I own both and I don't think for practical purposes you will notice any differences other than a bit more coin still rattling around in your pocket if you buy the D700.
David Muncie wrote:
I've owned both and while the difference is not night and day I have noticed the D3 to be slightly snappier and more accurate compared to the D700.
I agree.
I had a D700 and D3 last year. The D700 AF is very, very good, but I always found the D3 AF "snappier" ... and what I just stated is totally subjective. I alsso had more "keepers" (AF wise) from my D3. So, I eventually sold the D700 and got another D3 (I am a pro wedding photographer).
Please understand - the D700's AF is great... I just found the D3's better. I also know some people will disagree with what I just said...
The D700's autofocus is good enough for me, at least. It helped me get this shot.
I do think the consensus on the D3 is that it is generally faster and more accurate than the D700, though the differences between the D3 and D700 are far less than between the D3 and D300.
luminosity wrote:
I do think the consensus on the D3 is that it is generally faster and more accurate than the D700, though the differences between the D3 and D700 are far less than between the D3 and D300.
That doesn't make sense. The D300 and D700 should have nearly identical AF with current firmware, ignoring the difference in coverage area. The D3 has an advantage in processing power, hence the snappier AF. The original D300 firmware did perform as well as the current version.
Jammy Straub wrote:
That doesn't make sense. The D300 and D700 should have nearly identical AF with current firmware, ignoring the difference in coverage area. The D3 has an advantage in processing power, hence the snappier AF. The original D300 firmware did perform as well as the current version.
I had the D300 and the D700 and found the D700 was the better focusing of those two. One of the reasons I kept the D700 and sold the D300 was that the AF of the D700 felt closer to the D3. Wasn't the only issue of course. D300 had the effective reach, but D700 has the FX chip and better high ISO.
I haven't tried a D300s however so perhaps that performs at or better than the D700. D700 was a bit newer technology than the original D300 after all.
So basically what I am reading into this is that if I have a budget to stick to and am setting up a kit for sports photography, grab a D700+Grip and spend more on lenses to get the job done.
That way I get the AF and 8fps, and have more cash left for better glass.
Other way would be to move up to a D3 and maybe skimp a little elsewhere. Very tough call really.
I make my living as a sports photographer and honestly have to say I'd find it hard to imagine using anything other than the D3, its just such an amazing camera.
I do really like my D700 though, its a fine camera as well, but I just can't say I'd be as happy with a D700 as I am a D3 because it just wouldn't be true. Money is a big factor though, and can't be ignored, but if there is a way to stretch the budget to a D3 its not something you'd regret IMHO.
I've honestly never came across anyone who bought a D3 that wishes they hadn't.
Ok so lets say I go for the D3, I was planning on a Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR and a 1.7x TC. Could I perhaps get a sigma 300mm f/2.8 HSM instead and not have VR but the better body. That lens would save me a couple of thousand.........
Don't cheap out if you're going to go with a D3. Now, there's nothing wrong with using third party glass, because some of it is excellent (the Sigma 150/2.8 is a tremendous lens, based on what I've read about it and photos I've seen taken with it, just as an example), but that's different than going in with the idea of paying a lot for a body and knowing you'll have to use third party glass because you don't have enough for much that's Nikon-made.
The real question is not whether the D3's af is better than the D700. It's whether the difference between the af as small as it is, will affect the shots you take. If you think that difference is big enough to justify not putting the money saved towards Nikon glass instead of Sigma glass, then go ahead
I use the D3, D700 and D300 on a regular basis. The difference in AF is small but noticeable. My pick is D3, D700 and then D300.
If you're on a budget and you have to choose between D3 + Sigma 300 or D700 + grip + 300VR i would without any doubt choose for the latter. What you win on the body you will definitely loose on the lens.
+1 well said. Chris. I'll add that the shutter button is mushy on the D700 and the CF door sucks.
The D3 is a PRO camera in all respects, the 9fps feels more like 10. The D700 w/grip feels more like 7,
oh...I Iike the IQ just fine but in the field they're just not the same. If you shoot stuff that moves,
the difference IS noticeable. Then there's the 300K shutter, viewfinder, voice memo, dual card slots......
Well I think my previous comments on the D3/D700 didn't quite come out the way I had intended. I find the D3 snappier than the D700 but the d700 is definitely excellent. Depending on your intended use, which only you can interpret, a lot of people would be better off investing the considerable sum of money between the two in some nice glass. Not the case for everyone but certainly the case for a lot of users. That is what I really wanted to say.
