Comments on: Nikon D3s specs according to “Reponses Photo” magazine

By: Micah

Micah — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:52:38 +0000

Oh? Howso?

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:02:03 +0000

You should be using 6MP dSLR from 6 years ago because they dont use up disk space
I mean memory are cheap, there is no excuse.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:59:29 +0000

A bit more details in the dSLR world is a country mile, however the 5DMk2 kicks D700 arse in picture quality even at high ISO, its even edges ahead of D3x in real world shoots in RAW.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:51:08 +0000

Is the video full manual control or is it crippled like the D300s?
Looks like it will lose out to 1D4 at least in the video department which most likely better than 7D multimode.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:48:26 +0000

ROFL great rationalizing fanboism hahahahaha

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:41:36 +0000

WTF are you talking about the 5dmkII does 1080p video at 30fps fanboi

By: Eli

Eli — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:49:09 +0000

People are so naive. When Nikon releases an “s” version of a camera, the amount of MP (or size of the sensor) never changes. It didn’t change with the D70s, D2hs, D2xs or D300s, so what makes you think they’d give a D3s more MP than the D3?

By: Saloom

Saloom — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:40:00 +0000

i have d70s,, planning to upgrade to D70 or maybe D300s. My heart belongs to D700.
I have 50mm 1.8, 105 vr macro, 70-300 G lens and 18-70 dx lens.

would like to invest in some new lens like 18-35 or 24-85 for wide and normal shots.
what do you say ?
Nikon D700 or D300s?

By: Richard Peters

Richard Peters — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:17:23 +0000

Hmmm somewhat underwhelmed now to be honest. The speed and 1080p where the two big draws for me so if it still only shoots at 9fps and only does 720 (not that 720 is bad) I’m not so bothered now. Unless the new high ISO is a massive leap, like two stops better than the current D3 I think I’ll be giving this a miss.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:11:32 +0000

weak. A flagship from the world’s #2 image company can’t make a 1080p camera. Let’s hope the D4 will be better.

I’m glad there is no D700x, it would have probably not even be able to do 720p

By: Trust

Trust — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:47:42 +0000

Red has the Jello effect, but not as much, and I think what he was reffering to was the Scarlet, which is suppose to be only 2500$ for the body only (literally).

By: Crazy

Crazy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:19:35 +0000

I’m Staying With Canon… No Reason To Switch…. 720p Gimme A Break!!!!!! Their Are Cropped Sensors That Out Perform This!!!!!

By: Loyola

Loyola — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:59:16 +0000

And the anti-dust is a real improvement, nothing who can justify to upgrade from D3 to D3s but for the people who are looking for a professional heavy SLR D3s is now a better choice then before.

By: Loyola

Loyola — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:55:27 +0000

Little changes mean, little competitive advantage and furthermore ability for the Nikon marketing guys to make their job and some noise.

business as usual

By: low

low — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:27:36 +0000

perhaps youre misreading into my post and perhaps english really isnt your forte. lol. but just to help you out, i wasnt targeting yourself but the other whiners on this blog.

kickback, meaning…you make money on your own and not from the manufacturer. a lot of the folks that cry wolf here are spending gobs of money on something they arent getting a nickel on return. yet, these are the folks who are crying that nikon HAS to satisfy them and them only. but i could give a rats ass either way and really dont care about your buying style and reasons either. the options are out there for people but are just to make money on.

anyway, im done trying to get my point across with you.

have a great time with your gear as I am with mine, touche!

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:21:50 +0000

Pro Zooms:
14-24 – sharpest ultra wide. The standard by which others are judged. Period.

24-70 – next best is the Zeiss and the Canon ver is rubbish for build and IQ. Point Nikon.

70-200 – the old one I own is on par with the Canon ver. Haven’t tried the new one yet. Potential tie at best.

Primes:
Macro: current production macro’s could be tie. With the 60, 105, and 200 micro, nikon is well stocked for pros wanting macro.

28/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 – Great lenses that give great images. Sure canon makes some 1.2 glass and even a 1.0…but they don’t make any cameras that can focus them! Oh, and Nikon does make some manual 1.2 glass. Point Nikon.

200/2 – Have you compared the Canon version? Point Nikon

24PC-E – I’m not blown away by either brand on the D3x/1DSmkiii. Potential tie.

17TS-E – a huge point for Canon. Nikon needs to catch up here and only here.

105/135 DC – great lenses that no one else makes. Point Nikon.

Super tele = Nikon has everything covered here. I don’t have any experience with the Canon, but Nikon’s super expensive long glass is superb. Potential tie for diplomacy.

Nikon is only slighly slacking in the shift lens department as far as I’m concerned. At least talking from a professional use standpoint. There’s only one thing I can’t do right now with tools in the Nikon line (17mm shift).

By: Micah

Micah — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:47:02 +0000

…again, if the video has good IQ for motion, unlike the current run of flubber cams, I’ll take one. In a heartbeat. Well, if it doesn’t lose any features from the d3 like audio notes.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:42:11 +0000

Lol. I already own a D3. 1 stop of ISO gain, a sensor cleaner and (possibly) subpar video are not enough to cause me to upgrade. Maybe next cycle. Why would I be ready for the D3s? LOL Even if it offered canons current level of video (1080p 24/30 and 720p 24/30/60) It still would just be to expensive for what most of us that are considering the canon’s need it for. If I was still using D300′s and the D700 didn’t exist I’d have bought a D3s (just like I bought the D3) Honestly I hope the nail the video perfect (h.264 and 1080p 24 for cinema and 720p 60 for sports).

Kickback? I assume you mean sponsorship from a manufacturer? If that were the case I’d be singing the praises of a specific company, not lamenting having to buy into a second set of bodies to maintain a market edge (something that’s kind of important in this economy)

I buy what makes me money, because that’s what they are for, making money. What I would need to charge to pay off 10,000$ in DSLR bodies and another 4-6k in lenses wouldn’t work. But I can buy two 7Ds and 4-6 lenses for 6-8k (less then half) and the lenses lose no value at all, compared to the 5k D3 I have that’s about to be worth 2500$ in a few weeks. But since its one of my primary still camera’s its returned that money to me over 10 fold. Video won’t do that, at least initially.

Where did I say I was switching to canon? I’m just going to assume English isn’t your first language and you missed it the first read through. I plan on buying the Canon equipment for video in *addition* to my Nikon gear. Selling an entire still system when you need additional bodies and lenses for video anyway would be the height of foolishness.

Depending on what your upgrading from you will love the D3s. But unless you already have a massive stack of lenses, buy the D700 and some glass.

By: Exen

Exen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:33:11 +0000

Yes, please! 85 1.4 ftw!

By: STJ

STJ — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:27:24 +0000

If the camera means so little why would Nikon bother to change their production to make these smaller changes? Seems like that would have been better spend on making a new improved firmware upgrade and make current D3 users more happy than this… With the D700 having dust removal shortly after the D3 it seems strange that the D3 did not have that in the first place… Ok the low-noice mode might be a true update…