Nikon D3s - ISO 100,000 anyone?

makes sense. well put.

Ljós said:
This for example: with a couple of friends recently, indoors, cozy but very dim lighting, EV 4 @ ISO 400 according to incident metering with Gossen Digisix. I had HP5+ in my M2 and a M-Rokkor 40 f2. So, I underexposed and took pictures mostly at f2 and 1/15th. (That's underexposing at 2 stops). I "pushed" to film a bit when developing, negs look usable. But: lots of motion blur from the friends just talking, moving etc. A number of pictures where more DOF would have been great, but it simply wasn't an option.

So, let's see what 12800 ISO could have done in this situation: that would have given me a comfortable f 2.8 @1/60th. You can quickly see that even ISO 12800 just gives you comfortable, but not luxurious DOF-choices. It doesn't take "shooting inside black holes" scenarios but very mundane photo occasions to see that higher and higher ISOs simply give more choice to any photographer.
I take pictures for my personal enjoyment, and while I follow the advancement of digital photography with great interest, I so love having a negative and using a camera that is almost 50 years old, that I am not tempted to buy a digital camera for myself. But I am in awe of the possibilities that have opened up.

That said, I still (for totally subjective and personal and emotional reasons that make "sense" to me :)) sympathize with what some guy once wrote on Pnet (quoting from memory): Hell yes, I'll go digital the day I can soup my SD-card in ID11 1+1! (Make that HC-110 Dil. B for me :))
Click to expand...
 
swoop said:
I think the high ISO race is a lot more practical than the megapixel race.
Click to expand...


I agree. Once the market determined the megapixel race was getting absurd, the marketing people wanted a new race. It appears to be High ISO and video. Once the high iso and video get completely absurd, it will move on to something else. Hopefully they will find a nice concrete term/number that is marketable to describe dynamic range next. I would love to see a dynamic range war.
 
It's the need to do everything for you and the size that comes with it. The D3s is a wonderful camera for the young, strong, healthy folks. Like I used to be. I would not want to be carrying one around all day, even with a prime, it's a BIG camera. Even the D700 is too big. Wish they would put a real prism in the D60.

B2 (;->
 
This is another great camera from Nikon. Some of us never like to use flash. What's to stop you from using this camera to shoot at low ISO on a sunny-16 day with the sun at your back? The 50k-to-100+k ISO simply opens up new worlds. Same thing with the HD video with external mike jacks. Astounding stuff, that's what it is.
 
Something overlooked so far is the new image sensor cleaning function. Previous D2 and D3 models did not have it, I think it is an important feature if it works well. Another nice add-on is the quiet mode.

I want to know more about that camera, so far it looks like a really strong product. Sorry to say that, but I see a lot more sense it putting +5000 euro in that camera than in a M9.

In time I might get one of those D3s but I still love my film rangefinders.

Arturo
 
Something else: the race for high ISO is the way camera makers should go to allow photographers to shoot pictures in the dark. I am sad that Leica goes the way of big expensive glass (50mm f1.0, 24mm f1.4 and the like). Big glass is so much more expensive to produce than more sensitive sensors and better image processors. From a consumer viewpoint it does not make any sense to bury money in a noctilux-like lense if you can shoot in the dark with a 50mm f2 and a camera with higher ISO. I think Leica took the wrong way (although admittedly they didn't have much choice).

Arturo
 
arturo said:
Something else: the race for high ISO is the way camera makers should go to allow photographers to shoot pictures in the dark. I am sad that Leica goes the way of big expensive glass (50mm f1.0, 24mm f1.4 and the like). Big glass is so much more expensive to produce than more sensitive sensors and better image processors. From a consumer viewpoint it does not make any sense to bury money in a noctilux-like lense if you can shoot in the dark with a 50mm f2 and a camera with higher ISO. I think Leica took the wrong way (although admittedly they didn't have much choice).

Arturo
Click to expand...


I'm not banging Leica's drum for them here as they seem quite capable of doing that themselves! :D

BUT ... I think Leica are on a very different photographic path to Nikon by their own choosing and this constant comparing of the two manufacturer's products seems a little futile to me.
 
Leica is on a different photographic path because it's the only path open to them. They abandoned the SLR market (the uber expensive S2 notwithstanding) because they could not compete in that market.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Leica is on a different photographic path because it's the only path open to them. They abandoned the SLR market (the uber expensive S2 notwithstanding) because they could not compete in that market.
Click to expand...


Come now ... we all know that if Leica could actually be bothered making a DSLR it would be far superior to anything Nikon can manufacture! :angel:

(tongue firmly in cheek!)
 
Anyway ... what a bunch of pussies Nikon are ... no commitment to high ISO shooting at all really!

Why aim for a measley 100,000 ..... it's only another three and half stops or so to the 'magic million' after all! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm sure folks waiting for those new M9's they ordered wouldn't be happy if Leica split those few dozen cameras they can make each day between the M9 and a DSLR. ;)
 
Keith said:
BUT ... I think Leica are on a very different photographic path to Nikon by their own choosing and this constant comparing of the two manufacturer's products seems a little futile to me.
Click to expand...

That as may be, but the bulk of the D3s does not appeal to me, nor does the hi-ISO performance of the M9.

To put it differently, an M9 with the hi-ISO capabilities of the D3s I might consider buying. Good examples have been given where that kind of low light capability would be useful. I used to be a concert shooter and I like to make low light snapshots at events. I struggled with fast film and noisy sensors for a long, long time and this kind of performance would be... heaven!

It really suprises me that a number of people want/need to discount this kind of performance as a gimmick. It would not make my photographs 'better', it would make photographs possible where no photo could be made before!

Maybe Leica will introduce two flavours of the M10, one optimized for bright light and one for low light?
 
a few of the national geographic "hacks"

http://www.lynseyaddario.com/

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14A7GU&nm=Christopher+Anderson

http://www.jonasbendiksen.com/

http://www.viiphoto.com/photographer.html (sorely missed)

http://www.joachimladefoged.com/#/gallery/4/52/-31-252

http://www.eugenerichards.com/

i haven't used this particular camera but have spent a great deal of time on the d3 and d700 (and d2xs and d1x and 1ds mkIIN etc. etc.) and they are amazing machines when the going gets tough. with careful use they can provide mind blowing images in conditions that would have us folks packing up the rf's and heading for home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom