Nikon D3s with 1080p video rumored for release next month
By Nilay Patel 
posted September 27th 2009 1:50PM
posted September 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.
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