Nikon D3s - ISO 100,000 anyone?

Well, wait five years and you might be there. I have a D3 and I can tell you it is not a light camera. I'm going away for the weekend with my kids and with youth to wrangle, I won't be taking along the D3, even though its low-light capabilities make it the king of that particular part of the photo closet. What's coming along? A Nikon S2, Millennium Nikkor, (if it gets here in time) a Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar in S-mount and three rolls of Neopan 400.

Part of me though, wishes that every time I had had the urge to go into digital over the last five years (and I've so far succumbed to the blandishments of the Canon Digi-Rebel, the R-D1, the Canon 5D, the M8, LX3 and the D3) that I'd put the cash into a savings account and waited until two years from now to pull the trigger on a state-of-the-art low light champ. Such has been the march of progress. I am VERY happy that the focus seems to be shifting from "how many MP" to "whose chip is most useful in the most situations" . . . M10 - in-body stabilization with a full-frame chip anyone?

Ben Marks
 
snausages2000 said:
I may be totally wrong, but I have faith that Japanese camera makers will deliver us a full frame digital sensor in an OM-ish size (not necessarily design, but size) SLR body within 3-5 years. Obviously it won't be an all manual camera, and it'll have 65 point matrix auto-whatever, but you'll be able to turn that stuff off if you'd like, and it'll be pretty damn cool.
Click to expand...

If I could get a fe/om/FM2-sized/shaped dslr with a rugged, weathersealed magnesium body and a superb low-light sensor, that would be heaven for me (and many others). You can put it on spot meter, single-shot, manual focus, and rock the world.
 
Benjamin said:
Completely ridiculous and I swear it's true that the folks that lust for this kind technology are the ones responsible for turning out the photographic dribble that's poured all over the pages of glossy magazines, bilboards and packets of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

Roger Hicks said:
Once you can't see to set the controls, or focus the camera, you have to rely on automation. How long before we also need image intensifiers just to see through the finder?
Click to expand...

A fine display of cultural pessimism.
 
This is another step on the march that photography has been on since 1839: faster, more sensitive, keep pushing the limits. How useful it is to many shooters that is a different question. I wonder why the bottom end of the ISO is 200 on these cameras. I know they have very fast shutters so shooting wide open in bright light is less of a problem than in the past, but why not ISO 100 or 50 or lower? No demand? If you have never handled a D3 it is a big chunk of a camera, about as far from the RF form as any. Neat that it exists, but not something I will need.
 
Benjamin said:
Completely ridiculous and I swear it's true that the folks that lust for this kind technology are the ones responsible for turning out the photographic dribble that's poured all over the pages of glossy magazines, bilboards and packets of toilet paper.

I'd me more impressed with a true super speed film, but then who wouldn't?


No doubt some hack from the National Geo. will be craving one to shoot bats in a cave though. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

1/ Fair enough but at least they are getting paid for that photographic dribble.

2/ I am not but who am I.

3/ Interesting, I was not under the impression that National Geographic employed photographers that could be considered hacks.

Bob
 
A lot of the function of high ISO seems to me to be somewhat irrelevant to the capabilities of rangefinders. At one end of the spectrum -- shooting in really dim light -- rangefinders are hard to focus. At the other end -- typical high-speed, freeze-frame action -- rangefinders don't really have good telephoto or zoom capabilities, where that's most often used. I know that you can zone focus in the evening for street shooting, etc., but aren't you trying to *get* the quality of the evening, rather than a "properly" exposed photo?

I'm not saying that it would be useless for rangefinders, but not really central to the heart of the matter, like better (or more subtle) dynamic range might be.
 
John Camp said:
A lot of the function of high ISO seems to me to be somewhat irrelevant to the capabilities of rangefinders. At one end of the spectrum -- shooting in really dim light -- rangefinders are hard to focus. At the other end -- typical high-speed, freeze-frame action -- rangefinders don't really have good telephoto or zoom capabilities, where that's most often used. I know that you can zone focus in the evening for street shooting, etc., but aren't you trying to *get* the quality of the evening, rather than a "properly" exposed photo?

I'm not saying that it would be useless for rangefinders, but not really central to the heart of the matter, like better (or more subtle) dynamic range might be.
Click to expand...


I think that you're right here John. Usually a different purpose, though high resolution would be a nice bonus for a travel camera. But, people who like TriX maybe don't really want images like these samples. For most of what I do I don't need iso101k, but clean imaging a 100 to 400 is important in my slrs.

Mike
 
Keith said:
I sometimes feel that ultra high ISO image capturing, as being persued by Nikon and Canon etc, is totally at odds with nature and how the human eye actually perceives the world!
Click to expand...

Isn't that true of every HCB / Capa / blah photo? Who sees in B&W and remembers a slice of time like that?

Any type of photography is far away from how our eyes and brain percieve.
 
A very impressive camera. Nikon setting the bar I suppose. If I where to buy anything to replace my D700 though, it would be a D700 the size of my FM2. I'm waiting along with many others i suspect. For the next few years I'm just going to weight lift with the D700!
For a change I've actually put the M2 in the bag this week along with the Nikon just to give it some exercise!
 
Keith said:
If this is what's needed then great ... I wish the photographers of the world luck. Vividly sharp totally frozen images of action sports etc obviously has appeal ... but not for me!

I sometimes feel that ultra high ISO image capturing, as being persued by Nikon and Canon etc, is totally at odds with nature and how the human eye actually perceives the world!

Or is it just me? 😕
Click to expand...
No, it's not just you.

Vincent
 
Of course it's great, it's going to enable someone to get the photo they couldn't before, I can't complain about that.

I have no need for it myself but that doesn't mean it's objectively silly or unnecessary.

I'll still get on fine with Tri-X and Delta 3200 but this opens up a realm that hasn't been available before for those people who can and will use it -- and that's great. I saw some excellent low light sports shots, ISO 6400 I think a few months back and whilst not something I'd shoot mysellf, I admired them greatly as they captured something that wasn't readily possible before in that light.

I'm just glad I happen to find 80% of my photography is satisfied with ISO 64-125 🙂 (ie: outdoors daylight)
 
My leica m3 iso reminder maximum value is iso 200. Im would love to know how people would have reacted if some of you neopan 1600 lovers came back in The days saying on their Internet message boards how awesome and useful this film is !
 
Good that Nikon is slapping Canon around yet again with this release (the more viable players in this game the better, IMO). Since I don't do the SLR thing much anymore, my interest is mostly academic, but this is mighty impressive, and can only bode well in terms of technological trickle-down (or, if you will, trickle-across). I think Nikon's priorities are more together than Canon's at this point. (And the sooner we can do away with flash in most shooting instances, the better, as far as I'm concerned.)

The sample club-shot is rather interesting from a philosophical standpoint: There's the DJ, obviously well-versed and -equipped with the latest tech kit. But, what's this...? Two turntables and a microphone! (Clap your hands!) It all goes together. Like a D3s and a Leica M. (Yes, even a bleeding-edge wunderkamera like this can use a smaller sidekick in the bag next to it.)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
ISO 102400. (Not great image-quality-wise, but then again it's five stops faster still than your average pushed Delta 3200. Got to see things in perspective.)

ISO 12800
ISO 12800

Philipp
Click to expand...

102400 looks pretty comparable to 25600 ISO on the D700. (it doesn't look too different than a D-Lux 3 @ 1600 🙂) Based solely on this, I have a feeling that, in B/W, ISO 51200 will look pretty similar to pushed tri-x, albeit five stops faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom