Nikon D3 or Cannon Mark 3

Hi my name is Tucker Poole im from Richmond Va and im a senior in high school. Im planning on buying myself a new camera and just wanted some proffesional advice between the D3 or the mark 3. Also was looking to find anyone who would like to shoot anywhere around VA with me?

Thanks,
Tucker

This will likely be a case of Canon guys recommending the Canon and the Nikon guys recommending the Nikon. I shoot with both systems and feel the D3 is the better camera but it also depends on what you plan to shoot. If wildlife and especially birds is in your future, the 1.3x crop of the 1D3 might be more to your liking. If it's mostly landscapes then the D3 with its full frame sensor and slightly higher pixel count might be more to your liking. The Nikon is significantly more user configurable but the Canon has a larger lens list to choose from. Bottom line there is no perfect system and you have to look at the whole system and decide which one would work better for you.

I am working through trying to make a similar decision about what camera to buy. I have not made up my mind yet, as there are quite a few good options. I am not proposing going quite as high-end as the D3, or 1Ds III. My budget is constraining me to looking at the D700 or 5D MK II if I go full frame.

You may wish to visit the thread, "Full Frame on a 5K budget ... ideas?". There were many excellent comments from the knowledgeable readership here.

One thing I know I must consider strenuously is the set of lenses that are available within each manufacturer's stable. It is also helpful to look at how you intend to use the camera. Different camera's, (not to mention formats), have differing strengths and weaknesses, and depending on how you intend to you them, you will find that one is probably better for you than another. As in so many things in life, there is often not a "best" choice, but a set of choices that offer different benefits and deficits.

As for shooting; as a photographer that has used an 8 x 10 field camera for landscape work, I would recommend being slow and deliberate in consideration of things photographic. By forcing me to do this, (as setting up and shooting with 8 x 10 is by definition a laborious process), I take fewer photos, but better ones. I often carry a 4 x 5 cardboard frame with me to look through before setting up or taking a shot. This is a hold over from my large format days. You will know when looking through that frame whether you have a great composition before pulling out the camera. Move around a lot, let that card be your camera, and only take out the camera when you know what the image should look like. This points to the great disadvantage of digital photography and it is the same as its greatest strength. By being so easy to setup, shoot and see the result, the temptation is to shoot and shoot and shoot. While this delivers a buzz from the instant gratification it provides, it also happens that great images are seldom realized. Were I to start over, I would begin with large format film, and before that with the framing card alone. Develop your ability to see and imagine, and you will become a great artist. Become a slave to the tool, and you will become technically competent but uninspiring. Ultimately of course both craft and artistry are required, but artistry is best developed while the mind is flexible and open to new ways of seeing. There is time enough to develop technical skills, (and yes they are important). Start however with a simple, flexible and limited toolset, and find creative ways to realize your vision. As you develop your vision start experimenting. You will be surprised what kinds of results can be obtained with the most restrictive tools. If you really want to have fun and learn at the same time try building a pinhole camera.

Finally, never limit the imagination, but always find ways to realize your vision through creative engagement.

I own the D3 and for me it's awesome. I have friends who own the MKIII and they think it is awesome as well. Try them both and see which works best for you and your type of photography, then don't look back. Each person needs to see what works best for them and not listen to too many others or you will wind up changing your mind over and over.

Good news is whichever you choose you will love it.

Since your in Highschool, I would start with the fact that one costs $5k and the other costs $3.4K. That $1600 difference can be put towards a nice lense(s).

c.w. moynihan wrote:Since your in Highschool, I would start with the fact that one costs $5k and the other costs $3.4K. That $1600 difference can be put towards a nice lense(s).

Or he could get a D700 which is a D3 in a smaller body and still save Unlike Canon, Nikon does not de-feature the smaller body version in any significant way. It's the same sensor with about 98% of the bells and whistles. But in the end it comes down to witch system will work better for him.

I continue to be amazed at the discussions over relatively irrelevant boxes. The lenses count as they are much more expensive and last much longer before obsolescence. Compare the selection, cost, and availability of stabilized C vs N glass and I think the choice is obvious. If cost is no object ... then you can pick whichever you want.

If you want to look at box history, Canon has dominated for a large number of years recently. Nikon is fully competitive (and possibly better) only with these current models. The future? Who knows but again, it's the glass that counts (assuming a pro/semi-pro range of glass is needed).

