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

lithos · 10-14-2009, 04:38 AM

Well, all Nikon needs now is a shutter that'll do 1/400000 of a second and a lens that stops downs to f512.

Samsungian · 10-14-2009, 04:45 AM

Dpreview D3s brief hands on

Nikon D3S brief hands-on: Digital Photography Review

I kinda bummed Nikon didn't launch their long rumoured 100-500mm f4-5.6 VRIII

I'd really like to see the price on it before I pulled the trigger on Canon's 400mm 5.6L

Samsungian · 10-14-2009, 05:12 AM

Link to 3 images in a thread, middle is iso102,400

iso12,800

iso102400

iso400

I like the first one with the bear, at 12,800iso

D3s samples image ISO12800/102400/400: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review

Samsungian · 10-14-2009, 05:34 AM

Philip Bloom's take on video in D3s

Philip Bloom Blog Archive Nikon D3s announced

from:

Philip Bloom

Samsungian · 10-14-2009, 05:49 AM

D3s thread at fredmiranda

You can't please all the people, all of the time...

Includes a D3s videos link on page one

it's official; D3s - FM Forums

& in 6 days Canon's response to D3s.

I Love Competition:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/823854/0#7638483

MoparFreak69 · 10-14-2009, 09:03 AM

The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid.

While im impressed that the Nikon can go to that ISO, I wouldnt call the shots taken from it that high "useable" by any means. I didnt buy my DSLR to print off anything smaller than a 4x6 which is the only size I see those shots being able to be viewed decently at.
Just my 2 pennies!

nostatic · 10-14-2009, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by MoparFreak69

The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid.

Not quite that simple

How many frames per second can the human eye see?

johnmflores · 10-14-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by k100d

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

..that camera is so sensitive that it can see into men's souls.

Funny thing about technology is that while the quality may be borderline now, at some point in the future it will be very usable. I'm looking forward to seeing how creative people can be with this much light-gathering ability.

pcarfan · 10-14-2009, 05:49 PM

Is the high iso perfromance for a FF ~12MP sensor really that impressive...ok, iso102400 is pretty cool just because it is possible, and if i were to see the yeti at dark, then the resulting image will indeed show the yeti and be appreciated, but other than that the IQ will be lacking.

See the 12800 samples of the goat like creature and the Bear, and see the full size downsized (8.17MP and 6.29MP) samples, is it really that impressive ? for the money and size etc etc.? This is one stop above 6400, and has no details on the animal what so ever, is this good for high quality print?

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D3S

Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera?

**Ash** · 10-14-2009, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

Not quite that simple

How many frames per second can the human eye see?

Sure it's hard to calculate, but even this article admits the eye is likely to be able to 'see' real life at around 100-120fps...

**Ash** · 10-14-2009, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by pcarfan

Is the high iso perfromance for a FF ~12MP sensor really that impressive...ok, iso102400 is pretty cool just because it is possible, and if i were to see the yeti at dark, then the resulting image will indeed show the yeti and be appreciated, but other than that the IQ will be lacking.

See the 12800 samples of the goat like creature and the Bear, and see the full size downsized (8.17MP and 6.29MP) samples, is it really that impressive ? for the money and size etc etc.? This is one stop above 6400, and has no details on the animal what so ever, is this good for high quality print?

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D3S

Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera?

Yeah, I get your point, but even a 1 stop advantage in good noise control (ie. a useable ISO 6400) literally transforms all your lenses in low light capability, as well as being able to stop action. That's where sensor technology has great benefits to me.

Although it's not getting out of hand, I think we've been ever so demanding at getting these increasingly capable sensors in our cameras, when rarely did people talk about ISO anything above 1600 in film days. And there was still phenomenal photography happening then...

Class A · 10-14-2009, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by pcarfan

Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera?

I agree.

What we are seeing might be just advances in in-camera noise reduction software.

The ISO 102400 number might be useful to cause a (press) stir but I don't see it to become photographically relevant.

lithos · 10-14-2009, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by MoparFreak69

The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid.

Cartoons maybe shot at 32FPS, but not drawn. You'd need rather a lot more Koreans to do Futurama, in that case, which is drawn at 12FPS (when it's drawn, when it's done with CGI like The Simpsons nowadays, you tend to take drawing out of the equation.)

pcarfan · 10-15-2009, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Class A

I agree.

