My wife just ordered me a D3S Nikon for Christmas

[trjwv]

Wouldn't it make since if a person wanted to go full frame to buy a full frame cam and learn on a full frame, not buy a dx, learn on a dx, then switch to an fx and relearn the camera. I'm not saying some very good points are not being raised, and I am taking them all In, but other than the money, why suggest a d700 over the d3s, or a d300, then later switch to the full frame. What if I want to print 8x10's? And about the glass, I agree, glass is very I important, but cam is important also. I am looking at the new 28-300 and the 1.4 50mm prime. These should be good starter lens for me. Extra sharpening can be done in ps nowadays. Still undecided though but I have a few months to decide. I do appreciate the feedback and value all opinions here as this is why I started this thread. Keep them coming as this thread will help me make my decision to keep on order, or cancel and buy new d7000.
Thanks

 

[luminosity]

As soon as I saw the bit about the 10-24, I knew something was wrong.

I could do great things with a D3s, being primarily a low light shooter. My last bit of work took me outside the D700's ideal range, but it was within the D3s's abilities.

Unfortunately, I can't imagine ever owning a D3s. I'm fortunate enough as it is to have a D700.

To the OP, just get a D90 and start with that. For most people, I'd suggest a D3100, but in your case, go with the D90 or its replacement. This is the kind of stuff that drives some photographers batty. No one should apologize for their resources, but I know of some truly great photographers who could do wondrous things given more resources and gear.

Becoming a good photographer requires investment in things that no amount of money can directly buy, which include time and experience. A friend of mine once observed to me that early on, I was just getting a lot of my bad photos out of the way. I took a lot of those. Two years ago, I was something akin to clueless. Now I have a decent idea of what to do and how to accomplish various things (though I certainly have a narrower focus than I did back then).

Better to take your bad photos on a lesser camera than something like a D3s.

 

[steve123]

Well, I'm certainly no authority but I suspect since your Mom's a pro in the field you know a thing or two about photography. I think I read an earlier post regarding the size of the camera and I suggest you take a close look into that as it appears to me to be quite a bit larger than at D95 (or whatever they are going to call it). Size may be a factor for you.

Enjoy your D3s!

 

[HarryPot]

...but other than the money, why suggest a d700 over the d3s, or a d300, then later switch to the full frame.

A D700 is also full frame, is smaller and lighter and has built-in flash. I really don't see why you need a D3s over a D700.

I can understand that you want a full frame, even tho you don't really need it, but saying you need a D3s when the D700 is around is, in my opinion, a misinformed decision.

If you take photos as a hobby, I would much rather have a lighter camera that makes me want to take it everywhere, than a big camera which I don't really need and weights a ton.

 

[Ruahrc]

Wouldn't it make since if a person wanted to go full frame to buy a full frame cam and learn on a full frame, not buy a dx, learn on a dx, then switch to an fx and relearn the camera. I'm not saying some very good points are not being raised, and I am taking them all In, but other than the money, why suggest a d700 over the d3s, or a d300, then later switch to the full frame.

Switching from DX to FX does not necessarily require you to "relearn" the camera. Everything works the same it is really just that your lens focal lengths are different.

What if I want to print 8x10's?

The DX cameras listed here, all being the same 12MP as the D3s, will produce prints just as well as the D3s can.

And about the glass, I agree, glass is very I important, but cam is important also. I am looking at the new 28-300 and the 1.4 50mm prime. These should be good starter lens for me. Extra sharpening can be done in ps nowadays.

Pretty much everyone here has told you that pairing the D3s and the 28-300 is a complete waste. Yes you can sharpen in PS, but you can't sharpen in detail that was never there in the first place. If you want to waste thousands of dollars go on ahead, I guess in the end we're not here to tell you what you can or can't do with your money.

 

[trjwv]

Also looking at this as a replacement for the D3S on order:

D300S $1479.99 or the new D7000 (if overall specs are better than D300S)
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor $1384.00
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2169.00

About the same total as the D3S.

I bet this sounds better to most in this thread....

of course i would get a fast 32 GB card, battery grip for a fast fps and keep my 10-24 for my building shots......

Maybe, we'll see.....

 

[gødspeed]

Yeah, maybe do go with a cheaper body, like the D700(0), and some top-of-the-line lenses if you want to spend more.

Some lenses I might use if I had an unlimited budget:

14-24mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
28mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.2 (MF)
85mm f/1.4
135mm f/2.0
200mm f/2.0
70-200mm f/2.8
300mm f/2.8

And two unique manual focus lenses:

Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 (adapter needed)
Helios 40-2 (85mm f/1.5, adapter needed)

...

