# D3s vs d3x, which do I get? Or something else



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).

Here is what is important to me. 

1. ISO control. 
- I shot at night of the milky way. 
- high school football games with poor lighting. 
- ufc MMA fights with decent lighting. 
- weddings inside and outside. 
- light painting (hobby)

2. Printing. 
- according to the print size chart for d3s I cannot go above 9x11 ...... While the d3x has twice the size. 
-my largest print was like a 16x10. And it came from my d7000. But with getting into weddings more and more. I know someone is going to want one image out of 3000 and want that one printed at 24x30. 

3. Detail
- wedding dress
- landscape and/or micro. 


I like how d3s has a cleaning sensor in the camera. 
I don't care about fps. For my sports I do fine enough at 5. It's just the way I shoot. I usually have a good idea what's coming. And with practice practice practice, you'll get the basketball coming off the finger tips for the future and it becomes muscle memory. There might be sometimes I want the complete follow thru, but that's too rare. Therefore fps is not a deciding factor for which camera to get.
I don't care for quiet mode or video. 99% of the time I never use them. Even on wildlife, and its because I'm so far away from the subject. 


So what is y'alls thoughts? Have the capability to shoot at 12,000 + ISO with no problem OR have better prints and detail? 

Also 90% of my pictures are on the computer. They get printed. But the prints make me money. But they are usally 8x10 to 5x7.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

D3s because its faster and iso is better, though both are excellent,

What do you mean you can get closer cos its fx?


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

As an after thought?What lenses for your d7200 do you have?


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

jaomul said:


> D3s because its faster and iso is better, though both are excellent,
> 
> What do you mean you can get closer cos its fx?



I am leaning towards the d3s as well. Simply because of how it handles noise. My prime reason is for getting it for night/low lighting. 

As for getting closer. On a DX camera or it's cropped 1.6. While fx is not. Therefore if I was in a small room I could throw on a 35mm and get the shoot I want without making it look like a wide angle. While on dx in a small room I would use my 11-16 tokina and yes it gets the area I want but it's a wide angle look............ So at 35mm on a fx camera of something that is 35mm away, I get the shoot. While on dx I have to step back 56mm (35mm x 1.6)...... And sometimes I can't step back because it is to small of a room, or because there is church pews and I don't want those in thfxshot with people sitting there as well. 

My lenses I have are
70-200 vr 2 f/2.8
35mm 1.8 (the cheap Nikon. But it does good enough for me)
50 mm 1.8 (cheap and same as above)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8..... I'm unsure what I'll do with it. Because it's a DX lens. And it vignettes below 14 on a fx. And if I add filters it does worse (unless I do the filters that slide over the camera instead of the ones that screw on). 

I'll be getting a 35mm or 50mm sigma art lens.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

I dont know, i'd add a nice 50mm and a fast standard and leave it at that, but that just me. There is merit in this length lens thing, but buy the right lens and it works on your format. So you have to use a 24 on a crop to get 35 on fx, who cares, as long as you are aware of how to use it to minimise perspective distortion etc

Anyway, back to fx, if 6 fps is enough I reckon a d750 with battery grip is a good option


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

With a bit of care the d7200 can perform well at high iso- this shot (I'm to close at that focal length but its ok for an example) is at iso 9000 and I think its usable enough


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me. 

Thanks for the idea


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> 750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me.
> 
> Thanks for the idea



Not sure where you got that idea, the d750 is an excellent high iso camera, but you're the one buying


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

jaomul said:


> With a bit of care the d7200 can perform well at high iso- this shot (I'm to close at that focal length but its ok for an example) is at iso 9000 and I think its usable enough


It is. But it's in decent lighting. But when it's in low lighting it's 1600 with a max of 3200 of noticeable noise. Go text it at a high school football game at night. 

But during the day time events. 9000 ish is where I stop at.

It's just that I'm shooting a lot at night. Because during the day time, I'll stick with my d7200.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

jaomul said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > 750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me.
> ...


I tried it at a night game. As well as the d810.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 9, 2016)

Just beware so, the d3s is supposedly a fraction of a stop better at higher iso, and this advantage may even be reduced when you resize your photos. I don't believ you'd really see it in prints.Be sure you are getting what you need before dropping the big wad of cash that a d3s will set you back


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 9, 2016)

According to just the ISO numbers, the d3s is better than the d4s, which is better than the d600, d800e, d4, d750, d610, d810, d800, then d700 in that order.

whereas the d3x and d3 are below the d700 in ISO scores.

