ISO 102400 !!! D3s Specs via British Journal of Photography posted EARLY

Samsungian · 10-13-2009, 04:29 PM

Check out the text before it gets disappeared as this posted preannouncement

Hmmmm: Iso 102,400 !!!

This is Nikon's 4th Full Frame dslr. And Canon's has/had 5 Full Frame Dslrs.

Costs 4,200 Pounds in UK at launch so it should be $4,200 Dollar bills.

British Journal of Photography - The devil is in the detail

Gooshin · 10-13-2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Samsungian

Check out the text before it gets disappeared as this posted preannouncement

Hmmmm: Iso 102,400 !!!

This is Nikon's 4th Full Frame dslr. And Canon's has/had 5 Full Frame Dslrs.

Costs 4,200 Pounds in UK at launch so it should be $4,200 Dollar bills.

British Journal of Photography - The devil is in the detail

the british pound is NOT at par with the US dollar, i doubt it will be that cheap.

having said that, this will be one hell of a piece of tech.

Samsungian · 10-13-2009, 04:56 PM

Maybe, maybe not.

We'll see soon.

I thought pounds & dollar were sort of in parity when it comes to the all powerful yen trade.

I noticed earlier today it takes $1.58 US to buy a Pound.

D3s should get officially announced in a few hours with prices.

Canon is supposed to counter the D3s in 6 days or less.

Samsungian · 10-13-2009, 05:26 PM

Canon's 10-20-09 Dslr is 102,400 iso also, but not full frame.

So Nikon wins this round.

Canon Rumors

*k100d* · 10-13-2009, 07:33 PM

at f1.4 and ISO 102,400 ... can humans even see at this light level?

*Ash* · 10-13-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by k100d

at f1.4 and ISO 102,400 ... can humans even see at this light level?

Yes, easily with some adjustment to the dark environment...
And our iris opening hardly compares with the size of f/1.4 lenses...
AND we can see in low light in realtime at much more then 30fps...

lurchlarson · 10-13-2009, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Yes, easily with some adjustment to the dark environment...
And our iris opening hardly compares with the size of f/1.4 lenses...
AND we can see in low light in realtime at much more then 30fps...

I thought our eyes could only see up to about 24fps... thats why film is shot at that speed...

*monochrome* · 10-13-2009, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

the british pound is NOT at par with the US dollar, i doubt it will be that cheap.

having said that, this will be one hell of a piece of tech.

Today it would cost $6,700 USD at 4,200 GBP

dantekgeek · 10-13-2009, 11:31 PM

This D3S is bloody amazing. Looking at the ISO 12,800 samples on the Nikon product page makes you question what you thought a camera could do.

Of note is that Nikon's new flagship product is only 12.1 MP. I hereby declare the megapixel wars over.

*nostatic* · 10-13-2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by dantekgeek

Of note is that Nikon's new flagship product is only 12.1 MP. I hereby declare the megapixel wars over.

Not sure that everyone would agree. There are lots of situations where a higher rez file becomes useful. Plenty of people have no use for iso 12800 but want/need every pixel they can get.

I want both. Depends on the situation.

*Ash* · 10-13-2009, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by lurchlarson

I thought our eyes could only see up to about 24fps... thats why film is shot at that speed...

Definitely much more than that considering modern TVs are over 100Hz and the eye can see real life even more smoothly than what these TVs can produce...

Many films are shot at 24-30fps, but they are clearly not smooth motion pictures to the eye...

dantekgeek · 10-14-2009, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by nostatic

Not sure that everyone would agree. There are lots of situations where a higher rez file becomes useful. Plenty of people have no use for iso 12800 but want/need every pixel they can get.

I want both. Depends on the situation.

I didn't mean to imply that resolution isn't important (far from it), just that it looks like the market is finally realizing that more pixels isn't the be all and end all of product quality.

kevinschoenmakers · 10-14-2009, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by dantekgeek

I didn't mean to imply that resolution isn't important (far from it), just that it looks like the market is finally realizing that more pixels isn't the be all and end all of product quality.

People who buy a D3 know what's important and what's not. That doesn't mean the people on the other end know what is. Mind you, there's also the D3x with 24MP, one's for studio, one's for action.

*nostatic* · 10-14-2009, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by dantekgeek

I didn't mean to imply that resolution isn't important (far from it), just that it looks like the market is finally realizing that more pixels isn't the be all and end all of product quality.

Yeah, but now mp is replaced by iso.

Thom Hogan has an interesting take:

"HI3 ISO value feels like just another stretch. The improved sensor dynamics are nice. But Nikon now thinks that they can produce a useful ISO 102,400. My opinion: Useful to whom? They used to think they could provide a useful ISO 64,800, and I think that was a stretch, too. The real benefit here is in the ISO 3200-12,800 range, I think. Basically, the best high ISO camera got better. But don't be misled by the super high numbers."

He also hammers Nikon on the video implementation.

You can't please everyone...

Samsungian · 10-14-2009, 05:33 AM

Ouch, D3s is $5199.

More insights and thoughts from a Nikon Guru:

Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide