Nikon D3s with 1080p video rumored for release next month
By Nilay Patel 
posted Sep 27th 2009 1:50PM
posted Sep 27th 2009 1:50PM
This sort of burst out of nowhere today, but word is that a new Nikon D3s will hit on October 15 -- the crew at NikonRumors puts it at "99 percent probability." The D3s is expected to add 1080p video and an 14fps burst mode to the D3, as well as a 1.6x crop mode, but other than that we don't know too much. We'll keep you updated, it looks like the leaks are coming fast and furious.
Wouldn't that be 1.5x and not 1.6x?
1.6x is Canon......
Doesn't matter really, it could be anything. It's just a software crop...
Right, its 1.5x crop and the current D3 already has this. Its also not really a software crop, its a sensor crop, only a cropped portion of the sensor is captured; which is why you have a drop in megapixels when doing this. A software crop is where the entire portion of the sensor is captured and then the unneeded portion cropped out via software, modern CMOS sensors can read a specific area of the sensor, hence cropped modes can be faster when reading a smaller portion of the sensor (the current D3 does 11fps in crop mode).
What would be a very good feature is if they had a "dial-a-crop" mode. 1.0x-2.0x, with .1 increments. Good for when you can sacrifice megapixels for speed and reach.
Dialing a crop doesn't help much. You only get the speed at 1.5x, but you don't get more reach.
Yes, but since this is out of my income bracket I'm still dreaming of a DH1
What's unusual about 14fps? That's the rate for still pictures; not for video.
exactly what I thought...
14 fps makes it the fastest fps shutter on any still 35mm camera. This would be a sports photographer's dream camera. Shoot up to 102k ISO, 14 fps, and pair it with the new 70-200 2.8 VRII. It can practically see in the dark.
Hey, are you sure you can read?
It says "14fps burst mode", so it's obviously talking about taking pictures!
Who said anything about it being unusual?
How many cameras do you know that can do 14fps?
See the comment above you
guys it's 14 fps in crop mode, this is a full frame camera.
you can expect the 1080p to be in either 24/30fps.
If it retails for under $1000 I might consider picking one up...
You must be joking. The D3 retails for $5,500.
What does the 's' stand for?
Super expensive.
That's Apple you're thinking of; stands for Second edition.
Nikon has added the S to refreshes for years, D2Xs, D2Hs, D70s.
"s" means it's feature-enhanced model refresh, and the sensor resolution remains unchanged.
c.f. D70s vs. D40x
Even with this you can't get a different shoot of paris hilton. -_-
I'm guessing since this thing has a camera on it that it won't be able to play any games.
If you mix the right pills you can play Pokemon Snap with it.
(nostalgia lol?)
Go search for ExSpeed MAME. I run MAME on my D700 perfectly. Pac-Man, Galaga, MK, SF II, Simpsons, 1944, Donkey Kong, Q-bert all run great while waiting for the make-up at a wedding. Another plus for Nikons joystick button instead of a Canon wheel and too few buttons! 5DmkII-MAME only plays Arkanoid and Tempest!
Nikon seriously need to sort out their wide lenses. There's nothing new in the 17-40 gap that Canon are dominating in.
The 14-24 that 'replaced' the 17-35 is definately NOT a replacement in my opinion. It's a completely different lens for different purpose, 14mm is stupidly wide. Apart from that there's just the 24-70, which isn't wide enough for some stuff.
They need to get a new good 17-35 before bringing out a un-necessary D3 replacement.
Apart from that, yay Nikon. The D3 is insane, best camera i've ever used...I have two of them. So glad I switched from Canon after the dissapointment of the 5D MKII.
Oh and the 14fps is not the video fps, it's still shooting in DX crop mode. Which yeah would probably be 1.5 not 1.6. But the D3 can do that already...
LOL you are an idiot. You wasted all of your money switching. Have fun with your measly 12mp D3 that doesn't have any better low light capability than 5dII which is 9 more MP. Who cares about MP you say? Try cropping your crappy 12mp frames and see what you have after that. Try shooting in DX mode and see what kind of crappy resolution you get. We're glad you switched too! I'm sure it says "idiot" in the EXIF data on your shots.
There is also rumoured a 16-35 f/4 VR (FX).
@macjonny: why so douchey?
@DarthVegas
Let him be- he's venting out his anger from still being stuck shooting in Auto mode.
