Comments on: Nikon D3s: bits and pieces

By: Gustav

Gustav — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:55:36 +0000

I wonder why all these MP-loving, Canon worshipping people purchased Nikon in the first place.

If Canon has what you want, then leave, sell your Nikon gear, and go buy a Canon. Geez. If people actually acted on what they complain about, then Nikon would get the message and produce higher MP cameras.

Though I wonder if the Nikon userbase at large (not a bunch of geeks in the website forum) are crying out for more MP and jealous of Canon? I suspect not.

By: zen-tao

zen-tao — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:17:11 +0000

Quit showing off and looking for other’s errors. No one is the most clever in the world, every body commits mistakes. Put your loupe aside and devote a little of time to read the comments and write, perhaps, something intelligent to illuminate us, professor. Everybody know widely all that stuff of megapixel. Don’t underestimate the others.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:56:27 +0000

I heard an interesting rumor this afternoon from a friend. Its third-hand but here’s what I know. Nikon apparently isn’t going above 720p/24fps for their video file size because of, get this, file size. I have no idea if they’ll convert to Quicktime format or stay with .avi

By: Soap

Soap — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:30:55 +0000

I really don’t care if people like zen-tao listen or not. Facts are facts and he spouts none.

I can’t hold the hand and sugar-coat corrections to people who would rather vent ignorance over the current technology rather than understand the physical issues at hand.

All that being said – I think THIS post is the only intentionally nasty one. Elsewhere I have stated facts, w/o hand-holding – all viciousness is implied by others, not explicit by me, IMHO.

By: rhodium

rhodium — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:27:05 +0000

You know, Soap, people will be more willing to listen if you worded your posts more gently.

By: zen-tao

zen-tao — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:28:11 +0000

I thought this site was for photographers, not for math teachers, smart boy.

By: Rangefinder Bob

Rangefinder Bob — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:29:01 +0000

Why 1.3 cropped mode? Ultra high speed–14 FPS. Like the D2 series with HS crop mode, or better yet, Canon’s 1D Mark III (1.3x crop), only even faster. Would allow any Canon photographer to switch from 1D Mk 3 to D3s without breaking a sweat (bank account might hurt a tad, though). I can imagine a LOT of sports photographers would be salivating at 14 FPS.

By: SimonC

SimonC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:42:05 +0000

The pros can use the 14-24, if they want f/2.8. And it’s already a ground breaking lens

There is a place and need for an f/4 ultra-wide zoom lens. The 16-35 f/4 VR and 14-24 f/2.8 together would be a formidable FX wide-angle zoom lineup covering the vast majority of shooting needs.

By: Konkel

Konkel — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:11:47 +0000

Nikon can’t even produce a clean RAW file. Before 2007… What happened? Why couldn’t you make one single good camera? Nikon’s Sony’s bitch.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:27:51 +0000

i dont think vr should be a compromise for fast glass since they are not the same thing even though a lot of people think they serve the same purpose or are a fair trade off….

By: shivas

shivas — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:59:07 +0000

the D3s is about par with predictions, higher fps, a new crop mode, and video. . .I wonder what the high iso improvements will be like, I mean, 6400 is shootable in sports events, so I can only IMAGINE how great it’ll look!

the 16-35 f/4 VR concerns me more. . .I guess it’s like a FF 12-24DX f/4 with VR?
Just seems slow for pro’s that’ll need the 2.8, and it’ll be priced probably around $1200, so doesn’t make sense for casual shooter. . .so they’re assuming a semi-pro who buys a D700 will drop $1200 for an f/4 lens? doubt it. . .

technically the VR 2 gives you a two-three stop advantage (so f/4 to 2.8), but. . .I dunno, if it was f/2.8, it would be GROUND breaking!!

By: Ron Adair

Ron Adair — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:39:17 +0000

I’m sorry, but look at a well shot piece on a 5dmii that isn’t 24p conformed and you’ll see a huge degradation in motion quality. This definitely has an effect on the mood, drama, motion qualities, and overall narrative quality.

I won’t go into great detail covering my arguments here. I’ve already worn thin (or out) my welcome with the whiner discussion. But check out this link if you want to know why the debate even exists:

http://blog.iamron.com/photography/framerates-movies-and-24-frames-per-huh/

P.S. 1/48th of a second is much closer estimation of motion that our eyes register in day to day life. That is a very important reason why 24fps if more “natural” looking to us vs. even 30fps, as 30fps requires a shutter speed of 1/60.

By: Ron Adair

Ron Adair — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:25:00 +0000

I believe there are actually production policies that cover just this kind of incident. And I believe they’re pretty affordable, too. Same as a rental policy if you’re a rental house.

By: SimonC

SimonC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:22:47 +0000

The infamous Nikon roadmap was reportedly fake. What Nikon is doing with the D4 and beyond is totally conjecture and speculation on our part.

That said, a “disappointing” s-version of the popular D3 and D300 cameras only means (TO ME) that they are spending more engineering resources on the next generation of cameras.

By: Ron Adair

Ron Adair — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:22:29 +0000

This is the type of “quality” I prefer over quantity. Are there shots where double the resolution would add critical fine detail to my shots? A few. But there are a ton of shots that would benefit by greater dynamic range and color rendition. Nikon is already a leader in that area, and I hope they continue to find improvements.

I did see a Nikon patent a while back which discussed a true RGB sensor which utilized a lens over each pixel bin (already being used), and a series of mirrors and filters below the chip which would direct the light from each bin into an RGB space. This would allow a true color chip, and allow greater sharpness, detail, and color integrity than the traditional B/W / Bayer pattern chips.

Admin – does this ring a bell? Anyone hear anything else about this chip design?

By: Ron Adair

Ron Adair — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:15:32 +0000

Actually, Kodak also had a 1.3x crop factor. I quite liked it. I’m not particularly partial (in general) to either a 1.3x crop or a 1.5x crop, or full frame for that matter. It all depends on my intent. I definitely appreciate the 1.5x crop when I want my 200mm to give me a tighter shot at the same resolution. Then again, DX crop on an FX sensor is too intrusive for me. For instance, if I am using a 25mp camera and don’t need the full resolution, the DX crop seems a bit too aggressive. 10mp is a tad too low for me. Sounds like a 1.3x crop would be perfect. What would that come out to, 12mp? Half the res?

Likewise, on a 12mp FX sensor, if we cut it in half, that would be ~6mp?

Does anybody know a simple way to calculate the resolution one would get from a 1.3x crop factor?

By: 3space

3space — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:30:11 +0000

Will nikon get the video mode right this time?

They really need a better codec and higher data rate. What about real-time 3D auto focus tracking while recording video.

What about the LCD screen ? Nikon really set the pace with the original D3 lcd… will they push ahead on this front again?

By: getanalogue

getanalogue — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:37:01 +0000

think the D3s will be a renamed and stripped-down version of the D4 of Nikon’s roadmap. Nikon is desperately trying to do something – they might have problems with new Exmor R sensors – or with Sony. If you have a look at the roadmap: It’s saying something about 14fps, but for double-exposure and mirror up as far as I understand it, and 15.something MPx’s. If so, already revolutionary.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:54:17 +0000

Make that a 24-70mm

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:49:23 +0000

I guess I have the opposite problem, with a 27-70 f2.8 on my D200?