In a Quandry

For some time now I've been attracted to the Nikon D3S and considering replacing my D300. However I love the images my D300 produces and am undecided if I will achieve better results with the D3S. I know it has a newer sensor and is in mint condition with only an 8000 shutter count, is full frame and has a lot of improvements over the D300. I will not be pushing the D3S to its limits but it does provide some more headroom over the D300.

 

This is what I'm getting out of the D300. Will the D3S be a major improvement?

 

 

D300 + 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 iso200

 

Your feedback will be much appreciated.

Edited July 10, 2019 by iansurita

with only an 8000 shutter count

How much is the seller asking for it?

 

I've never seen a D3S with such a low shutter count!

 

Mine is at 477000...:-)

 

But yes, the performance in v.poor light is remarkable. Makes the D300 look horrible noise wise.

 

However, if you don't need the high frame rate or shoot in the dark, and shoot at base ISO, you won't see that much difference.

 

and it's a big, heavy beast to carry around too.

I will not be pushing the D3S to its limits but it does provide some more headroom over the D300.

This is true, but still begs the question of what matters to you and if there's sufficient improvement to warrant the expense. This is an important question because there are other choices which are far more capable than the D3S and available used for good prices. The primary differences between your D300 and the D3S are APS-C vs. FX sensor, ISO range of 200-3200 vs. 200-12800, 6 fps vs. 11 fps, no video vs. 1280x720 video, and a much heavier unit in the D3S. Also, in the D3, you have a vastly improved and more flexible set of controls intended for professional use, as opposed to the consumer-grade configuration of the D300.

 

How you intend to use the camera is a major factor here. Your sample image is a still life. If this is your primary use then you should consider other options as well. If you like to shoot sports or wildlife, then that's a different issue. For still life, landscapes, and portraits, consider the advantages of the D800e over the D3s: Next generation sensor at 36 MP, no AA filter, ISO 100-6400 (lower is better for tripod use), larger LCD display, only 4 fps, 1920x1080 video, less weight, Both cameras have similar, pro-style control configurations, but the D800e lacks the native vertical grip, wheel, and shutter release, though these can be added with an attachment. If you want to shoot sports and maximum resolution is less important than frame rate, then the D3s is hard to beat. This is also true if you'll be shooting journalism or documentary images in extremely harsh field conditions.

 

In terms of the absolute potential quality of images, a newer, higher-resolution sensor will the be most telling component. Any 24 MP to 36 MP sensor introduced after 2012 (an eon ago in DSLR terms) will outperform both the D300 and D3s in absolute resolution, noise, color, and high ISO performance. For still life's and the like, a camera that goes to ISO 100 or below as a native feature will be a significant improvement, as will the lack of an anti-aliasing (AA) filter. Even the APS-C D7100 will likely have a maximum potential IQ well in excess of the D3s. You also need to consider your lenses. If you have a large investment in DX lenses, then you will need to replace them in order to achieve even just reasonable performance out of an FX sensor, while they can work very, very well on a D7100 or later D7XXX body. The D7XXX series bodies' major limitation (and not a big one at that) is their consumer-style control layout. If you want to upgrade to FX, then the D610 should also be on your list for consideration, along with the D750 (at a higher price point generally). I shoot a D810 and D7100 side-by-side, and find they each have their place and best applications. The D3s was a massively impressive professional body, and remains a workhorse for many applications. However, it is not necessarily the best value for every application when upgrading from your D300.

Edited July 10, 2019 by DavidTriplett

Just a caveat: All of my thoughts, above, are based on certain assumptions about why you might want to upgrade from your D300. If my assumptions, particularly regarding a desire for increased maximum IQ, are wrong, then my suggestions are likely without merit. Please evaluate them accordingly. Check out the technical comparison at this LINK.

+1 to everything DavidTriplett covered: wise advice indeed. The D3S is still a very capable body, but in the larger scheme of things rapidly dating sensor-wise compared to newer options in the same price range. And its HUGE: unless you are a big guy who likes big cameras, or really need the speed for sports/wildlife, you should consider additional cameras like D7200 before making a final choice. Of course, if there are special circumstances involved (you're getting it from a trusted friend at far below the going price), you could just take the chance and see how D3S plays out- if you don't love it, resell it.

