I know the D3s is awesome at high ISO compared to the D700, but aside from that, is it really worth the extra money? I can buy a used D700 for around $1500, where as a used D3s is running $3500-$4000. My wife and I started up our own wedding photography business two years ago. We both shoot, she has a D700 while I use a two D90's. We have all the 2.8 lenses and a few primes as well. We are both teachers, so this photography thing is just a side job that we both really enjoy. We make around $15000-$20,000 a year doing weddings. I need a new camera, the D90 can only do so much. I'd LOVE a D3s, but can't seem to convince myself that the extra two grand is worth it.
So my question, is it worth the extra $2000 grand? Wedding photography will always be a second job for us. If we were full time photographers I'd be able to justify the DS3, but again we aren't.
IMO, yes. The D3s is probably one of the best cameras Nikon has made. It is a technological improvement over the D700 and close to the D4 in high ISO performance. But, you have to establish the budget for this type of purchase.
This is only my opinion and others may differ, but for my use I think the d3s would be worth the extra money. I currently shoot lots of sports in low light. The extra stop or two of iso performance definitely help in the low light venues (mostly hockey). I also like the fact of having dual CF cards and voice memo to record some names or plays that are notable.
But I did just sell my d3s and now I am shooting my d700 with a d800. I do miss the high iso performance, and the voice memo but I can make due with what I have. It is definitely worth the upgrade if you are shooting in low light and care about IQ in low light. But I have been able to use d700 and love the fact I can use it without battery grips. I just needed money to fund my d800 (which I use to shoot landscapes). It all depends on you, if you are going to shoot a lot of weddings to pay it off, if you are going to print large where you can see the iso difference, if you really want clean files in low light, if you need backups in camera. The money is definitely not a factor.
Also factor in the better ergonomics & quiet shutter...
As to whether all of the above is worth $2k difference- well, weddings & portraits are my FT occupation. Not sure what I would do if I had the money to replace them.
James R....I won't argue with you, the D3s is an awesome camera, but do you think it's worth it for a part time photographer?
Nikon_14...what do you shoot with right now?
Another question, can you tell the difference between a photo taken with the D3s and the D700 in "normal" outside lighting conditions? Or would I be spending the extra money simply for low light photos?
As always, thanks for your input. I keep learning so much from this site, I love it.
There is no right answer to this question. The D3s is a better camera. Is it a $2000 worth better camera, that's for you to decide. Life is short, do it.
"If we were full time photographers I'd be able to justify the DS3, but again we aren't."
.
Looks as if you have done a ROI and concluded it would NOT make an incremental improvement to your bottom line.
.
So it boils down to your enjoyment factor and emotional rewards which only you can answer.
Damn it BobSam.....I'm looking for someone to tell me to buy it so I can blame them (and the internet) for "convincing me" to buy it. Didn't you read my post..I'm Married!!!!! Can I send you my wife's email address and you can tell her that I need to buy the D3s and that it will make all our brides look like Victoria Secret Models.
In all honesty, if the D3s will take better photos I'd likely buy it. If I buy a D700 I'll always be wishing it was a D3s. I'm just hoping that someone here can convince me that the $2500 extra is truly worth it.
diamondroad wrote:
So my question, is it worth the extra $2000 grand? Wedding photography will always be a second job for us. If we were full time photographers I'd be able to justify the DS3, but again we aren't.
Comments please.
I don't understand the distinction that you're making for full-time vs part-time. IMO, you would use the same justification, regardless as to whether or not it's your full time occupation, because the camera's use would be the same for 1 wedding, 10, or 100.
The way I see it, either the d3s has advantages over the d700 that you need, or it doesn't. Personally, I believe that the d3s is worth the extra cost over the d700, probably for the same reasons that you'd use to justify the d3s if you were doing it full time.
Part time for us means we "only" make $15,000 to $20,000 grand a year. Spending $4000 when you only make $15,000 seems like a lot to me. If I was a full time photographer I'd likely do more weddings and make more money, hence forth, paying $4000 wouldn't seem like too much. But that's how I look at things, not saying I'm right but also not saying I'm wrong.
James R.....Love the regret is the ghost comment. As of today I think I'll wait a few more months and save up the extra money and get what I really want and that's the D3s.
Once you use the D3s you will wonder why you waited so long. I suggest you buy one and if find you don't "need" it simply sell it to recoup your money.
Thanks Grant, I think you make a great point. If I don't "need" it after I use it for a few weddings I'll resell it.
That being said, why do you like the D3s over the D700? I guess that's my main question for this posting. Is there any other reason other than the high ISO that makes the D3s better than the D700? Perhaps I should start a new posting and ask that.
I think the color is better due to a better sensor. i can shoot at ISO 6400 and have no worries. and when i push it up to ISO 8000 still is great. and lastly I like the build and feel with my bigger lenses (200 f/2.0 & 400 f/2.8).
diamondroad wrote:
Nikon_14...what do you shoot with right now?
Two D700. I've researched this as well. My conclusion is akin to what a previous poster wrote, the D3s is most definitely a better camera, but whether or not it's $2k better... hard to say...
...especially in today's lowballer economy where many clients only care about price, and aren't going to buy albums or large prints. Yes, I know some do, especially if they're shown albums and large prints. But it's a tougher sell in hard economic times, you know- where "The private sector's doing fine".
Bear in mind that when viewed on a mobile phone or tablet, the difference in images between a D700 and D3s is small.
And after having said all of that... after calculating how many more weddings I'd have to shoot at higher rates to justify the cost, it's still a tough choice.
