Getting to like my D3S....

[Jonathan]

So.........Hever Castle is pretty dark......

Here's a test shot from the ceremony room.



That's Mike my assistant sitting 3 rows back.  Time as 12:24 pm (noon not midnight).  SOOC the exif is f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 12,800.........

The main window is right behind me.  B&G stand 2 and a bit rows forward of that point so they are 2 stops brighter - 2.8 / 1/50 / 3,200  But they also move a little and you may need to kick it up a stop to make sure they are still.

Yes, I have pictures that I couldn't get with any other camera I've owned....

[Of course 2.8 / 1/50 / 3,200 is roughly the same as 1.4 / 1/50 / 800 which is where I would have shot it on a D2X]

[rksmith51]

Soooo, if the available light is not casting harsh shadows would you forget the flash and just use that. I took a few test shots of my first wedding couple at the venue last night, she is amazed and delighted 

Bob

[picsfor]

and i could also get that shot with my 5D MkII - so it's good, but not alone... 

[Jonathan]

and i could also get that shot with my 5D MkII - so it's good, but not alone...  

I'll take your word for that.  I found that the colours tend to drift on the Canons (and TBH anything before the D3) as you push the high ISO limit.  Skin tones and the detail in the black jacket are what set this shot apart for me.

Mike uses a 5DII and he seemed impressed with the stuff on the back of the camera.

@Bob - can only remember using flash during a ceremony a couple of times ever.  Both were outside on sunny days.  And that includes the dark ages of 800 limit.

[anglefire]

I'd like to say I could get that with my MkIII - but I couldn't without a fair bit of work in post.

But mine is an old camera now   

I have to say (Though gritted teeth  ) that the latest Nikon's have Canon beaten WRT noise at the moment.

But it will change again. Or Canon will aim for something else that they feel the market needs and that may or may not be the next best thing. 

Or Sony will  do better, Or Oly, or Pentax or..............

[Oldboy]

I'd like to say I could get that with my MkIII - but I couldn't without a fair bit of work in post.

But mine is an old camera now   

I have to say (Though gritted teeth  ) that the latest Nikon's have Canon beaten WRT noise at the moment.

But it will change again. Or Canon will aim for something else that they feel the market needs and that may or may not be the next best thing. 

Or Sony will  do better, Or Oly, or Pentax or..............Nikon will outgun them all again! 

[anglefire]

Oldboy, maybe - but will it take as long as it did for Nikon to get the pro models to the same standard as Canon? I mean, the 5D was the king for about 3 years! And before that, any canon was better than any Nikon! 

[picsfor]

Mark, take it from me - your 1D3 isn't a patch on a 5D2 for noise, and the 5D2 trails behind the 1D4 for noise.

I've seen some of the shots and it really does work a treat. The battle is not over, i think it is fairly evenly matched between D3s and 1D4 up to 25600, with the 5D2 sitting just behind a bit.
What concerns me is the new sensor fitted to the D7000, which means Nikon must be sitting on something altogether different for a D4!

When is Photokina and when are we supposed to hear about the much rumoured 1Ds4?

For reference these are from a 1D4 at 12800...

http://www.mikedinsdale.co.uk/Music/Jem-Cooke-The-Jamm/12006308_t8WXR#850775330_2HXxu

He lives down the road and was rather chuffed...

[Oldboy]

http://www.mikedinsdale.co.uk/Music/Jem-Cooke-The-Jamm/12006308_t8WXR#850775330_2HXxu

He lives down the road and was rather chuffed...

Remember him from DCM days. Cracking shots. 

[anglefire]

Yes I have PM'd Mike on a few occasions - and I remember the shots.

TBH, I would be very happy with a 1D4 - I've used one and was very impressed with lots of things about it. AF is better, noise is better and the rear screen is tons better. The price is not.

The MkIII is not shabby - this is not my shot, so can't absolutely be sure of the setting accuracy.

1/30", f/2.8 ISO3200 underexposed by 2/3 stop (ISO5000 Equiv?)



But it has been post processed with a special action using NeatImage.

[Jonathan]

>> this is not my shot, so can't absolutely be sure of the setting accuracy.

So you wouldn't be able to explain how the light eased its way under the hat brim or where that hard shadow on his ear came from.......?

>> For reference these are from a 1D4 at 12800...

Very hard to tell under the red lights but there's that weird kind of colour drift I associate with high ISO going on there.

Bottom line: That room didn't get any darker when the D3S came out.  A month ago I would have had my D2X set at 800 with a 1.4 and a steady hand.  That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is.  But now I have some more options.

[picsfor]

That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is.  But now I have some more options.

To my knowledge, after speaking to Mike, the venue in Brixton doesn't have any windows and the pics were taken about 21:00-22:00.
Yes, you could have used a flash - i could have got the same with my Canon 30D with a flash.

But this thread is about NOT using flash.

As i said, the D3, D3s have extremely good low light capability - but they are no longer alone in that field, and Canon are matching to a certain level.
If they weren't, i would now be the owner of either a D3 or D700 instead of my 5D MkII... Mike was also looking at moving over to a D3 until he tested a 1D4, and he got his for shooting football by flood light at the local teams' pitch which is nothing more than a park pitch with a couple of nice lights to help.

The field in high ISO is starting to become blurred again.

[Jonathan]

That picture of Mike - I could have shot at 800 with some soft flash from where the window is.  But now I have some more options.

To my knowledge, after speaking to Mike, the venue in Brixton doesn't have any windows and the pics were taken about 21:00-22:00.

Too many Mikes.

I meant the shot I took of Mike (man in black) at Hever.  If I hadn't had a D3S I could have replicated that with flash.  But I didn't need to

As i said, the D3, D3s have extremely good low light capability - but they are no longer alone in that field, and Canon are matching to a certain level.

Hmmm.  We need to settle this somehow........

[anglefire]

Actually we dont!

Both Canon and Nikon are no very good at High ISO. When using high end cameras - ie semi-pro or pro. Nikon is probably better. Just.

Its the lower end that is probably more difficult to call. Pretty much any current make/model is good to ISO1600, most to 3200. But above that, then the choice is harder.

But it really doesn't matter - it was only 3 years ago that ISO 3200 was the limit (Canon 5D probably still the king then?) Film days it was pushing it with ISO400 film!

We really have nothing to complain about. 

[Jonathan]

Actually we dont!

Both Canon and Nikon are no very good at High ISO. When using high end cameras - ie semi-pro or pro. Nikon is probably better. Just.

You're right.  Guesses by people with single samples are much better

Chicken.