I am thinking of upgrading my camera from a D1x in 3 to 6 months. The D1x has been a great camera for me. ( I used the D1x since 2001/2002 and have not really even thought of replacing it till this year) However, the increase low light capability plus all the improvements since D1x is why I am making this upgrade. (plus trip scheduled for next May, I want to get the camera in advance of trip so that I can be at ease with the camera and options)

My question is D3s have been out since Oct of 2009 (although in limited quantities) and BHphoto has no date of when they might receive the next shipment. So, are we about to get the next version (i.e, D4)?

Clearly, I will not jump Camera to Camera. I will probably use my next camera for 6 - 8 years. (With the assumption, I make the right decision again.)

What is the opinion of this fine group?

Thanks

I am going to assume that this is a serious question and not a joke or a troll.

Anything you upgrade to will be better than your D1x. The differences are spectacular in the new generation of cameras. Assuming you have great glass buy the best camera you can afford.

I am not knocking the D1x, quite the contrary. I use my D1x every week as a flash body camera. The native 1/500 flash sync speed is great to have and I take advantage of it. The homepage photos on my event/sport website (www.rickypics.com) are all D1x taken this last weekend. Right now I am charging batteries for a session tonight using my D1x.

I will tell you this once again, the quality of files you will get out of the new cameras once you learn how to use that new camera will blow you away.

Since you have waited so long for a new camera and you are nervous about buying end of cycle equipment then wait. The decision is definitely yours alone to make. Heck, buy a used D3s now and sell it when the new D4 comes out.

rcjk--You might want to ask yourself what is most important to you. If it is the low light then either the D700 (1 stop less than the D3S but about 2-3 stops more than the D1X) is half the price, or the D700 (S) which is expected later this year will be an option. It is expected to have the D3S sensor but be much less expensive.

Any of these cameras hold their own on framerate and when used with the vertical grip may give you much of the feel you're used to.

That said, you certainly won't go wrong with a D3S, and I wouldn't anticipate getting your hands on a "D4" or similar prior to your May trip.--David

Rick & David,

Thank you for your comments.

I have been very impressed with D3s reviews. I have always liked the feel of the “pro” models and their dependability. I have looked at both D300 & D700. Clearly, they have much more capabilities than D1x. I am not that nervous about the purchase. It was more the question of how soon is the next generation coming. With David’s comment, it does not seem like it is “just” around the corner. I have not any idea what would be in the next generation (maybe more video options?).

Also, I know that it will take sometime to get comfortable and be able to use all the new options & capabilities. I plan on getting it early this fall to become comfortable with it.
But, like Rick said you need good/great lenses. I felt about the good lenses I have. However, I have not purchase a new one since 17-35 2.8D . I am thinking about looking at new lenses also. Currently, I do not have any VR lenses. Any thoughts here?

Any idea when the availability of D3s will become more widespread? BHphoto & others has had it on “back order” for weeks (that is why I even had the original question)

Thanks again

rcjk--You're smart to think of lenses. Full frame digital puts a large additional strain on lens design, so Nikon came up with essentially an entire "redo" of their lens line with and subsequent to the introduction of the D3.

I'd seriously consider updating at least your most used lenses. The Nikon 14-24f/2.8 is awesome although I just reviewed the very worthy and less expensive Sigma 12-24 (see the home page of this site) and the new Nikon 24-70f/2.8 is also killer sharp but large and heavy so there too the Sigma version is an option (half the price, 2/3 the weight, same specs, just about as sharp).

On the mid-range, the new 70-200 is designed to reduce light falloff for full frame, but apparently at the cost of not really running out to 200mm, so it is a mixed blessing. I have the VR I version and in general its fine but sometimes I do have to use the light falloff correction in ACR.

Unfortunately all the full-frame lenses are larger and more expensive than their DX cousins so expect to be carrying a little more on your back and a little less in your wallet by the time you're done:-)

--David

It's the old 'when do I just on the merrygoround' question. I have D3's D2's D1's and a few D100's and we used them all and still do (or did, re downsizing)
As David said, it's not only the D3 but you will need a few full frame lenses to make it work to it's full potential ie 14-24 and 24-70 (maybe the best glass Nikon have made in a decade)
Gav

Interesting, my favorable lenses are either Nikon 17 – 35 2.8D or Nikon 80 -200 2.8D. All my lenses are “D” type and full frame. When using d1x, I need enjoy the 1.5x multiplier when using long lenses and cursed it with using wide or normal lenses. I thinking about updating the 80 – 200 with Nikon 70-200 VR IF 2.8 and looking for something replace my old 200-400 tamron. I can go with either fixed or zoom. I would like it to be faster focusing. I was thinking also teleconverter to get the extra length.

Additionally, my family wants me to look at standard zoom. Something like 18-200 or 24 – 120.

Now, I think I should look at 12 -24 but my focus is on the lenses above. Some store/web store will be very happy when I pull the trigger.

Your & the groups thoughts and recommendations.

Thanks

rcjk--Remember that neither the 18-200 or 24-120 are full frame.

And on your older lenses, even the ones that are "full frame" with film will typically have more light fall-off with digital than they did with film. That's because film doesn't care what angle the light comes from and it matters to your sensor.

So lens makers have been scrambling to re-design their full-frame lenses to be more "telecentric" (meaning the light comes straight into the sensor instead of at an angle). That's a large part of why Nikon re-did all their mainline Pro zooms following the introduction of the D3.

Your old lenses will still work fine and the falloff can typically be corrected, but it drives some people nuts and can interfere especially in architectural photography where corners are supposed to look like the rest of the image, so just a heads up.--David

David Cardinal wrote
“rcjk--Remember that neither the 18-200 or 24-120 are full frame.”

I know but my family wanted me to have a lens that I can use for several differing photo situations without needing to carry or change lenses. But of course, they love the pictures. Any thoughts here?

David Cardinal wrote:
“And on your older lenses, even the ones that are "full frame" with film will typically have more light fall-off with digital than they did with film. That's because film doesn't care what angle the light comes from and it matters to your sensor.

So lens makers have been scrambling to re-design their full-frame lenses to be more "telecentric" (meaning the light comes straight into the sensor instead of at an angle). That's a large part of why Nikon re-did all their mainline Pro zooms following the introduction of the D3.

Your old lenses will still work fine and the falloff can typically be corrected, but it drives some people nuts and can interfere especially in architectural photography where corners are supposed to look like the rest of the image, so just a heads up.—David”

Thank you, I did not realize this about why they did the re-design. I was guessing it was the electronics and not the lighting.

Any thoughts on Nikon 70-200 VR IF 2.8 and a replacement for Tamron 200 – 400 5.6?


Thanks again

Nikon 70-200 VR comes in two versions. The newest one (released this year) has less light falloff with full frame sensors but costs a little more.

I'm not familiar with the Tamron. Obviously the Nikon 200-400 would be a huge upgrade, but it is large and pricey. You might look at the Nikon 75-300 or the Sigma 120-400.--David