62 of 64 people found the following review helpful
Awesome camera if you can afford it, but don't be ripped off by price gougers,
This review is from: Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (Electronics)The three major factors that, for me, make this camera (2 of them apply to the D300) so incredible are . . . well, the full frame sensor (finally), the outstanding low-noise/high ISO performance . . . and the extraordinary color! The photographer has a greater deal of control over color than ever before and the results are stunning (use Picture Control). And noise (the digital equivalent of film grain) is at least a 2-stop improvement over the previous D2x. Actually, it's probably 3 stops, but say 2 to be conservative. Believe it or not, ISO 6400 is actually usable! (The D300 is one stop less)
While those features were the most compelling ones in my view, there are plenty of others that are a big plus, such as:
~ 9 frames per second
~ 51 point AF
~ Live View
~ 12mp CMOS sensor, self-cleaning on D300
~ A new 3" LCD--about 4x the resolution as previous LCDs.
The list goes on, but you should read the tech specs and professional reviews. Suffice it to say it is loaded with features and handles like an absolute dream!
Compared to Canon's $8000 professional models, this camera has a very clear advantage. Sure you lose some megapixels compared to the MarkIII, but that's not so important for the majority of (but not all) photographers.
Another thought . . . while this is a good deal at $4999 compared to Canon, you can get almost the same camera for $1799, with the D300. If you don't need a full frame . . . or the extra 1-stop high ISO, the D300 offers about 90 - 95% of the features and performance of the D3 for 40% of the price! If you want to get the best possible picture quality for the lowest possible price, consider the D300 and put the difference ($3200) on some of Nikon's great new professional lenses.
As of this January 2008 writing, this is listed on Amazon at $6399 through Cameta Camera. PLEASE DON'T buy at this price and allow yourself to be exploited by the backorder situation. Instead, pre-paying $4999 for it at your local camera store puts you ahead of everyone else on the waitlist who merely put down deposits on it. Or wait until it comes down here on Amazon. Again, $4999! That's the price. There is no need to pay an extra $1400 "sucker fee" for it just to have it a few weeks or maybe a month or two earlier. You survived until now without the D3, so you can make it a little longer--just don't pay more than retail. $4999! $4999. $4999. Get the point? :-)
Post Script, April 16, 2008:
I notice this is now being sold by 17th Street Photo, who I've not done business with, but at least they are charging the *correct* price of $4999. First it was a $1400 markup, then $500, and it's good to see the price gouging attempts appear to be dying down.
Post Script #2, November 2, 2008:
How times change--the gouging is gone, and so are the backorders. The price has dropped below $4500 I see. My opinion on this camera remains unchanged in the 11 months since I first got my hands on it, and it's as excellent as it ever was, but now, with the introduction of the D700, I would have a hard time spending the approximately $4300 it now sells for, when the D700 is selling for $2699. The D3 is better built, and shoots 9 fps vs the D700's 8 fps with battery pack, but I don't see it being worth the added $1600 cost unless you're a professional who shoots every day.
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 22, 2008 7:38:23 PM PST
Neil I. Uemura says:
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2008 8:01:07 PM PST
A. J. Davies says:
Actually Neil, if you're going to make smartass comments, make sure you read the review properly. He says the D300 has the self-cleaning sensor not the D3 and 'for what it's worth' I have the D300.
In reply to an earlier post on May 4, 2009 1:43:40 AM PDT
Richard A. Selby says:
If I were you I'd just delete your comment, it makes you look silly ;).
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2009 6:53:40 PM PDT
Z. Li says:
What's self-cleaning sensor? Is it important?
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2009 7:35:24 PM PDT
J. MACLEAN says:
It's a function in the menu and only applies to the D300 (I was listing features both camera had because they were launched at the same time). I don't know exactly how it works, but it's helpful. I don't know that it's massively important. I'd still want to clean my sensor manually from time to time.
Posted on Jan 4, 2011 6:53:18 AM PST
H. Hall says:
But what does that Nikon D3 do, that's worth doing, that the Canon EOS D50 can't do at half the price?
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2011 4:01:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2011 4:04:27 AM PST
Response to H. Hall: Full frame for larger pixels for low light shooting. Better dynamic range. Wide angle lenses are truly wide angle. 51-point focus system. More reliable. Metal body. Drop it upside down on concrete and it still works. Sealed against dust and water. Shutter life 300,000 shots instead of 100,000. Use with old Nikon lenses. Faster response. Easier to use. And so on.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2011 1:10:26 PM PST
J. MACLEAN says:
Agree with Gerardi . . . to H Hall, while both cameras can take perfectly excellent shots, especially in bright conditions, there is little comparison between the two, especially when you consider all the features Gerardji mentions, and many more. Canon has full frame bodies too, including the 5D, and 5D Mark II, which are much closer to this Nikon D3 than the Canon 50D you mention. Better to compare full frame cameras against each other than a full frame vs cropped frame camera body.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 4:28:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 13, 2011 4:52:27 PM PDT
Tabasco Kat says:
Hi J. Maclean & Gerardji: I thank you both for your reviews of the D3.
I presently shoot with a Canon 5D Mark I, with a L-Series f/2.8, and my peers are encouraging me to go to Nikon; however, I love the Canon because I am, admittedly, used to it. But in my research of the lab comparisons, there is marked differences and simply the Nikon is a clearer shot. I admit my own photos are lacking "something" and that I would like to retire the Mark I as a backup, but do not know what direction to go in my next step.
I shoot predominately indoor stadiums, low light conditions, performance horses. I am bumping up the ISO (clients prefer it to flash). As a sidenote: the addition of the L-Series lens has certainly enhanced the quality and performance of this old work horse Canon. With my increased magazine work, I am facing the need for a replacement. On the Canon side, I have the 1D, 5D Mark II and the D7, or the Nikon line up of the D300, D700, or D3. What are your suggestions? I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Thank you!