One day after having been
leaked to the wilds and then
officially announced, Nikon has opened the floodgates on the upcoming D3S, an upgrade to last year's
D3 that was oh
so warmly received. Early indications are the D3S is just as hot, adding a 720p24 video mode to the mix and allowing use of the camera's full aperture and ISO range while recording. Important, that, because this camera offers a ludicrously high maximum ISO value of 102,400 -- approaching night vision territory. That's thanks to a new 12.1 megapixel sensor, which is paired with a vibration mechanism to reduce dust. How well does the sensor perform? Nobody is apparently allowed to show us just yet, but tell us they have, with words like "simply incredible" and "fantastic feat" used to describe its low-light shooting. Seems we'll have to wait a bit longer for full reviews, but these previews will surely whet your appetite. Oh, and the cost? A mere $5,199.95.
Read - Pocket-lint Nikon D3s hands-on
Read - Digital Photography Review D3s hands-on
Read - LetsGoDigital Nikon D3s "review"
Read - TechRadar Nikon D3s "review"
posted October 14th 2009 7:23AM
Sweet.
here's hoping canon's rumored release is an impressive.
what is meant by no one can show us? on Nikon's site there is a collection of images, with the ISO listed besides each
Yes, because the shots posted by a company are always the best way to find the performance of the camera!
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/sample.htm
As awesome as the rest of the camera is, I bet ISO 102K looks awful! I don't even know why cameras come with these "boost" mode ISO's.
that doesn't matter. The fact it has such a huge range means that any significant image quality dropoff will occur well beyond the usual range of ISOs.
If your car has a top speed of 250 mph you can be fairly sure that 120 mph is going to be a pretty smooth and effortless ride.
great for low light shooting but nothing else really to admire here. Crappy industry-following 720p video. Stupidly high price. I feel sorry for the people stuck with Nikons and their stupidly expensive full frame cameras. Want a decent resolution from your DSLR that can actually crop? You have to spend like 7-8K for that. The price for this should be $3k max. Nikon is going to lose market share from Sony and Canon if they don't start waking up. It's nice to shoot in the dark but not if your stuck printing 8x10s of your pictures
I had a print done at 30*20 from an 8MP image from my old 350D and it looks fantastic. So at 12.1MP this has a reasonable amount of room to crop still. However I agree at $5000+ you would generally expect more nowadays.
720p is hardly crappy. The only reason the camera companies are putting video on their DSLRs is that newspapers/magazines/websites/etc are specifically asking their photographers to also be able to shoot video for the web. That's the way the industry is going and of course Nikon will follow industry trends. 720p is perfectly suited for the web.
Simply increasing MP isn't a clear cut win-win, or Nikon would have done it.
This camera is perfect for its target customers. News and sports shooters. The D3 has been making massive inroads into the sports shooter world. The last Olympics shows a big migration away from Canon in part because of their inability to make a sports camera that can actually follow focus properly (1D Mark III). Nikon's always had Canon beat in that area. The ergonomics of this camera are going to outclass Canon. Sony's pitiful high ISO performance in comparison makes it an amateur camera. Not to mention their system is years away from being competitive to Nikon and Canon. And Sony is happy to say so. (Not the high ISO pitiful part.)
The price of this camera is covered in the ruggedness of the body. It's tough as nails and will last as long as you want. The 720p video is perfect for sports and news shooters. It uploads way faster than 1280p. When speed is critical, this camera has no peer.
I shoot with a 1Ds Mark II and 5D Mark II at work. The former doesn't do video, so I use the 5D Mark II for that. One minute thirteen second clip is 135 megabytes. Imagine shooting a whole football game with some video here and there and it very quickly adds up. When you're sending video to the office, 720 will do the job just fine, and a lot faster. Because the video is likely on TV or going online. And that kind of resolution is just fine for those applications.
You want to shoot feature films? Get a Red Epic.
