Nikon D4 discontinued ... D4s/D4x on the way?

Real world is good enough Phil. It's the world that most professional photographers work in.

For the life of me I can't understand and why you're holding onto your (incorrect) belief that the D3s is only .4/.5 of a stop better than the d3/d700. If you actually owned a d3 I'd figure you were (stupidly) trying to defend the piece of equipment you own. But that's not even the case :thinking:

So you choose to believe the nonsense you've read on a website published by men in white coats instead of someone who has used the d3s since launch and has processed so many pictures. To address one of your points I've used d700 and d3s side by side for much of my wedding photography career. So when I say one is significantly better than the other it is often from shooting images in the exact same situation.
 
I used a D3s for some theatre work last year, it handled high ISO significantly better than the D700 that I used at the same event. The D700 is very good at High ISO, the D3s was better. Just my experience and opinion.
 
ryanyboy said:
Real world is good enough Phil. It's the world that most professional photographers work in.

For the life of me I can't understand and why you're holding onto your (incorrect) belief that the D3s is only .4/.5 of a stop better than the d3/d700.
Click to expand...
Errr, that's an apparent fact that's got figures and samples to go with it. A belief is something one holds onto without significant evidence - that's you mate.

It's not a case of defending anything, again, that one appears to be you - I was just participating in conversation and stating what the difference was as stated by dxo.

I don't care weather it's 0.5, 1, 6 stops etc - not my camera to defend the purchase but you said it's a significant difference but only have this real world cop out to talk about when there are side by side comparisons that show a negligible difference between the 3 in high iso.

What's the point? If someone like me wanted a camera to upgrade purely for higher iso, then it's worth talking about the facts rather than the beliefs and as far as I can see, the fact is a 0.5 stop difference...even if you believe otherwise.
 
Like I said Phil, I used both at the same event, same settings, the D3s was better.

I don`t have either body now, so no fanboyism from me..............:)
 
Phil Young said:
Ok, well DxO has the D3 and D3s down to 2290 and 3253 respectively making it .4/.5 of a stop I believe, which looks pretty accurate on comparisons at high iso. I also have found the dxo figures accurate to all the cameras I've upgraded and owned.

Just my unbiased opinion.
Click to expand...

Unbiased opinion of someone who hasn't owned/used one ?

I'll back up Ryan on this one - having owned D3 for 3 years I used a D3s for a short while (pushing about 6000 frames through it) due to the unexpected delay in the D4 arriving in the UK - IIRC it got pushed back 3-4 weeks and I had sold one of my D3 bodies in preparation and to raise funds. In real life usage - theatres and indoor sports halls - the D3s is about a stop better in performance than the D3 whatever the textbooks and websites say.

As for the D3s vs the D4 my unscientific opinion is that the D4 is better than the D3s up to about 1600 ISO and then they are on a par up from there. AF lock though on the D4 is faster especially in lower light.
 
Phil Young said:
You have to admit, from the dpreview images, there isn't much in either of them...
Click to expand...
To be honest Phil, DP Reviews findings mean nothing to me. Only what I take and with what camera bothers me and the quality, or lack of it, therein. .........:)
 
Phil Young said:
Why??? You have all the information needed there in front of you and can see what you need to see to make am informed decision on... dismissing it is ignorance (no disrespect intended).
Click to expand...
Because I have no interest in what somebody on the internet says is better or worse. I have tried both cameras and the D3S is better. No matter what DP Review say Phil, those are my findings and having used both bodies in a real world situation.

If you and others go off what DP Reveiw say, then that is also fine. I just prefer real world comparisons. Each to their own.

If that makes me ignorant, then so be it.
 
Phil, now that Ade & Mike have backed me will you listen and accept what I've told you?
 
fracster said:
Because I have no interest in what somebody on the internet says is better or worse. I have tried both cameras and the D3S is better. No matter what DP Review say Phil, those are my findings and having used both bodies in a real world situation.

If you and others go off what DP Reveiw say, then that is also fine. I just prefer real world comparisons. Each to their own.

If that makes me ignorant, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Don't go using the real world Ade. Phil doesn't seem to think it exists.
 
ryanyboy said:
Phil, now that Ade & Mike have backed me will you listen and accept what I've told you?
Click to expand...
Have you posted up two side by side comparisons of the same image that show over a stop difference?

Do you not see Ryan, there are plenty of people out there ready to proclaim the D7000 is miles better than the D90 and the reality is, it's not. It's not just FX and this particular conversation but do you not think you are allowing yourself to believe the difference is more than it actually is???

I'm just going by what I see from a fair test and from what I see, it's about 0.5 difference. Yours without any tests to post of your own is just an opinion, so you're asking me to believe an opinion vs what I can see with my own eyes...?
 
I use D700, D3 and D3S professionally and the D3S is at least 1 full stop better, to be blunt, the D3/D700 is poor in comparison to the D3S

Controlled tests mean nothing, try using both bodies at ISO 6400 under poor floodlights
 
Gary Coyle said:
I use D700, D3 and D3S professionally and the D3S is at least 1 full stop better, to be blunt, the D3/D700 is poor in comparison to the D3S

Controlled tests mean nothing, try using both bodies at ISO 6400 under poor floodlights
Click to expand...
But, after having had a break from paid stuff, I will get another D700.Why?

Purely for the size that it is, Mrs Frac does not like the bigger bodies.

I`m not saying the D700 is a crap camera Phil,nor the D3, they really are not. But the D3s is an improvement on them.
 
fracster said:
But, after having had a break from paid stuff, I will get another D700.Why?

Purely for the size that it is, Mrs Frac does not like the bigger bodies.

