calculate if an investment pays of,

for private use we dont have to do this, we just have to get permission from our wifes

 

[MHimaging]

well hum

Yes the d3 being a professionnal camera at a pretty...spicy price. I remember myself 4-5 years ago, I still was a teenager, went out to lozeau in montreal and bought a nikon d2h and a d2x, with plenty of lenses. And the d3 isn't really that more expensive than the d2x and d2h were at that time, no?

the amateurs buying d3 maybee just want the best camera they can have, and well it's ok. Cuz if I had the money I would buy one myself. But then again, it pisses me off to see someone with a d3 with a 18-55 VR mounted, which I have seen.
--
unfortunately the world just doesnèt fit properly in the sensor of a 35mm camera

 

[MHimaging]

I'm an amateur - and own a D3 - I've been into photography since my
father gave me a Nikon FE for my 12th birthday - and been shooting
ever since. I never really considered photography as a profession -
as it is pretty tough to make a name for yourself - and being a
wedding / portrait photographer didn't really appeal in any case.

I also think amateurs have a fresher and different take on
photography to pros - as we are not shooting everyday of the week -
we are less tethered by work considerations - and so can potentially
shoot more creatively. Also my real job as an IT consultant affords
me to pursue this hobby as seriously as I do.

My previous camera to the D3 was the D100 which I've been happily
shooting with for 5 years - and before that an F90X also lasted me 5
years - I plan to shoot with the D3 for more like 10 to 30 years...
This camera is good enough for me for a long long time.

pretty anxious to see you when you'll see the d5

--
unfortunately the world just doesnèt fit properly in the sensor of a 35mm camera

 

[Julian]

Haha - don't hold your breath - I'm more planning on waiting for the D7 at least

Seriously though my Nikon FE (which I still have + shoot with occasionally for old times sake + its damn portable) still keeps me happy too. If Nikon can make a D3 quality sensor in a smaller / lighter body - that maybe my next camera - but I'm not in any rush at all.

pretty anxious to see you when you'll see the d5

--
unfortunately the world just doesnèt fit properly in the sensor of a
35mm camera

 

[Cultured Vulture]

can't believe how much money some people have.. or credit..

When I read these type of comments, I often wonder the reason people feel this way. Photography, for me, is a hobby. (wife says obsession) I have in excess of $13K invested in gear. Is this a lot of money, yes it is. I have a neighbor that made a comment about it. I pointed out that he has a $25K Bass Boat and a lot of fishing gear. Not to mention the maintenance and fuel for the boat and motor. That's his hobby. What's the difference? Other people have hobbies that are much more expensive than photography. Yes the D3 is an expensive camera, but there are a lot of outboard motors that cost more. I won't even get into people that have RV's.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

 

[Cultured Vulture]

I think there reason more photographers/amateurs are buying the
priciest pro bodies and lenses these days is that the costs of
photography have changed dramatically over the past few years.

Exactly 10 years ago, I calculated that I was spending $2000 (1998)
dollars a year on film and processing alone (not including
enlargements, etc.). That also does not include the cost of the
enlarger and other lab chemistry etc. for doing black and white in
the basement. Because the operating costs were so high, I used
2nd-hand lenses and a $500 body.

Today, taking the same $2000 a year (not even adjusting up to today's
dollars), a D3 and an Epson R2400 can be purchased using 3 years of
operating costs alone. I plan to get 5-7 years (hopefully more) from
my D3, so by today's terms, photography is much less expnesive than
it was in 1998, when I could only afford a $500 body.

The costs have changed from high-operating to high-fixed; it's no
surprise that many more photgraphers are now purchasing the best
bodies and lenses, and it has as much to do with photography as it
does with consumer spending.

Mark

The ink and paper for the Epson should be factored into that cost. Still a lot of fun.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

 

[ddt332]

--

D3 with 17-35, 24-70, 70-200VR, TC17 II, Sigma 12-24
D200, Fuji S5 pro with 17-55, 12-24, 18-200VR, 50 f1.4
Gitzo GT2540, Arca-Swiss Z1

 

[DogShot]

The ink and paper for the Epson should be factored into that cost.
Still a lot of fun.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

Maybe for you, but not for me. I did not factor in the costs of doing black & white, and I also left out the costs of enlargements. I figure that my habits from those two aspects back in the film days compensate for the printing that I do now. In other words, I think that the number of prints that I do now is about the same as the number of enlargements from film, so these extra costs balance out. Throw in the B&W, and there's no way the cost of ink and paper today outweigh those 'extras'.

One could also argue for the computer, image software, and cards, but I figure that even if I used a p&S, I would have these costs today, so they are irrespective of camera choice.

Mark

 

[oldshooter]

If a so call pro camera is only for pro and only pro will buy it.
Do you think camera maker can live on it?
And will anyone make por cam anymore?
Oh dear, then what is all the pros.... going to do?
No pro cam to buy.

 

[Jim Kaye]

...in one night, and more than once -- not that I'm defending him.

I'm also not going to compare a camera with sex, but at least you get to use a DSLR daily for a few years.
--
Jim Kaye

'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981

 

[Al131513]

Nearly all Porsche buyers can't drive. Most luxury stoves are sold to people who can't cook. So who cares if a bad photographer buys a D3, they'll enjoy it.

