tomcat

You are only fooling yourself if you think that the D610 is better in low light and high ISO than the D3s. I would never choose anything else that Nikon has for shooting in low light.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

In the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, let's see...

- Nikon D7100 (2013): 24MP DX, ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50 and 25600), 13.7 stop dynamic range, top shutter speed 1/8000, flash sync 1/250, 6 frames per second, 51-point AF (15 cross type, center point f/8 capable), -2 EV capable AF. 100%, 0.94X optical viewfinder, 3.2" 1.23 million pixel LCD (fixed). 765 grams. $300-400 used.

- Nikon D600 (2012): 24MP FX, ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 50 and 25600), 14.2 stop dynamic range, top shutter speed 1/4000, flash sync 1/200, 5.5 frames per second, 39-point AF (9 cross type, seven f/8 capable), -1 EV capable AF. 100%, 0.70X optical viewfinder, 3.2" 921K pixel LCD (fixed). Dual SD card slots. 850 grams. $450-550 used.

- Nikon D610 (2013): 24MP FX, ISO 100-6400 (expandable to 25600), 14.4 stop dynamic range, top shutter speed 1/4000, flash sync 1/250, 6 frames per second, 39-point AF (9 cross type, seven f/8 capable), -1 EV capable AF. 100%, 0.70X optical viewfinder, 3.2" 921K pixel LCD (fixed). 765 grams. Dual SD card slots. $900 refurbished, $1500 new.

- Nikon D3s (2010): 12MP FX, ISO 200-12800 (expandable to 100 and 102400), 12 stop dynamic range, top shutter speed 1/8000, flash sync 1/250, 9 frames per second, 51-point AF (15 cross type, none f/8 capable), -1 EV capable AF. 100%, 0.70X optical viewfinder, 3" 921K pixel LCD (fixed). 1240 grams. Dual Compact Flash card slots. $700-800 used.

I'd suggest you look at....

- Nikon D7200 (2015): 24MP DX, ISO 100-25600 (expandable to 102400), 14.6 stop dynamic range, top shutter speed 1/8000, flash sync 1/250, 6 frames per second, 51-point AF (15 cross type, center point f/8 capable), -3 EV capable AF. 100%, 0.94X optical viewfinder, 3.2" 1.23 million pixel LCD (fixed). 675 grams. Dual SD card slots. $700 brand new. There is a huge discount on D7200 right now, that makes it a superb value.

With it's combination of features and current pricing, the newer DX format D7200 beats all the above!

It has higher usable ISO than your current camera... although not as much as some of the full frame models. But, what good is a high ISO in low light if the camera and lens can't focus? The D7200 is rated to be able to AF in one stop lower light than your D7100... two stops lower than all the other models.

Another image quality factor in low light conditions is dynamic range and your camera is already better than any of the FX models. Only the D7200 is a little better. The D3s has the least dynamic range of any of them, by a large margin.

Just saw the image (the "angry cat") you added to your previous post.... ISO 1600 with your D7100... yes there's some "noise" when it's viewed at 100%. However 50% would make an approx. 16x20" print from that image and there's no noise visible at this much more realistic magnification. You might experiment with some noise reduction in post-processing... But MAINLY, stop evaluating image noise levels at ridiculously high magnifications! It's fine to zoom in to high mag to retouch images... but you really need to look at noise (and focus accuracy, sharpness) at more real world image sizes.

In your other post you replied that you wanted "improved shutter speed". Well except for the much older D3s (much lower resolution, far less dynamic range), ALL above models have lower specification shutters than your D7100... or the D7200.

Mostly, there's a $400 instant rebate on D7200 right now. That brings the price for a brand new camera down to less than a refurbished D610 or most used D3s!

Finally, in your other post you stated you wanted the "extra DoF" possible with an FX camera... Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Sensor size has little to do with DoF... the reason we SEEM to have shallower DoF effects with an FX camera is because in order to frame a subject the same way as with a DX camera, you have to use a longer focal length lens or move closer to the subject. Those changes make DoF shallower. You can get shallower DoF effects on a DX camera simply by using a larger lens aperture.

The converse is greater depth of field, thanks to a small aperture. Again, it's an indirect reason that FX might be able to render greater DoF. Diffraction is an optical effect that occurs with small apertures, degrading image quality due to loss of fine detail. You can use a smaller aperture with an FX camera only because when you make a print of any given size, the image is less magnified than it would be working from a DX image. For example, an 8x12" print from an FX camera calls for approx. 8X magnification. The same size print from a DX camera means roughly 13X magnification. Any loss of detail and image quality to diffraction will be more apparent in the DX image, but only because the image is more magnified to make the print. When extreme depth of field effects are wanted, with either format a "focus stacking" technique will do a better job increasing apparent DoF than stopping the lens down to an extremely small aperture.

Have fun shopping!

