hahaha, that's awesome!

Noobie gets a D3s video. Reminded me of some of you guys :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAdA9DkPCrk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Notice the upside down Canon strap on the D3!

adamz: I checked imaging resources comparison at iso 3200 and I agree D3s is superior to D7000 in those two images at that iso. It may be that DX can never equal FX simply because of the smaller sensor size no matter how many megapizels the DX sensor contains and no matter what "magic" the DX software produces. If that is true, I hope FX sensor prices go down and we see more FX camera bodies. By the way, I love the D3x images too, like the original poster of this thread, especially the smooth skin tones it produces.

donaldejose said:
a-dobbins91: Why the anger directed at me? The new professional D body is said to be "revolutionary" in some respects by Nikon representatives. When it comes out, don't you think everyone will want one?

Because in every single post i read your there saying you want the D4.
Which as far as i know there is no D4 yet. So quit spamming every thread.

I also looked at imaging resource and could clearly see the d3s was better at ISO 25,600.

donaldejose - I told You once, and will repeat one more time only, NO Ken Rockwell discussion (that also includes quoting, we don't want to have another is he right or not discussion). Second of all, check the imaging-resource and compare d3s to d7000, at iso 3200 the IQ is very visible, if You don't see it calibrate Your screen.

a-dobbins91: Why the anger directed at me? The new professional D body is said to be "revolutionary" in some respects by Nikon representatives. When it comes out, don't you think everyone will want one?

donaldejose said:
I want a D4 instead. Right now the D7000 seems to be the best low light Nikon.

I really hope nikon don't release a new professional body for another year just to annoy you.

On topic - Hope you are still enjoying your d3s, i have had a few chances to use one and i can say it is amazing and perfect!

Images from the D3s and the D3x and the D7000 can be compared side by side at this website. http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

The website doesn't have images from a D3 for comparison.

To my eyes, the D3x produces the sharpest image but I prefer the smoother skin texture of the D3s to the D3x and the D7000. It seems to me FX still beats the "latest and greatest DX" but that may just be a personal preference.

Ken Rockwell has stated the sensor and internal software of the D3 and D3s are the same. That should not be true if they produce images of different quality. While they may use the same megapixels, Nikon could easily have tweaked the internal software. Does anyone know if Nikon changed the software for the D3s?

I have used my D7000 only up to 6,400 ISO for sports to freeze action in low light. I see too much noise above that for my taste. I don't have a D3 or D3s or D3x with which to make a personal comparison and can only go by published test comparisons.

donaldejose said:
Look at the 25,600 ISO images and judge for yourself. I was surprised. I didn't think DX could ever beat FX. But I see the red spots in the D3 image and they are missing in the D7000 image. The D4 should be great because it should incorporate whatever technology makes the D7000 so good!

Surprising!

But, the D3/D700 is NOT the D3s. I just performed some super-quick ISO tests between my D3s and D7000. I shot some frames with the D3s at ISO 8,000. Hmm . . . a bit noisy, but totally usable images. I shot a few frames with my D7000 at "H0.3," its ISO 8,000-equivalent setting. The difference is clearly visible. Next to the D3s' images at ISO 8,000, the D7000's images at ISO 8,000 look far worse, and are pretty much unusable for most purposes. WIll post some images later.

Treckie said:
. . . anyone want to trade their D7000 For my now washed up D3s?

Since I'm fortunate to own both, I'm anxious to do some side-by-side, real-world tests as soon as I get a chance.

Treckie said:

@Studio, hope you enjoy your new toy . . .

Thanks!

LoveTheBerry said:
Agreed. This camera does not hesitate at 10k ISO. Just purchased at ThinkTank Hydro cover for it and going to Europe in a week or so. I will upload a few picks if I can get a great shot like the plane. Cheers.

Any words of wisdom on the D3s' noise-reduction settings, Berry?

anyone want to trade their D7000 For my now washed up D3s?

Oh, never mind, I just looked at the pictures.

@Studio, hope you enjoy your new toy, I only shoot in raw mode so sorry no words of wisdom.

Photoshop and/or Lightroom!!

adamz said:
gratz Studio, impressive camera isn't it. to achive most from Your files shoot in RW and do the noise reduction in PP.

Thanks, Adam! It wasn't an easy decision--it was a substantial investment, as you know. But in light of the expected supply issues, it seemed like I had to make the purchase while I still could.

studio460 said:
If anyone still here who owns a D3s could volunteer how they've dialed in their [in-camera] noise reduction settings [for those shooting .JPGs] to get the kind of results avro did, I'm all ears . . .

