Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer

This also goes for photographers and others in a creative business: We don't work for free!

Differences between D3 and D300 for (my kind of) concert photography, the Thom Hogan way.

This is a little follow-up to Thom Hogans article about the differences between D3 and D300.

www.bythom.com/d3ord300.htm

1. High ISO. D3. It's all about high speed in low light conditions. Though, a good ISO 1600/3200 is more important than ISO 6400+
2. Wide Angle of View. D3. I use wide angel optics a lot, but more important, I want big apertures: 2.8 wide angle zooms, not 4.
3. DOF Isolation. D3. Even if you often have no choice but to use big apertures in low light, it is a very effective composition. A small DOF is important for me for all music photography that is not concerts, like promo/artist shots.
4. Flexibility in Size and Weight. D300. Small can be nice, but I prefer a vertical grip anyway.
5. Pixel Density. D300. With all the noise and dark conditions, this is not very important.
6. Focus without Reframing. D300. Not a big issue for me, the AF-system is the same. I allways have to meter/focus first, and then compose.
7. DOF Maximization. D300. Not an issue for concerts.

As Thom Hogan, I drop my #7, because it is irrelevant for concert photography. The D3 scores 1, 2, 3 (total 6, average 2). The D300 scores 4,5,6 (total 15, average 5). Not very difficult, since the D3 is placed at all the top 3 positions.

Well, I don't think there is very hard to believe that a full frame camera is better suited for concert photography than a cropped/DX camera. The only point where I can think a cropped sensor is better than a full frame sensor is at really big venues where you want to use the 70-200 2.8.

As a D200 owner, I'm not satisfied with the high ISO capabilities and the AF in low light situations. D300 should be better on both. But I have no problem to jump over the D300 and go for the D3, even if I won't change the D200 for a D3 before 2009.