[pingflood]

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......

Different cameras for different needs. I don't think Nikon "dropped the ball" by not having "cropping power" in the D3s. If you buy a camera with the intent of constantly cropping then you probably bought the wrong camera or lenses. I'd imagine a D300 successor is not far off and that's their high end APS-C camera which birders are far more likely to use than the FF rigs.

[pcarfan]

Different cameras for different needs. I don't think Nikon "dropped the ball" by not having "cropping power" in the D3s. If you buy a camera with the intent of constantly cropping then you probably bought the wrong camera or lenses. I'd imagine a D300 successor is not far off and that's their high end APS-C camera which birders are far more likely to use than the FF rigs.

It truly does get expensive though, hah!...I guess that's my point...it is not just the cost of this one camera, the FF journey is full of high cost items (longer faster lenses, another APS-C camera for birding), the size etc. At the end we get iso 12800 that looks like 6400????

I had to say dropped the ball, becuase of the following reasons. What does this
D3s have, other than neweness that others don't have. Availability of the insanely high iso. But, how many are really going to use these high iso when even 12800 is not that much better than K-7 iso 6400 ? (surely something is missing here, as I think D700 does better), and certainly Canon MkII has better iso performance at 12800 and cropping power. So, what is this camera suppose to offer that others don't...other than the yeti in the dark????

P.S: Like I said, I am just stating my feelings so I can be corrected...I am in no way an expert in these matters, just what I am seeing in those Nikon samples offerd by the company. It offering 100k plus iso performance seems to say it is the iso king, and that is what iso 12800 looks like for an iso king?

[pcarfan]

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

Thanks for the clarification