Nikon D3s

[GrillMouster]

I've been waiting all day to see if someone here would mention the announcement of Nikon's D3s coming in November. I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet.

 

[handicap18]

Well at $5200 suggest retail price.... thats a bit out there. I did notice that it has the ISO up to over 100,000. Looks like great high ISO performance at 12,500. Maybe if I hit the Mega Millions or PowerBall I'll pick one up to play around with.

 

[ukcatfan]

Just $5,200! I'll take two. That way my family can sell them to pay for my funeral after my wife killed me

 

[handicap18]

Just $5,200! I'll take two. That way my family can sell them to pay for my funeral after my wife killed me

This past weekend we had our local Buddy Walk for Down syndrome awareness. I volunteered to be a photograher for the organization. They had 1 other "official" photographer as well. I met up with him a few times. He was carrying around 2 (TWO) D3's. One with the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 and one with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8. Said he didn't like changing lenses. In fact he also said he has 4 (yes FOUR) D3's. Another dad that we hang out with from our DS group was trying "help" the guy out. Saying he could "hold" one of his camera's for him. LOL I told him, hell, you got 4, you wont miss 1 of them!! Right??

I haven't seen any of that guy's images yet.

 

[dmccarty]

Wow on the ISO. 12,000+ Unreal. I bet with that ISO I could actually get some fast shutter speeds with F8 in the gym my kids play Bball.

I need to go ask the DW if I can trade in the D700 for the D3s.

If ya'll don't hear from me again...

Well you can guess what happened.

Just in case. Nice knowing ya!

Later,
Dan

 

[Chikabowa]

Seriously thinking of getting on the wait list... I was going to buy another body this winter anyway. But I'm hesitant to make that purchase and have a potential (rumored) D4 come out next year, KWIM?

Oh and Kyle - it is not unusual for professional event photographers to have 3-6 bodies of the same camera. I HATE changing lenses in the middle of action and often have two cameras available.

 

[Groucho]

dmccarty - 102,000, not 12,000... 12,800 is becoming less uncommon, showing up on at least a couple APS-sensor DSLRs even.

I was at my cousin's wedding a couple weekends ago and the photographers (2-3) were using D3s. Of course, they were also very mellow about changing lenses, with the lensless body standing high on a monopod, a few feet from the beach and with some wind!

From the D3s' specs, it does look they are not particularly interested in competing in the video arena. IMHO you gotta be able to do 30fps... the same 720p/24fps on their $5k camera as they have on their <$1k camera is not that impressive.

Nice to see them sticking with 12mp. I (and I think most photographers, pro or otherwise) would much rather have fewer mp and better ISO noise control.

 

[Chikabowa]

Nice to see them sticking with 12mp. I (and I think most photographers, pro or otherwise) would much rather have fewer mp and better ISO noise control.

I agree. Personally I dislike getting files from 2nd shooters who are using the Canon 5DMII. The files are HUGE and pretty cumbersome. Eats up more than the necessary amount of file space. And for purposes of event photography, it's pretty much overkill.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The D3s looks like a truly amazing camera. The problem is that it isn't a big upgrade from the D3. Nikon has occasionally done minor upgrades with the "s" designation. Canon did the same with the 1D Mark IIn.

The increaased ISO sensitivity may be a game changer, but we'll have to see more hands-on reviews to really know for sure. The recent spate of p&s cameras with ISO 6400 show that you can make a camera with any ISO that you want. How useable those super ISOs are is another story. The initial results I've seen show ISO 12,800 as a reasonably useful ISO, which really wasn't the case for the other ultra high ISO cameras available (D3, D700, 5DM2).

I agree. Personally I dislike getting files from 2nd shooters who are using the Canon 5DMII. The files are HUGE and pretty cumbersome. Eats up more than the necessary amount of file space. And for purposes of event photography, it's pretty much overkill.

Tell them to shoot sRAW. In my admittedly biased view, the 5DM2 gives you the best of both worlds. I can shoot for ultra-high res when I want it or I can let the camera merge pixels during the shooting and use it as a mid or low resultion camera.

