«

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite <>
> wrote:
>
>>Unless I am mistaken the D3 will NOT produce any better image quality than
>>the D700. It is supposed to be better built but heavier and that may not
>>be an advantage; especially if the D700 is built good enough for most uses.
>>
>>So what are the real differences that justify the difference in $$.
>>
>>Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
>>claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
>>seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
>>controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
>>some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
>>entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.
>
> Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
> deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
> on track:
>
> As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
> the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
> also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
> very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
> nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
> two is virtually identical.
>
> The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
> is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
> images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
> or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.
>
> Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
> and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
> sensor.

It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
able to produce a larger photo at low light.

>
> Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
> a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
> essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
> doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
> quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.


First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
less $$.

But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
it at the same level as Canon.


>
> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
> planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
> eavesdropping through his twit filter.)

There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
better than not taking anything.

In article <Y6A7l.450$>, measekite
<> wrote:

> It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
> able to produce a larger photo at low light.

compared with a d300 yes. compared with a d3 it's basically the same
sensor. and it's not so much a larger photo, but one with less noise
at a given iso.

> > Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
> > a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
> > essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
> > doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
> > quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.
>
> First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
> less $$.

true, but it lacks a few features of the d300. it all depends how
important those are.

> But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
> beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
> favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
> it at the same level as Canon.

the d700 has a much more capable autofocus system and faster frame
rate. maybe it's canon that needs to improve...

both cameras are good, it just depends which mix of features you want
and whether you already have existing lenses.

> > And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
> > planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
> > eavesdropping through his twit filter.)
>
> There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
> you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
> photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
> better than not taking anything.

size can be an advantage.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:02:45 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:32:24 GMT, measekite <> wrote
> in <Y6A7l.450$>:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
>
>>> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
>>> planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
>>> eavesdropping through his twit filter.)
>>
>>There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
>>you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
>>photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
>>better than not taking anything.
>
> It's actually quite good, much better than your sly slur would suggest,
>

Never said it wasn't. But to get the quite good results you need to keep
the ISO at 80 and print no larger than 8x10. Even then you would see
(especially after a little cropping) a sharper image from a D90 and would
not doubt see a sharper image printed as 16x20 or even 12x18.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:36:36 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:32:24 GMT, measekite <>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unless I am mistaken the D3 will NOT produce any better image quality than
>>>>the D700. It is supposed to be better built but heavier and that may not
>>>>be an advantage; especially if the D700 is built good enough for most uses.
>>>>
>>>>So what are the real differences that justify the difference in $$.
>>>>
>>>>Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
>>>>claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
>>>>seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
>>>>controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
>>>>some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
>>>>entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.
>>>
>>> Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
>>> deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
>>> on track:
>>>
>>> As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
>>> the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
>>> also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
>>> very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
>>> nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
>>> two is virtually identical.
>>>
>>> The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
>>> is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
>>> images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
>>> or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.
>>>
>>> Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
>>> and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
>>> sensor.
>>
>>It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
>>able to produce a larger photo at low light.
>
> Not a larger photo, per se, since that is a function of the
> megapixels. The D300 and D700 are both 12MP cameras. However, the
> D700 will produce cleaner-looking images above ISO 400, and can make
> perfectly acceptable images in lighting so low you wouldn't dare
> attempt with most other cameras.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
>>> a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
>>> essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
>>> doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
>>> quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.
>>
>>
>>First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
>>less $$.
>
> The D300 is a much more rugged and faster camera than the D90. It
> also has much better autofocus (51 points vs the 11 points of the
> D90). According most reviews, the D300 also has a slight edge in
> overall image quality. But the D90 is lighter (because it is
> plastic) and will take movies if that's important to you.
>
>
>
>>
>>But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
>>beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
>>favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
>>it at the same level as Canon.
>
> That would be nice, but I think Nikon will continue to do well against
> Canon's offerings. The D700 is a much better camera overall than the
> 5DII in terms of features and speed. It is also better at high ISO.
> However, the 5DII has more megapixels for those who think that is more
> important. But in reality, the difference between 12 and 20 MP isn't
> as big as you'd think. Doubling the megapixels only yields about a
> 40% increase in actual resolution, and it doesn't really show up at
> normal print sizes.

But for prints of 12x18, 16x20 and 20x25 and with some cropping I would
say you would get a sharper print from more MP.