You could easily spend $20,000+ on a non-redundant lens set.

 

[gnd]

Also looking at this as a replacement for the D3S on order:

D300S $1479.99 or the new D7000 (if overall specs are better than D300S)
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor $1384.00
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2169.00

About the same total as the D3S.

I bet this sounds better to most in this thread....

of course i would get a fast 32 GB card, battery grip for a fast fps and keep my 10-24 for my building shots......

Maybe, we'll see.....

This sounds like a much better plan, except I'd go with four 8GB cards as opposed to one 32GB. You don't lose everything in case of card corruption ...

 

[wheelhot]

D300S $1479.99 or the new D7000 (if overall specs are better than D300S)
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor $1384.00
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2169.00

About the same total as the D3S.

good plan, but dont just throw out the D300s because overall spec alone. I've used the D90 and D300s (now owns the D300s) and the D300s just blow D90 away, the ergonomics, build quality and external buttons (once you get used to it) just make it worth it for me to spend extra for the 300s. And another point that you can consider is that if you ever upgrade to a D3/D700, the button layout is more similar to the 300s then to the 90/7000

 

[Captpegleg]

My mother is a professional wedding photographer.

I can't imagine why you would ask a bunch of total strangers for advice.

 

[leighonigar]

Since you have a quite fantastic camera already, and do not appear to understand much about cameras, sensor size, lenses or image processing I fail to understand why you would think a D3s would be a shrewd move.

Feel free to buy what you want, but do so on the understanding that a fancier camera absolutely will not enhance the quality of your photography, unless by some miracle the sheer majesty of the camera precipitates a moment of profound artistic inspiration.

 

[compuwar]

She knows I like the biggest, best, newest on the market.

In Nikon-land, that's the D3x.

Really? Ouch!

Depending on usage, 5MP will make a perfectly good 8x10-11x14" print. Heck, I've taken less than 5PM off a crop on my old D2x and gotten acceptable 13x19" prints, though that's right at the edge of what I find acceptable (at 11x14 it's fine, at 13x19, you need to be around the correct viewing distance. Does anyone who whines about the number of MP actually crop and print?

I think that if you have the money, there is nothing wrong with getting the D3s even if you are a beginner. BUT...

Do consider that it is a HUGE camera. In my opinion, a D3s if for people that live out of photography or that are very serious photographers. There is no way you'll be taking this camera with its lenses on a vacation, for example.

Why not consider a D300s or a D700? The latter is full frame and smaller than the D3s, and it also has a built-in flash.

Hmmm, I take both my D3x and D2x on vacation, and I think the D3s is smaller/lighter than the D700 if you add the battery grip. Personally, I'd rather have a good-sized camera that has the integrated grip and high-voltage longer lasting batteries- but since we don't know the shooting conditions the OP wants to shoot under, we don't know what's best suited to them.

.
If you're someone who likes the newest and best, get the D700(0).
D700 is still pretty much the highest rated camera on DXOmark.com (best) and you can get your newest fix from the D7000. Come to think of it buy both if you want. You can keep your DX lenses for the D7000 and buy..I don't know for the D700. The main rule in photography is invest in glass, not cameras.

While this is mostly true, there are lots of reports that the D3s achieves faster and more accurate focus than the D700- likely because of the CPU module and/or voltage since the AF module is identical...

Wouldn't it make since if a person wanted to go full frame to buy a full frame cam and learn on a full frame, not buy a dx, learn on a dx, then switch to an fx and relearn the camera. I'm not saying some very good points are not being raised, and I am taking them all In, but other than the money, why suggest a d700 over the d3s, or a d300, then later switch to the full frame. What if I want to print 8x10's? And about the glass, I agree, glass is very I important, but cam is important also. I am looking at the new 28-300 and the 1.4 50mm prime. These should be good starter lens for me. Extra sharpening can be done in ps nowadays. Still undecided though but I have a few months to decide. I do appreciate the feedback and value all opinions here as this is why I started this thread. Keep them coming as this thread will help me make my decision to keep on order, or cancel and buy new d7000.
Thanks

Pretty-much any camera made today will do well at 8x10. But you haven't said what you plan on shooting- so I don't see how you can pick a body/lens combination until you know what you're going to shoot-- for instance, if you're shooting sports, the new 300mm AF-S VR-II is going to make the total combination price higher- but if you need the stop and a half or so of difference between the D3s and D700- then no amount of wishing is going to bring it to another body until a new high-ISO body is made.

Also looking at this as a replacement for the D3S on order:

D300S $1479.99 or the new D7000 (if overall specs are better than D300S)
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor $1384.00
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2169.00

About the same total as the D3S.

