D3s to Replace D300?

<p>One of my D300s went kaput. While I will send it to Nikon, meanwhile... if it makes sense to do so, I am thinking of replacing it with a D3s.</p>

<p>So, what would you do if you were me?</p>

<ul>

<li>I like the DX factor for wildlife. I will be going to Africa, again, in May.</li>

<li>Will the shots be acceptably good (noise free) beyond ISO-1600?</li>

<li>Other salient factors that I should be aware of, pros and cons?</li>

</ul>

<p>Also, any credible likelihood that Nikon will release a replacement for the D3s or D300s soon?<br /> <br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>I think the most logical approach is to get the D300S repaired. In case the repair cost is too high so that it is not worthwhile to repair or you want an additional body, I would get a D7000 at this point. It has better high-ISO results than the D300S and much better video. Construction-wise, I think it is just fine for Africa.</p>

<p>The down side is that it uses a newer and better EN-EL15 battery that is not compatible with your D300S'; that also implies a different charger, and you need SD memory cards. But the D7000 takes dual memory cards.</p>

<p>The D3S is wonderful for low-light conditions, but it is expensive and you lose the crop factor for wildlife. Unless you really need a D3S immediately, I wouldn't buy one in this stage of its production cycle. So far Nikon's single-digit D series DSLRs are on a 4-year production cycle. Assuming that holds, the D3's time span should be 2007 to 2011, and right now we are in 2011.</p>

<p>Maybe I 'm missing something, but if you can afford a D3s, why even consider the D300s?</p>

<p>Fred, DX factor is WAY better for wildlife, and the OP probably already has a DX lens setup.</p>

<p>That said, if I could afford to go FX I would, but, as Shun mentions, I would NOT buy it right now, as all the FX stuff from Nikon is really due to be replaced soon.</p>

<p>The repair is the smart route for now, depending on cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I 'm missing something, but if you can afford a D3s, why even consider the D300s?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This. Get the D3s.</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>Will the shots be acceptably good (noise free) beyond ISO-1600?</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>the D3s is amazing in low light. noise only really shows up in shadow areas past 6400, and even then, it's manageable. i have no reservations whatsoever about shooting at ISOs like 10,000 or 12,000.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>Other salient factors that I should be aware of, pros and cons?</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>well, the D3s is a big, heavy, expensive camera. one surprising con is that it has no AF-assist light. this is a stupid design flaw by nikon, since the whole point of the sensor is to shoot without flash. i've had to manual focus a few times because the AF wouldn't lock in dark situations. this really comes into play when shooting action in dim lighting. with the same lenses (24-70 and 70-200), the D300s is sometimes faster to focus than the D3s.</p>

<p>also, for a big-body camera, the D3s has excellent ergonomics, but button placement is different from the D300s. its probably just as intuitive overall, but takes a little adjusting to.</p>

<p>another thing about the D3s is, besides its high-ISO performance, its really really good at low ISOs too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"DX factor is WAY better for wildlife" </em> - Not really or at leas not significantly anyway when comparing the D300s to the D3S, and certainly not above ISO 1600.</p>

<p>Plus the D3S has faster AF, faster frame rate, larger viewfinder and numerous other features that make it a much better camera over the D300s. </p>

<p>If money is not an issue, go with the D3S. Otherwise as mentioned above, the D7000 may be your best bet.</p>

<p>Elliot, don't the D3S and D300S have basically the same AF module?</p>

<p>And don't you see where the 1.5X crop factor would be a boon to someone who needs telephoto reach?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I like the DX factor for wildlife. I will be going to Africa, again, in May.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just set the D3s to shoot DX sized frames when you desire that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Will the shots be acceptably good (noise free) beyond ISO-1600?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the D3s? Oh yes!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Other salient factors that I should be aware of, pros and cons?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D3s is terrific, especially the dual cCF card slots. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Also, any credible likelihood that Nikon will release a replacement for the D3s or D300s soon?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about the D3s, but for all practical purposes the D300s replacement is already out. It is called the D7000.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Elliot, i have a D3s and a d300s. as i explained in my post above, AF is not always faster b/c the D3s has no AF-assist light.</p>

