-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Nikon D3s outed by legit source - ISO 102,400!
- Thread starter Heidfirst
- Start date
randomlinh
Lifer
why stop there? wait for the D4 and it'll kick the D3s and even D3x out of the water!
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
imported_Irse
Senior member
There is AF in video mode.
Kaido
Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Eug
Lifer
Looks like a good camera, but the video support is quite lame.
It looks like Nikon's chipset and/or use of Motion JPEG just isn't up to the task. I wonder if they'll switch to a new video format for the next iteration of their CPU.
I'm confused as to why there is no IS in video mode though.
Koing
Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Motors probably too noisey and the mic would pick it up?
Camera/ Video camera companys like to DRIP FEED TECHNOLOGY out SLOWLY but I suppose other company's are just as guilty as this.
They'll need some beasty processing power to do 1080p with decent compression.
Koing
Eug
Lifer
^^^ VR/IS motors can make enough noise so close mics can pic it up. However, if an external mic is used on a bracket it's usually far enough away. And even if it isn't, it seems the videographers often use external audeo recorders anyway. That way you can have one audio track and multiple camera angles if necessary, etc.
However, I still wonder if the no-VR claim is in error.
P.S. This video limitation makes me wonder if the 12 million pixel image limit is partially a CPU limit and not a sensor limit. I think 12 million pixels is probably sufficient for 2009 for most usage, but we already know that overall picture noise is more a limitation of sensor size than pixel size per se. Furthermore it's much easier to hit 9 fps at 12 million pixels than it is at 24 million pixels.
However, I still wonder if the no-VR claim is in error.
P.S. This video limitation makes me wonder if the 12 million pixel image limit is partially a CPU limit and not a sensor limit. I think 12 million pixels is probably sufficient for 2009 for most usage, but we already know that overall picture noise is more a limitation of sensor size than pixel size per se. Furthermore it's much easier to hit 9 fps at 12 million pixels than it is at 24 million pixels.
That is what I'm thinking...I'm looking at iso12.8k and there is some crazy NR going on in the darker areas. They are hitting high quality, but its at a cost. Then again, I really never looked at D3/D3x quality at iso12.8k to make a judgement call.
Of course this would all be a dream many years ago, so its nice it exists. But is the quality going to seriously be that different once you print it?