@macjonny
Measley 12MP? 12MP is more than enough for pretty much all types of photography, since i'm a press photographer, I don't need 21. Infact 90% of people who use DSLRs don't need that much, don't start all that crap about cropping, if you compose the shot right in the first place, you won't need to crop. If I did need stupidly large amounts of pixels, i'd buy a D3x...which has 24.
Don't start comparing features of a D3 against a 5D MKII, you will only loose. Badly.
16-35 sounds good....if only it was f/2.8.
I could live with f/4 though I think.
What's so bad about the Canon 5D2? I don't own either, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
It has old 9-point AF, slow FPS, no weather sealing. The D700 beats it on everything except video and MP count.
Great for video though. Rivals professional cameras that cost tens of thousands of £/$. It's not even a professional DSLR.
@Cowprint
Considering this new D3s has ISO 102,400, I don't think missing a stop on the lens is going to be much of an issue :P
I totally understand the AF and weather sealing. But if you want FPS, didn't you buy the wrong camera? The 1D3 is Canon's fps camera, isn't it?
No, that's the completely wrong view that so many people take.
The point is why should there be two different cameras (one high speed, one full frame). Why can't the 5D MKIIdo it all? Nikon have clearly been able to get around that, and have the D3 and D700, both full frame, both high speed. Infact Nikon did exactly what Canon should do - merge it's two top end pro models.
Nikon managed to make the D700, which is full frame just like the 5D (and in the same price/customer bracket), and give it 8fps with the grip. The 5D's 3fps is laughable. I know, I used to have two of them.
That being said, I do actually prefer Canon. I MUCH prefer their lens ranges, the layouts of their cameras and all the functions. It's just that they have nothing that compares to the D3. Shame. I hope the 1D MKIV beats it so I can move back.
Whoa there buddy. Buying a camera that doesn't meet your specs and then saying it's junk when it doesn't meet your specs seems like the wrong view to me. I'm not saying having to choose between video and high fps is fun, but if you need high fps and you choose the low fps camera, you've made a mistake of your own.
Nikon had a separate high speed line until a year ago on their high end, so I don't think the idea of having a separate high speed camera is as ridiculous as you say. I'm not saying making cameras slower is a great goal in and of itself, but throwing another thousand on the price of your consumer high-MP full frame dSLR so you can put more fps in isn't a slam dunk either. Sometimes you can't have it all at the price you want and companies have to make compromises. Nikon cut the MP, Canon cut the fps. Both are valid choices, with different trade-offs.
It sounds like you got the camera that fits your needs now. But that doesn't mean that any configuration that isn't tailor made for you is automatically a dumb idea.
What exactly is wrong with the 17-35 f/2.8? It's a great freaking lens. They don't have a 17mm tilt/shift lens, yet.
you're forgetting the 17-55 2.8.
I own the 14-24 and 24-70 and 70-200. The 14-24 is an unbelievably great lens. Optically it blows anything else out there in its range. I used to shoot with Leicas, including the 19mm 2.8 (second version) which was one of the best wide angle lenses in existence. Not just ultra-wide; wide! And this Nikon Zoom is every bit as good.
(BTW, I shoot with Canons - a 1Ds Mark II and 5D Mark II - at work.) At a photo show, I showed the Canon rep my 14-24 and asked him when Canon was going to come out with something like it, and he conceded "We have nothing to match it." That's all he could say.
So, maybe this lens is too wide for you. But for professionals, it's a killer lens with no peer.
Nothing in the 17-40 gap from Nikon?
Well go fetch a 28mm 2.8 AiS on the double! This is the sharpest corner to corner wide-angle with close to no distortion, no flare, no vignetting, 20cm close focussing and it is the best normal wide angle ever made by Nikon AND Canon since they started making 35mm cameras! 17-24mm is too wide anyway if there is a person in the picture (egg and melonheads). Its no AF, but who cares? Who minds AF on wide-angles anyway?
@Ant - Yep nothing wrong with it, i'm not saying there is. It's the best zoom lens ever made. It's at the top of my to-buy list. However...it's impossible to get hold of. Noone stocks them anymore (in the UK), best option is to import from HK. Also it's not weather sealed. Some say it's as sealed as the Canon 17-40 when you put a UV filter on the front, but i'm not convinced.
