D3s is official

[luminosity]

It used to be people wanted the least amount of grain/noise/ISO now everyone is touting the 6 figures?

This camera only goes as low as ISO100...thats kind of sad actually.

There's far more use in high ISO ability for most people than to be able to go very low. ISO 200 (the D3's lowest normal ISO) is plenty low enough for the vast majority of people out there.

If you regularly shoot high ISO work, the ability to shoot them and get usable images back is crucial.

 

[peskaa]

Nikon has done the mid-cycle "s" upgrades for years and years. Nikon sticks to its schedule as few other companies do. The D300s was a slight feature bump, just as the D2Xs was and the D70s and so on.

What high ISO number are you being dismissive of, peskaa? Anything from 25,600 down should be very usable. If you're shooting at high ISO values, whoever you're shooting for will likely be impressed that you can get anything decent at all.

Sending a decent image to a client is better than sending nothing at all, I would wager. If you're in a darkened restaurant and you quietly capture a moment that no one else gets because you're the only one who can shoot at an extremely high ISO, no one is going to be complaining. Same for a wedding reception, I'm sure.

I used a fast lens for the images I took above, that being my 85/1.8. I still went to 25,000 to get a fast enough shutter speed to remove any shakiness in the image.

I'm well aware Nikon have been doing the 's' upgrade for years - doesn't mean I agree with the practice.

I'm being dismissive of anything over 3,200 - and even that is pushing it. Everybody trots out the "it's better than nothing", but really, it isn't. The client isn't going to give a rat's ass about being impressed - they're paying for images, and good ones - not a "oh, it was the best I could do, it was too dark". The day you can get to those high ISOs without the grain actually intruding into the image, I'll use it, but until then, there's a long way to go. Ultimately, if you're having to shoot at high ISOs to those extremes, change the way you shoot, pick your kit better, whatever works. I'd be picking up f/1.2/1.4 lenses for a start.

You call the results "decent". I don't, and on a large print that noise is just going to be ridiculous. If I submitted an image like that, I'd just be laughed at. I can see the noise on your low resolution web image, and I shake in fear at what it'd be like full size. In fact, I might try it on a D3 tomorrow...

I get it, you love high ISO and think it works for you. Great. However, I'd also like to bet that most people don't ever push their camera that high, and never will.

I'll echo Sdashiki - what happened to getting clean images?

 

[otter]

What ISO in particular?

That's 25,600 on the D3/700 sensor.

Everybody keeps throwing the term 'usable' about without really defining what that means. Personally I think the above photo is usable for posting on Facebook and not a whole lot more.

Maybe it's my own personal shooting style, but just don't get the whole super high iso thing either. To a certain extent, it just seems like a marketing gimmick similar to 'the more megapixels the better'. Certainly, having more megapixels is useful for achieving certain results, such as printing larger formats and I'm sure that higher isos have their uses also but I can't see it being that useful for most professionals. I guess it depends on what your photographic niche is when it comes to usability but with respect to stock agencies, they'll poo poo anything over iso 400, and even that can be pushing it.

I too wish they'd give us more low iso options. I'm looking at getting one of the new 7D's and when I was looking at the iso range, I was disappointed that it didn't go down to 50. That would be a bigger selling point for me.... but that's just me.

 

[peskaa]

Everybody keeps throwing the term 'usable' about without really defining what that means. Personally I think the above photo is usable for posting on Facebook and not a whole lot more.

Maybe it's my own personal shooting style, but just don't get the whole super high iso thing either. To a certain extent, it just seems like a marketing gimmick similar to 'the more megapixels the better'. Certainly, having more megapixels is useful for achieving certain results, such as printing larger formats and I'm sure that higher isos have their uses also but I can't see it being that useful for most professionals. I guess it depends on what your photographic niche is when it comes to usability but with respect to stock agencies, they'll poo poo anything over iso 400, and even that can be pushing it.

I too wish they'd give us more low iso options. I'm looking at getting one of the new 7D's and when I was looking at the iso range, I was disappointed that it didn't go down to 50. That would be a bigger selling point for me.... but that's just me.

Exactly. That made perfect sense to me, and I agree about 110%. That said, the ISO 50 option (or "L" on my 5D2) is a software grain reduction, so cheats anyway. ISO 100 comes out as clean anyway.

 

[175170]

Everybody keeps throwing the term 'usable' about without really defining what that means. Personally I think the above photo is usable for posting on Facebook and not a whole lot more.

Maybe it's my own personal shooting style, but just don't get the whole super high iso thing either.

Exactly what I'm thinking. If you're running a photography website on FaceBook though... you have a serious problem .

I don't use high ISOs either, but maybe that's because I don't own a D3S

 

[ChrisA]

I
I'm being dismissive of anything over 3,200 - and even that is pushing it. Everybody trots out the "it's better than nothing", but really, it isn't. The client isn't going to give a rat's ass about being impressed - they're paying for images, and good ones - not a "oh, it was the best I could do, it was too dark". The day you can get to those high ISOs without the grain actually intruding into the image, I'll use it, but until then, there's a long way to go.

I agree with this.

It reminds me of last weekend. I was driving by some mountains, the Sierras along Hwy 395 and I'd notice tourists taking photos. It was a horrible day and time of day for those shots. The light was wrong and there was haze in the air. All those people would get would be grey blobs. But I guess they were thinking "better this than nothing". I disagree. I think better to catch some extra sleep at the end of the day than to waste your time with images that can never be used.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I agree with this.

It reminds me of last weekend. I was driving by some mountains, the Sierras along Hwy 395 and I'd notice tourists taking photos. It was a horrible day and time of day for those shots. The light was wrong and there was haze in the air. All those people would get would be grey blobs. But I guess they were thinking "better this than nothing". I disagree. I think better to catch some extra sleep at the end of the day than to waste your time with images that can never be used.

That's definitely been my philosophy lately. For example, a couple of months ago, my husband and I decided to photograph a location in the Julian Alps and drove an hour to get there, only to discover upon arriving that the church we wanted to shoot was just being consumed by the shadow of a tall mountain peak. We raced out to this little hill, set up the tripod, and then realized we were too late. The shadow had enveloped the church, and our subject was no longer receiving good light. So there I was, cable release in hand, ready to shoot...and I simply packed it all up and left without taking a single shot. Instead of wasting any more time on that project, we used what was left of the daylight to scout out possible locations to shoot on another day. We then returned two days later, this time about an hour earlier, and got a whole bunch of nice shots.

Of course that was a situation where no camera and no technology would have helped (aside from a giant bulldozer to remove the offending mountain, perhaps). I've also been in situations where astronomically high ISO would have helped, if it were truly free of major noise, so I think the promise of the D3s is a good one. There is definitely a market for such cameras with photographers who can't or won't use a tripod.

 

[luminosity]

I look forward to using the 200/1.2 telephoto lenses that undoubtably are widely available, particularly for sports and photojournalism use.

Ah yes, that's right. They don't exist, yet the aforementioned photographers have to make do in poor lighting anyway. How have they done it over the years? Now I remember: They used fast film in the past and now they use high ISO settings to compensate for poor lighting where flash use is unavailable.

Some of you guys sound like you'd get panicky if everything wasn't set just right in a studio somewhere. Be sure not to try anything remotely journalistic.

If you work for Sports Illustrated, what do you say to your photo editor when a rival magazine or newspaper gets the shot you wouldn't take because the ISO setting might have created a little more noise than you'd like (and that 98% of people viewing the photo would fail to notice)? Stick to the studio, folks.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that a photo editor would complain about this shot being set at 6400 ISO?

 

[akdj]

"If this keeps up, I'll have to switch to Nikon. The only thing holding me back right now is the $$,$$$ I've already invested in Canon glass. I'm putting hold on getting anymore lenses until the dust settles on the MP vs ISO war."

There's an answer coming. The 1d3 is VERY long in the tooth...MkIV coming soon....

 

[cosmokanga2]

I look forward to using the 200/1.2 telephoto lenses that undoubtably are widely available, particularly for sports and photojournalism use.

Ah yes, that's right. They don't exist, yet the aforementioned photographers have to make do in poor lighting anyway. How have they done it over the years? Now I remember: They used fast film in the past and now they use high ISO settings to compensate for poor lighting where flash use is unavailable.

Some of you guys sound like you'd get panicky if everything wasn't set just right in a studio somewhere. Be sure not to try anything remotely journalistic.

If you work for Sports Illustrated, what do you say to your photo editor when a rival magazine or newspaper gets the shot you wouldn't take because the ISO setting might have created a little more noise than you'd like (and that 98% of people viewing the photo would fail to notice)? Stick to the studio, folks.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that a photo editor would complain about this shot being set at 6400 ISO?

Exactly! For sports and photojournalism, you need these high ISO settings. Not everybody will need or use ISO 25,600, but for those who do, those that need 1/160th in a poorly lit stadium with a 400mm f/4, it's the difference between getting a sellable shot and not.

