D3s vs d3x, which do I get? Or something else

[Mashburn]

750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me.

?????????????

The D3x ends at ISO 1600. 6400 is the absolute maximum, its Hi2 for this camera. Meaning the image was still taken at ISO 1600 and the result is just muliplied by 4.

The D750 ends at ISO 12800. Its not glorious looking, but its still somewhat useable; much better than what my D600 offered, anyway. And its Hi2 is 50k !

The ISO performance of D750 and D3s arent that far apart, the D3s simply also allows Hi3.

Thanks. That stops me on the d3x. Did not know it stopped at 1,600. That is horrible.

I have seen straight out of camera of the d3s at 20,000 and there is no noise. And I have had my hands on the d750 and when it hits 3200/6400 it starts to show noise.

Again I'm doing this for low light conditions and at high school football games where the lighting sucks.

 

[astroNikon]

The d3-X and d3-S seem to be dissimilar cameras, a technology leap from one to the other.
I'd like to have a D3S but not a D3X.

The d3X is slightly better than a Canon 5d 2 which in itself is nearly a couple stops slower than a d700.

 

[Derrel]

D3s for high ISO performance and smaller file size than the D3x. Both cameras have really great viewfinders, exceptional battery performance, and ultra-responsive subsystems. Prices on either are pretty affordable now. I went with the D3x because I shoot a lot with electronic flash, and the 24 MP image size is a pretty good compromise between 36 MP and 12 MP, which were the choices when I bought a few years back. I looked at and demoed the then new Canon 1DX, Canon 5D-III, and the then new Nikon D4 or D4s...shot a bunch of files...preferred the D3x ergonomics over the 1Dx and D4, but the Canon 5D-III felt SUPERB in the hand, very older-Nikon-D2-series-like.

While the D750 might be a better image sensor, and have a lot of great features, it is nothing like a D3-series camera. Look through the viewfinder in dimmer light, and you will instantly know what I mean. The "flagship-level" Nikon bodies are not made the same way the $2400-$3299 bodies are made.

 

[Derrel]

Mashburn--you are totally right-on as far as being able to "get closer to people" with an FX format camera...the wider field of view makes the 35mm,50mm,and 85mm primes what they are supposed to be, and also makes the 70-200 extremely useful for events, and even indoors.

With an 85mm on a crop-frame cam, to get an 8.5 foot tall field of view, for say, the bride and groom posed together in a tall frame....with room for foot- and head-space, the APS-C puts you back at 34 feet. With the FX Nikon, you can shoot the SAME shot, but from 20 feet away.

The move from DX to FX makes a huge, huge difference in real-world places like living rooms, back yards, churches, offices, hotel rooms, basketball courts, etc.etc.. An FX camera makes a 24/35/50 or a 25/50/85mm prime kit super-versatile. Same with the 70-200, which is seriously crippled indoors on DX, but becomes what it is supposed to be when used on FX. SSame for the 24-70 on FX....WIDE, to short-telephoto

 

[astroNikon]

I don't regret my move to FX at all in regards to the lens selection. Plus the low light ability. It's just all better.

 

[Mashburn]

D3s for high ISO performance and smaller file size than the D3x. Both cameras have really great viewfinders, exceptional battery performance, and ultra-responsive subsystems. Prices on either are pretty affordable now. I went with the D3x because I shoot a lot with electronic flash, and the 24 MP image size is a pretty good compromise between 36 MP and 12 MP, which were the choices when I bought a few years back. I looked at and demoed the then new Canon 1DX, Canon 5D-III, and the then new Nikon D4 or D4s...shot a bunch of files...preferred the D3x ergonomics over the 1Dx and D4, but the Canon 5D-III felt SUPERB in the hand, very older-Nikon-D2-series-like.

While the D750 might be a better image sensor, and have a lot of great features, it is nothing like a D3-series camera. Look through the viewfinder in dimmer light, and you will instantly know what I mean. The "flagship-level" Nikon bodies are not made the same way the $2400-$3299 bodies are made.

Thanks.

Yeah I'm not a fan of 750. I would rather get the 810 if I went that route. But way way way too many megapixels for me. But I do really like the no low pass filter on the 810.

Do you mind passing a picture straight out of camera in low light for me in the highest ISO before noise starts? And does out really only go 1,600?