@ Kevin Kao - The 17-55 is a DX crop lens. Waste of time on a D3. I wish that lens was FX though, i'd buy one in a second.
@ Eric - I'm a professional too...i'm press. The 14-24 was basically designed for press photographers and photojournalists. I've used it loads of times and just found it too wide. It's a brilliant lens though, i'm not doubting it's quality, i'm just saying it's NOT a replacement for the 17-35 which is what Nikon suggest. The front element is also a bit of a downer, I find myself constantly covering it with my hand so it doesn't get scratched. Also needs a bit more on the longer end...24 is still really wide.
I just want Nikon to upgrade the 17-35 - put some weather sealing on it.
Wow, even if it's a crop mode, 14fps is AWESOME. (Well, as long as that crop mode is more than 5MP...) Video will be cool too. Man, Canon has got to step it up with the successor to the Mark III, I mean, right now there's still a place for the 1D and the 1Ds, but if this comes in at $5-6k with that frame rate...
14fps for stills? Holy hell, that would make me be willing to own it in spite of the damn blasphemous video.
UPDATE: the Nikon D3s may have a new 1.3x crop mode.
I don’t know about this rumor (anonymous email), but here it is – the Nikon D3s looks much better already (if those are true of course):
* Nikon D3s with ISO 200-12800 (D3 was with ISO 200-6400).
* New ISO range HI-3 at 102,400 ISO.
* 12.1 mp FX sensor (same as the D3, but tweaked).
* D-movie with 24 fps.
http://nikonrumors.com/2009/09/26/nikon-d3s-bits-and-pieces.aspx
Cool!
i have a question, does engadget take the weekend off or something. It has ben like forever and this is the last post. But it also might be something with my comp, because i have been having this problem wehere the page loades the same way that it did before, like i was in offline mode.
I'm confused- is this a revision for the D3 or the D3X?
this is the d3 replacement
a "x" at the end of a camera is for eXtraa Pixels (d3x, d40x ...)
a "h" at the end of a camera is for High Speed (d2h, d1h)
a "s" is for second edition (d70s, d3s)
the replacement for the d3x would be the d3xs (like nikon did with the d2hs)
@jodosh
Thanks for the clarification ;)
Although i believe this rumour is plausible, i don't believe the videomode, don't think nikon would put video on such a camera focused on sports.
Will we finally see a $10,000 SLR?
sounds like the new sony cmos is in there, 14 fps sounds crazy! even if at aps-c size.
I've got a D3, D300, and a Canon 5D mk2... I'm insanely disappointed in Nikon. This pretty much solidifies the fact that they're not interested in matching image quality with Canon. I don't shoot event/press stuff (There's no money in it) so I'm not concerned with the minor differences in focusing elements... I want a kick-ass image, and love using the Canon for video. It's simply a better camera than anything Nikon makes in the equivalent price range. C'mon, Nikon... Canon's got a bullet proof 18 MP still camera that shoots 8 FPS and various FPS 1080p video... For $1700. With a lot more gear on the way. This is beginning to look like AMD/Intel
The new Canon 1D and 1Ds are due too. It will be interesting to see how they stack up
I think canon will go for 1DIV with pellicle mirror..
Seefx - No offense but that has to be the most ill-informed post I have read in a while. You say you want a kick ass image, guess what? Any camera - canon, nikon, pentax, sony - even your iPhone can make a kick ass image. It is the photographer, not the camera. More importantly, tests have shown the MKII to be the best canon camera ever created, but still falls behind even the d700 (if you want to get technical). If you are a prosumer/consumer and are equally interested in 1080p video (as you suggest you are), I can see the MKII being a good choice. But for still image quality - you will be hard pressed to find a Canon that can beat a full frame nikon. I like Canon, but bells and whistles do not equal "image quality" - and megapixel counting is worthless. It's high ISO - low noise, it's metering, it's tracking, it's the sensor - it's a whole lot of things, but not megapixels. For $1700, I would buy a d300s - JMHO.