 

Otherwise, perhaps wait another month or two and see what Nikon does. At the moment, many dealers have new D750 priced at $1,149 under holiday promotions. The rumor mill is pretty certain a new body is coming year-end to replace both the D610 and D750 (presumably a D760). If that happens, you will see a TON of people dumping their mint-condition D750 on eBay and thru camera dealers. Whenever a mass model dump like this occurs, it becomes a buyers market for a short while until prices stabilize. If you can snag a D750 for well under $1,000 you'd have the best price/performance Nikon of the past few years, while being fairly future-proof. The 24MP FX sensor is much newer and more capable in most situations than the D3S, and D750 is much smaller/lighter with many more convenience features. It isn't as rugged or "pro", but if you don't need that firing speed and ruggedness carrying all the weight and old-tech sensor isn't worthwhile.

 

One last but important point: if you are a heavy user of your D300 and love the image output as you said, be aware that each new camera Nikon releases seems to have different color response than the one that came before. The D3, D300 and D700 looked very different from the D2x and D200: enough photographers were irritated that Nikon had to offer a software patch so the newer cams would emulate the color of the older models. The D3S color is different from those previous Nikons, and the D7200, D600, D800, D750 generations are different from the D3S (while the Df and D4/D5 are a whole other sidebar). So with whatever "new to you" Nikon you opt for, expect a period of adjustment while you figure out how to replicate the D300 image qualities you like best.

Edited July 10, 2019 by orsetto

Another consideration is what software you use for processing your RAW images, assuming you shoot in RAW. If you use Nikon Capture NX2 for your d300 raw files, that software will also process raw images from the D800e. If you buy any later Nikon body, you will need Nikon Capture NXD. I think Nikon 3ds raw files can be processed in NX2.

 

Joe

Another consideration is what software you use for processing your RAW images, assuming you shoot in RAW.

Or, you can download and use a free DNG converter that removes virtually all compatibility issues.

Sanity check: the D3s sensor is remarkable at high ISO, and keeps the D4 generation honest (although the D5 finally surpasses it measurably). It's not all that hot - arguably worse than a D3/D700 and certainly the higher-resolution bodies - if you are at lower ISO and like processing the images. Like the D5, it's highly specialised at getting the shot right in camera under tricky conditions and letting you send it to your editor quickly; it's not such a fine art camera, and there was a big boost in the D7000 generation of sensors for dynamic range at lower ISO.

 

The better low light performance (and depth of field control) comes partly from the larger sensor. With the lower pixel density and strong AA filter, you'll get a wider view from your lenses (unless any are DX), but you'll lose out on reach badly - worth bearing in mind if you plan low-light wildlife shooting.

 

The D3s still has merits (I lusted after one to complement my D810 until I got the D850 and grip), but a lot has moved on - you'd get a lot of improvement without some of the disadvantages by looking at the D7200/D7500/D500 or D750.

 

Good luck whatever you choose, though.

I think, really, that you just want us to 'enable' you in your gear-acquisition mania.:)

Equipment that was cutting edge, but is no longer so, is very often a smart and economical choice, especially if it's still newer than your old stuff.

 

I give you permission to indulge yourself.:D

I loved the output of my D300. It was difficult to get an unsharp image with the now, much outdated lens combos of the time. The 12-24's, 18-70, 16-85 and later to higher end telephotos & Micro lenses. All were wonderful.

 

I thought back then, if they made a 24mp/FX body, with build quality that had IQ similar to the D300, that would be my gold standard. In my case I purchased quite frugally, a D3 with with the "x," suffix. No, it's not high ISO friendly, but Nikon put some kind of secret sauce into the thing that ISO 100-1600 has a bit of an artistic look/quality.

 

I looked back at many different cameras that had unrealistic high price tags. I have a Kodak slr/N, the "x" and a Canon G1x/version 1. The two DSLR's are extremely long dated, however all have an IQ not quite explainable. Though my go to rig is a D800, if I could only own one it would be the D3x.

 

 

I had a bad run with several camera bodies when the D300 rave was over. Maybe I'm allergic to plastics, tilt & touch screens and SD cards. Ten cents on the dollar for the cost of a once, $8k Nikon or $5K Kodak is well enough to keep this old man quite delighted.

 

I remember seeing a new D3x on the shelf of a camera store some time after the D800 came out, still listed at a relatively stratospheric price. I thought "good luck with that", and I stand by Nikon having made the right (as I feel Canon did with the 5D2 vs 1Dx series) because there are a lot of amateur landscape photographers who'd like an affordable portable body over what the big unibodies offer - but I do get that the D3x has its place (often where medium format also sells), and Thom Hogan periodically bemoans the lack of a D8x0 sensor in a body that shares peripherals with the D4/D5 series.

 

If you've got something you like, never feel guilty about it! (Er, unless there's a better reason than it being an outdated camera.)

My thanks to all for taking the time to give such detailed and concise advice which is most helpful coming from experienced photographer members of the forum. It is not gear acquisition mania that I have :) as I have had the D300 since it first appeared way back in August 2007 and feel that perhaps it's time to upgrade it. I'm looking for an improvement in more detailed results and the strength that a pro body provides. My photography is not restricted to the image I uploaded, it was easiest to use it as an example as I am housebound at present and can't get out and about.

 

The price that is being asked in the store is £1500 but it may be reflected in the low shutter count. Is this a fair price for a mint condition model?

 

Thank you all again for the depth of advice which I will take on board very seriously.

 

Ian

No-one wants my D3S @ 477000. I tried to sell it to various UK places. Out of 4 approaches, 2 just said No Thanks, 1 said £500 trade in for a very overpriced D850 and the final brave company offered £350!

 

I now use is as a remote/auto triggered machine-gun in places i don't want to go..... like inside horse jumps for that weird angle or sometimes as a copycam to take the portrait shot as I shoot the landscape to give the client more options, ie horsey side-on jumping or same horsey jumping head-on, different dynamics.

 

In it's RoboRoll it's often paired with the Samyang 135mm f2 MF which at f8 is more than sharp enough.

 

For such purposes it's blimped as the phrase 'It scares the horses' is fully justified as it is rather loud.

I wonder about the merits of "mint condition" in a unibody camera - I'm very happy that my F5 has missing paint, since it might stop anyone having the delusion that it was expensive. At £1500, I'd really want the fps and the low-light performance - but then I care about resolution and the ability to post-process with a lot of dynamic range, so a used D810 (which would be cheaper) would appeal to me more. You're not me, though.

 

Just to restate this: you're talking about going from DX to FX. You're ready for what that means in your lens selection? (Even if all your lenses have FX coverage, you won't have the reach from a D3s that you're used to with a D300, so you might find yourself wanting something longer. When I moved from Canon APS-C to Nikon FX, my 70-300 needs were only met when I got a zoom that went to 500mm...)

It is not gear acquisition mania that I have :)

 

Good for you. So say we all. :|

iansurita said: ↑

"It is not gear acquisition mania that I have"

 

Hmm... neither do I. Why, it's

been over two hours since I

bought a new camera...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

I skimmed the responses before reading, so forgive me if I'm repeating stuff that's been said.

 

I used a D300 as my main camera for a while, but it now mostly sits on the shelf. I have a D3s, but it's an occasion specific camera(my D800 gets the most use of my digitals).

 

To me, the killer thing that sets both the D3 and D3s apart vs. the D300 is their low ISO performance. ISO 6400 on a D3s looks somewhere between 800 and 1600 on a D300, so I'd feel comfortable saying it gives a 2 1/2 stop improvement. The D3 is a little worse(I don't have one, but have the same sensor in a D700), but still 1 1/2 stops is nothing to sneeze at.

 

If you do any kind of action photography, you'll appreciate the faster focus speed both with AF-S and screwdriver lenses(especially the latter), although a D300 run with an MB-D10 and an EN-EL4a closes the gap on this somewhat.

 

Also, the D3(s) gives you higher burst speeds than a D300 even with an EN-EL4a on it, although I rarely run it all out(either camera). You get a deeper buffer, too.

 

Moving to full frame was the best digital decision I've ever made-IMO it's a better choice for someone like me who favors wide angles, and even with the same resolution as the D300 there's a very definite different look to photos made with a 24x36mm sensor(or at least in some types of photography). At other times, you may appreciate having those 12mp compressed into a smaller sensor-if that's the case I'd encourage you to look in the other direction for something like a D7200 to get you both more resolution and an all around better sensor.

 

The D3(s) is a solid chunk of a camera. You may like this, or may find carrying it around all the time a burden. That's why mine only comes out where the occasion calls for it. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter, but a lot of that has to do just with the fact that you're looking at a larger focusing screen. There are features that I like about the single digit viewfinders that aren't present even in the "second tier" cameras(like the fact that illuminated focus points don't "bleed" all over the screen in low light) but the layout is also somewhat different.

 

That's the long and short of it from my perspective.

The price is rather high: the store is hoping that somebody will be so attracted to the "mint condition" aspect that they won't notice they're is asking roughly DOUBLE the going second hand rate for a very nice (if not quite mint in box) D3S. In USA/Canada, decent examples of D3S are currently trading hands at an average £725 ($895 USD), give or take depending on condition and what extras are included (spare batteries, etc).