 

[pdxflint]

I don't know how the hell I ever got all those 'grainy' T-Max 3200 images published back in the day... must have been some really dumb editors...

The world isn't just made up of plastic-y, glass-like smoothness in reality, and many of the most interesting images I've seen are ones that capture in a much more realistic light... ta da... the "moment." I do come from the photojournalism side of the equation, so to me sharpness outranks graininess - it always has - combined with an great exposure.

If you are mainly doing stock photography geared for slick print advertising, well then sure, get the studio quality shot. Probably go medium to large format, if you want to really get the style they like, as well as invest in plenty of remote lighting - basically, set your stuff up. No problem. The high ISO wouldn't really be of much interest, and the D3s isn't your camera. But, if you do event photography, sports, weddings or hell, you just happen to work for SI or Nat Geo, the D3s would be perfect.

BTW, there was a double truck football shot of a Super Bowl play a number of years ago (shot on film, obviously) where Leon Lett of the Cowboys had the ball knocked out of his hand just as he was crossing the goal line. It had to be one of the grainiest shots blown up I've seen, yet it was unforgettable. You figure the ISO the guy shot it at was probably 1600 or at most pushed to 3200 at the time - probably Fujicolor 1600, since it had become a night game by then and no slide film would come close - and today the D3s, heck even my D300, will produce a better high-ISO image as far as 'noise' or 'grain.' So please don't tell me any editor would laugh you out of the building because you are barking up the wrong tree with me... sorry.

 

[wheezy]

It's nice to know that just as much knocking goes on when Nikon announces and new Camera as when Canon does. Or Apple releases a new product. There sure are a lot of whiners on here.

The D3S is a minor upgrade to the D3, most users of that camera aren't going to upgrade. While 102,400 is going to be interesting to see, they really dropped the ball on video. ONLY 720P? And Motion JPEG at that? They obviously haven't noticed that the 5DII and now 7D really took on the budget film and video crowd. So, they missed the upgrade audience (D3 to D3S) and totally missed the potential on VSLR purchasers, whose numbers are getting larger.

That being said, it's a very solid camera. I wish Canon offered a lower MP Full Frame, the idea seems like a very solid plan. I kind of wish they left the 21MP to the 1Ds and kept the 5DII at 12-15MP. Nevertheless, I'm still amazed at the high ISO quality I'm getting with my new 5DII. The high ISO game isn't a gimmick at all.

 

[TheStrudel]

For my part, I find it hard to take VSLRs seriously because the available controls, ergonomics, and shooting formats of VSLRs are bum-jumped for editing or very polished work. Quick and dirty video (like on facebook), sure.

But getting back to the point at hand, I've always seen the high ISO settings offered as an option that few people use - Nikon's strategy with the D3 and D700 has been excellent noise response at lower ISO settings as well. Meaning that while they're offering you ludicrously high ISO options, they're bolstering the performance at more reasonable levels like 1600 and 3200 at the same time. Those weren't usable at all on older bodies. I have to assume that's something they're doing with the D3s, but we won't know until sample pictures are released or reviews/testing hits the web.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Sheesh. A bunch of you are railing against one guy who said editors would balk at grainy photos and maybe one other person who agreed with him?

Anyway, it's nice to know that Nikon is committed to offering a specialized camera aimed at people who shoot stuff that moves in low light. There's lots of need for such a camera. (Now I'm repeating what I've already said in this thread, but I suspect nobody read it before. At least a few of you are too interested in the one guy who said something provocative.)

As for whether or not this is a worthy upgrade for owners of a D3: well, that depends on the extent to which they photograph stuff that moves in low light.

 

[luminosity]

I saw what you said and it was noted (to myself, at least). But, what the aforementioned person said was to basically dismiss all uses of 3200 ISO or higher. No place for it for anything, and judging by the comments made about lenses, photojournalism didn't enter into his mind at all, or is not considered important enough to mention. I can't help but laugh at the idea of 300/400/500mm 1.4 lenses. They would be absolutely enormous. Our esteemed photographer above also ignored what I said about having a fast lens and still needing to shoot at a high ISO.

I come from the journalistic side of photography and it's the kind of photography that I do. I don't get paid for it (yet, at least), but I hope to someday, and if I could do my life over again, it's unquestionably what I would have gotten into professionally. You get the best shot with the light and the equipment you have to work with. If it means some grain or noise, so be it. I very much respect studio photographers, but just because they would never use high ISO images doesn't mean there isn't a place for them.

With the magic of photoshop and other editing programs, shooting at a high ISO is very helpful to a lot of photographers today.


