where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Money not the option,...We will be shooting kids at soccer, old buildings, father-in-law undercoocking the turkey,...ect. Occasionally ina dark setting, but most pic inside with average lighting. Am I better off with a D3S or D3X?
I like the 24mp in D3X but dont like the ISO coverage. Any thoughts? Thanks to you pro's for the advice.
This one is easy.
You basically answer your self here.
Get the D3s. speed, low lights, noise, indoor.....and probably many more resone for your
Type of photography to get the D3s.
enjoy.
I have one and I love it.
If you don't know which to buy, I'd recommend a D40 :)
A down scaled D3X shot won't look any better than a D3s at full resolution. If you plan on most of your prints being around the size of a peice of Letter sized paper, the D3s is probably a better bet.
It also has a higher frame rate which is nice for those soccer gamers.
To me, the D3x is strictly for landscapes and studio work. Taking advantage of the extra resolution takes a lot of discipline and technique. Otherwise you just wind up with extra pixels.
d3s - for iso, D3x is a light lover
I think the D3S is a better overall camera then the D3X. My main issue with buying expensive cameras was that the quality of each pixel was never good enough. Why have 24MP of crappy grainy or blurry pixels when you can have 12.1MP of great pixels, an overall great image with less noise and a faster fps.
I know the D3X is a great camera I dramatized this a bit but that was my main problem. i personally dont want more pixels if it means they are larger and more noisy. The D3S is the answer I was waiting for and I assume when I save up enough for it the D4 will be out and way more expensive haha.
Anyways everyone here seems to be pushing you in the same direction and I can say having seen it in action and the images coming out at ISO 12800 you are a very lucky guy if you can find one of these in stock.
I think the D700 with grip would be a better buy for your usage, but that is just me.
+1 for the D700. It's a fantastic camera and I've used the entire suite of Nikons. Get the grip for the action shots and you'll like that you can take it off when you travel and don't need to reel off 8 fps.
That's my go-to unless it's studio time.
Plus with the saving you can get some good glass.
What I am looking at is the D3S Kit form B & H. It has the f2.8 24-70 + F2.8 70-200 and the D3S as a package price.
Again,..I really like the ability to have 24mp when needed but 90% of the time,..I will not need it.
Does anyone here have the D3X? What's your experience? Noisy in low light? Slow?
Compared to the D3S the D3X does have more noise in low light. I wouldn't really call 5fps (7fps DX mode) slow but the RAW files are very large and might slow your workflow down. Though I have a feeling if you want a D3X for family snap shots then you are probably going to only shoot in JPEG.
I know a doctor who bought a D3X for his wife. They use it to take snap shots at their children's birthday parties and always in JPEG because of convenience. I told him he should have gotten a D700 and I also think a D700 would better suit you too Berry.
I have the D3 and the D3x and shoot professionally with both of them.
The D3x focusses at the same speed as the D3, and up to 800 ISO is pretty much the same for noise, at 1600 ISO in reasonable quality of light (not amount - but quality) it is still very very usable. I'd say it was about 1-stop worse than the D3 over 800 ISO. FPS is fine at 12-bit, but I wouldn't shoot sports at 14-bit RAW because the FPS drops to about 1.5 per second - that is what the D3 (or D700 with grip) is for.
They are both exceptional cameras, the D3x produces exceptional files, which exhibit a different look than 12MP files even when printed at 10x8 or smaller it is hard to explain but the camera is a valued tool in my kit bag, and out on location not just in the studio.
But genuinely and seriously even with the ability to spend thousands more on a body for the use you describe I would suggest that the D700 + grip is more than enough for your needs as others have said.
I have a 21x14" print framed as a sample taken at 2000 ISO in near darkness with the 12MP D3, pin sharp full of detail and a 36x24" canvas also taken with the D3 also full of detail - albeit at 400 ISO in open shade.
Really you only *need* 24MP if you are looking for commercial or advertising work, regularly sell or print work at > 24", or need to be able to crop from a full frame and print large.
I'd save the money and spend on good glass, a flashgun to use when there isn't quality of light, and maybe some training or bank it and put it towards the next upgrade....
4 years ago you would have killed for the quality of image the D700 or D3x puts out at 1600 ISO, I think we all forget the limitations we had with film, and the early digital cameras.
Mike.
Well said MikeF and welcome to the forum.
Berry a bigger more expensive camera isn't going to automatically make your photos better. The photographer is still more important.
Thanks - been viewing the blog for over a year and lurking on the forum/facebook for a bit as well.