I`m not saying the D700 is a crap camera Phil,nor the D3, they really are not. But the D3s is an improvement on them.
Click to expand...
D700 is a great camera, im now on D3S and D800 but thinking i really dont need the D800's big files anymore so am seriously considering selling/trading it for a D700, i personally liked the D700 more than the D3 and if i needed the fps boost i used a Meike grip
 
I got the D800 as an all in one solution mate, 18meg DX and 36 meg FX. It kinda killed two bodies with one for me. Other than the FPS and huge FX Raw files, I can`t really fault the camera. Though it is a little unforgiving if you cock your baiscs up.

Which we all do occasionally.
 
treeman said:
Ok I have a D3 and D3s sitting here, if I do a test now in my office will that end this?
Click to expand...
Do you work for DP Review?...........;)
 
untitled-5569.jpg
untitled-5570.jpg
untitled-6975.jpg
untitled-6976.jpg


Im not sure what this proves other than I'll never make one of those white coat guys :)

D3 @ 1600 iso
D3 @ 3200 iso
D3s @ 3200 iso
D3s @ 1600 iso
 
Last edited:
D3s is a significant step up from D700/D3, at least a stop in ISO performance, probably more. And its not just about noise, its also colour rendition, contrast and DR. I've shot 100'000's of images with each of these camera's in real world situations. In a well lit studio or a nice cloudy day, shooting at iso6400 with great quality light there probably isn't anything in it at all, but in reality no one uses iso6400 in decent light. The tests need to be done under horrible floodlights or in dimly lit mixed light source scenarios to have any relevance to the majority of people.
 
Hmmm...

Looking at the 3200's, there's a clear difference in noise - but also sharpness, which goes to the D3. The D3s looks like it's applied NR, effecting the texture and detail. Were these jpg or RAW conversions?
 
Phil, you have 5 photographers, all of whom have used both side by side tell you there is a substantial difference between the d700/d3 and d3s performance wise. I'll make that 6, there is a noticeable performance between the d700/d3 and the d3s. The d3s is a significant step up.

I think "OK guys, I've learned something tonight" rather then ongoing arguing the toss is provably the phrase you want
 
Hugh,

I have absolutely no problem being wrong if it's a case of being right and wrong. I think people have made this into a bit of a battle when there wasn't any to start with.

I posted quoting DxO test score - that's a fact.
I posted a link of the dpreview studio test which showed very little difference between the 3 - nobody can say it doesn't surely!?

Then there was a link to another test that showed a significant difference.

Finally we have seen (thanks to mark) a test done by someone here which also shows the D3s to be at least a stop cleaner.

Anyway here goes: "OK guys, I've learned something tonight...I've learned, that some tests show more of a difference than others...strangely enough - please see below (and dpreview)"

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d4-vs-d3s-vs-d3-iso-performance-comparison

So is there a reason to be skeptical? You folks decide.
 
Phil Young said:
Hmmm...

Looking at the 3200's, there's a clear difference in noise - but also sharpness, which goes to the D3. The D3s looks like it's applied NR, effecting the texture and detail. Were these jpg or RAW conversions?
Click to expand...
Phil, I have seen the light. You are correct, the D3s is no improvement on the D3 or the D700.

Your knowledge and experience is without question.
 
Phil, i upgraded from the D3 to the D3S a few years ago and 100% genuinely the difference is literally light and day, at least 1 full stop and more likely 1.5 stops.

With all due respect you're spouting s***e, you don't own or haven't owned either of these cameras so cant realistically comment on their performance

Get over it and move on, youre wrong but i suspect like you'll dig your heels in just for the hell of it.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Phil, i upgraded from the D3 to the D3S a few years ago and 100% genuinely the difference is literally light and day, at least 1 full stop and more likely 1.5 stops.

With all due respect you're spouting tummy mude, you don't own or haven't owned either of these cameras so cant realistically comment on their performance

Get over it and move on, youre wrong but i suspect like you'll dig your heels in just for the hell of it.
Click to expand...
Gary...(sigh)

As above, I was questioning based on figures and dpreview samples.

Where had the right vs wrong come into it???

Honestly, sometimes trying to get people to read what's written is futile.

I appreciate you feel there is a difference and I can see the difference in some of the tests put forward but what I was originally saying was; there are tests out there that show little difference ****PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT ME SAYING I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG****

I haven't even said anything based on my own findings, I put forward a test and purely stated the figures of difference. Then ryan got all hot and bothered and it blew up from there.

So from now on: members of talk photography shouldn't join in with a discussion unless they have owned or do own the said piece of equipment?
 
Aren't the DxO figures based on a point at which noise to clear signal ratio gets beyond a certain point (a standard figure they have). A figure which may well be just 0.4 of a stop different between the D3/D700 and the D3s?

Therefore what the figures don't tell you is how well the cameras hold onto and control that ratio above and beyond that figure. So whilst the noise ratio on a D3/D700 and D3s may well be the same at ISO 2290 and ISO 3253 respectively, in real world use where ISO's above that are used, especially in poor light, the D3s holds the noise back increasingly better as you move up the scale than the D3/D700, increasing the gap. By which point users generally agree at ISO's high up - 6400/12800 etc. the difference is closer to 1 to 1.5 stops, where the D3s is clearly a lot, lot better than the D700/D3.

This argument (discussion :D) therefore is null and void to a certain degree, because you're all right from your own perspective. You're just arguing over different things, technically.

How about that D4s though eh? Nice.

EDIT: P.S. I have both a D3s and D700, for the record :)
 
Last edited:
Got to the bottom of it...I don't think anyone else spotted this either by the looks of it but its very plain to see noe that the d3s is 1.5 stops better...and dpreview is a reliable way to see;

With colours there's little difference. Put the curser on the black and bang. A lot more noise in the D3.

Probably should have done that first...oopsy daisy :)

At least we can all take comfort that the men in white coats do have a worth lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top