<p>to the OP, a d700 would be better than a d7000 if you already have a d300s, especially when traveling, but also for shooting events with two bodies. they use the same batteries, chargers, and grips and have nearly identical button layouts. they also both can share CF cards.</p>

<p>i'm not sure that a d300s+d7000 makes sense. the d7k is clearly a prosumer-spec camera, while the d300s is a pro-spec camera. it may have newer technology, but a d700 makes more sense to pair with a d300s.</p>

<p>the reason to get a D3s now, as Thom Hogan has said, is that the sensor may go out of production. there's no way to know right now whether a d4, if/when it appears, will be the equal of the d3s at high-ISO. since the D3x is worse than the D3 in that regard. i personally don't feel constrained by the 12mp FF sensor at all, and plan on enjoying the camera for years to come, no matter what nikon comes up with in the future. one thing that people are starting to find out is that a lot of older lenses are outresolved by high-MP sensors. 12 is still a good benchmark, but in all likelihood, the d4 will be at least 18 mp, and possibly 20-24.</p>

<p>so that would be a hidden cost of waiting for a new production model--being forced to replace a lot of lenses because older glass isnt as good on newer bodies. if you look at the price differential between the 35/2 and the 35/1.4G, this becomes apparent.</p>

 

<p>A D3s is a very nice camera. I wish I could afford one today, but then again I don't have the immediate need. I'd expect a lot of D3s bodies will come onto the used market when the D4 is announced, and both new and used prices will drop. How that dovetails with your Africa trip is an unknown at this point.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun about getting a D7000 in the interim. I think a D7000 would give you 'the DX reach' with less net depreciation than getting a new or used D3s right now, while out-performing your D300s (except for maximum possible frame rate of 5fps and AEB capability of 3-shot sequence). I really like mine, but do wish it had better AEB. The IQ is very close to being on par with my D700, and it betters the DR in some situations.</p>

<p>You could always get one now, sell it when you get back from Africa, and write it off as a <em>very</em> cheap rental. Speaking of which, have you looked into renting a D3s or D3x and maybe a super-tele zoom (if you haven't already got one) for your trip?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just set the D3s to shoot DX sized frames when you desire that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if I'd go for a 5.1 mp resolution if I had a choice, but YMMV. I'd rather shoot FF and have the extra resolution and frame room to crop in post.</p>

<p>Eric/Peter, my comments are based on my hands on experience with the D3 and D300. While the D3 series and D300 series share the same AF module, the D3 has more processing power and is able to better process AF information, thereby giving faster and more accurate AF. I find the D3 to be superior to the D300 if AF speed. Many others agree (but of course not everyone). I have neither the D3S or D300s but don't believe any changes were made to the AF performance. And while the D3 has no AF assist light, I have never had trouble with AF on it even in very low light (with fast glass). For the last 5 years, years I have shot a low light event with the D3/70-200mm combo and rarely had the camera mis-focus). I have taken many tens of thousands of images though the years at this event. My client has had on several occasions during their show use black lights to light up the stage (almost black except for the reflective material they were wearing) and most of the shots are always in proper focus (see photo below).</p>

<p>Ultimately Mary's budget will determine which is the best choice for her. But, there is no doubt that the D3S is the best choice at this time IF money is not an issue.</p>

<p>FWIW with regard to the AF of the D7000 - it has been a few years since I handed a D300 so I can't directly compare but it appears to me that the D7000 AF speed and accuracy appears (to me) about the same as the D3. I have not used it in low lighting yet.</p>

<p>Below is a shot from the event I shoot. To give you an idea how dark it was, even at ISO 6400 and at f2.8, and a shutter speed of 1/5, the photo is still on the dark side. While there is blur from movement at this shutter speed, the majority of shots I take during sequences like this are in focus.</p><div></div>

<p>Who is "Elliot"?</p>

<p>Another advantage of DX mode on the D3/D3S is that you can shoot at 11fps. As far as the DX crop factor, above ISO 1600, I believe you still get better overall results with a full frame image cropped to DX size in spite of the lower megapixel count (at least that is what I find).</p>