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

tomcat - Please feel free to read or reread my first reply in this thread where I state that the DxOMark test show that the D3s low-light score (ISO) is superior to the D600/610. chase

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

OK, now I get it...the D3 was designed for men and the D600was designed for women! WOW.

tomcat

Never mind the weight of the D3s camera. it is irrelevant if your goal is to get the best low noise image possible. I shoot high school sports with a D3s when I have to go indoors or it gets dark and cloudy outside. I shoot a D500 for soccer and baseball in sunshine because the DR is better. HOWEVER, the D3s in low light or high ISO is still the Nikon king for low noise. As they say in Manhattan and Jersey, with the mirrorless Nikon Z6/7----fugeddabout it....given the choice of a brand new D5 or the Z cameras, I would choose the D3s anyday of the week. I have been shooting this camera for years and recently borrowed a D5 on loan from Nikon. I was really disappointed in the increased noise that the D5 captured as compared to the lower noise in the D3s. So I would not swap out my D3s for anything, unless the D6 is a miracle. I bought another D3s that was almost new to have for a backup just in case the older one breaks. These things are like tanks and will shoot forever into the night. So I am suggesting you choose the D3s and get one from KEH.

tomcat

If I misunderstood your comments, then I apologize. It appeared to me that you were comparing the 12mp to the 24mp and making an implication that the D600 series would be better because they had more mp. I have shot D3, D3s, D500, D700, D800, D5, and D750. There is nothing better than the D3s performance in low light where the ISO values climb to 10-12k. So we're cool?

tomcat

Interesting that you would take the time to post all of these specs. Spoken like a true engineer and salesman. You are about to lead this man down a path that he will regret if he buys a D7200. Once you have actually shot with a D3s in low light, you will marvel at how this beast can capture images at 10-12k---where all other crop cameras have long since failed. I have absolutely no trouble capturing beautiful images at ISO of 10-16k. So this business about the D3s not focusing in low light is hogwash. I shoot high school sports all the time in gyms with extremely dim lighting and the D3s is perfect. The D500 is a failure at ISO above 1,000, just as your D7200 and any other crop camera would be. There is low light/high ISO and then there is almost no light/ultra high ISO and this is where the D3s just simply kills all the others.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

tomcat - All cool here. chase

dadaist

No one has mentioned the Nikon Df camera. I believe it shares the same sensor as the D3. It is also good in low light. What do you think of this suggestion?

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

[quote=billnikon]IF, the skill level of the photographer is low, then yes, the D3s and the D600 will give Similar results.

Yep, I agree, all in the hands, eyes and mind of the user. chase

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Thanks for the comparison new vs old. Seems like all good choices, not a bad one in the bunch. Guess it comes down to which one best suits your needs, price, age, weight, DX or FX.

ELNikkor

If an occasional low light situation can be better rendered with the D3s, does that make up for all the things it can't do, plus all the extra weight that it has with it 100% of the time? It has only 1/3 stop advantage over the D750 for low light, yet the D750 is far more versatile and is a whole pound lighter. Don't know how much value you place on that 1/3rd of a stop, but I feel I'm much better off with the D750.

tomcat

The problem is that many people only believe what they read as the absolute gospel and never do any field tests. I have both the D750 and the D3s and it is an absolutely insane claim that there is a "⅓ stop difference in noise levels between the two cameras". At ISO between 20-25k, the D750 is a piece of noisy crap. I shot a volleyball game with a D750 when I first start shooting high school sports 3 years ago and after 10 shots, I put the D750 camera up and left to go get my D3s. I am attaching 2 images made with both cameras at an ISO value between 20 and 25k. Take a look for yourself and see which one you think has the lower noise. The only processing done in LR was to crop them to approximately the same viewing boundary area. If the D750 image was reduced to the same pixel count as the D3s (3,800 vs 3,000), then the comparison in noise levels would be even worse. I also adjusted the exposure to be approximately the same brightness. The D3s image has a whole lot less noise than the D750, just as predicted. I did not run Noise reduction software on these to prove the point.

So to answer your questions, yes it is worth every extra ounce of weight to carry the D3s around in order to obtain the clearest image possible. It is a special camera for a special niche situation. And I place a lot of value on that extra bit of clarity and reduced noise that I get with the D3s. But that's me looking for the perfect image. With 800-900 images to process from a typical shoot, I don't have time to run every one through a noise reduction program. When I am shooting soccer and baseball and the ISO on my D500 climbs to 1000, I will then switch to the D3s for a better image. I now carry it with me all the time in a rolling case.

D750

(Download)

D3s

(Download)

siamesecatmanuk Loc: Leicestershire UK

I am reading and hopefully absorbing ( definitely enjoying ) all the replies.
Sorry to shift my focus yet again !but Nikon d800e has now been thrown into my minds mix,as a possible contender,any advice on that anyone ?
Graham