| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I tried the D700 and the D3 side by side; both almost new at the time, the D3 action and shutter release was silky smooth in comparison with the D700 which was not silky smooth, more of a clunk!
In my opinion mass (weight) is good, it absorbs vibrations and helps keep the camera solid and stable. For serious use I almost always use a tripod, so the mass is less of an issue. As for the carrying factor I tend to use a trolly to carry my gear, drinks and butties around the botanic gardens, due to the large distances involved.
I accept the D700 is lighter, which does have some advantages, I would never ever use an add battery housing like the old 'motor drives' They make the D700 larger than the D3, although that may allow the use of alkaline cells, I very much doubt I would use them and you loose the main reason for buying a D700, it's smaller, lighter form factor.
My main objection to an add-on battery housing is reliability; back in 1988 I lost a sequence of photographs taken with my Nikon FE when the motor drive broke its electrical connection with the camera in the middle of a dramatic event at a horse show, I missed the once in a lifetime photographs which I would have captured had I not been using the motordrive. I never used the motordrive again, I will never again introduce any complexity which can compromise reliability. Battery housings have a history of issues.
Mike,
I can't see any benefit from using the crop function except an increase in shutter rate, possibly helpful for sports although even at 11 fps the critical moment can still be missed in some cases.
If not for speed, I would prefer to be able to frame the crop to suit the composition of the specific image, which the full frame gives greater freedom to crop and less chance of a limb out of the frame in an otherwise good image.
____________________
Robert.