then get a D700, unless you're a serious photojournalist for instance, there isn't much point in getting a D3.
in fact, just stop worrying about the camera, worry about the photo instead, my mate has been taking portrait of Cherie Blair, David Walliam, Gal Porter, etc. and already got some recognition base on some of the photo and were able to get a decent living out of it.
the camera he used? his old Canon 20D with the standard shitty 18-55mm lens, that it.
Or a serious sports photographer, or a serious action photographer. Or maybe a full time interior photographer who also shoots action sports , and various commercial jobs freelance (that would be me) who requires serious durability and the ultimate in high iso performance and high speed low light auto-focus from a camera that can only be found in a pro-body such as the D3?......With all due respect Ed I earn my living from my camera, I have been a professional for several years, I make a decent living from it, and I understand enough about photography to worry about the photo more than the camera. I've used most of the Nikon range at some point, currently using a d300 and have used both the D3 and the D700, owned a D200 and a D80 in the past.
Yes the D3 and D700 both have the same sensor and viewfinder, and high iso capability, however the D3 has the durability of a proper pro-body, superior auto-focus capabilities and a couple of other very useful bits that I can't be bothered to ramble on about, but if you are spending all day using your camera they make it that much more pleasant/quicker/enjoyable to use. The long and the short of it is, I know its about the photographer, not the camera, but no one can deny the creative opportunities opened up by having capabilities that are not present on a lower spec camera, for now though I will "suffer" my d300 until I have some spare cash for a D3. I respect what your mate is doing, if alot of the amateurs knew what some professional fashion/commercial/portrait photographers use i'm sure they would get a nice shock and worry less about what gear they have to HAVE!.......lets just say its not all hasselblad and phase one elitist shit out there in the studios.
Or a serious sports photographer, or a serious action photographer. Or maybe a full time interior photographer who also shoots action sports , and various commercial jobs freelance (that would be me) who requires serious durability and the ultimate in high iso performance and high speed low light auto-focus from a camera that can only be found in a pro-body such as the D3?......With all due respect Ed I earn my living from my camera, I have been a professional for several years, I make a decent living from it, and I understand enough about photography to worry about the photo more than the camera. I've used most of the Nikon range at some point, currently using a d300 and have used both the D3 and the D700, owned a D200 and a D80 in the past.
Yes the D3 and D700 both have the same sensor and viewfinder, and high iso capability, however the D3 has the durability of a proper pro-body, superior auto-focus capabilities and a couple of other very useful bits that I can't be bothered to ramble on about, but if you are spending all day using your camera they make it that much more pleasant/quicker/enjoyable to use. The long and the short of it is, I know its about the photographer, not the camera, but no one can deny the creative opportunities opened up by having capabilities that are not present on a lower spec camera, for now though I will "suffer" my d300 until I have some spare cash for a D3. I respect what your mate is doing, if alot of the amateurs knew what some professional fashion/commercial/portrait photographers use i'm sure they would get a nice shock and worry less about what gear they have to HAVE!.......lets just say its not all hasselblad and phase one elitist shit out there in the studios.