Nikon D3S (12.1 Mpix, FF, very high ISO, HD video)

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in
DSLR trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/14/09 12:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in DSLR
trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.



That D300 is no slouch, either.

On 2009-10-14 11:04:56 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
said:

On 10/14/09 12:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in DSLR
trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.



That D300 is no slouch, either.

I'm happy with it, and I still have my D70 lifeboat.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/14/09 15:53 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 11:04:56 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
said:

On 10/14/09 12:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in DSLR
trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.



That D300 is no slouch, either.

I'm happy with it, and I still have my D70 lifeboat.


LOL! Yeah, I still shoot my D70 daily. If you like D300 see if
you can get your hands on a D700 for a weekend.

You'll never need another woman.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Why do Nikons seem to have a base ISO of 200? Is it a trade off of some
kind?

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/14/09 15:53 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 11:04:56 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
said:

On 10/14/09 12:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in
DSLR
trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.



That D300 is no slouch, either.

I'm happy with it, and I still have my D70 lifeboat.


LOL! Yeah, I still shoot my D70 daily. If you like D300 see if you can
get your hands on a D700 for a weekend.

You'll never need another woman.

That explains a lot.

Any hetro man who'd prefer a camera for a weekend over a woman is
clearly nuts, asexual, castrated or well beyond the help of Viagra.

DRS wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Why do Nikons seem to have a base ISO of 200? Is it a trade off of some
kind?

Who knows. Part of it may be their past and continuing reliance on Sony
for sensors. Various measurements point to a sensor "natural" ISO
somewhere around 150 or so for most Sony supplied sensors. This does
not mean you can't go lower (albeit artificially), but there is little
advantage to doing so (from a SNR POV).

On the a900 (Sony) the recommended ISO is 200 (though it will go down to
100). I'd have to dig around, but the consensus is that the a900 is
better at ISO 100 in some circumstances than others. I'd have to dig
that up. Too lazy at present. I generally shoot it at 200.

On 10/14/09 16:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/14/09 15:53 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 11:04:56 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
said:

On 10/14/09 12:56 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-14 10:45:43 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

Read all the gory details of this new body:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101402nikonD3s.asp

Interesting.
It seems to me the real benefit is going to be in high ISO performance
and the addition of sensor cleaning. I am not drawn to the video in
DSLR
trend.
Not being a pro or independantly wealthy I guess I am going to stick
with my D300 for now.



That D300 is no slouch, either.

I'm happy with it, and I still have my D70 lifeboat.


LOL! Yeah, I still shoot my D70 daily. If you like D300 see if you can
get your hands on a D700 for a weekend.

You'll never need another woman.

That explains a lot.

Any hetro man who'd prefer a camera for a weekend over a woman is
clearly nuts, asexual, castrated or well beyond the help of Viagra.



Thank God we have you to evaluate that for us.

In article , DRS
wrote:

Why do Nikons seem to have a base ISO of 200? Is it a trade off of some
kind?

depends on the sensor. most of the ones nikon use start at 200 but
there's a few that started at 100.