If you have the change, look at the d5 too.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> According to just the ISO numbers, the d3s is better than the d4s, which is better than the d600, d800e, d4, d750, d610, d810, d800, then d700 in that order.
> 
> whereas the d3x and d3 are below the d700 in ISO scores.
> 
> If you have the change, look at the d5 too.


D5 is way too much for me. I'm trying to stay around 1500-2500 or less. And I don't mind used


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 9, 2016)

I assume you know the d3s is an older 12mp camera.   DR is not as good as the d750 (from what I've read) plus all the technology in it is older - battery type, memory card types & sizes, etc.  

but it is 11 fps  and built like a tank


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 9, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> 750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me.


 ?????????????

The D3x ends at ISO 1600. 6400 is the absolute maximum, its Hi2 for this camera. Meaning the image was still taken at ISO 1600 and the result is just muliplied by 4.

The D750 ends at ISO 12800. Its not glorious looking, but its still somewhat useable; much better than what my D600 offered, anyway. And its Hi2 is 50k !

The ISO performance of D750 and D3s arent that far apart, the D3s simply also allows Hi3.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > 750, ISO quality is not that good above 6400. Good camera there is things I like and dislike. But it's not for me.
> ...



Thanks. That stops me on the d3x. Did not know it stopped at 1,600. That is horrible. 

I have seen straight out of camera of the d3s at 20,000 and there is no noise. And I have had my hands on the d750 and when it hits 3200/6400 it starts to show noise. 

Again I'm doing this for low light conditions and at high school football games where the lighting sucks.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 9, 2016)

The d3-X and d3-S seem to be dissimilar cameras, a technology leap from one to the other.
I'd like to have a D3S but not a D3X.

The d3X is slightly better than a Canon 5d 2  which in itself is nearly a couple stops slower than a d700.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

D3s for high ISO performance and smaller file size than the D3x. Both cameras have really great viewfinders, exceptional battery performance, and ultra-responsive subsystems. Prices on either are pretty affordable now. I went with the D3x because I shoot a lot with electronic flash, and the 24 MP image size is a pretty good compromise between 36 MP and 12 MP, which were the choices when I bought a few years back. I looked at and demoed the then new Canon 1DX, Canon 5D-III, and the then new Nikon D4 or D4s...shot a bunch of files...preferred the D3x ergonomics over the 1Dx and D4, but the Canon 5D-III felt SUPERB in the hand, very older-Nikon-D2-series-like.

While the D750 might be a better image sensor, and have a lot of great features, it is nothing like a D3-series camera. Look through the viewfinder in dimmer light, and you will instantly know what I mean. The "flagship-level" Nikon bodies are not made the same way the $2400-$3299 bodies are made.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

Mashburn--you are totally right-on as far as being able to "get closer to people" with an FX format camera...the wider field of view makes the 35mm,50mm,and 85mm primes _what they are supposed to be_, and also makes the 70-200 extremely useful for events, and even indoors.

With an 85mm on a crop-frame cam, to get an 8.5 foot tall field of view, for say, the bride and groom posed together in a tall frame....with room for foot- and head-space, the APS-C puts you back at 34 feet. With the FX Nikon, you can shoot the SAME shot, but from 20 feet away.

The move from DX to FX makes a huge, huge difference in real-world places like living rooms, back yards, churches, offices, hotel rooms, basketball courts, etc.etc.. An FX camera makes a 24/35/50 or a 25/50/85mm prime kit super-versatile. Same with the 70-200, which is seriously crippled indoors on DX, but becomes _what it is supposed to be_ when used on FX. SSame for the 24-70 on FX....WIDE, to short-telephoto


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 9, 2016)

I don't regret my move to FX at all in regards to the lens selection.  Plus the low light ability.  It's just all better.


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

Derrel said:


> D3s for high ISO performance and smaller file size than the D3x. Both cameras have really great viewfinders, exceptional battery performance, and ultra-responsive subsystems. Prices on either are pretty affordable now. I went with the D3x because I shoot a lot with electronic flash, and the 24 MP image size is a pretty good compromise between 36 MP and 12 MP, which were the choices when I bought a few years back. I looked at and demoed the then new Canon 1DX, Canon 5D-III, and the then new Nikon D4 or D4s...shot a bunch of files...preferred the D3x ergonomics over the 1Dx and D4, but the Canon 5D-III felt SUPERB in the hand, very older-Nikon-D2-series-like.
> 
> While the D750 might be a better image sensor, and have a lot of great features, it is nothing like a D3-series camera. Look through the viewfinder in dimmer light, and you will instantly know what I mean. The "flagship-level" Nikon bodies are not made the same way the $2400-$3299 bodies are made.


Thanks.