 

If it were me, I would not pay £1500 for a D3S no matter how mint. That price is only justifiable if one has a very specific fetish for the EXACT image qualities of the bespoke D3S sensor, and wants a spare body as close to brand new as possible. Like all the single-digit D sub-models, the D3S still has a small cult following of photographers who cut their teeth on it and/or feel its particular sensor output is uniquely suited to their work. IOW, its one of those "if you have to ask, you don't need it" paradoxes. Periodically, a new D3S owner on this or similar forums will start a thread praising the D3S as an amazing camera with imaging capabilities they've never experienced before. BUT: inevitably, we discover that person picked up their D3S at a fires-ale price like £200 from the distraught widow of a recently-deceased photographer, and they also own five other DSLRs with newer and older sensors to choose from. Any camera can be a revelation if it isn't your ONLY camera, and you didn't bet the farm on it.

 

Migrating to a D3S as your first upgrade in a decade (and primary camera) might not be the best plan at any price. Even at £500, its an odd choice for daily driver unless you do truly need the ruggedness, frame rate, and specific sensor specs to exploit it fully. When they were new current cameras, the D3, D3S and D700 earned their praise in many respects, but were also slammed for having already-obsolete 12MP resolution the day they were announced. Nikon photographers made do, because we were desperate for ANY full frame Nikon at that point, but the 12MP with heavy AA filter does put a hard limit on some photographers. These sensors do work better with old pre-AI, AI, and AF-D lenses than almost any other Nikon DSLRs: if you like using older lenses, the 12MP bodies are a great match for them.

 

But if you want a noticeable kick in the pants resolution/performance boost over your D300, look elsewhere. The 12MP FX bodies might momentarily seem like a big step up from your D300, and they are, but you might grow dissatisfied with them much quicker than you did the D300. Today the 24MP Sony sensor is considered the baseline for FX by most photographers. 12MP is fine if you don't plan to pixel peep on a 60" monitor or make huge prints, but things get blurrier quicker for some tasks and 12MP chokes your ability to crop when you need the reach of your D300.

 

That said, I've been perfectly happy with a 12MP D700 for years now. I like using old lenses, very little of my work involves extreme tele reach, and I don't make huge prints. The sensor is slightly more limited in low light than the D3S, but not enough for me to spend the extra money and carry that gigantic body (D700 packs the FX sensor in your D300 body, which is big and heavy enough as it is). This is actually the best time ever to buy a D700: they routinely sell for just £350 in USA/Canada (a fraction of their original £2900 price). D700 still does just fine for most purposes at ISO 1600 and even 3200: the D3S is better, but if you aren't exclusively shooting in that situation you won't notice. D700 has now bottomed out in value: there's tons of them available in good condition, resale price is stable, you can't lose by trying one out to see how you like the full-frame format (vs spending £1500 on that D3S). You could trade up to a more modern full frame body later if/when you feel ready.

 

Most here would advise jumping a little further into the future with your first upgrade camera, spending something like £750 for a mint D800e or D750. Probably the best course for most evolving Nikon photographers. It all depends on your budget, and whether you want to gradually move thru older sensors to newer at a cheaper pace, or jump right to something contemporary at higher cost. D700 and D800 bodies are very similar to D300, so you might take to them quicker than the large pro D3 series or smaller, more consumer-oriented D750 (or D7200 if you opt for APS-C upgrade vs full frame).

Edited July 11, 2019 by orsetto

ben_hutcherson and orsetto, and all responders whose names I haven't mentioned, thank you for your down to earth advice which is allowing me to see the wider picture. I did think the price quoted in store was high but haven't any true experience of the real world prices. I suspect there is a huge mark up based upon the "mint"/and 8000 shutter count mentioned in the sellers description. I am retired and do not wish to be taken advantage of and feel this is not the bargain I am looking for.

 

I am now coming down to earth and seeing this as not the perfect solution. So I'll reconsider my needs and requirements and look at cameras featuring more up to date sensors.

 

All advice given you have given has been gratefully received and I appreciate the friendly responses to my question.

 

Ian

Many have covered this thread well. One advantage of newer cameras I did not see mentioned is auto white balance for SOOC JPGs. I saw an improvement from D300/D3 to D3s, a bigger improvement when I got a D800, and improvements since with more recent cameras.

 

I still have a D300s (I think, a friend has it?), D3s, D3x(really great looking images at lower ISOs with WB correct). Right now, I am thinking I will keep the well worn D3s/D3x combo for what they do well, and the fact that they are not worth a lot. Sort of contemplating what to do with my other combo, D810 and Z6, a little thinking I might replace the D810 with a Z7.

 

I would not pay 1500 for a new D3s in 2019, FWIW.