>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on the
>>> planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
>>> eavesdropping through his twit filter.)
>>
>>There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
>>you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a bunch of
>>photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the SD880 is
>>better than not taking anything.
>
> That is absolutely true. A camera like the D300, D700 or even the
> D80 is overkill if what you want to do is take pictures of your
> friends at parties or whatnot. It's good to have both camera types
> available.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:50:48 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:46:55 GMT, measekite <>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:36:36 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:32:24 GMT, measekite <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:59:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:37:52 GMT, measekite <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Unless I am mistaken the D3 will NOT produce any better image quality than
>>>>>>the D700. It is supposed to be better built but heavier and that may not
>>>>>>be an advantage; especially if the D700 is built good enough for most uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what are the real differences that justify the difference in $$.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also Ken Rockwell in his blogs claims that the D3X (a D3 with 12 more MP)
>>>>>>claim it is way overpriced and a rip off yet he just ordered one. It
>>>>>>seems that Ken Rockwell has a goal of liking to stir the pot and create
>>>>>>controversies. Maybe that is how he gets a lot of readers by publishing
>>>>>>some facts, distorting others, creating controversy and being just
>>>>>>entertaining. Sounds like an offshoot of Howard Cosel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since nobody has answered the original question before this thread
>>>>> deteriorated into Ken Rockwell bashing, let me attempt to get it back
>>>>> on track:
>>>>>
>>>>> As best I understand it, the only real difference between the D700 and
>>>>> the D3 is speed, speed, speed. The D3 is a blazingly fast camera. It
>>>>> also has a shutter rated for more cycles because it is designed for
>>>>> very heavy use. There are also a few extra bells on the D3 but
>>>>> nothing significant to most photographers. Image quality between the
>>>>> two is virtually identical.
>>>>>
>>>>> The strong point of both of them is their high ISO capability, which
>>>>> is insanely good. You can shoot either one at ISO 3200 and get
>>>>> images that are as clean looking as some other dslrs shot at ISO 400
>>>>> or less. ISO 6400 is fully useable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolution wise, you won't see much difference between either camera
>>>>> and the D200/D300, although dynamic range is better due to the larger
>>>>> sensor.
>>>>
>>>>It is my understanding that the D700 has larger pixels so it should be
>>>>able to produce a larger photo at low light.
>>>
>>> Not a larger photo, per se, since that is a function of the
>>> megapixels. The D300 and D700 are both 12MP cameras. However, the
>>> D700 will produce cleaner-looking images above ISO 400, and can make
>>> perfectly acceptable images in lighting so low you wouldn't dare
>>> attempt with most other cameras.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Me, I wouldn't spend the extra money on the D3. And as much as I want
>>>>> a D700, I just ordered myself a D300 because for $1,000 less you get
>>>>> essentially the same body and nearly the same image quality. The D300
>>>>> doesn't have the high ISO ability of the D700, but it holds its own
>>>>> quite well against other crop sensor dslrs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>First I think I would opt for the D90 which is basically a D300 for a lot
>>>>less $$.
>>>
>>> The D300 is a much more rugged and faster camera than the D90. It
>>> also has much better autofocus (51 points vs the 11 points of the
>>> D90). According most reviews, the D300 also has a slight edge in
>>> overall image quality. But the D90 is lighter (because it is
>>> plastic) and will take movies if that's important to you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>But if I was considering a basic full frame camera it would be hard to
>>>>beat the Canon 5D mkII. Nikon needs to quickly discontinue the D700 in
>>>>favor of a D800 (or D700 mkii) or what ever they want to call it and price
>>>>it at the same level as Canon.
>>>
>>> That would be nice, but I think Nikon will continue to do well against
>>> Canon's offerings. The D700 is a much better camera overall than the
>>> 5DII in terms of features and speed. It is also better at high ISO.
>>> However, the 5DII has more megapixels for those who think that is more
>>> important. But in reality, the difference between 12 and 20 MP isn't
>>> as big as you'd think. Doubling the megapixels only yields about a
>>> 40% increase in actual resolution, and it doesn't really show up at
>>> normal print sizes.
>>
>>But for prints of 12x18, 16x20 and 20x25 and with some cropping I would
>>say you would get a sharper print from more MP.
>
> True, but how often do you print that size?



If I print anything I want it larger to matte, frame and hang on a wall.
I am not one that like to produce a bunch of 4x6 snapshots. For that
the Canon SD880 is perfect with a couple of exceptions.

No optical viewfinder and not a long enough zoom range.




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> And it is far, far better in that regard than any p&s / superzoom on
>>>>> the planet. (I just had to add that fact just in case John is
>>>>> eavesdropping through his twit filter.)
>>>>
>>>>There is one thing that is better about a P&S like the Canon SD880. If
>>>>you are going someplace to have fun and you do not want to drag a
>>>>bunch of photo gear but may decide to take a snapshot or two then the
>>>>SD880 is better than not taking anything.
>>>
>>> That is absolutely true. A camera like the D300, D700 or even the
>>> D80 is overkill if what you want to do is take pictures of your
>>> friends at parties or whatnot. It's good to have both camera types
>>> available.