Anyone?

Compare the same images here side by side and see what you think.

http://imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

I prefer the skin smoothness of the lower pixel FX D700 over the skin detail recored by the DX D7000. But I wonder if you simply turned up the noise reduction setting (either in camera or while photo processing) would the DX D7000 be able to equal the pleasing smooth skin recorded by the FX D700? My guess is that there is more at work than just pixels. The software inside the camera probably counts for just as much as does the pixel count.

The last full size professional Nikon I used was the F5. I would expect the D3s to feel about the same in the hands. The D1 and D2 never interested me because of their low pixel count. Just too much money for too little image. Rather than buy a D3 or D3s or D3x now I would prefer to wait for the D4 since my need is not immediate.

Ken Rockwell is entitled to his opinions, as are all of us. He is entitled to post what he thinks and we are each entitled to agree or not agree as we see fit based upon our own experiences. I see no reason to argue about KR. No one ever said he is God or in anyway that all his comments are correct. I posted a reference to images he posted. Assuming he didn't screw up and took what he says he took, the images are facts not opinions. Also, as noted at the start of this post, I have posted another website in which one can compare images side by side from different cameras and draw your own conclusions.

donaldejose - I guess You never had d3s in Your hands, havent't You? and please don't quote KR unless You want start another KR fight

Don't get me wrong, I love my D7000, but y'all are making me envious! Definitely shouldn't have opened this thread... =P

FX is not dead and never will be. In fact, I expect Nikon to make more and more FX cameras as that sensor size becomes cheaper. FX will always be better than DX as long as they are both using the same technology simply because it has more space for sensors. The overlap now simply is because the DX7000 is using newer and better technology than the D3s. That will soon change when the D4 is announced in a few months. I just think that technology is going to under go a significant change across the board in Nikon digital cameras the next two years. Just as the DX 7000 is way ahead of the other DX cameras, I predict when Nikon puts that technology into the FX D4 it too will be way ahead of the current D3s. 2.8 will always be around, just not as necessary as it was in the past to get good photos in low light. But we all have to wait and see what the new generation of FX sensors brings. Until then none of us know for sure. That is why our opinions aren't worth much more than rumors.

SquamishPhoto said:
Great point! FX is dead! f2.8 is dead I think too!

FX will never be dead, as long as you can fit more data into a larger area (which is always - physics) people will want more, because they know it exists. It's an common business theory regarding technological advancements... We always want more no matter what we have!!!

Best be gettin myself a D7000 seeing as I shoot 95% of my pictures at ISO 25, 600...

Great point! FX is dead! f2.8 is dead I think too!

donaldejose said:
I want a D4 instead.

OK! We get it! You don't have to mention you want a D4 in every thread you post in.

"At ISO 25,600, the Nikon D3 is loaded with red noise specks (and its highlights loaded with smaller blue specks), while the Canon 5D Mark II shows horizontal banding in its noise.

At ISO 25,600, the Nikon D7000 is noisy, but devoid of annoying artifacts, making it much more usable at ISO 25,600 than any of these other cameras."

Look at the 25,600 ISO images and judge for yourself. I was surprised. I didn't think DX could ever beat FX. But I see the red spots in the D3 image and they are missing in the D7000 image. The D4 should be great because it should incorporate whatever technology makes the D7000 so good!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2010-11-08-d7000-d300-5dmarkii-d3-iso/index.htm

As to Ken's D40 comment, that probably was made some years ago and may have been true at the time (although it is hard to see how and I would want to see the quote in its context to see if he really meant that). You have to be careful with the comments he makes in his reviews because many are outdated in a year or even less and he doesn't go back to change every comment he made years ago which no longer is true. Thus, there is a large amount of historical evaluation when you pull up a camera review which was not made recently and this is especially true with digital.

donaldejose said:
I want a D4 instead. Right now the D7000 seems to be the best low light Nikon.

According to Ken Rockwell the D40 is the best DX low light Nikon.

(Don't flame me please!)

donaldejose said:
Right now the D7000 seems to be the best low light Nikon.

If only that were even remotely true.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one donaldejose - i'm all in on the D3S (though no doubt the D4 will take the prize).

I went from the D700 to the D3S, and it was still absolutely mindblowing. As soon as you get over the intimidation factor (how big, heavy, expensive and indiscrete it is) it's an absolute miracle worker. The focus like originally said is extremely fast and accurate (even in the dark - see the link). I guess you get what you pay for!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidelop/5361119442/in/photostream/

I want a D4 instead. Right now the D7000 seems to be the best low light Nikon.