From: RichA on
Looks like DPreview shaved some points off the D3s review owing to the
cost of the camera. The Brit magazines have been doing that for
years. I've used the pro Nikons and I love the bodies, the control
you have, the responsiveness, but honestly, would owning the D700 at
about $2500 really be worth less than half the cost of a D3s? With
the D3x, you could make a case solely based on resolution, but at
100-400 ISO, there is almost nothing to distinguish a D3s from a D700
or a D300s, for that matter.
Also, lets be realistic about ISO. The D3s is the best so far when it
comes to noise control, no doubt, but 100,000 ISO? The RAW images
look like a P&S produced them at 3200 ISO which means the images are
basically useless. My benchmark is that if noise and image
degradation are clearly visible in an 8x10 print, the ISO is set too
high. 12,000 ISO is usable.