Stupid High ISO Cameras-D3s, D4, Df

For a while, I've been lusting after a D3s because it was within my means to buy and the high ISO performance looks to be great.

 

Looking at it, though, it's not THAT much of a stretch to get a D4, and presumably even better high ISO performance.

 

Then, along comes something that's hard for me to pass up-a nearly new(under 6K actuation) Df at the local camera store priced right in-between the going rate for the two above cameras. I spent a while playing with it in the store the other day, and I have to admit that I'm in love with the camera. I've looked at them before and it seems a great match for some of my esoteric interests, but have considered them too expensive to be affordable.

 

I know we have some Df users here, and I'm wondering what folks think of the options I'm considering. BTW, I'm also thinking of seeing if I'd take TOO much of a hit if I traded my recently purchased D600 back in to them as partial payment on the Df.

 

In any case, here are kind of my thoughts:

 

D3s:

1. Least expensive of the bunch

2. Nothing handles like a single digit "D"

3. Lowest resolution of them

 

D4:

1. Most expensive

2. It would be nice to have a camera with XQD, but it also means buying cards and a card reader I don't have

3. Again, single digit D body

 

Df:

1. Middle price

2. Only takes a single SD card(I don't like SD cards) and in an annoying location

3. Lightweight and small

4. SHOULD have IQ comparable to the D4, although obviously without speed(not something I need)

5. Dedicated knobs/switches for EVERYTHING(I like it)

6. Works with every Nikkor lens I have, and AFAIK every one ever made except for invasive wide-angles

 

If I do buy something, I think I have a good argument for the Df, but I'd still like some other thoughts on it.

Nothing handles like a single digit "D".

 

You said it.

Haven't got or used the D3,4, but both the DF and D750 are excellent in low light. The DF is my favorite, but you might want to go to one of the sites that can create direct comparison tables feature by feature. DF does use 1 sdhc, but in convenient easy to access location. D 750 uses 2, also easy to get to, though with 2, I have never had to change on the fly, even shooting RAW and JPEG Large / fine. You might want to add the D 500 to your list not only 2 cards, but 2 types and wild ISO. 164,000 if I recall correctly.

Thanks guys.

 

The D500 is out for me since I don't really want to buy another DX body even though it's impressive looking.

 

Also, the D750 strikes me as too much like the D600 I already have-I know it's a newer camera, but still. It's not really under consideration for me-I'd rather keep using the lighter D600 or go all-out with my D800(which I consider usable up to 6400).

 

I have to admit that now-in my mind-the flip-up aperture tab of the Df is very tempting.

I considered all 3 of them but in a new condition. I bought the Df because I don't want to spend too much money and I don't need speed. I like the Df controls but the flip up tab doesn't really mean much to me. Plus since I bought the camera new I decided that Nikon wasn't going to have a replacement model for the Df any time soon and they wouldn't drop the new price like they did for the D750, D800, D810 etc..

It sounds like you're sold on a Df for reasons other than the sensor, Ben. For what it's worth, while I had the D800 and D810, I vaguely lusted after a D3s for its high ISO performance. That is, as far as I can tell, essentially matched by the D4 sensor (and hence the Df's); the D4s sensor seems to have the edge at very high ISOs, and be closer to the D5. The D750 splits the difference between the D4/Df and D800/D810.

 

For what it's worth, the D850 basically matches the D4 and Df in low light (according to DxO dynamic range, but I do seem to get cleaner images than I got from my D810). As a general purpose camera if you don't need more than 9fps, I'd take that any day - it trounces all of them at low ISO, although the D4 sensor has a weird bump of quality at exactly ISO1600 that nothing else matches.

 

To me, a D3s would be a low light camera only. It doesn't have the dynamic range at low ISO (nor does the D5), and it lacks the handling finesse of the newer bodies - and, of course, it's only 12MP. The Df tempted me for the sensor, but whether you can live with the handling and mid-range autofocus is up to you. I decided it was a lot of money for what it would have given me, but I'm plenty on the record as not a fan of the Df design. (I'm not the target audience, anyway.)

 

Under the circumstances I'm not sure I'd pay for a D4 over a Df; I might still pay the premium for a D4s. But if I didn't have a particular liking for the Df handling and the flip-up lever, I'd really just trade in whatever else you have for a D850 and be done with it. But then I wouldn't have chosen the Df over a D810, and the D850 is a big step up.

 

That said, if you've got a bargain on a Df and that's what you want, go for it. It's certainly a decent sensor, and much more general-purpose than the D3s or D5.

Ben,

I must say while I do like the Df sensor I would buy it if it comes with any other sensors. I like the handling of the Df. I actually pissed off at the salesman at a Wolf store when I asked to see the Df. He didn't have one and tried to sell me the D800. I wouldn't be as happy if I bought the D800.