What we are seeing might be just advances in in-camera noise reduction software.

The ISO 102400 number might be useful to cause a (press) stir but I don't see it to become photographically relevant.

Do you agree that the image is such for the iso12400 samples I posted above, or are you talking about the iso 102400 samples posted in DPR. I think even the iso 12400 samples are not usable.

Just want to clarify....these 12400 samples looks like the K-7 iso 6400 samples with high NR downsized to ~6-7MP. 1 stop advantage there? I think the images are labeled wrong, as it can't be that bad. The iso 6400 looks sweeet, pretty much like iso 1600 or even 800 in the K-7, so that's a 2-3 stop advantage. But, FF needs cropping power with today's APS-C's having 15mp+ sensors, birders and wildlifers will demand croppability with their FF's, which they don't have. So, they really have to spend the dough on the 600mm, 800mm fast lenses. I am afraid Nikon dropped the ball here, and Canon is going to prove them wrong.....a 5DmkII with mk1 AF will make the Canon the sole leader in high end.

P.S: of course these are just my layman's opinion, I could be wrong......

Class A · 10-15-2009, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

Do you agree that the image is such for the iso12400 samples I posted above...

Yes, I was referring to the 12800 samples when talking about IQ. I then went on to talk about the insane 102400 number.

10-14-2009, 04:45 AM	#17
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337 Original Poster	Dpreview D3s brief hands on Dpreview D3s brief hands on Nikon D3S brief hands-on: Digital Photography Review I kinda bummed Nikon didn't launch their long rumoured 100-500mm f4-5.6 VRIII I'd really like to see the price on it before I pulled the trigger on Canon's 400mm 5.6L

10-14-2009, 05:12 AM	#18
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337 Original Poster	Link to 3 images, one at ISO 102,400 Link to 3 images in a thread, middle is iso102,400 iso12,800 iso102400 iso400 I like the first one with the bear, at 12,800iso D3s samples image ISO12800/102400/400: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review

10-14-2009, 05:34 AM	#19
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337 Original Poster	Philip Bloom's take on video in D3s Philip Bloom's take on video in D3s Philip Bloom Blog Archive Nikon D3s announced from: Philip Bloom

10-14-2009, 05:49 AM	#20
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337 Original Poster	D3s at fredmiranda D3s thread at fredmiranda You can't please all the people, all of the time... Includes a D3s videos link on page one it's official; D3s - FM Forums & in 6 days Canon's response to D3s. I Love Competition: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/823854/0#7638483 Last edited by Samsungian; 10-14-2009 at 06:10 AM. Reason: added link

10-15-2009, 02:40 AM	#29
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by Class A I agree. What we are seeing might be just advances in in-camera noise reduction software. The ISO 102400 number might be useful to cause a (press) stir but I don't see it to become photographically relevant. Do you agree that the image is such for the iso12400 samples I posted above, or are you talking about the iso 102400 samples posted in DPR. I think even the iso 12400 samples are not usable. Just want to clarify....these 12400 samples looks like the K-7 iso 6400 samples with high NR downsized to ~6-7MP. 1 stop advantage there? I think the images are labeled wrong, as it can't be that bad. The iso 6400 looks sweeet, pretty much like iso 1600 or even 800 in the K-7, so that's a 2-3 stop advantage. But, FF needs cropping power with today's APS-C's having 15mp+ sensors, birders and wildlifers will demand croppability with their FF's, which they don't have. So, they really have to spend the dough on the 600mm, 800mm fast lenses. I am afraid Nikon dropped the ball here, and Canon is going to prove them wrong.....a 5DmkII with mk1 AF will make the Canon the sole leader in high end. P.S: of course these are just my layman's opinion, I could be wrong...... Last edited by pcarfan; 10-15-2009 at 02:52 AM.

10-14-2009, 04:38 AM	#16
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Well, all Nikon needs now is a shutter that'll do 1/400000 of a second and a lens that stops downs to f512.

