Nikon D3s inc ISO102,400

nilhg

On it goes, would it be possible to see any thing in the viewfinder if you needed ISO 102,400?

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870000

DaireQuinlan

nilhg wrote: »

On it goes, would it be possible to see any thing in the viewfinder if you needed ISO 102,400?

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870000

Now where did that black cat get to here in the coal shed that I need to shoot at 1/4000 ??
Seriously though, if those images are actually usable and don't just look like overly noise reduced cartoons then that is a pretty astonishing achievement. Not many people will actually -need- it, but I can bet it'll increase the churn all the more. I'll stick with my slow, outdated, chemically based 'sensors' :-)

Cosmo K

Have a look at the sample shots:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/sample.htm

AnimalRights

£4200 Sterling. :eek:

Paulw

I see there's a new Pro Nikon - the D3S. Looks impressive.

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

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101403NikonD3shandson.asp


Now, what will Canon announce later this month to counter this? A nice new 1D camera, I hope.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/10/announcement-october-20-2009-cr3/

Borderfox

Unreal levels that the ISO is going to. Thanks Paul

Borderfox

AnimalRights wrote: »

£4200 Sterling. :eek:

Pro bodies/ Pro prices!!

The ISO 6400 looks good but doesnt blow the socks off, its not a bad example too. Most people who do high iso tests stick the camera on a tripod and shoot in a bright room

FoxT

I shoot a lot of soccer incl in floodlighting where I need 1/160s f/2, ISO 1600.

This is limiting as the only f/2 telephoto I have is an 85mm f/1.8.

Now, by day I can use my 70-300mm f/4-5.6. To shoot at f/5.6 I will need ISO 12800. This will enable me to use the zoom, but of course i'll still need the monopod. To lose the monopod I would need another 2 stops to give me

1/640s, f/5.6 and.... ISO 512000. Bring it on!

-Foxt

kensutz

1/160s is way too slow for football under lights. The minimum speed used should be 1/500 to get a sharp shot.

FoxT

My point is that an ISO of say 512k or higher is desirable in a camera & has a practical everyday application.

1/500s is generally better than 160, 1/160 is definitely doable though you will have fewer keepers.

One of the things I like about photography is that Guidelines are just that. So, 1/500 is a useful guideline, but you don't really learn what doable till you try!

kensutz

I've been in plenty of stadiums including Millennium, Wembley etc and even though they look good on tv, the lighting is absolutely dreadful. ISO was always bumped up to give me a minimum of 1/500 of a second because I can't risk running a whole game with the less chance of "keepers".

When you're working to a brief it would be suicide to try anything of a slow shutter speed like 1/160s.