It is often pondered, and rightly so, what the big differences are between cameras like the D300 and the D3. Nikon specifically classifies the D3 as a professional, flagship camera, while the D300 is relegated to "advanced amateur" and barely "semi-professional" duty. They are both 12 megapixels, they're both weather-sealed magnesium bodies, they both have a 51 point AF system, they both hit a (very) high frame rate, etc. etc. All the "important" features are practically identical. Other than the sensors, what really accounts for the whopping $3,200 price difference?
You see, this "other than the sensors" piece of the puzzle may soon be dealt with, if Nikon does what we are all expecting and makes a hybrid "D300 with a D3 sensor..."
Now, if you could pay for example $3000 for a D300 body with a D3 sensor, why pay an extra $2000 for the D3?
The answer is this- Indeed, to the class of photographers who consider, purchase, and maybe even shoot professionally with the D300 or an FX version of it, ...there IS very little difference, or reason, in the D3. They (we) shoot at a level which the D300 type "semi-pro" camera body is more than enough, just like tons of high-end wedding pros shoot with the "lowly" Canon 5D, when the 1Ds mk3 is clearly so much "better"...
BUT, the topmost professionals who DO shoot with the D3, (or the 1Ds mk3) whose job requires them to push a camera to it's limits, these are the photographers who know and appreciate the differences.
First of all, the D3 is made in a completely different factory than the D300, and possibly a different factory from where the FX D300 might be made. The D3 is made in Japan, while the likes of the D300 are made in Thailand. Since Nikon is a Japanese company, the D3 being made in Japan is equivalent to being "made in the USA" to an American. Even if the products themselves were identical, any discerning American professional would buy a "made in the USA" piece of equipment instead of a "made in China" piece of equipment, DUH... I'm not saying that Nikon's Thailand factory / plant is ghetto, (and I'm not implying that ghetto = China, either) ...but Nikon's Thailand plant IS more automated and probably gets less QC than their Japan factories.
Second, there are innumerable features that DO set the D3 apart from bodies like the D300...
~ The D3 has the professional circular eyepiece that accepts auxiliary attachments and has an eyepiece shutter. Not something 90% of photographers care at all about. But maybe to a top 10%, this spec is for some reason a necessity.
~ The D3 has dual CF card slots. Again, not something that amateurs an small-time pros may need. But say you were shooting the cover of Rolling Stone, or an epic geological / ecological / zoological event for National Geographic... Wouldn't you want the security of time-of-capture data redundancy?
~ The D3 has higher-powered AF thanks not to hardware, (basically identical to the D300) ...but to extra software / CPU power. It has a shutter that is rated for the longest life out of any shutter on the market, 300,000 clicks. It has voice comment recording, and a 3rd LCD screen below the main rear LCD, for additional information. (The viewfinder also reads out TONS of extra info, and the LCD on the top has more info than the D300 as well...) It has a live histogram readout in live view mode plus that nifty horizon leveling tool, a higher frame rate, a larger buffer, (and any FX D300 would not be able to hit 6 FPS, by the way, it would be more along the lines of 3-5) ...and so on and so forth; a whole slew of little details that certain photographers are bound to "demand"...
So yes, for most of us the D300, or an FX version of it, will be more than enough. Nikon is more than happy to sell high volumes of semi-pro bodies of course, because remember- they keep their profit margins up by having these bodies made in Thailand! And Nikon makes five D300's for every one D3 they make, which means they'd have to make more than 5x the margin on the D3 for it to bring in more profit...
Take care,
=Matt=
Recent Comments