I think you'll see more ultra-high resolution cameras over time. Even at 24 megapixels, full frame cameras still don't have the pixel density of APS-C cameras. While few people need to make the poster sized prints that 24 megapixel cameras allow, they are great for extending reach through cropping. The resolution is there when you want it for large prints or tight crops. You can scale down the resolution with sRAW when you don't want or need the resolution. The downscaling process recaptures most of the benefits of fewer larger pixel sites.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You'll probably continue to see Nikon have an "x" and a non-"x" series for their pro cameras and Canon will continue to have an "s" and a non-"s" series. There are two reasons for that. One is cost. Higher resolution chips are more expensive and so are all the supporting chips.

The other problem is performance. Handling all of that data takes time. There is a demand for high fps cameras. It's much easier to meet that demand with lower resolutions.

 

[dmccarty]

dmccarty - 102,000, not 12,000... 12,800 is becoming less uncommon, showing up on at least a couple APS-sensor DSLRs even.

I saw the spec that said the ISO went over 100K. But I figure the 12,800 would be with pretty good quality kinda like 1600 on the D700 where 3200 is not really that bad. But 100K+ I will wait and see.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

...
The increaased ISO sensitivity may be a game changer, but we'll have to see more hands-on reviews to really know for sure. ...

I think you'll see more ultra-high resolution cameras over time. Even at 24 megapixels, full frame cameras still don't have the pixel density of APS-C cameras. While few people need to make the poster sized prints that 24 megapixel cameras allow, they are great for extending reach through cropping. The resolution is there when you want it for large prints or tight crops. You can scale down the resolution with sRAW when you don't want or need the resolution. The downscaling process recaptures most of the benefits of fewer larger pixel sites.

What the D700 does is simply amazing at ISO 1600/3200. The new D3 is just magic. These ISO's are replacing the need for fast glass in light low. I could tell the difference between the crops on my 10MB files vs 12MB files. That extra 2MBs makes a difference in cropping. The extra data in the files makes up for less magnification. I don't know what the limits are for the lens resolution vs focal length but it sure seems like fast sensors with gathering more data will allow one to replace a long fast lens. At least to a point.

I have been seriously looking at the Nikon 80-400mm lens which is very slow at F4.5-5.6. But with a D700 that has very good quality at ISO 1600 and even at 3200 a slower lens is more usable for me.

Later,
Dan

 

[Groucho]

I think the fact that the Nikon FF cameras don't have anywhere near the pixel density of an APS-sensor DSLR is a huge part of the appeal of them. Sony has a FF camera that doesn't get that much attention - and I think a big part of the reason is that the high ISO performance is no better (and maybe worse) than your average APS-sensor DSLR.

I think that if Nikon priced the D3x exactly the same as the D3 and released a D700x for the same price as the D700s, the 12mp ones would still outsell the 24mp ones by a huge margin.

 

[Chikabowa]

You really have to ask yourself, at this level, WHO is the target customer of each of these cameras.

The majority of professional photographers who need these tools in their arsenal (such as fps, extended ISO, full frame, high mp count) have very specific needs. The D3 was a great first step. But, in my opinion, it's targeted mainly at sport and event photographers. The D3x is geared more towards the type of photographer who is doing fine art, fashion, commercial work, where those large count mega-pixels are necessary for production. The D3s, again in just my opinion, is marketed towards wedding photographers or those who have significant low-light needs and HD video needs.

Each camera has functionality that is extremely specialized... and when you get down to the nitty-gritty, there is a reason why each one has the capability. And it's not for just for everyone.

As a sports/wedding/event photographer, the large files with 24MP would be overkill and it would slow down my workflow tremendously. But you better believe if I'm doing a billboard or a fashion shoot, I'd rather have the D3x on my side because the resolution is perfect for those types of projects.

I hope that all makes sense... I'm not doing a very good job of expressing myself in words this evening!