Yep - skill in exposure, seeing the light, and good post-processing will all add to lower noise levels in your finished images on top of the cameras native capability. As will good glass. f/1.4-f/2 fast primes will give you more light for the same ISO than the zooms you mentioned and as long as you have enough DOF, or a good position then those investments will last you 10+ years.
Well, i would suggest the D700 as everyone else has. But it seems that cash isnt any problem to fund your purchase. So i would go with the Nikon D3s. It would serve your purpose more then enough. on my nikon D90 (im a D3 owner as well), i blew a picture up on my Dx camera at 3200iso to 36x24 and got superb results. The D3s will do more then enough.
I would also suggest the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. If you can dump that amount of cash for that easily, then Add an Sb-900 and also a 50 1.4 G AF-S and a 85 1.4 Af or just wait for the recplacement. Id also get uv filters for all lenses.
Actually, if you have money to burn, a bigger better camera alone will get you BETTER pictures... not a guarantee for good pictures though.
But I would spend the money on the glass. The D3S isn't the greatest value at this point (but a D700S will be, hopefully).
That's like saying buying a Ferrari Enzo makes you a better driver. I don't think so.
Bingo, the camera, if you know how to use it, will help you be a better photographer, but not make you one. I could take good pictures with a 4MP point and shoot, but having the D300 allows me to take higher quality, good photos.
AaronFoto said:
Actually, if you have money to burn, a bigger better camera alone will get you BETTER pictures... not a guarantee for good pictures though.But I would spend the money on the glass. The D3S isn't the greatest value at this point (but a D700S will be, hopefully).
sorry Aaron but that's a bullshit, if You have no experience with shooting even the best, biggest and most expensive camera will not do the job.
This began as a discussion of cameras. Now it is a discussion of words. Semantics. A good photograph (always a subjective opinion) will benefit if it has more pixels. That is basic mathematics. However, more pixels will not make a less than good phortograph better. The quality of the shot begins with composition, lighting, choice of subect, etc. If these all line up, then more pixels will improve the image. However, beginining with the notion that more pixels will improve an image before over other variables is akin to suggesting that, for example, a coat of paint will beautify a house to the point that its design features can be ignored. Shiney paint won't = a kitchen that is in better proximity to the dining room, or give you an extra bedroom. For those of you not minded in metaphores, in this example, shiney paint represents pixels in the photograph.
Another example comes to mind when I think of cycling (bicycling - the ones with the pedals). A light bike will not make an ordinary rider significantly faster. But a very fast rider will benefit from a very light bike. Just like: An ordinary photograph will not be improved by more pixels, but a very good photograph will be.
I can't help but notice that it is usually the slower, more overweight bicycle riders who are more interested in the lightest bicycles.
Cheeers, Paul.
Paul I totally agree with You, the thing is that I've seen a lot of users, who not knowing anything about photography wanted to get the newest/most expensive gear only because they though that it will make their pictures look more professional, I've also seen ppl using D3 with kit lenses from d40, c-z they spend all they money on body and didn't have enough cash to get a good lens. I'm not saying this is the case over here, it's just boils my blood when I see a sentence that states that a better camera will get you better pictures.
I agree with everybody here.
Get a D40.
lol, that might be going a little far, but point well made poster. I wish I'd started with a D40. My sister has one, and it is such a fun little camera.
To the point,...if I sell a surgeon "Lower Quality" surgical instruments,...his/her work will not be as precise. Davinci did not work with "cheap" brushes/canvas. My point is I want to purchase the best I can get. I would hate to buy a D40 then wish I would have purchased a D3S/X. Just my thoughts when I started the post.
I have listened to what you all have said and THANK YOU very much for your good advice. I ordered the D3S.
On the other hand Berry, buying "high quality" surgical instruments doesn't make you a surgeon. Or working with "expensive" brushes/canvas doesn't make you da Vinci. But anyway good luck with your D3S and have fun taking snap shots of your family :^) Post some of your photos in our flickr group or in the photo-a-day section.
Just for the sake of arguing or make a point with more metaphors, a professional racer can surely get more out of a Ferrari then most of us could, and that same racer most likely would win over most of us with a Corolla even if we were driving Ferraris. That being said, most of us would do better racing with a Ferrari then with a Corolla.
Does that make any sense?
Pierre
That's true Pierre...if we were discussing which car is best for a race, but in this case the question was more like which car do I buy to take my kids to school, a Corolla or a Ferrari ;^)
OK my racing season starts this weekend so please excuse my analogies :^)
You must log in to post.