Thanks for all of your input, i know the price is high for a high school student but i plan on making a career out of this so i am just going top of the line. What i like about canon is the fact that they have such a selection of lenses, but right now im shooting a lot of artistic stuff for school so i pictured the nikon to be great. I own a Nikon D80 right now and was just going to upgrade. Once i get out of high school i plan on going into documentary photography or work on aerospace photography i guess you would call it. So right now im basically working on absolutley every type of photography so im sure which ever one i choose will be great.

Thanks,
Tucker Poole

ALso if anyone knows or has a good underwater housing for a D80 willing to sell please let me know
THanks

I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon systems and with the recent releases from Nikon they have at least equaled Canon from a camera body standpoint with the single exception of the highest end 1Ds series that Canon still has pretty much to themselves. Nikon is nearing release of a FF high pixel count camera to compete against the Canon flagship as is Sony but time will tell hos they stack up against the big guy.

As has been mentioned, lenses are also of great importance and depending on what end of the focal length spectrum you work the most you will find Nikon has an adtantage at the wide angle end while Canon still has an advantage at the telephoto end. The new lenses from Nikon have zeroed out the performance gap with Canon at the tele end but they are more expensive then Canon at this time. Also, at the wide end Nikon has a new zoom lens that by most accounts is the equal or better of some of the legendary prime wide angle lenses.

I don't know where you are getting the money for this and don't want to play guardian here but the D3 or 1DM3 are both expensive at $5K without lens but are both excellent cameras with the edge going to Nikon if for no other reason than the AF is not suspect. If you can pull yourself away from the idea of getting the 'top dog' then the D700, at $2K less than the D3, is nearly the equal and a better buy.


Brian

Tucker, you pay a huge obsolesce price to own the latest body. It makes much more economic sense to get at least the last generation box as most of the depreciation costs will have been reflected. Take that cash savings and invest in better/more glass (or save for college).

E.J. Peiker wrote: witch

I know Halloween is coming and all but it should be "which"

Bill

Tucker, having used the 1D 3 and Canon's other various offerings, and moved to the D3 Nikon, I am without doubt, that my preference lies with the D3 as does my recommendation. (I prefer my files from the D3 to those I have from the 1Ds II too).

On a neutral viewpoint and hopefully more constructive, as you are familiar with the D80, the D700 may make most sense, as it'll shoot at 6 fps or 8 with an MB-10. (Basically, a D300 with the IQ of the D3). Canon have had some serious issues of Quality Control and whilst all manufacturers will have glitches, Canon have made a special attempt to monopolize QC bodge-ups as their's and regrettably, have driven many clients away. As far as lenses go, Canon's AF range is larger, but there are some gaps such as no 200-400 F4. Canon are not reputed to be fantastically good at the wide end, but their tele's are top notch as I've had enough to know, and at that end, I see no diff' between the systems. As mentioned, at the wide end, Nikon glass is sweet, with some really good optics, whether zoom or single FL. (Not all of which will bust the bank...... that's a laugh as they are all going bust these days). Anyway, Nikon too, has access to some high end Nikkors in MF/AIS fit which will be fine for Landscapes/Arch' etc as I can't see AF being that much use there: (28 F2 AIS/35 F1.4 AIS).

I've shot Nikon for over twenty years so I would say go there, refer to EJ's first post . I do agree you may do better to start off with the D700 unless money is no concern.

If you already have money invested in Nikon glass then you probably would save a bit by staying with Nikon too.

I would make sure to have read the whole AF saga on the MKIII and be sure you really want to go down that road.

Bill

Agreed. The mark of a pro is knowing what tool will get the job done, not just always buying the latest and greatest. Also, stretching the investment so more money stays in his own pocket and less goes into the pockets of other people. Based on that, you need to look at the types of shooting that are most important to you, what lenses and other capabilities you need to achieve your goals in those types of shooting. Look also at other things like ergonomics and additional components of the whole camera system, to the extent that those things matter to you. Then get into a camera that offers the best bang for the buck to meet those needs.

I like working with lenses from a variety of camera systems, and the Canon EF lens mount design happens to be the most flexible and adaptable across a wide array of lenses designed for other systems. So that strongly influenced me to get into the Canon system at the time I made my decision. I also do types of photography for which I felt a full frame sensor was important, and Canon had the only full frame sensors at the time. Case closed.

If I had to make the decision again today it would be a tougher call because Nikon has really stepped forward in a big way with major updates to their bodies and some of the lenses that are most relevant to me. Heck, even Sony is in the game with economical full frame digital.