I bet this sounds better to most in this thread....

of course i would get a fast 32 GB card, battery grip for a fast fps and keep my 10-24 for my building shots......

Maybe, we'll see.....

Until you say what your usage is going to be, they're all equally valid answers. Don't put all your files in a single card (and if you're getting a D3 series camera, take advantage of the dual card slots too.)

Paul

 

[trjwv]

Paul,

"8 x 10 even with the crop factor of a DX, without cutting off the legs or filling the sides up in ps?"

but since we don't know the shooting conditions the OP wants to shoot under, we don't know what's best suited to them.

"Mainly portraits for composites, both indoors under controlled lighting and outdoors in alley's and buildings etc..., and landscapes, and sports (high school football, basketball) and soccer (little kids) and my 2 little girls ages 3 and 2, gotta have fast fps to catch the good shots.

thanks Paul.....

 

[compuwar]

Paul,

"8 x 10 even with the crop factor of a DX, without cutting off the legs or filling the sides up in ps?"

but since we don't know the shooting conditions the OP wants to shoot under, we don't know what's best suited to them.

"Mainly portraits for composites, both indoors under controlled lighting and outdoors in alley's and buildings etc..., and landscapes, and sports (high school football, basketball) and soccer (little kids) and my 2 little girls ages 3 and 2, gotta have fast fps to catch the good shots.

thanks Paul.....

You have three choices for your subject matter- there's no "right" answer, just different ones-- FX, DX or one of each.

For landscapes, buildings and low light- D700, D3x or D3s- the D3s is about a stop and a half faster for the same IQ as the D700, but better at focus.

For sports, a D300s or a D3x for the crop factor, but the D3x will require that you learn enough to time the shutter actuations, it's not a high-framerate camera.

For very dimly lit gyms, the D3s is a better answer than most- even though you'll want a bit more lens than with the D300s. If you're able to shoot at ISO 1600 or below, then the D3x will be as good or better than the D300, and better above that, especially if you can downsample.

I'd say barring any more information, the D3s with the 24-70mm and 70-200mm for most of the time, and rent a 300 VR II for the times when you want more reach. I rarely find myself going out further than 35mm on landscapes these days on FX.

Personally, I'd recommend renting one from one of the online rental places with one of the above lenses- it's a big enough purchase that a weekend's rental probably makes sense.

Paul

 

[georgemann]

All this advice is giving me a headache (especially all the "it's too much camera for you" nonsense, jealous much?). Any Nikon photographer who would not accept a Nikon D3s as a gift (that means for free), should just give up on digital SLR photography and start shooting with his cell phone.

Even with only one lens, the Nikon D3s is a formidable camera. Don't look this gift-horse in the mouth, thank your wife for her good taste and good sense, and get ready to accelerate your photography to another level.

You're one lucky guy to have such a loving (and smart) wife.

George

http://nikondp.com

 

[djbahdow01]

Ok I've been following this thread for a little bit. While I commend the OP for checking in and seeing if he is going the right route. Any way you go could be good for you. The only downside I see for you is that you wouldn't be able to use your 10-24 on the D3s. Also putting a 28-300 on a D3s is not the way to go. It maybe new glass but it is in no way close to Nikons top of the line 2.8 lenses.

Your suggestion to go to the D300s or newer DX cameras sound the way to go. Especially with the lens selection you chose. I would also suggest getting a few memory cards, no need to have your one CF card crap out on you mid shoot or go corrupt at some point.

As I was told when I first got started into photography you can always buy a newer better camera, but lenses last a good long time. Invest in your lenses, which will mount to any Nikon camera and you will be set pretty much for life.

As stated the D3s is nice, used it a few times. But I still love my D700 for all its uses, shot up to ISO 10000 and printed 8x10s that looked pretty good. Its my main camera for indoor HS sports, and my D300 is a great tool for all my outdoor stuff.

Also you could think back to when cameras were just 4.1 MP Sports Illustrated printed double trucks (two page spreads) with it. Those are larger than 8x10s. I've seen 2MP images look great at an 8x10. I've also seen 4-6MP images at 20x30 look great as well.

The MP sizing is a myth to a point. With the quality sensors as well as the prime size of 12MP on the Nikon side. You can almost print out at any size you want.

 

[pdxflint]

All this advice is giving me a headache (especially all the "it's too much camera for you" nonsense, jealous much?). Any Nikon photographer who would not accept a Nikon D3s as a gift (that means for free), should just give up on digital SLR photography and start shooting with his cell phone.

Even with only one lens, the Nikon D3s is a formidable camera. Don't look this gift-horse in the mouth, thank your wife for her good taste and good sense, and get ready to accelerate your photography to another level.