I do documentary/journalism around the world. I could be 1900 meters underground in emerald mines in Colombia where the humidity is 99 percent and the temperature is 125º F. This is the perfect camera for me. No flash, no protective cover, tough as nails, and extremely reliable. And it makes gorgeous photos. I shoot 16 gigs of photos a day when I'm on the road. I'd be more than happy with a 12 megapixel camera that can make prints way bigger than I need.
LOL @ Sony
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25466/D3S.html
Nikon USA has many sample images including a series of shots done at ISO 12,800. at the above address.
Lame. 5K+ for a camera I was hoping would have a switchable 720/1080P mode that shot in RAW format for it's video. This camera adds nothing other than low ISO performance which my D700 is perfectly capable already. Oh well, here's hoping the D700x adds 1080P RAW video mode.
exactly...where's the 1080?!
The 1080's on actual video cameras, not still cameras.
Your D700 doesn't have a maximum nominal ISO of 12800.
Not a bad set of specs, it should fit right in (unknowingly). If they didn't change much (and they really haven't), what's the extra $200 for? This is basically a D3 with a different-same sensor with a bump in sensitivity, and [a 720p] movie mode. It seems these incremental improvements are costing us more, incrementally. What's up with that? There is ZERO incentive to upgrade to this from a D3 at this point -- and if I didn't have one, there's no point in spending an extra $200 for a movie mode I don't use and an extra stop in [effective] ISO. If I didn't have one, I'd rather get a D3 and put the almost $1000 I'd save (from getting a D3s) on a good lens. 12,800 probably looks awesome, but 102,400 is uneccessary. There is no need --- there has never been a need to shoot at sensitivities that high, save for the ability to say you can I'm guessing. They keep talking about how awesome it would be - almost "night vision" quality. For what? There is no photographer that will shoot at a sensitivity that high in the dark, for anything making him money (except news guys, maybe). But for an extra $200, you're really not doing us any favors Nikon. I'm not impressed. I'd be more impressed if the D3x came with dust removal...
YOU don't need ISO 102,400. That doesn't mean nobody needs it. And from the photo I saw, it's pretty noisy. But that also means ISO 12,800 will be like the D3 at 6400 I'm betting. And 12,800 will get you barely usable shutter speeds at many high school football or basketball games.
There are lots of places I could have used that kind of speed in my career. So speak for yourself. I'll take every bit of light-gathering mojo it has.
Apparently some people are not to thrilled that the video relies on "Motion JPEG". It's just not good enough.
"Newly engineered for striking image fidelity and low-noise, optimizing pixel size and count in a 12.1-megapixel sensor to produce extraordinarily rich files."
***What a tremendous dissappointment that they are still trying to sell such low pix count in a professional camera. This is not on my list.
Really? How many pixels do you think you need?
Up for pre-order:
http://bountii.com/product-5106-nikon-d3s-12-1mp-digital.html
Who can afford to this buy these things???
People who actually get paid to use them.
If you're invoicing your clients correctly the cost simply isn't an issue.
Its not too expensive, its just 3450EUR. The dollar is in the dumps, thats what makes it so expensive for US customers.
that's funny, one of the buttons says qual, which sounds like cual, which means which one.
Its not too expensive, its just 3450EUR. The dollar is in the dumps, thats what makes it so expensive for US customers.
*sigh*
(button envy)
Lol @ all the engaget geeks commenting on a camera that they have no idea of it's purpose. This is aprofessional sports/journalism body. 12 megapixels is way more than necissary for the application. Many of my collegues are stll shooting on the (awesome) d2h, a 4 megapixel body, and guess what? They make plenty of money doing do! Go back to commenting on regular consumer electronics please, your idiocy is scarely apparent here!
This is a photographers camera, not a geeks.
Extreme sports photographer Mark Watson takes on the Red Bull Glorious Days Project with the Nikon D300S.u'll luv this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAGS3d4i-DE