Nikon D3s, More Sensitive Than The D3

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Nikon D3s, More Sensitive Than The D3

Post by Harold Gough »

My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I find a D700 (same sensor as D3) is reasonable to iso 3200 or so, which is quite good. With a 50 1.8 it can see a lot better than I can! A couple of stops more would be of use for live subjects, certainly. For a pro the extra usable shots would make it worthwile, I thnk.
Last edited by ChrisR on Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Looks like an awesome camera, mind you it costs nearly as much as my car, so imo it should be awesome or it's a rip-off! ;) Those iso numbers are just getting silly now!

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Thanks, Harold, for bringing things like this, that I for one might have missed, to our attention.

However, I nearly always do my macro work at base ISO, so suspect that high ISO capability would do me little good in the macro arena. In fact, while my D700 shoots very well up to ISO 6400 and beyond, I rarely use such lofty sensitivities for macro work. On the other hand, this ISO was very handy for photographing a bat study this summer, when, among other events, a very small, wide-eyed girl had the opportunity to gently touch a wild bat, under the close supervision of a highly-qualified biologist. These high ISO's are great--just not sure if they are so useful for macro photogs.

Cheers,

--Chris

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Chris S. wrote:However, I nearly always do my macro work at base ISO, so suspect that high ISO capability would do me little good in the macro arena.
As a film user, I once used only Kodachrome 25 (perhaps some K64 for a "fast" film).

I now used mostly ISO 100 E6 but have considered the latest (2007?) fine grain ISO 400 E6 films for hand-held ambient light field macro (ca 1:2, 1:1) but have not done enough to get going on this.

I was just extrapolating my ISO evolution to what a digital user might consider.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

How well I understand, Harold. Shot K25 for years, with K64 in my bag for when I needed a "fast" film. Made the move to E6 ISO 100 films sometime in the 90s.

I've missed the latest generation of E6 films you mention, as I've been shooting digital for five years or so. Am tickled silly that my current Sunday best (base ISO) isn't ISO 25 but either ISO 100 or 200, depending on the camera. Yahoo!

Best,

--Chris

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

I don't know about the D3s, but hope it does not suffer the teething problems some D3X's had

Much of the criticism the D3X has been having was because Thom Hogan originally got a bad camera. This seems to be more common these days when some of the higher end models are introduced before the production lines really get into full swing, but just usually requires adjustment. However at those prices we should expect individual testing, not batch testing as is now common for lower end products.

Canon had similar troubles a while back:-

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9799964-39.html

Here is Thom Hogan's very thorough review of the D3X:-

http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm

DaveW

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic