Nikon's D3s lets you breathe, relax, and take great pictures--regardless of lighting
Posted 12.29.2010 at 9:00 am
16 Comments
Nikon D3S, the Night Lighter
Brian Klutch
Admittedly, I love most things Nikon. I’m not one of those nuts who walks around clad from head to toe in Nikon apparel, denouncing anybody who dares to use a Canon camera, but I do tend to prefer Nikon’s equipment to other manufacturers. On the other hand, even if you loathe Nikon, even if you own a Canon onesie—you’ll still see the D3s as an incredible achievement.
The first time I ever used a digital SLR was in 2006 while on my very first assignment for my college newspaper, the Daily Targum. That camera just so happened to be a Nikon D200. Before that point, I was an admitted retrophile, hopelessly devoted to film. The D200 changed that, quickly proving itself the greatest camera I’d ever used. That is, until I upgraded to the D300.
Around the time I got my hands on the D300, I began taking on some freelance gigs, shooting concerts. Not concerts in packed stadiums with high-end lighting displays, but the sort of shows in sweaty, cramped, dimly-lit venues, presided over by up-and-comers and won’t-make-its. I quickly learned to accept that in this type of shooting conditions, I would often be forced to either sacrifice quality by jacking up my ISO or sacrifice crispness by dropping down my shutter. Considering the noise levels on the D300 are still pretty moderate even at ISO 2500 (any higher than that, though, and you can forget it) it was in the ISO department that my photos generally took the hit.
But then one rainy summer evening, I was asked to photograph Julian Casblancas, formerly of the Strokes, performing a solo act at a teeny tiny venue in Philadelphia. I headed down I-95 from New York with my usual gear--the D300, with an f/2.8 17-35mm lens and an f/2.8 35-70mm lens. Unfortunately, as soon as the concert began, I went into panic mode. Instead of the typical lighting display I had come to compensate for, someone decided it would look really neat to backlight Julian using a single red light…throughout the entire concert. So when Julian climbed up onto the balcony, and then onto a speaker mounted about 15 feet above the floor (all while girls clawed at his feet), I stood there helpless, unable to shoot anything passable at all.
After that disaster of a shoot, I decided enough was enough; I needed to find a camera that could handle itself in any lighting situation. It was then that I decided I needed to get my hands on a D3s before my next concert shoot. Fortunately, not long after the Julian Casblancas show, I began working at Popular Photography, where a D3s is kept in house for testing out new lenses.
A few weeks later I got called out to shoot another concert, this time in a quasi-venue/quasi-practice space/quasi-basement in New Jersey called the Starland Ballroom. Still reeling from the horrors of missing the once in a lifetime Julian Casablancas photo, I showed up to the venue feeling a bit uneasy. Sure, I knew the D3s was theoretically capable of ISOs reaching 12,800, but I had no idea how the quality would be—and I had my doubts that the highest ISO would be able to get a solid image in such poor lighting.
I was in for a pleasant surprise.
The lighting at the show was as bad, if not worse, than at the Philadelphia show. As the concert began, I felt the opening pangs of panic mode all over again, but that feeling swiftly subsided as I threw the D3s’s ISO up to 10,000 and began firing away. At first I wasn’t sure how the images would turn out--while they looked great on the camera’s 3-inch LCD-screen, looking good on a 17-inch monitor, let alone in print, is a different beast all together. Regardless, I put my faith in the camera’s LCD display, and, hoping all the hype I had heard about the camera was accurate, pressed onward.
D3s, in Darkness: Max Bemis (of Say Anything) at the Starland Ballroom--the D3s managed to capture this tricky shot in a dank New Jersey basement venue with aplomb. Dan Bracaglia
The next day, I began uploading and sorting the images to be transmitted with bated breath. While I was confident that my angles and perspectives were solid, all photographers know that with great photography often comes great disappointment. As the images appeared in my Lightroom catalogue, I breathed a sigh of relief—the image quality looked, well, incredible. Not only was there virtually no noise at all at ISO 10,000, but even the images where I pushed the cameras all the way up to ISO 12,800 looked solid.