Yeah I'm not a fan of 750. I would rather get the 810 if I went that route. But way way way too many megapixels for me. But I do really like the no low pass filter on the 810.

Do you mind passing a picture straight out of camera in low light for me in the highest ISO before noise starts? And does out really only go 1,600?


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 9, 2016)

Don't knock dx to bad. Lol. I love it at football in daytime. And will take a canon 7d mk ii over a 1dx any freaking day in those conditions. Because they have to use prime lenses while I get to use a 70-200 with that nice flexibility.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

https://www.dropbox.com/home/public/D3x ISO Sampler

I found ONE image at ISO 6,400, one at 2,500, a few in the 1600-1250 range, and a few at ISO 100, all in crap light. I SELDOM shoot at those ISO levels though! I shoot a fair amount at ISO 320 with loweer power flash though, 50 to 200 W-s mostly.

I hope that URL works.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2016)

Utterly fed up with the people at DropBox now...throws hand in air...it's useless now...


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 9, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> Don't knock dx to bad. Lol. I love it at football in daytime. And will take a canon 7d mk ii over a 1dx any freaking day in those conditions. Because they have to use prime lenses while I get to use a 70-200 with that nice flexibility.


I had my d7000 DX, 16mp.  I was great for soccer and such.  But I found the quality of the d600 cropped more to be more than adequate.  And for very small images it actually cropped to a better quality image than the d7000.  

I debated for a while on the d7100 vs the d600.  but I'm glad I went d600.  It would be nice to simultaneously compare the most current iteration of each camera but I cannot afford that.  So my comparison was d7000 vs d600 and the d600 won in every category.  I'm sure the d7100 would have won the crop a small image battle but it wasn't in my hands to test.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 9, 2016)

For football the D3s over D3X. 

Of course expect the shutter count for the used D3s units to be above 100k, especially for units under $2k. Actually see one right now under $2k and under 85k shutter and includes extra batteries and some CF cards. Sounds pretty tempting.


----------



## Roba (Jan 10, 2016)

I have twin D3s's, i moved up from a single d7000 to one D3s, then got fed up with changing lenses at dusty motorsport events and picked up a 2nd.
Fps are not my main thing as in i don't hold the shutter down flat out. But today i was covering the New Zealand south island bmx champs, and i held it down for a full 14 continuous shots of a over the 1st corner crash. So just because you don't always use the full compliment of functions all of the time. Doesn't mean there not worth having. ISO amazing, fps amazing, ergonomics amazing, build quality amazing. They are a older generation camera, but that does not mean they can't take amazing pictures!! To be honest the weakest component on these cameras is normally the person using it. Buy what ever you want if you can afford it and what ever makes you happy!!


----------



## MSnowy (Jan 10, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).
> 
> Here is what is important to me.
> 
> ...




D3s for sports. You can find some on ebay at a good prices. I just picked up a second one on there with under 4000 clicks for just under $2000

I took theses this fall from the stands with D3s Nikon 70-200mm

SOOC  shot at  iso 3600 f2.8 1/800 200mm






post





Only crop was adjusted  iso 11,400 f2.8 1/800 75mm





Post


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 10, 2016)

MSnowy said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).
> ...





MSnowy said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 7200 & 7000. But I'm wanting a full frame because of its better performance of ISO control and also because of being full frame so I can get closer to the subject (like weddings).
> ...


This!!! This is what makes me want to get this camera. I don't see why to go to d4, d4s. 

But I do need to figure out how to print for large prints that go to 24x30 on 12 mp. I've always set my dpi to 250. But I know 12 mp is only going to get me to 9x13 prints


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 10, 2016)

Mashburn said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > Mashburn said:
> ...


How about this?How to Enlarge Photographs for Printing


----------



## Mashburn (Jan 10, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > MSnowy said:
> ...


Thanks. That is really helpful

I wonder how big someone has printed and it been very good quality.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 10, 2016)

coastalconn said:


> But I do need to figure out how to print for large prints that go to 24x30 on 12 mp. I've always set my dpi to 250. But I know 12 mp is only going to get me to 9x13 prints


How about this?How to Enlarge Photographs for Printing[/QUOTE]

This is interesting, however I know a professional printing outlet that had me re-size about 50 prints for an exhibition some time back.I had genuine fractals but he asked me use photoshop, apparently ps 6 and cc in his opinion were after overtaking fractals for quality. For info one print was a crop from a 12mp d90, that ended up being 6mp, but was printed 3 feet wide. It looked great from viewing distance, obviously on close scrutiny flaws could be detected, but definetly a 24 x 36 is possible from 12mp if done correctly


----------