 

[taftpr]

I started out with an Argus C3 in the late 1940s and still have slides of the Adirondacks where I was at camp. I was already the unofficial recorder of our adventures. I dabbled in the darkroom until I got tired of the isolation and the dark. Digital was the real revolution in the late 1990s when I could again begin to post process pics in a computer. Still it was a painful transition in poor quality until the D100.

I am a lawyer who can afford my hobby, and a D3 and good lenses make all the difference in getting a stunning picture. Friends are used to average pictures with limited composition and poor lighting in 3x5 or 4x6. Sometimes I think to myself, I wish I could have taken that shot for them. To them it is a trigger to a memory. To me, it should actually take you back and let you experience it all over again. They are take aback with an 8x10, A3 size or larger, showing the full IQ of a D3 and top of the line lenses and printer.

However, the Puritan in me wants to account for the cost. So with my six year old car, I figure each extra year I keep it, the cost savings is worth better camera equipment. At my age, I really can't wait for the price to come down.

 

[ivanwatkins]

Very nice comparison lol.. I've never seen it quite put like that but you are right.
--
Ivan
http://www.ivanwatkins.com

 

[Craig]

I guess that's why I will wait to see if Sony can come thru.. save me from buying more lenses too.

 

[Dean D Fetterolf]

nt
--



Dean D. Fetterolf
http://www.pbase.com/dfettero
http://www.ddfphoto.com

 

[georgeRC]

I haven't seen a posting in this thread to the effect that the D3 is not worth what it costs, or can be duplicated at less cost by buying some other camera. So, even though I am an amateur who will never go into the history books as a great photographer, and will never learn enough to fully exploit the D3's capabilities, I had my reasons for buying one.

It was a case of living with the frustration of not getting the images I wanted while knowing that a D3 would have made the shot possible, or going ahead and getting the D3.

Also, at my age if I wait for the technology vs. price to stabilize, I'll be in the ground still waiting.

So I apologize to the professionals who are still waiting for delivery, I hope your orders are filled soon. But, to those who want one, but haven't ordered one, and resent amateurs getting one - please try to think through this with more logic and charity.

As for anyone who is worried that his status as a professional is diminished by amateurs also walking around with the same equipment he uses, please consider the idea that your status is determined by your ability and activity, not by your being able to outspend everyone else. The same goes for amateurs who think that owning a D3 puts them ahead of all those other amateurs.

 

[Cultured Vulture]

The ink and paper for the Epson should be factored into that cost.
Still a lot of fun.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

Maybe for you, but not for me. I did not factor in the costs of
doing black & white, and I also left out the costs of enlargements.
I figure that my habits from those two aspects back in the film days
compensate for the printing that I do now. In other words, I think
that the number of prints that I do now is about the same as the
number of enlargements from film, so these extra costs balance out.
Throw in the B&W, and there's no way the cost of ink and paper today
outweigh those 'extras'.

One could also argue for the computer, image software, and cards, but
I figure that even if I used a p&S, I would have these costs today,
so they are irrespective of camera choice.

Mark

I didn't mean that the cost was higher for digital. It is still less. However, for some reason people don't always figure how much the ink and paper costs. I tend to enlarge more now than I used to. So, for me, that part of the cost is a little higher.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

 

[BRJR]

Craig:

All of those I know, that have purchased a Nikon D3, including most of Nikon's "top lenses", are all "amateurs/hobbyists" ---- and, they simply don't concern themselves with what "professional photographers" like or not like, in the way of photography gear, as long as they themselves are satisfied with the purchases they have made,

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Hi, I am slumming from the Sony camp and am drooling for a Sony
version D3 to come out.. I shoot PJ style weddings and this D3 is
right up my alley, just waiting to see if Sony can close with their
FF offing soon.
The price of the D3 is up there for me and I can write it off, so how
many are pros here and how many amateurs that can afford to buy such
a toy?

http://www.crogersphotography.com/

 

[stealthman_1]

When I look at my catalogue of SLR photos beginning in 1986, I can tell and I believe a fair number or innocent bystanders could pick out the first picture I produced with an F5 coupled with the 17-35mm f2.8. It is that obvious. I think one could also pick the year I switched to digital with the D200. Not from image quantity or quality even, but from the dramatic increase in the genres I photographed. I learned more from the D200 about photography and light due to instant feedback than I learned in the previous 20 years of shooting. The D3 is certainly another landmark in my photography journey and not only will it make my pictures better, but it will and already has made me a better photographer. It's capabilities stimulate creativity. It's as simple as that. That creativity is not just a figment of my ego. In my travels of the past, people, usually well meaning friends have suggested I shoot professionally. Today I received my third, unsolicited paying offer in a month.

Since I bought my D3, I've picked up my film cameras with a new appreciation, I'm shooting more than ever, I'm developing my own B&W film (box of Rodinal showed up on the doorstep this afternoon ;-)), I've got more film in my fridge than I've ever had (might need a bigger fridge!) and in addition to the obligatory dog and cat photos I'm shooting 1-2000 frames a week at sporting events, of birds, of old stuff, of people, and even a landscape now and then. That D3 has been worth every penny, even when I'm shooting the F3!