10-14-2009, 09:03 AM	#21
MoparFreak69 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 197	The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid. While im impressed that the Nikon can go to that ISO, I wouldnt call the shots taken from it that high "useable" by any means. I didnt buy my DSLR to print off anything smaller than a 4x6 which is the only size I see those shots being able to be viewed decently at. Just my 2 pennies!

10-14-2009, 09:16 AM	#22
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by MoparFreak69 The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid. Not quite that simple How many frames per second can the human eye see?

10-14-2009, 01:59 PM	#23
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by k100d at f1.4 and ISO 102,400 ... can humans even see at this light level? ..that camera is so sensitive that it can see into men's souls. Funny thing about technology is that while the quality may be borderline now, at some point in the future it will be very usable. I'm looking forward to seeing how creative people can be with this much light-gathering ability.

10-14-2009, 05:49 PM	#24
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Is the high iso perfromance for a FF ~12MP sensor really that impressive...ok, iso102400 is pretty cool just because it is possible, and if i were to see the yeti at dark, then the resulting image will indeed show the yeti and be appreciated, but other than that the IQ will be lacking. See the 12800 samples of the goat like creature and the Bear, and see the full size downsized (8.17MP and 6.29MP) samples, is it really that impressive ? for the money and size etc etc.? This is one stop above 6400, and has no details on the animal what so ever, is this good for high quality print? Nikon \| Imaging Products \| Nikon D3S Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera?

10-14-2009, 06:16 PM	#25
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by nostatic Not quite that simple How many frames per second can the human eye see? Sure it's hard to calculate, but even this article admits the eye is likely to be able to 'see' real life at around 100-120fps...

10-14-2009, 06:23 PM	#26
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by pcarfan Is the high iso perfromance for a FF ~12MP sensor really that impressive...ok, iso102400 is pretty cool just because it is possible, and if i were to see the yeti at dark, then the resulting image will indeed show the yeti and be appreciated, but other than that the IQ will be lacking. See the 12800 samples of the goat like creature and the Bear, and see the full size downsized (8.17MP and 6.29MP) samples, is it really that impressive ? for the money and size etc etc.? This is one stop above 6400, and has no details on the animal what so ever, is this good for high quality print? Nikon \| Imaging Products \| Nikon D3S Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera? Yeah, I get your point, but even a 1 stop advantage in good noise control (ie. a useable ISO 6400) literally transforms all your lenses in low light capability, as well as being able to stop action. That's where sensor technology has great benefits to me. Although it's not getting out of hand, I think we've been ever so demanding at getting these increasingly capable sensors in our cameras, when rarely did people talk about ISO anything above 1600 in film days. And there was still phenomenal photography happening then...

10-14-2009, 07:14 PM	#27
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by pcarfan Is it just me or are those images just mushy and blotchy and noisy with no detail and not that impressive for a FF ~12MP camera? I agree. What we are seeing might be just advances in in-camera noise reduction software. The ISO 102400 number might be useful to cause a (press) stir but I don't see it to become photographically relevant.

10-14-2009, 10:02 PM	#28
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by MoparFreak69 The human eye can clearly distinguish 31 frames per second. This is why cartoons are drawn at 32 FPS. To make the motion appear fluid. Cartoons maybe shot at 32FPS, but not drawn. You'd need rather a lot more Koreans to do Futurama, in that case, which is drawn at 12FPS (when it's drawn, when it's done with CGI like The Simpsons nowadays, you tend to take drawing out of the equation.)

10-15-2009, 03:55 AM	#30
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by pcarfan Do you agree that the image is such for the iso12400 samples I posted above... Yes, I was referring to the 12800 samples when talking about IQ. I then went on to talk about the insane 102400 number.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
British Journal of Photography about 645D VERY FRESH INFO	ogl	Pentax Medium Format	6	06-10-2010 05:58 PM
Hi ISO ? and or Camera specs	Tex	Pentax DSLR Discussion	32	12-10-2009 04:52 PM
British Journal Of Photography Loves Pentax	rparmar	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	06-02-2008 08:30 AM
British Journal Article	jeffkrol	Pentax News and Rumors	20	01-25-2008 08:35 AM
Okanagan, British Columbia, Canada get together, Mid September or early October?	little laker	General Talk	4	08-21-2007 12:02 PM