nikon D700

It's "only" 245g less than the D3.

Some people do not want a pro body and do not want to pay the extra $2,000.

The built-in flash is there for commander mode.

And for the record, the best feeling in the world is ejaculating in a woman's vagina or oral cavity.
 
its more like $750-1000, you're nuts if you buy a d3 at msrp. At best id buy one lightly used for $3800, worst, $4.2k new.

I know what the built in flash is for, but its irrelevant. The SB-800 does the same thing, and its assumed (at this level) if you're buying a $3k camera you can afford a flash. You have to understand this is from what I can tell the first 3k+ camera to include a flash.
 
Why would I compare the price between something new and something used?

The D3 retails for $4,999 and the D700 retails for $2,999. I think my math is about right.

If you want to be a cool dude and not pay retail prices, that's a whole other argument.
 
msrp is not the same as retail. I was a bit off, but the msrp is like $5400 and its now going for $4800 retail new. If you want to go used (why the hell wouldn't you its only a year old at most) you can take 1k off that.

And of course I can compare new and used because no one has a used d700. Its a new camera.
 
triple said:
I know what the built in flash is for
Click to expand...
Oh well, why say this then:
And they stuck a flash on it too, what the fuck.
Click to expand...
In any case.
triple said:
but its irrelevant. The SB-800 does the same thing, and its assumed (at this level) if you're buying a $3k camera you can afford a flash.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you going to control with your single SB-800 on the camera?

You can buy a single Speedlight unit and have the built-in flash trigger it off camera with no other accessories needed.

And you know what they say about people assuming.

It has little to no downsides, why wouldn't they put one on?

I don't count breaking it when you drop the camera as a downside.
 
Well as for the "why not" argument, the reasons generally are

1) you never use it as a pro, lighting is too harsh and you own an aftermarket flash anyways
2) introduces new holes in your camera (weather sealing etc)
3) durability

as for how to do an off camera flash:

img0367.jpg


(or just buy the standalone commander unit, or buy multiple flashes, or just use strobes lol.)

Basically anything you can do with that little popup can be done with better, faster, hotshoe accessories.
 
triple said:
msrp is not the same as retail. I was a bit off, but the msrp is like $5400 and its now going for $4800 retail new. If you want to go used (why the hell wouldn't you its only a year old at most) you can take 1k off that.

And of course I can compare new and used because no one has a used d700. Its a new camera.
Click to expand...
Jeebus.

Why would you compare the price of something new with the price of something used?

You bought your D3 used and got it for I don't know how much less than retail, congratulations.

But the fact of the matter is, the D3 costs $2,000 more than the D700. Why are you arguing that?
 
I'm not arguing that, im simply explaining the bare minimum price for a d700 is 3 grand, and the bare minimum price of a d3 is only about $800 more. If it were me, id step up. Of course if you want to do it the "official" way and go to best buy, yea, its 2k more, but I assume people want to get the lowest prices when they buy stuff.
 
triple said:
1) you never use it as a pro, lighting is too harsh and you own an aftermarket flash anyways
Click to expand...
If you are a "pro" you would be using your D3 and external flash waving the whole kit around asking people to step aside.

The D700 has a smaller body because guess what? People want a smaller body with the same, or almost, features as the D3.

They will not be waving that shit around with an large external flash bolted on top. Well, they can if they choose to.. but that's another argument.

Having the small built-in flash can be a last resort. And it also works fine for fill.
triple said:
2) introduces new holes in your camera (weather sealing etc)
Click to expand...
No offense to Olympus but if they managed to make their E-3 goddamn splash proof, I sure as fuck hope Nikon can make theirs weather sealed at least.
triple said:
3) durability
Click to expand...
I count that as user error.
triple said:
(or just buy the standalone commander unit, or buy multiple flashes, or just use strobes lol.)
Click to expand...
See bolded parts.
 
triple said:
I'm not arguing that, im simply explaining the bare minimum price for a d700 is 3 grand, and the bare minimum price of a d3 is only about $800 more.
Click to expand...
Please show me a reputable seller having a brand new Nikon D3 body for $3,799.

I will make sure to tell everyone to buy theirs from that store.
 
seller? no, you buy used from someone on FM or something. Unless you're microsoft rich. I mean god, my fucking motorcycle cost $5500. New. I aint spending that much on a single camera.

Almost no one buys pro cameras new.. I mean, rich people do, newspapers do, companies do - but individuals either run up credit cards or buy used.
 
So again, why are you comparing the price of something used with something new?

All else being equal, a used D700 will also be about $2,000 less than a used D3.

Jeebus.
 
right, but you can't buy a used d700. its not out until july. If you want to have this conversation in 2 years, be my guest.

and on board flashes dont go on expensive cameras for the same reason scene modes and face detection don't.
 
So his point is, instead of buying a brand new camera for $3,000, you can buy a better one that is used for more money.

Gotcha.

That's the stupidest argument I've ever been part of. And I've posted a lot on /p/.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top