where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Maybe this has been answered already, but how come there was no improvement to the ISO capabilities in the new D300s? The D3s saw improvements in this area, so how come they couldn’t do it with the D300?
Probably has something to do with the smaller sensor size? Or did they just not want to put the time into it?
Which leads me to this question….has the cropped sensor seen its max in terms of ISO? Will we ever see a DX sensor capable of ISO performance like a D700 or D3?
All indications are that the D3s has a reworked sensor, the D300s doesn't.
Astrophotographer posted an informative spiel in the blog suggesting the D3s was now at near-theoretical limits.
I think monty is on the right track. We don't know what Nikon has up their sleeves. There's still the black silicon technology which they could implement as well.
I am trying to find the article I read a couple of months ago, but it mentioned a slowing in sensor development in terms of ISO and the pixel size/count trade-off under the current manufacturing methods. The article did go on to say new technologies, and methods do exist, but at this immediate time they are not mature enough to be implement on a mass production scale.
It made sense, Canon lowered the pixel count for their G11 by 4.7 million pixels, and notice how Nikon never seemed to care about keeping up with Canon in the megapixel war, but always had a cleaner image. With the release of the D3s, we may now be seeing a new war over the highest ISO.
well looks like at market price points and size:
D300s is FAR bigger because there are a lot of semi-pro's out there that are on a tight budget; $1700 doesn't sting as much as, let's say, $4999!!
For my event work, I have considered a D3s, but the following would have to happen:
1. Sell D200; get maybe $450.
2. Sell 17-55 f2.8; get maybe $950
3. Sell 35 1.8; get maybe $200
4. Sell 11-16 2.8; get maybe $550
5. Sell 55-200 VR; get maybe $150
All out: $2300!
I would THEN only have my 50 1.4G and 60 2.8 micro.
I would need:
1. D3s; eventually $4999
2. 14-24 or 24-70; conservatively $1800
3. 70-300 or 80-200; either $550 or 1000.
All in: $7800 max.
Price difference: $5500; now if I was making serious money with my biz, I would do it; hell, a D700 body would drop the difference down to $3,000 which is more manageable. . .but still. . .
I end up going back to that old adage: about the man behind the lens, lol?! So yeah, D300s will be kept mild in order to entice the D400 semi-pro users like me that can't afford to jump ship to FX until the recession is over :-)
You must log in to post.