Nikon introduced the D3S a decade ago. Electronics have improved a lot in 10 years. I would prefer something newer and has more than 12MP. E.g. the D750 is still quite good and its sensor and electronics do not show any clear signs of its age compared to my very new Z6.

 

The single-digit D series are well built. But the flip side is that they are all big and heavy. Only you can decide whether you would like to carry that kind of weight all the time. I use a D5 and I am used to that weight, but sometimes I prefer my Z6 for its size.

I am surprised no one mentions D500, the natural upgrade path for D300/s. The D500 is superior to D3S in multiple ways, and it's even lighter than D300! It's also likely to be less expensive than a used D3S.

 

Comparison: D3S vs D500 (click on link).

 

Comparison: D500 vs D300s (click on link).

I am surprised no one mentions D500, the natural upgrade path for D300/s.

 

Excellent point! :)

 

As an FX shooter, I don't follow the trends of used DX cameras very often. I was under the impression it was still very expensive and relatively scarce second -hand. A quick eBay search just now revealed a ton of D500 bodies selling for roughly the same price as a D750 (this was a surprise, it was so long-anticipated and well-received I'm shocked this many owners are selling them). So it certainly is a great choice to replace a D300. iansurita, if you decide to stay with APS-C sensor size, the D500 is arguably the best camera ever made in that format: basically a miniature D3S with modern high-res sensor.

 

There will probably never be another APS-C DSLR with D500 performance: it takes the format as far as it can reasonably go. Nikon might put out a slightly improved variation in a year or two, but its doubtful they will bother or that it would be a significant upgrade. Nikon took YEARS after the D300 discontinuation to prepare and release the D500: the way the camera market is shifting now, chances of them doing it again are nil.

 

Since OP seemed to be leaning toward FX with his interest in the D3S, I followed that lead in suggesting alternatives. I'm kind of embarrassed now that I just assumed the D500 was still a backordered $1900 niche camera of primary interest to dedicated sports/wildlife shooters. At its current availability and used price of $900 or so, it becomes far more attractive for all types of photography, if one prefers the APS-C format.

Edited July 12, 2019 by orsetto

iansurita, The D3s is a great camera but the store is asking too much. I would not buy it at that price.

Go to the "sold' D3s at auction and you will see over 80-90 % are sold under $1000 US Dollars and most are sold under $800.

One had 8000 clicks and was sold for $900. In my opinion its still a camera worth owning. I bought mine new in 2011 in serious homage to Sendai Nikon Corporation after the earthquake in March of that year. Its still a very capable camera and shoots very well in dim light and candle light. As well the large pixels clean up well when shooting in low light. I have a D850 but truth is 12 MP in full frame is all you really need. I would keep looking and or consider one of the alternatives mention. All things considered the D3s is a pro build and just holding it make me feel like I am a good person. Good hunting.

Excellent point! :)

 

As an FX shooter, I don't follow the trends of used DX cameras very often. I was under the impression it was still very expensive and relatively scarce second -hand. A quick eBay search just now revealed a ton of D500 bodies selling for roughly the same price as a D750 (this was a surprise, it was so long-anticipated and well-received I'm shocked this many owners are selling them). So it certainly is a great choice to replace a D300. iansurita, if you decide to stay with APS-C sensor size, the D500 is arguably the best camera ever made in that format: basically a miniature D3S with modern high-res sensor.

 

There will probably never be another APS-C DSLR with D500 performance: it takes the format as far as it can reasonably go. Nikon might put out a slightly improved variation in a year or two, but its doubtful they will bother or that it would be a significant upgrade. Nikon took YEARS after the D300 discontinuation to prepare and release the D500: the way the camera market is shifting now, chances of them doing it again are nil.

 

Since OP seemed to be leaning toward FX with his interest in the D3S, I followed that lead in suggesting alternatives. I'm kind of embarrassed now that I just assumed the D500 was still a backordered $1900 niche camera of primary interest to dedicated sports/wildlife shooters. At its current availability and used price of $900 or so, it becomes far more attractive for all types of photography, if one prefers the APS-C format.

I use a D750 and a good friend recently picked up a D500 when they were on sale. I was a bit surprised that the 500 was actually bigger than the 750 when we had them side by side. Image quality was very similar, though I'd give a bit of a nod to my 750. A few friends were sitting out on my back deck one evening in low light level and we were shooting a bit. The 750 picked up the focus very quickly and accurately in the dark (the focus assist light is helpful), but the 500 struggled.

 

Anther camera to perhaps consider if you're going full-frame is the Df. From what I've seen the look of the images is much like those from a D3. Just another option and dang, they're pretty.