The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon D3s - now out

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Well, with that reasoning, Nikon should just make kit lenses because they sell way more of those than $1,900. Zooms.

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.

-Marc
I think there are times when a fast aperture is welcome for generating a certain look with narrow DoF. Or when manually focusing...
~~~

fultonpics,

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!
 

LJL

New member
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 :thumbup:
I believe Nikon looses a lot of important potential customers.
Not trying to pile on here, but your comment about Nikon losing some folks also applies to the long lens line-up also. Nikon's 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 are all much more expensive than the stellar performing Canons of similar length. Nikon does not even offer a 300/2.8, which oddly enough is still important for some shooters. The Nikon 200/2 is about the same price as the Canon 200/2, but from that point, things get way more pricey on the Nikon side. The one attractive longer lens is the Nikon 200-400 zoom. Canon does not have that matched, and I think that range would be nice to have.

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.

LJ
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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!! :thumbs:

Ordered mine today - it'll probably turn up before my M9 ordered 7 weeks ago. :deadhorse:
 

Arjuna

Member
Jono

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.
 

LJL

New member
HI there
as far as I can see the specs say that it's FX (dpreview say it's full frame)
Am I missing something here . . . or are you!
Hey Jono,
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.

LJ

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:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
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 :thumbup:
I believe Nikon looses a lot of important potential customers.
This is perhaps the primary reason I left Nikon after shooting with it for 40 years. The other was the D3X timing relative to the D3.
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)
-bob
 

LJL

New member
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.
So sorry. You are correct. I missed seeing that $5K gem when I was scanning some lists, and honestly, have not seen anybody shooting with one for years, compared to some others from Nikon. My mistake.

(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.)

LJ
 

neils

New member
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.

Neil
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.

Neil
+1

A relatively compact 85mm f/2.0 AF-S VRII would be more or less permanent on my S5. The 85mm f/1.8 is a nice lens in many ways, but the AF is dated to say the least, and exact manual focusing... just forget it.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
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.
 

woodyspedden

New member
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.

Woody
 

neils

New member
Woody,

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 ;-/

Neil
 

etrigan63

Active member
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.
 

Lloyd

Active member
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!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
For me the D3s announcement is a non-event.
In many ways, it is a non-event. It's still a very nice camera, but like most of Nikon's "s" models, I start to feel sleepy when I read the specs. It's like I've read it all before, which I mostly have of course.

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 :toocool:
 

etrigan63

Active member
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:

ISO 102,400


ISO 12,800


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.
 

Lloyd

Active member
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.
That 12,800 result is impressive, and I can see how for your applications it would be very useful.
 
Top