Edited August 5, 2018 by BeBu Lamar

Have shot professionally (fashion/catwalk, but mainly sports/surf) in the past with single digit D bodies starting with the D1, then D1H/D1X/D2X

and finally D3 in 2008 (early adapter)

Agree with the observation nothing handles as good as them (apart from the size and weight)

 

Didn't upgrade from the D3 to the D3 as the improvements were too incremental (for me) to justify the expense (and financial hit if

I would trade in my D3 in the process) for upgrading

By the time the D4 hit the market my main market had shifted to fashion, so I didn't need its superior AF and high ISO anymore and got a

couple of higher megapixel D800's instead

 

The DF admittedly was a camera I didn't really needed, but I liked the smaller size, and button and dials set up reminding me of my

F2AS and FE shooting days

Justified the purchase to myself pointing at the manual focus glass I still had lying around from that era :)

 

Of the three bodies you mention, the D4 is the 'best', not only for the high ISO (although some reports claim the D3s betters it

in that area by a small margin), but also low light AF

Agree with the reservations about the QXD cards

Having recently bought a (2nd hand, low clicks )D850 I was unpleasently surprised how costly those are (although fortunately

for me they were included in the 'package' of body, 2 QXD cards, extra battery and a QXD reader I got for a surprisingly low price)

 

Having had the D3 myself for I guess a decade (only recenly sold it, also to partly finance the purchase of the D850, as I had not used in

earnest for years after I got my D800's in 2012), I'm convinced the D3s still is an amazing body depite how 'old' it is.

But the 12 MP leave little room for error/cropping, and the AF is (by modern standards) showing its age.

 

Love the DF, basically has the same sensor, and consequently high ISO capabilities and beautifull IQ, as the D4

But the AF with the 39 points 4800 FX AF module definitely is a step back compared to the 51 points Multi-Cam 3500 FX

in the D3S and D4, something you'll inevitably run into when shooting under low light/;ow contrast conditions (why otherwise

invest in a 'crazy' high ISO capable body)

 

Hard to make a definitive recommendation

But assuming you are considerng the buy one of them for actual low light shooting and not just GAS, I would say D4 if

you have the money (for the body, but also the QXD cards)

Best, most recent (of the 3) low light AF, great 'crazy' high ISO capable sensor with beautiful IQ

 

D3s in 2nd place, not just because it's the cheapest, but also because despite its age and 'low' megapixels it still is a very body that still

delivers impressively well both in the AF and high ISO areas despite its age

 

And last but not least the DF, although as said love the DF, will never part with mine

But apart from the great sensor, the AF is a bit disappointing especially when shooting (fast) moving low contrast subjects

under bad light (basically only the center AF point can handle those conditions well) so for that reason for me for

practical reasons ends as 3rd of the 3 bodies you mention

Still, for 'sentimental' reasons love the form factor, the dials, and its capabilty to handle any Nikon F lens, even the few pre Ai

ones I have

 

HTH

Also, the D750 strikes me as too much like the D600 I already have

 

Actually, the autofocus on the Df is very much like that on the D600, and on DX bodies before the D7100. If the AF of the D600 is good enough for you, you might want to keep it. The D750 has a sensor like the D600, which is actually quite good in low light, but, as Paul said above, has the better 51-point Multi-Cam 3500. I've used the D750 to photograph subjects lit by birthday candles, but if you need something better, go for the D3s or the D4.

Thanks guys.

 

I've been thinking about this on and off all day...and it's really easiest for me to make the case for the Df. I know it's quirky, but the flip-up aperture tab is something I WILL use and I can't get it on any other DSLR.

 

Most of my use cases for high speed shooting(as rarely as they come up) are done under full sun/good light and honestly my D2X gives me AF performance and frame rates I can live with. There's also the fact that I can get away with shorter lenses on that camera...and at higher resolution than if I crop a D3s or D4 to that same image area. The D300 and D300s(I have one of each) also can do an impressive 8fps with a D2/D3 battery in the battery grip and IMO the sensor is a bit better than the one in the D2X.

 

I still might put a D3s on the "one of these days" lists...especially if Nikon ever comes out with a D5s and it has the residual effect of pushing down the prices of all previous pro bodies.

Does it matter which one you buy right now Ben?

 

You know very well you're only going to end up owning them all!

Does it matter which one you buy right now Ben?

 

You know very well you're only going to end up owning them all!

He just wanted to know which one first. But Ben, I think you should stop buying used for a long while. Save up and buy Nikon top of the line regardless what it is at the time.

He just wanted to know which one first. But Ben, I think you should stop buying used for a long while. Save up and buy Nikon top of the line regardless what it is at the time.

 

Perhaps there's some value in that, but at the same time it goes against my principles to buy new equipment :)

 

Aside from that, I guess Joe's point about "which one first" is a perfectly good one :) . The Df wins in that respect since I have a virtually new one for a great price right in front of me...and I hate to buy one of those new.

I stlll have a D3s, but almost never use it. The auto WB in the pair of D810's I use is much better at dealing with the awful night field sports lighting where I shoot on a regular basis, saves me a ton of post time. Downsized to 12MP, the D810 is pretty good at ISO 8000 that I need. I am sure that the "synch" AWB feature in the D850/D5/D500 would be better yet. I have thought about trying a used D500, but am not sure how it would be at ISO 8000 vs my D810. I don't want to justify to myself the upgrade costs to an D850, and am curious about the upcoming mirrorless that might replace one or two cameras in my inventory.

As an aside of no particular value,

If they had had an equivalent to the Df in 2004 when I went digital, I'd now be shooting with a Nikon digital instead of my Canons. At the time, Nikons were fairly intolerant of non-AI lenses while most of them could be used manually on the Canon EF bodies.

Robert, I used to use a D3S with 70-200mm VRII for equestrian sports.

 

I now use a D500 and Sigma 50-100mm 1.8. I never needed VR for horses and rarely need more than 150mm EQ reach.

 

I don't often need to go beyond ISO 6400 as the f1.8 is usable wide open (DoF aside)

 

OOC JPEGS (and RAW conversion if occasionally necessary) are more than good enough. The D500's JPEG 'engine' works very well.