Nikon D3s is packing heat, 102,400 ISO to be exact

that is one sick camera, and only $7k!

Wow. I guess if you have $900-$2000 for this, sure its a great buy. But not in this economy.

It’s about $5,000. Though once it’s been out a while it’ll probably go do to closer to $4,000.

As for the 720p video, it’s targeted to news photographers and sports shooters. Who have to upload their work on deadline. Nikon knows their customers and this is going to do the job just fine.

I wonder how many people even know that many TV stations are still 720p.

Is that a camera or a front loader washing machine?

iPhone camera>this. maybe when nikon get its act together and make a gui worth using i will buy… yawn

Low end ISO 200? Not much for studio photography I guess.
The user friendliness of Nikon cameras are terrible. That’s not to say Canon is great, just the lesser of two evils.
There are way too many multi-function switches, modes, buttons, dials and selectors.

Wow that iso is insane! thats almost like making pitch black pictures with no light have light!!! but the catch is this, is the sensor a CMOS? if not, i dont care for it.

It’s got an FX sensor and yeah, Nikon does need to tighten up their menus into something more manageable. The custom settings & shooting banks only go so far. I think addition of video on a camera like this is more fad than function however.

102,400 ISO?

Worthless. I can’t believe people would even advertisement/emphasis that. Pictures are practically unusable if shot in that high of ISO unless you’re going for the grainy effect.

The Canon 7D is a much better value in my opinion.

The Canon 7D and the Nikon D3s are not the same class of camera — the D3s is a full-frame model while the 7D uses a smaller APS-C sensor.

If you need strong low light performance, the D3s will be superior to the 7D.

You’ve obviously never shot baseball at 9pm at night, this is an awesome purchase, I’ll be buying ten for our business.

102,400 ISO? Why for god sakes? It’ll just be a grainy mess. No self respecting pro would use it. And this is aimed at the pro photographer. I prefer Nikon to Canon just because I like it’s colors better. But come on Nikon, any pro would tell you that they rather have ISO 50 then ISO gazillion!!!
Oh yeah and this is a still camera, for motion picture get a RED

It supports 102400 ISO because getting ANY shot, even horribly noisy, is better than getting NO shot.

I’d rather get NO shot than get a sh*t shot.

Seriously, it’s almost unprofessional to shoot at 102,400 ISO unless it’s for some artistic effect.

Almost two years ago, it seemed unusable to shoot at 6400 or above.
Now it’s worth, because of Tech and sensors quality.
So “just wait and see” ?…

Having shot with this beast, I suggest those sceptics go and do the same befor prattling on about things they know too little about. Stop counting pixels and lines and shoot something!!

NO ONE is transmitting full 1080-25/24 or 30P images on this planet and splitting this frame into 1080 lines as opposed to 720 is not going to gain any higher res is it?? it’s 12.1M.pix regardless.
The grain at extreme high ISO is …. staggeringly LOW!! I am a film cameraman by trade and was blown away especially shooting at High ISO at night. There is NO reason to miss a shot now regardless of the amount of light. That is what profesionals need some times and this baby does it.

Shooting movies?? A Red will cost you £45K and up,for a kit you can have for almost a fith of the price with this camera. The images are brilliant. See link below by a blindingly brilliant photographer who knows his onions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JGQHWGpe5s
Q.E.D.