You're one lucky guy to have such a loving (and smart) wife.

George

http://nikondp.com

The OP put the question out there, so folks responded. It doesn't serve any purpose to call it "nonsense" if you don't agree with it, and if reading all the responses to a topic raised here gives you a headache, I'd simply suggest not reading it. Seems easy enough.

No one suggested he "look this gift-horse in the mouth." Most of the advice had to do with taking the equivalent value and making the most of it. It's all subjective, and folks have opinions. I notice you do to, so just don't be sanctimonious and we'll all be good.
-Phil

 

[compuwar]

Even with only one lens, the Nikon D3s is a formidable camera. Don't look this gift-horse in the mouth, thank your wife for her good taste and good sense, and get ready to accelerate your photography to another level.

I'll just point out that "Better camera" doesn't always mean "another level" in a good way. The higher end bodies expect the photographer to do a lot of the heavy lifting and may be more prone to errors in technique (witness the D2x when it first came out and the cry of a lack of sharpness due to poor technique and bad lenses.)

Paul

 

[Full of Win]

Also looking at this as a replacement for the D3S on order:

D300S $1479.99 or the new D7000 (if overall specs are better than D300S)
Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor $1384.00
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens $2169.00

About the same total as the D3S.

I bet this sounds better to most in this thread....

of course i would get a fast 32 GB card, battery grip for a fast fps and keep my 10-24 for my building shots......

Maybe, we'll see.....

The D300S is a nice camera, but full frame is full frame. Once you go full frame, you never go back. How about looking at the D700 or wait for its replacement.

 

[djbahdow01]

The D300S is a nice camera, but full frame is full frame. Once you go full frame, you never go back. How about looking at the D700 or wait for its replacement.

Yes it is a nice camera. FX vs DX doesn't really work as each has their place. Figure FX is great for architecture and indoor sports not to mention pretty much everything else. The DX is great to give a little extra reach (or so it seems) great for outdoor sports when you don't have a 400mm+.

I can say I use my d700 more than my D300 but I do a lot more events and indoor sports (200000+ shots this past winter). My D300 has it's place shooting outdoors day and night.

I'd say this weekend alone I've shot 75% more with my D300 (golf) and I have a 300mm. I do use the crop mode on the D700 when I don't need to crop any more than the crop mode.

Anyways it's the Ops choice. As stated he does a wide variety of stuff, but I still say lenses are the way to go they last a lot longer than cameras do!!

 

[compuwar]

Yes it is a nice camera. FX vs DX doesn't really work as each has their place. Figure FX is great for architecture and indoor sports not to mention pretty much everything else. The DX is great to give a little extra reach (or so it seems) great for outdoor sports when you don't have a 400mm+.

That's only true of low-res FX. I'll put DX crops from my D3x up against any DX body.

Paul

 

[pdxflint]

That's only true of low-res FX. I'll put DX crops from my D3x up against any DX body.

Paul

True, but $7500 should buy you better image quality.

 

[El Cabong]

Hard to say no to a D3S when the money's (BONUS) is there now. Money may not be there later so I am thinking real hard on this one.

If the money won't "be there later," why wouldn't, you know, "saving the money" be an option, whether for a future purchase or otherwise? That said, your D300s+lenses shopping list is much more sensible.

Even with only one lens, the Nikon D3s is a formidable camera. Don't look this gift-horse in the mouth, thank your wife for her good taste and good sense, and get ready to accelerate your photography to another level.

She simply, as stated, went out and bought the (perceived) newest and shiniest toy for her husband that her wedding-shooting mother-in-law wants but can't cost-justify. I don't know if that constitutes much sense or taste, but regardless, her buying an H4D and commissioning an adapter for his DX lenses would have accelerated his photography to a another level in a similar fashion.

 

[compuwar]

True, but $7500 should buy you better image quality.

Spoken like a true D700 owner

My point wasn't about the D3x though, it was about the assumptions made by those who "justify" DX by claiming "reach-" or applicability for wildlife- the 5DII has about the same argument at a much lower price point.

People should be careful when they make generalizations, as they encompass more than the current generation of cameras, and even in this generation, it's a misstatement that DX is "better." Not just in terms of the pixels in crop either- I'm a *lot* happier cropping an FX frame for a fast-approaching raptor than I am trying to frame-fill a DX body's viewfinder with the same bird. I can get 2-3 usable images per approach 99% of the time vs 1 about 75% of the time with DX if they're coming anywhere near straight in- and in the case where I get the same relative crop for DX, I can obviously get 5-6 usable images out of FX.


Paul

 

[SchneiderMan]

I would keep it in order