Here are the specs for the new D3s
OK gotta see what the new ISO 102,400 looks like
Here are the specs for the new D3s
OK gotta see what the new ISO 102,400 looks like
So still no new AF-S FX primes :sleep006:
good overview here:
things i like:
12800 somewhat usable ISO and most likely much better performance down around 3200-5000 which is an area i need for night game work
bigger buffer than non-upgraded D3
video? nice to have but not sure would use much. video camera's kick butt here.
300,000 shutter life? would burn through that but nice to know.
rob likes the 1.2 crop, but not sure i really get that.
but unless the low light is SO much better than D3 (@ 3200), I probably won't get one right away and wait for others to sort out the flaws if any. just not much of a jump over my D3's to justify the bucks. when a D4 comes out, i may jump then. I sort like the ideal of running the D3's until they totally fall apart.
yeah, i want some new primes too--there are days when a zoom is just too much to carry around.
Yes, a 35mm f1.4 AFS would be amazing.
Anyone know if the dynamic range is also improved with the new camera?
Nice camera, and a development in good, old Nikon tradition; no surprises.
But the lens.... the lens Do I see a pattern here? First there were a zillion new consumer zooms, then there were new super telephoto lenses and tilt/shift lenses. In between all this, we now have three new macro lenses as well, but no, I repeat no new portrait lenses or other fast primes below 200mm.
This new 85mm is probably excellent for macro, but that's about it. 2 stops slower than the 85mm f/1.8 more or less eats up the advantage of VR, and moving subjects will obviously suffer from the longer shutter speeds. Not much of a night time walk-around lens in other words.
The primes that exist are of course rather nice, but Sony and Pentax have nice primes as well, and they offer IS (in-body) and fast aperture in the same package. With the new 12mp sensor in the A500 and the K-x, I wouldn't be surprised if they even have superior high ISO compared to the D300s and D90.
One can always say that Nikon will catch up eventually, and next year they will be on top... and so on. But the lack of image stabilised fast primes, and fast wide-angle primes have been on the wish list now for many years, and so far, absolutely nothing has happened.
I think I'll have a long look at that pink K-x again. Body with kit zoom plus 77mm f/1.8 plus 15mm f/4.0 will cost around the same as a D300s, body only. I know, I know, the D300s is a lot more camera for a lot of things... but not for street photography.
Oh well... rant over
Jorgen, the 85 micro is a DX lens not sure if you got that. Anyway that underlines even more that Nikon's priorities WRT lenses are all about volume sales - be it DX comsumer cameras or PJ/sports. Stark contrast to what for example Pentax is rolling out.
I'm doing fine with my collection of Nikon lenses, but there's nothing in the Nikon lens catalog tempting my wallet at this time.
D3S is an interesting development though - video at ISO 102,400 certainly opens up possibilities (though perhaps not so interesting for folks here).
I know it's for DX, and since I only use F-mount DX format cameras, I would be an obvious customer, but I'm not. I would rather throw in a few hundred dollars extra and get the 105mm (I have the AF D version), which in my view is a much more versatile lens, simply due to the faster aperture in combination with the longer focal length, which gives more creative possibilities.
Or maybe I'm not. I have four lenses that cover 85mm already and five lenses that cover 105, so I'm probably just a spoiled as well as grumpy old man who is disappointed that Nikon didn't make a lens after my particular specifications
Still surprising that Nikon has NOT dropped something like the Canon 85mm f1.2L II into their lens line-up yet. It would probably be just as expensive or more so, but if it could deliver, it might make a lot of wedding and portrait shooters very happy.
Also interesting to see the 1.2x crop on this new D3S. Having shot the Canon 1D series for years, I have really grown to like that 8.2MP image size at the slight crop for lots of shooting besides just action/PJ stuff. For some time, folks had said the 1.3x crop was dead, then Leica delivered it on the M8 and Canon continued it on the 1DMkIII. It really is a sweetspot size that can exploit the best FF glass sometimes even more than on the FF sensor, since it does clip the corners for you ;-)
It is good to see some development effort on things other than just MPs at this point. Not sure how smeary the really high ISO stuff will be. The few posted shots at ISO 12,800 were not stellar, and I can imagine that 102,400 ISO is mainly for shooting the paranormal stuff, where smearing helps keep the imagination alive ;-)
how many high-priced 35 1.4 nano coated they would really sell? this is an 'old guys' lens (which btw, i'm in that club). most consumers and working guys (wedding, pj, etc) love their zoom in this range (24-70) and with the wonderful ISO performance, 2.8 is fine. but maybe i'm wrong and it would be a big seller, sort of doubt it. as the bodies morph to video/still cameras from still/video cameras, zooms are even more important.
nikon did an excellent job with their long glass and have a stellar line-up, which allowed them to capture the sports world back (high visibility to advertise their brand to consumers--i have so many people ask me questions about my gear at venues) . at the recent President's Cup, where there was lots press (both intl and domestic) and it was great too see SO many black lenses. SI guys all had Nikon (not so 2 years ago), the PGA photographers mostly had Nikon (200-400 !) and many independents had Nikon. The Canon gear was well used--guys who can't afford to upgrade over to Nikon. So Nikon is on a roll. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more primes--a few will come but, not required for the product line at this point.