Ill-informed is an absolutely GENIUS comment, as I clearly stated I've got all three cameras, and I use them for a living, and a good one at that. Ain't exactly new at this. Compare 'em to each other all the time. The proof isn't in intangible arguments over teh internets... It's in the freakin' pixels I see before me when I compare images side by side. There's a pretty significant difference in image quality. I thought the D300 was pretty rad until I got the D3. Then that was trumped by the Canon... And Nikon has responded miserably. So I'm jumping ship, as their course isn't changing. And oh yes there is definitely a major advantage to pixel count, especially when we're talking almost double. In fact, for those I deal with, it's an absolute deal breaker. Nikon is way behind these days. This coming from a guy who's got probably $20,000 in Nikon lenses... And now uses them on a Canon camera. I'll probably sell the lesser expensive ones. Bottom line. You see what you want so see... I only care about the result. I love it when fanboys get all riled up over stupidness such as this... In my realm, I'm not even allowed to use Nikon digital cameras... Their pixel counts are too low for all but one camera, and it's 8 freakin' grand... If Nikon really takes advantage of what Sony's got up their sleeve, I'll probably jump ship back again. 'til then, see ya... I don't shoot sports or news, I don't need ya.
@seefx
Sorry dude, but you're blowing your Canon fanboyism a bit too loud. The Nikon D3X is selling for around $7,000 - or about $500 more than its Canon equivalent. So it would be monumentally dumb to dump $20,000 worth of Nikon lenses to save $500. When the Nikon D800 comes out to compete with the 5D Mark II, you'll be beating your head against the wall wondering why you wasted all that money to get a camera that is ergonomically not as good as Nikon bodies, and whose wide angle lenses can't touch the good stuff from Nikon. Unless you want f/1.4 lenses, then Canon is your only choice at this point. But that's supposed to be fixed on the Nikon side too.
And yes, the image quality of the D3X is better than the 1Ds Mark III.
I shoot with the 5D Mark II all the time and have tried the D3X.
Not buying it, "Eric"... Not much of a reader, either... I said I'm getting rid of the inexpensive Nikon lenses. Total net loss after buying a Canon equivalent... Less than a grand. It's just upgrading. Nice try comparing cameras that don't exist to the real world, especially when EVERYone's got something new coming out. Not gonna compare it until I use it myself. It's kind of hard to be a Canon fanboy when I've got a LOT more stuff that says Nikon on it... I use what's best. When Nikon pulls their head out, I'll be all over it, assuming it trumps whatever I have currently. I stand by my original line... AMD vs Intel.
seefx, you're a rabid Canon fanboy if I ever saw one. see what unbiased, reputable super-pros (like lloyd chambers) have to say about the 5DII. it's a piece of shit with lots of pixels. sloppy, blurry pixels. canon's too busy putting 1080p video in their cameras to actually worry about image quality.
check out the dxo mark ratings if you don't believe diglloyd.
point and shoots, now there's a difference. canon's will beat nikons all the time.
SEEFX and GENIUS.
Well it depends what your needs are. As you said, you dont do press or event shooting. I work as a photojournalist where ruggedness, high ISO performance and weather sealing are very important. The D700 shooting a night time football game while its raining is the perfect camera, short of buying a D3. The 5d MkII on the other hand is not sealed and the extra mega pixels are just over kill for my needs.
On the other hand, if you are shooting for a catalog or images for advertising, the D700 might not have enough resolution for you and the 5D is perfect.
It isnt that Nikon is falling behind, its just both systems are aiming their cameras at a different audience (at least with the D700 and 5D).
For my uses, I would choose the D700 over the 5D, but both are great light boxes.
Different strokes for different folks, folks.
Well said. I concur. Aside form what Anthony mentioned, anyone really serious about image quality would be shooting medium format film anyways. (for studio stuff that is)
Last time I used 5D2 to shoot my kids' play day, lame, 70% of the shots are out of focus. Since then I am tamed to use 5D2 and those expensive L lenses only for outdoor+tripod shooting although the colors are so fake from my sensitive eyes ever indulged by Zeiss, RVP, and medium format. D300 (also own) is perfect for sports events, high ISO, 51-point AF and 3D tracking, 8fps, seldom miss a shot... gee what else can you get from a camera!? I agree AF accuracy is very important in digital age and more important than pixel count. In Canon, I have to pay up to 1Ds3 for a similar thing or similar result.
14fps on stills is just sick. Maybe this is how Nikon will get back on top in sports pro photography.
x1.6 crop?
DX format is x1.5 crop.
Nikon d3s is 100% confirmed, found this picture on Clifton cameras web site http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Nikon_D3_Body look at the picture under the description.........THE NEW NIKON D3