Digital photography has come a really long way since the turn of the century, but the D3s marks the first real time that a digital camera is able to capture images in places film never could. One needs only to try the D3s once to be hooked on it. My experience in that dank New Jersey basement, and the fantastic photos that came from it, are more than enough to anoint the D3s one of our Best of What's New.
16 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Gadgets
Regular Features
140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.
Innovation Challenges
Popular Science+ For iPad
Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page
Download Our App
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Follow Us On Twitter
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
February 2013: How To Build A Hero
Engineers are racing to build robots that can take the place of rescuers. That story, plus a city that storms can't break and how having fun could lead to breakthrough science.
Also! A leech detective, the solution to America's train-crash problems, the world's fastest baby carriage, and more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Most Emailed
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Contributing Writers:
Clay Dillow | Email
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Colin Lecher | Email
Emily Elert | Email
Intern:
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Ahhhhhh! $5,000 buck for one of theses. It better do all kinds of things in the dark for that kind of money!
I fully expect that usable ISO levels will continue to rise and be pushed down to prosumer and lesser priced professional cameras. At least I hope so.
the "value" of this camera will depreciate faster than $5,000 worth of ice cream in the sun. in 2 years every entry level dslr will have the similar low-light sensitivity. maybe cameras of this caliber should be leased, not purchased.
or - better yet - the parts that really change should be made interchangeable, so that one could upgrade that expensive DH1 from 2001 into a D3 today, using most of it's almost unchanged parts and not just the lenses.
"Learn to Live & Live to Learn"
Alexander von Humboldt
@JPnyc,
Upgradeable parts and forward compatibility seem like a great idea. Too bad the industry fears this like the plague. In an unregulated free market, we'll never see products built to last and built to be upgraded and rapaired. We're more likely to see planned obsolescence and millions of perfectly good lenses, cases and electronics thrown away.
I would totally love to have someone get me one of these. But since it was coming out of my pocket, I had to buy the D3000 instead. I don't regret it at all.
Its worth $5,000 if photography is your profession. If you want the latest and greatest equipment you have to pay to play. Sure it will be outdated in 2 years, but if your income depends on quality low light photos, then maybe you can't afford to wait that long. As far as interchangeable parts: its a great idea in theory but not in reality. Its not just the sensors that are changing. Autofocus systems are getting faster. More megapixels also create a need for faster in-camera computing meaning upgraded processors. Same thing for increased fps. I can't imagine how hard it might be to take apart this camera and try changing out the sensor and processors.
As far as the review goes....a bit late don't you think? This camera has been out for awhile.
Nikon is very very good.
I imagine the tardiness of this review is more related to the fact that Nikon seems to have a publicity deal with popsci.
You want to see one that is comparable and 1/3 the price at 1500. The new Pentax K5 is unbelievable. ISO up to 51,000...a bit noisy there, but up to 21,000 quite usable.
The new Sony sensor is awesome. Check out some of the reviews all over the web.
"In an unregulated free market, we'll never see products built to last and built to be upgraded and rapaired. ..."
So, Juujuu...etc, you think we'd have better, more flexible, cheaper cameras (or anything else, for that matter) if King Obama appointed a "Digital SLR Czar" whose mission is to regulate how foreign manufacturers design their products?
Already been done. Ever heard of the Zenit B...the finest camera the USSR's regulated industry ever produced. Right up there with their wonderful regulated automobiles.
We live in the Wonder Age of electronic photography precisely because the industry is NOT regulated.
Koblog, everything, taken to the extreme is absurd. An argument's worth can't be evaluated properly if you create an extreme version of it and then dismiss it. There's a difference between regulation and a fully planned economy. A rule that bans planned obsolescence and mandates certain standards, like compatibility, upgradeability, etc., is not the same as having one state manufacturer or banning private innovation. The industry is not unregulated either. You could argue that without food regulation, private companies would have so much more freedom to create amazing new foods, but you have to think about the normal people's interests as well. A protection against scams is necessary, and you can find many huge scams in consumer technology.
Take a stroll on any landfill, you'll find tons of adapters, batteries, chargers, chips, cables, specific to only one model of only one brand, incompatible with everything else. You can find phones, satellite receivers, cameras, DVD players thrown away just because the firmware was too old. Tons of electronics that expired shortly after their expiration date. It's a waste of resources, human effort and money.
Nikon has another camera - at a fraction of D3S price, which is D7000. Same capability in the ISO department. For about $2000.
In Hi-2 mode in can go to 25,600.
Juujuuuujj, What DVD players don't work because of lack of firmware updates? Virtually any DVD player ever made still plays DVDs. But they don't play Blu-rays, do they? We throw them away for the same reason we have thrown away literally millions of VHS players: they are obsolete.
We already have firmware updates for a great many electronic items. My Blu-ray players update their firmware, automatically, wirelessly.
My D300 has updated its firmware, as did my D70. Yet I gave my D70 to my brother-in-law because the camera sucked compared to my D300, which apparently sucks compared to the D3s.
Yep, we throw old junk away.
And there's simple why: entirely new technology is invented: better interfaces like digital HDMI vs a maze of individual (and analog) wires; better sensors; superior control layout; better safety and economy. Where's the firmware update that will update my '94 Ranger to 2020 standards? And how come that evil unregulated Sony Corporation refuses to allow me to update my 32" XBR 480i CRT TV to a 52" 1080p LCD/LED? Curse them! And how come we had to switch to that silly digital tuning instead of keeping the old analog? Couldn't they simply "update the firmware" on the transmission towers and send us all HD content that would be "firmware updated" on our old 4:3 CRT's that operated on technology invented in the 1930's?
For your "regulated" pipedream to work, you will have to predict what technology, materials and, especially, IDEAS, will happen far into the future, then design today's hardware for all possible futures. Doc Brown couldn't do that, even with a time machine.
But I have to agree with you. I am OUTRAGED that my 1974 Nikon F2 can't be firmware-updated to the yet-to-be-conceived D7. I'm further outraged that my D70 became obsolete. Why can't Nikon *will* its little body to fit today's awesome 3" display and allow me to plug in a sensor and mirror assembly that takes a full-sized sensor? Oh yes, I also want the camera to cost under $150. A simple government regulatory board of ivory tower wonks in Washington who never built or brought a thing to market can simply *demand* that henceforth every electronic device (or car, or hairdryer or anything else) be absolutely future proof.
You have a couple of options: (1) self-regulate: cease buying technology. (2) Use the technology you currently have forever.
That's the only way you, personally, can stop filling the dumps with the fun and largely unnecessary stuff you willingly purchase.
Enjoy your VHS player, your 5.25" floppy in your Apple II, your twin lens Rollei, your 4x5 Speed Graphic, your Kodachrome and your wet plate process.
Right, right, forward compatibility and standartization is such a pipe dream... everything has to be completely reinvented and made incompatible every two months. Tell that to the USB, my friend. Or try to explain what new technologies are added in new cell phone chargers, that they only work with one model of one brand. No one said anything about CRTs from the 1930's or cameras from the 1970's. That's what I meant when I said you can't exaggerate the other person's arguments and pretend this is a real discussion. I'm sorry I can't have a normal exchange with you.
Juujuu and Koblog,
We could regulate in a sensible manner. Instead of requiring that all products be "future-proof"... just create a mandatory "recycling tax" that gets paid when you buy something and will pay for the cost of recycling it once it has become obsolete.
This way it won't end up in landfills, and innovation won't be stopped with impossible demands.
The higher cost of products (due to the recycling tax) might also work as an incentive for consumers to demand longer-lasting products from manufacturers.
who would pay $5,000 + for the D3s when you can pay only $1,800 for the full frame sony 850 which has the very same 24MP sensor as the Nikon D3x PLUS built-in stabilization?
Pop Photo has always been biased toward Nikon.