 

[Mashburn]

Don't knock dx to bad. Lol. I love it at football in daytime. And will take a canon 7d mk ii over a 1dx any freaking day in those conditions. Because they have to use prime lenses while I get to use a 70-200 with that nice flexibility.

 

[Derrel]

https://www.dropbox.com/home/public/D3x ISO Sampler

I found ONE image at ISO 6,400, one at 2,500, a few in the 1600-1250 range, and a few at ISO 100, all in crap light. I SELDOM shoot at those ISO levels though! I shoot a fair amount at ISO 320 with loweer power flash though, 50 to 200 W-s mostly.

I hope that URL works.

 

[Derrel]

Utterly fed up with the people at DropBox now...throws hand in air...it's useless now...

 

[astroNikon]

Don't knock dx to bad. Lol. I love it at football in daytime. And will take a canon 7d mk ii over a 1dx any freaking day in those conditions. Because they have to use prime lenses while I get to use a 70-200 with that nice flexibility.

I had my d7000 DX, 16mp. I was great for soccer and such. But I found the quality of the d600 cropped more to be more than adequate. And for very small images it actually cropped to a better quality image than the d7000.

I debated for a while on the d7100 vs the d600. but I'm glad I went d600. It would be nice to simultaneously compare the most current iteration of each camera but I cannot afford that. So my comparison was d7000 vs d600 and the d600 won in every category. I'm sure the d7100 would have won the crop a small image battle but it wasn't in my hands to test.

 

[Dave442]

For football the D3s over D3X.

Of course expect the shutter count for the used D3s units to be above 100k, especially for units under $2k. Actually see one right now under $2k and under 85k shutter and includes extra batteries and some CF cards. Sounds pretty tempting.

 

[Roba]

I have twin D3s's, i moved up from a single d7000 to one D3s, then got fed up with changing lenses at dusty motorsport events and picked up a 2nd.
Fps are not my main thing as in i don't hold the shutter down flat out. But today i was covering the New Zealand south island bmx champs, and i held it down for a full 14 continuous shots of a over the 1st corner crash. So just because you don't always use the full compliment of functions all of the time. Doesn't mean there not worth having. ISO amazing, fps amazing, ergonomics amazing, build quality amazing. They are a older generation camera, but that does not mean they can't take amazing pictures!! To be honest the weakest component on these cameras is normally the person using it. Buy what ever you want if you can afford it and what ever makes you happy!!

 

[MSnowy]

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me.

1. ISO control.
- I shot at night of the milky way.
- high school football games with poor lighting.
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting.
- weddings inside and outside.
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing.
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size.
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30.

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro.


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera.
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject.


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail?

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.

D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC shot at iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm

post

Only crop was adjusted iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm

Post

 

[Mashburn]

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me.

1. ISO control.
- I shot at night of the milky way.
- high school football games with poor lighting.
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting.
- weddings inside and outside.
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing.
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size.
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30.

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro.


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera.
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject.


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail?

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.

D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC shot at iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm

post

Only crop was adjusted iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm

Post

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me.

1. ISO control.
- I shot at night of the milky way.
- high school football games with poor lighting.
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting.
- weddings inside and outside.
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing.
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size.
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30.

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro.


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera.
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject.


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail?

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.

D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC shot at iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm

post

Only crop was adjusted iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm

Post

This!!! This is what makes me want to get this camera. I don't see why to go to d4, d4s.

But I do need to figure out how to print for large prints that go to 24x30 on 12 mp. I've always set my dpi to 250. But I know 12 mp is only going to get me to 9x13 prints

 

[coastalconn]

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me.

1. ISO control.
- I shot at night of the milky way.
- high school football games with poor lighting.
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting.
- weddings inside and outside.
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing.
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size.
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30.

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro.


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera.
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject.


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail?

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.

D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC shot at iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm

post

Only crop was adjusted iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm

Post

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me.

1. ISO control.
- I shot at night of the milky way.
- high school football games with poor lighting.
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting.
- weddings inside and outside.
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing.
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size.
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30.

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro.


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera.
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject.


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail?

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.

D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC shot at iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm

post

Only crop was adjusted iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm

Post

This!!! This is what makes me want to get this camera. I don't see why to go to d4, d4s.

But I do need to figure out how to print for large prints that go to 24x30 on 12 mp. I've always set my dpi to 250. But I know 12 mp is only going to get me to 9x13 prints

How about this?How to Enlarge Photographs for Printing