By the way, Canon has two "mark III" cameras and you didn't discriminate which one you were thinking about. The 1D Mk III and 1Ds Mk III are quite different in many important ways, and neither of them are direct clones of the Nikon D3. To recommend anything specific by way of these or other bodies like the Nikon D700 or D300, Sony A900 or Canon 5D Mk II, would require a lot more info & discussion. You're probably best boiling down a few key capabilities you need (like sensor format, lenses, budget, etc.) and then evaluating the small number of bodies that could fit that profile. Rent them if you can, to try them out first. $5K or more is a lot of money to spend on a body you've never tried... unless you already know for sure what you need & want.

Don't forget the possibility of buying previous generation or used bodies, either. Like others have said, the bodies cycle fast, go obsolete in some regards, and the vendors normally do leap-frog each other to some extent. But the lens system is a much more important, costly and long-term decision and probably should weigh as much in your decision as any existing body. I've recommended to a couple of people lately that the original Canon 5D might be a good choice for them based on what they want to do and their budget. Even though that body is over 3 years old, it remains a very good performer and a very good bang-for-buck option in full frame 35mm digital. Paired with good lenses, it's excellent for a variety of applications (though not for all). So keep your eye open for options like that because there are some good values out there that fall in perhaps unexpected spots on the chart of all possible gear you could get...

Even if money is no concern, the D700 would make a great backup body to a D3, and it would allow you to use the camera now and not wait as long. Yes, Canon has more lenses on paper, but will you actually buy each and every lens in the catalog? Even the busiest and most wide ranging pro doe snot own each and every lens. That would be a waste of capitol. If the lenses you need are there, then good. If not go the other way.

I would, as EJ suggested, try out the D700. It has nearly every advantage of the D3, and it costs less. I would steer clear of the Mark3 at this time. There have been too many issues with it, and it is more suited to action, than other types of photography due to the crop factor. The D700 is fully capable for any type of photography, and the money saved could be put to lenses.

OK, a lot of non-neutral, neutral advice here. I would say, unless you have to, do nothing until Feb when you see what the latest from Canon and Nikon is at PMA. In the mean time look at lens and figure out what would meet your needs.

If you are serious about going pro and making a career of this, I suggest (as will others) that you invest your $$$ in glass, not camera bodies. Career photographers, especially those starting out, have to really watch the outlay of $$$ on equipment or they simply do not make a profit. You do NOT need the latest 1-series body or D3. Sure, those are awesome, ego-boosting bodies and we all love them. But honestly they hold just a marginal advantage over the previous generation of bodies in terms of technology. There are limits out there to resolution, noise, sharpness, etc. and each generation of camera moves closer to those limits, meaning the improvements are increasingly marginal. Consider that many of the folks on this list are far enough along in their career, are comfortable, have a "day job" and can afford the best bodies. Do not let that fact fool you into thinking you NEED a 1-series or D3 to work as a photographer.

For press images (up to full page or so) you can make fantastic images with bodies that are one or two generations old and save enough money that way to assemble the lenses which are the real heart of your equipment. Consider this: the Canon 1D and 1Ds, just a few short years ago, were considered state of the art and reviewers could not say enough good things. Those cameras are STILL good today, especially for press size repro! Camera bodies depreciate just like a new car, as soon as you take delivery of it you've lost considerable value and as soon as the next generation of bodies is announced, even more value disappears even though the camera is a good as it ever was. Let someone else take the burden of that depreciation! The money you save can go toward glass which is what your long term asset is: glass, not bodies.

Suggest Canon 5D, 30D, 40D, or Nikon D200, D300 bodies, pick up them up for peanuts now. D700, 50D and 5D Mark II all look fantastic and are 95% of what you get from a pro body for so much less.

If you really insist on a pro body, I suggest you make a plan for how long you will use it. In other words, do the math in advance and justify the expense based on a plan for revenue. These things have lives measured in hundreds of thousands of exposures. Suggest you make a contract with yourself to amortize the purchase over, say, 2-3 years (at least!) and not get caught up in the race to keep up with the latest pro camera. Perhaps make a goal to use the camera at least as long as it takes to make X-times the sales that it took to purchase the camera (you pick X).

This is a great time to be a photographer, there is so much great technology out there.

Phil ... I couldn't agree more with your post. It isn't about the stinkin bodies and people who continue to focus on that (pun intended) simply fascinate me.