Well sure we don't have a 150mm lens f1.4, so we simply can't achieve shot's like that on the link and I think d700 at ISO10000 beat oly on ISO2500, but can this shots satisfide the price difference???
but e-3 1000$ 150mm f2.0 2200$ = 3200$
D700 2200$ 300mm f2.8 6000$ = 8200$
Whether the shots can justify the price difference is something I can't answer, of course. But I thought it was fun to compare with the prices from somewhere else where everything is more expensive in general but Oly stuff in particular (converted to USD using google):
E-3 body @ $1,974 + ZD 150 mm f/2 @ $3,324 = $5,298
D700 body @ $2,981 + Nikkor 300 mm f/2.8 @ $7,026 = $10,007
Still quite a difference, but what if we level the field and pick a cheaper lens that is still capable of producing pictures on the D700 equivalent to the ZD 150/2?
D700 body @ $2,981 + Nikkor 300 mm f/4 @ $1,994 = $4,975
Did you notice that? The D700 with Nikkor 300/4 is actually about $320 cheaper than the E-3 with ZD 150/2 combo?
What we are discussing here is, in other words, a Nikon based system capable of taking pictures no Oly can, costing almost, but not quite, twice as much. Or a Nikon one corresponding to the best Oly one for about six percent less money.
Let's say we decide that the prices of the Oly system and the cheaper Nikon option are close enough to not be the deciding factor. Let's look at the weights of the two combos (including batteries but without tripod collars):
E-3 + 150/2: 890 g + 1,465 g = 2,355 g
D700 + 300/4: 1,075g + 1,300g = 2,375 g
Pick the one you like best ;-)
Finally, and just for fun, the Sigma 100-400 mm f/4 is $1,573 from the same dealer saving another couple of hundred bucks over the 300/4.
, (canoying, rafting, lot's of trips with hard rain, rainforest including ....), If u can finde me a better quivalent in nikkon I will switch easy ;-)