Last edited by fultonpics; 14th October 2009 at 10:21.
This one: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/im...g/pic_006b.jpg
Looks pretty good to me. The couple of wild life samples at that ISO are also looking very nice.
If only Nikon would make a mirrorless cam with this kind of performance...
Last edited by Lars; 14th October 2009 at 13:34.
Put that question to Canon who does have a 35/1.4L and seems to sell the crap out of them
sort of doubt it even comes close to the number of zooms they sell in the same range. other than folks who hang out on photo forums, how many are going to jump on a larger, expensive lens with 1 or 2 f stops they will rarely use? i do wonder what the real number is that canon sells--my local dealers rarely stocks more than 1 and often zero. however, of course it would be nice to have the ability to buy one, so hope they get around to it. the 50 1.4G was sort of a yawn (i own one), so hopefully they can hit a home run with it. also a fast 85 would be nice too. for now, i can get what i need with the zooms--but i'm happy being a hack.
The Canon 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L primes are pretty popular with many wedding photographers ... although it most certainly is no where near the number of 24-70/2.8Ls that are sold.
Using a 35/1.4 in low light is a revelation .... the viewfinder is way brighter than with a 2.8 optic.
well sorry if i offended....i'll stay off this forum. all the best Marc and hope Nikon comes through for youWell, with that reasoning, Nikon should just make kit lenses because they sell way more of those than $1,900. Zooms.
You have your opinion and I mine ... in fact you are probably correct since Nikon seems to ignore all pleas to make a few fast primes (or to update the few they do have like the 85/1.4, 105/2, 135/2) compared to their main competition Canon who makes a full range of top primes: 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, 135/2 ... and keeps improving them.
Please stick around and offer your counter-point opinion since it seems to be the voice of reality compared to wishful thinking.
And then it's even worse, you forgot to mention there's also a EF 2.8/14 L USM II ...
I'd love that ultra wide prime over the heavy and bulky zoom which is always used at the short end anyway.
Though low-end zooms sell in larger numbers it still makes sense to offer high-end primes to cover other segments than the consumer level.
Many enthusiastic and / or professional Canon users refuse to switch to a Nikon system simply because Nikon doesn't offer modern, fast AF-S primes on par with their beloved EF 2.8/14 L USM II, 1.4/24 L USM II, 1.4/35 L USM, 1.2/50 L USM, 1.2/85 L USM II and 2/135 L USM. What a prime line-up
I believe Nikon looses a lot of important potential customers.
I think your point is valid in that with todays digital ISO performance, those fast apertures are not really necessary for low light capture any more.
Speaking for myself, I like fast apertures for narrow DoF; I would say 35 is about as short as I'd need/want a really fast aperture on, and likely to more often use it on a 50 through 200 focal... My .02 anyway.
Re D3s, I really want to see some of those ISO100K images too!
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
I shot Nikon film cameras for decades, and do like what they are offering now in the D3x and this new D3s, but their lens offerings are not close to what Canon has for prime speed, performance and even cost at both the short and long lengths. I have been tempted many times to go back to Nikon, but get very disappointed when I start looking at what is lost in trying to do the lens swapping, both performance and costs.
The D3s timing is excellent for me - I was about to find a replacement for the D3 that I sold a while back to upgrade to the D3x. I've been missing that camera recently and was about to pick one up when ... tada! D3s!!
Ordered mine today - it'll probably turn up before my M9 ordered 7 weeks ago.
I had the same thought, but after a thorough reading of the specs, there is a 1.2 crop option, a 1.5 crop (DX) high frame rate option, and a 5x4 aspect ratio option.
From my reading of the specs, it has several image size options, which include that 1.2x crop, besides the FF capability. I was surprised myself to see this, but from shooting a 1D for many years that has the 1.3x crop (actually about 1.26x), I think it is very nice sweetspot for PJ folks and sports shooters that really only want to use a bit smaller file and the resolution that comes with the approximately 8.4MP size for that 1.2x crop. This looks to be a very nice combination of features for the action and PJ folks....good file sizes, high frame rates, high ISO capabilities, good weather sealing, etc. Sort of what many speed and reporting shooters want.
