Thread: New Nikon D3s DSLR 102,400 ISO

Originally Posted by chalituna

Gotcha. I've never shot these types of venues so for me that high of an ISO is essentially useless. I rarely have to go above 1600.

Is an image at that high of an ISO gonna be usable?

They are with a camera of that caliber. Not nearly all cameras are that capable though.

A lot of people don't understand why a 50D is $1,000 and a Mark III is $3,700. Use a Mark III in extreme conditions and you'll know why very quickly.

My Mark III does quite remarkably all the way up to ISO 3200. At that point, run a little Noise Ninja and you're good to go. I couldn't live without that camera.

A lot of professional companies / newswires don't even ask you to upload huge photos. The newswire company I photograph for only requires images of 1-2,000kb's, anything larger than that and they are automatically rejected from the system.

In the end, people only care if you actually get the shot. It's better to have a noisy photo than no photo at all. With today's technology you can improve just about any photo with a quick run through with a few programs.

Most of the images are never used in huge print dimensions so ISO doesn't play a huge roll unless it's very extreme or you're trying to print out MASSIVE posters.

I must say as well, handling a 12.1MP RAW file is unbelievably easier than handling a 24MB RAW file. It's a step in ending the megapixel wars, and leaving it to more refined optics and pro bodies being much more diverse.

Here's the kicker, they advertise that the camera can shoot up to an ISO of 100,000+ but their sample images only show ISO up to 12,800(which is very reasonable for those low lighting situations) - why not take a different direction and make fast lenses with large aperatures like a 70-300mm lens with an f1.4 to whatever...

I would like to see that 100,000 ISO picture.

Originally Posted by Chris

They are with a camera of that caliber. Not nearly all cameras are that capable though.

A lot of people don't understand why a 50D is $1,000 and a Mark III is $3,700. Use a Mark III in extreme conditions and you'll know why very quickly.

My Mark III does quite remarkably all the way up to ISO 3200. At that point, run a little Noise Ninja and you're good to go. I couldn't live without that camera.

A lot of professional companies / newswires don't even ask you to upload huge photos. The newswire company I photograph for only requires images of 1-2,000kb's, anything larger than that and they are automatically rejected from the system.

In the end, people only care if you actually get the shot. It's better to have a noisy photo than no photo at all. With today's technology you can improve just about any photo with a quick run through with a few programs.

Most of the images are never used in huge print dimensions so ISO doesn't play a huge roll unless it's very extreme or you're trying to print out MASSIVE posters.

I completely understand the difference in cameras having started out with 20D and having shot several 1 series cameras, but after a certain point any image becomes almost unusable due to noise, unless it's being used at a small resolution.

I was not aware that most of the new agencies use such small images. I always assumed that they used larger images for publications.

Oh and have you guys seen this. Looks like Canon's announcement may not be far behind if this is true.

wow..that's a nice camera!! Put my T1i shame...lol

Photo Distric News has image as well as video examples with the D3s here are some below:
Testing the Nikon D3s: Sample Images


ISO 102,400,1/4000th, f/2.8, 70mm

WOW that many features

Originally Posted by pix

Here's the kicker, they advertise that the camera can shoot up to an ISO of 100,000+ but their sample images only show ISO up to 12,800(which is very reasonable for those low lighting situations) - why not take a different direction and make fast lenses with large aperatures like a 70-300mm lens with an f1.4 to whatever...

I would like to see that 100,000 ISO picture.

I don't even want to start thinking about how much a lens like that would cost. Considering the 300mm f2.8 is $5,300 a 70-300mm at f1.4 would likely be well over $10,000. It would be an amazing lens no doubt, but really enhancing iso ranges is the way to go. The important difference to keep in mind is that while upping the iso will surely increase the noise levels, lowering the f stop will create dramatic changes in depth of field...especially with a f1.4, I can't imagine trying to even focus on a moving object at 300mm and f1.4

Hey if your getting paid good money to photograph something, why not get the best or closest on the market to provide the best result possible? Some photographers can reclaim the cost of the camera with one shoot, I'm not one but lol it is nice!

For me, I picked up the D700 or its coming in the mail. At $2,500, maybe I should have sold off some of my camera gear and got the D3s... but then again I need a back up camera for weddings and such.