I don't envision many D3 owners upgrading to the D3s. I see it more as keeping the camera relatively current for new owners and people switching to Nikon over the next two years, until the D4 is released in 2011 (which it will be).

Meaning that while they're offering you ludicrously high ISO options, they're bolstering the performance at more reasonable levels like 1600 and 3200 at the same time.

Yes, that's it. Very much so. ISO 2000 on a D3/700 is extremely clean and you get great color.

 

[wheelhot]

Convert the awfully high ISO images into B&W and we're done

 

[luminosity]

Convert the awfully high ISO images into B&W and we're done

What a good idea . Taken at 25,600 ISO.

If that's for a newspaper article, it works just fine.

 

[pdxflint]

Sheesh. A bunch of you are railing against one guy who said editors would balk at grainy photos and maybe one other person who agreed with him?

I wasn't "railing" against anybody (I never mentioned anyone in particular) but expressing the other side of the argument that said:

"I'm being dismissive of anything over 3,200 - and even that is pushing it. Everybody trots out the "it's better than nothing", but really, it isn't. The client isn't going to give a rat's ass about being impressed - they're paying for images, and good ones - not a "oh, it was the best I could do, it was too dark".​

and

You call the results "decent". I don't, and on a large print that noise is just going to be ridiculous. If I submitted an image like that, I'd just be laughed at."​

He may be right about his own experiences, but they don't define the entire world of photography, and I related my own experiences which support my contentions. That's all. No big deal. There are clearly different objectives involved in different photography markets and Nikon is clearly addressing one part of the market which has been sorely lacking - low light, available light, high ISO photoraphy with shutter speeds useful enough to cover something other than a still life. Image stabilization is great, but not for subjects that are doing much besides breathing while standing still.

I still believe we can have disagreements without railing.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

No 1080P? It will be a great still camera, but the film industry will continue to overlook Nikon and move in great numbers to Canon. Canon's 7D with 24P fps is a great experiment, with a lot of interest being generated despite the APS-C sensor. The next Canon will have that 24P support and in high quality video form. Oh, and I also know the next Canon cameras will also be touting ISO sensitivity in the 100,000 range, too. Nikon will have continued support in the still market, but Canon will experience even further growth in both still and video worlds (which also includes a large multimedia section).

 

[peskaa]

I'm enjoying the assumption here that I'm a studio photographer. Yes, I do shoot studio, but I'm also a photojournalist. Not an amateur either - my entire income is from photography, I'm a press-card-carrying professional. My day-to-day kit is made up of f/2.8 and f/1.2 lenses (2.8 on the long end, 300mm).

I'm not going to get too involved in this, but back in the days of film, we didn't have ISO 20k+ films. 3200 was about as high as you went, ever...yet you still got the results. So use the same skill set and apply it to dSLRs. Yes, 3,200 film was ridiculously noisy, but in terms of exposure settings etc, it isn't any different today.

Yes, you can print high ISO, noisy images in a paper and get away with it. But when it is time for the glossy supplement, those images get discarded and the lower grain images get used.


I'll freely admit to using levels of hyperbole to create debate, hence I dealt in absolutes.

 

[luminosity]

Sports Illustrated's crew for the Super Bowl exclusively used Nikon equipment, and they shot at 2000 ISO and up for much of the game, including of course the critical final minutes of the game. Santonio Holmes' catch remains an iconic moment in Super Bowl history, and I know it was shot at a high ISO. That didn't stop it from being printed and reprinted in thousands of media outlets.

The technical considerations are minimal compared to a day game. The exposure is very consistent and relatively even, especially when you are shooting from an overhead position like mine. I shot most of the action at the equivalent of 1/1000s, f/2.8, ISO 2000. Focus is very critical and you have to work hard to keep things very sharp, which is tougher to do at maximum aperture where you are dealing with minimum depth of field. Some of the world’s fastest moving athletes don’t make it any easier either.

http://photo.net/learn/sports-photography/bill-frakes/2009/super-bowl/index.published.adp

Read up.

It's laughable for you to say that 3200 ISO film is the same as 3200 ISO on a D3/700. It's simply not believable, and I have to wonder if you're just choosing to say things you know full well aren't true. On a D3/700, a 3200 shot is very clean, almost without visible noise unless lighting conditions are such to make it obvious. With 3200 ISO film, it's impossible to miss the noise.

But when it is time for the glossy supplement, those images get discarded and the lower grain images get used.

And if those grainy images are the only shot available? Please. You and I both know that they will get used. Don't be obtuse.

 

[peskaa]

ISO 2000 is fine with modern equipment. 2000 does not equal 25,600, unless your maths is really broken.

So in fact, you just supported my side of the story. Your beloved Sports Illustrated, shooting at 2000 ISO, not 25,600. Hell, they even call 2000 "high", underlining the fact that they consider it to be towards to the top end of what would be considered.

It's laughable for you to say that 3200 ISO film is the same as 3200 ISO on a D3/700. It's simply not believable, and I have to wonder if you're just choosing to say things you know full well aren't true. On a D3/700, a 3200 shot is very clean, almost without visible noise unless lighting conditions are such to make it obvious. With 3200 ISO film, it's impossible to miss the noise.

I didn't say that! I was talking about the techniques of exposure. A shot taken on 3,200 ISO film at 150th, f/2.8 is going to be the same exposure value as a dSLR at 3,200 ISO, 150th, f/2.8. So, if sports photographers 20 years ago could nail all their shots with 1,600/3,200 ISO film, then why are we "needing" these ludicrous high ISO numbers to achieve the same maths?

 

[luminosity]

ISO 2000 is fine with modern equipment. 2000 does not equal 25,600, unless your maths is really broken.

So in fact, you just supported my side of the story. Your beloved Sports Illustrated, shooting at 2000 ISO, not 25,600. Hell, they even call 2000 "high", underlining the fact that they consider it to be towards to the top end of what would be considered.

I did no such thing. I'm pretty sure that any good sports photographer will take the best shot available, regardless of the ISO setting. Lowest possible, of course, but if there's not much light and the action is fast, the ISO goes up. I doubt many photographers ever shoot regularly at 25,600. But, I'm sure that an increasing number shoot at around 3200-6400 these days.

You can't expect anyone to believe that the football action shot I posted earlier bears even the faintest resemblance to a 6400 film shot from years ago. It's absurd, and no objective observer would ever even think to agree with you on it.

My shot looks like 800 ISO color film, I'd say.

 

[peskaa]

You're right, it looks like 800-ish colour film. The 25,600 shots you've posted don't. Right back at the start I stated that I wouldn't use these high ISOs until the noise issue is sorted out, and stops intruding on the image. Back in, ooo, 2004, dSLRs fell into a big pile of noise past ISO 800. Now it's 3,200. Give it a good couple of years and it will be 12,800 or 25,600 - *that* is when those ISOs become usable.


Incidentally, I'm having fun, hope you are

 

[pdxflint]

Peskaa, I never assumed you were a studio photographer - I just figured you like to stir things up, and nothing wrong with that. However, if you have a problem with pushing the limits of technology today, that's certainly your right. But, like you, as a "card carrying" photojournalist and former full-time newpaper photographer for a smaller daily I often found myself in conditions that most big-time SI type photographer never would find themselves, unless they came with lots of extra lighting or strobes - high school gymnasiums, high school night football games, volleyball, on and on. Sure, this wasn't glamorous, but it was extremely difficult to get available light action shots that were sharp even with f/2.8 lenses and 1600 film, presuming we needed color. The big-paper guys had the pro sports arenas rigged with strobes in the rafters and radio sync devices, something I never had access to.

If Nikon and others can push the technology of sensors to make much higher ISO sensitivity useful, then why not? Why do we have to be bound by the philosophical bounds of old film thinking, whereby ISO's must end at 3200, and all equipment, including lenses must be designed exclusively with that limit in mind. It's really, in the end, a question of whether or not we can accept in our minds the rapid advancement of technological capability. My first computer had 64k RAM. My first Mac had 1MB RAM. My previous laptop had 500mhz processor and 6gig HD, and now things are almost infinitely more capable. I'm expecting the same evolution in photo sensors, not only in density and light sensitivity, but in dynamic range, and that it will have a huge impact on the way we view, and practice photography in the future. Get used to it. It's going to be a new paradigm, and we'll see photography we've never seen before because of it, and much of it done with lenses we can actually carry without breaking our backs.

At least that's my take on it... and I'm probably not even close to what will really happen down the line.

Edit: Since you are indeed acknowledging that in a few years the technology will reach a point where you will find high ISOs useful, just wait until then to buy a Nikon. In the meantime, if they don't keep pushing the boundaries with their current products, they won't get there. I'm not sure why you were so adamantly critical of the current product. You don't get there overnight, and each evolutionary phase gets us another step closer to....the next evolutionary phase. There really is no end to this concept. When is good enough... good enough? When capability increases, the demand for even better capability increases. We see it in computing. We'll see it in photography as film slips further and further into the past. And I like film... I really do.