P.S. Here is a section of the description from Rob Galbraith's announcement:
"1.2x crop mode Call this EOS-1D Mark II N Compatibility Mode. Like the D3, you can choose from full-frame FX, 1.5x DX and 5:4 crop modes. The D3S adds a 1.2x crop mode, designed to capture within a 30mm x 20mm area of the image sensor. This is pretty darn close to the 28.7mm x 19.1mm sensor size of Canon's previous-generation news and sports camera. Plus, with a resolution of 8.41 million image pixels (3552 x 2368) when set this way, the D3S's 1.2x crop mode is also pretty darn close to the EOS-1D Mark II N and its 8.19 million image pixel (3504 x 2336) resolution.
Whether Canon was the inspiration or not, the 1.2x crop mode feature of the D3S may well be the sleeper hit of the camera, at least among certain long lens shooters. It should allow a little more telephoto reach (a 400mm becomes about a 480mm, for example) and slightly smaller file sizes to manage on deadline without sacrificing too much resolution or making the capture area in the viewfinder unpleasantly small. The 1.2x crop mode in the D3S is a great idea."
Last edited by LJL; 15th October 2009 at 13:16.
So I sold out all mu nikon and bought into Canon.
So far, so good,
Besides the Nikon skin toned looked like thay came from CSI shots compared to the Canon (at least as of the D3)
Some folks think nikon can work for shooting faces...but maybe she is going for that CSI look! just kidding. Canon does make great gear and as pointed out their lens are much better priced for sure.
LJL, Nikon has a great 300 2.8 VR and i have used it. It seemed ok to me. I want an 85 1.4 and a 35 too, but probably couldn't afford it even if they made them.
(I still think the Nikon long glass is way expensive compared to Canon, and for sure delivers nothing better....maybe the same, but not better, from what I have seen. Not bashing or looking for flames here, just my opinion and experience using this stuff. Plus, Nikon has been awfully late to the VR (IS in Canon parlance) party, and that also kept me from considering any possible switch back.)
I'd be totally fine if Nikon came out with a line of superb F2 lens instead of 1.4's. Most F2's out perform 1.4's anyway.
Think of the size and cost advantage of a nice 35 F2. I would think the designers would have an easier time correcting flaws or coma, fringing and stuff in an F2 over a 1.4. Hi ISO is so stupidly good we could pass on 1.4's.
The big problem with that is Canon. Canon has 1.4's so Nikon has to.
I would love some killer F2 wides, normal and short tele's.
Some new updated FX primes at the mid-wide to wide end wouldn't go amiss it's true. The current pro zooms (14-24/24-70) are excellent but a new nano coated AF-S 35/1.4, a 24 and a 21 would be wonderful.
I too would love Nikon to bring out the 35 and 85 in AFS but for the moment I am content using my ZF lenses albeit they are manual focus. The Zeiss 35 is just a sensational piece of glass IMO and the 100 2.0 as well. I know that many are totally put off by manual focus and will wait or go to other options. Personally I love the files from my D3X so I put up with manual focus.
By the way some of the more vocal folks about this issue are M8 or M9 shooters where of course there is no AF option nor never will be. Just an observation.........not getting on anyone's case about it.
True, M8/9 owners have no AF worries at all. They only have to worry if their lenses and images are in focus at all distances and apetures ;-/
I am heading up to PhotoPlus this week to see this beast in person. I am sure Ranger 9 will chime in here that this is a near-perfect stagecraft camera. If the ISO 12,800 shots are as good as the samples (I will be campaigning hard to get Nikon to send me one to test), that buys me 2 extra stops of shutter speed for stopping the action.
For me the D3s announcement is a non-event. I don't need the higher ISO capability, and would never use the video. Sensor cleaning is nice, but I found it didn't work that well on my D300, so I ended up cleaning by hand anyway. The new sensor... well, the jury is still out there. I know I love what I'm getting from the D3 already. The one thing I do like the is 300,000 shot rating of the shutter, but most heavy users will blow past that anyway. Not enough going here for me to shell out more $$$. Now a D700s, maybe; a D700x for sure!
What makes me wondering is the video implementation, which is more or less the same as in the D300s, and quite a distance behind Canon 7D and 1DIV. I could have understood it if they didn't include video at all, but when introducing it in a camera at this level, the video implementation should be the best available for this kind of camera, and it clearly isn't.
I would use video, and now I've found out that the 7D is $300 cheaper than the D300s here in Bangkok. I don't know. Time will show. I'll spend a week in freezing Norway first, to cool down my buying urge
Well I got to fondle a unit over at PhotoPlus and I have to say it is every bit a D3 in build, feel and operation. I was allowed to take test shots with my own CF card and here are the results:
As you can see from these JPGs (I have RAWs too but no way to process them) the 12,800 shots are completely usable and the 102,400 shot can have artistic applications (convert to B&W and pretend it's grain). I'd have to call this a vast improvement over my D700. The 12,800 shots are comparable to 3200 on my current camera.