<p>Elliot is the other poster in this thread whose name starts with Elli.</p>

<p>I would do what Shun suggests. Fix your D300s and wait for the D800 or D4. Both will have more MP, better AF, better low light capabilities and probably good video. </p>

<p>I reexamined some test shots I took a few weeks ago when I first received the D7000. Its pretty much a coin toss. The D3 image is upsized. This is a very extreme crop, probably in the neighborhood of 300% or more. The D7000 is an incredible camaera. I don't believe the d300 would do as well.</p>

<p>I guess my comment in the last post does not exactly hold water... its too close to call.</p>

<p>(shot with the 70-200mm (V1) lens, ISO 6400, images processed with DXO software. There is a more visible difference (which favors the D3) when examining the unprocessed RAW images. I have found that overall my D7000 images need more sharpening than my D3 images, which I did not apply here, so perhaps a bit more sharpening would make the images appear indistinguishable.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p><em>i'm not sure that a d300s+d7000 makes sense. the d7k is clearly a prosumer-spec camera, while the d300s is a pro-spec camera. it may have newer technology, but a d700 makes more sense to pair with a d300s.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have shot extensively with bot h the D300s and the D7000. I would not underrate the D7000 based on how Nikon is labeling the cameras for marketing purposes or be snobby about the D7000 and the D3, D3s, and D3X cameras; Given my druthers I'd go with the D3s</p>

<p>The D7000 would make a nice vacation camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D7000 would make a nice vacation camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite right. Smaller and lighter than the D300 by a lot!</p>

<p>Peter:<br>

You're confusing focal length with apparent focal length. An image of an animal shot with say a 200 mm lens from a fixed position with a DX factor camera and again with an FX factor camera would be exactly the same in terms of magnification. The one shot with the DX would "appear" to be of a longer focal length, only because the image circle is being "cropped" internally by the DX camera due to the smaller size of the sensor. This results in the subject taking up more of the frame and thereby making the subject "appear" to be closer. The angle of view and perspective of the subject would be identical as that is determined by the distance, relative to the subject and focal length of the lens. The lens is still throwing the same image each time, it has to. The only difference is what is happening inside the camera at the sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the D3 series and D300 series share the same AF module, the D3 has more processing power and is able to better process AF information, thereby giving faster and more accurate AF. I find the D3 to be superior to the D300 if AF speed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it is true that the D3s has more processing speed than the D300s. but it's simply not accurate to say it has "faster AF" since there are situations where the AF can't acquire focus as fast as the D300s w/ AF-assist light. i found this out from personal experience, shooting the same type of pics with the d3s as i have done many times with d300 and d300s: low-light concert shots. there were moments when the D3s would pause to lock focus which didn't happen with the d300s. so, an AF-assist light would be nice.</p>

<p>i realize d300s-bashing is all the rage now, but IMO that camera is still pretty damn good, and would be perfect if it had d700-like high-ISO performance. i'd rather see nikon improve this on a d400 than add more megapixels, if given the choice.</p>

<p>also, elliot, your example only works for blur shots. if you're shooting at 1/5 you're not going to get faces in focus in any event. and i'm not sure that pic would be publishable (way too dark), though it could make an artistic print. when i shoot events in low-light, i'm usually at a much higher shutter speed, trying to capture moving targets in focus.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><em>"The only difference is what is happening inside the camera at the sensor" </em>- exactly.</p>

<p>The DX camera denser pixel population provides in-the-file magnification, or reach of a lens longer by the crop factor, and this difference is huge for wildlife photography, as well as for prices of long lenses needed.</p>

<p>Wait for the next set of camera upgrades.</p>

<p><em>"there were moments when the D3s would pause to lock focus which didn't happen with the d300s"</em> Eric, you need to check your setting in menu option A4 - having this set to anything but OFF would cause a pause with either camera. If you have that setting off on the D300s and on with the D3, that might explain the difference you are experiencing. Or if you have one camera set to long and one to short... If not, I have no explanation as to why your D3S would pause during AF - my D3 does not.</p>