(ISO 250, f/3.2, 1/250 at 200mm, D3S & 70-200VR II)
Review by Louis Pang
When Nikon launched the new D3S and 70-200VR II to replace the acclaimed D3 and 70-200VR, I wondered if it was possible to raise the bar on two products that are in my opinion class leaders. So when I had a chance to put these new products through the paces of three weddings and several hours of testing in a controlled environment, I am trying to answer three questions:
Are D3S and 70-200VR II worth the upgrade?
How does the D3S compare to the D3?
How does the 70-200 VR II compare to the 70-200VR?
What I am sharing with you is a subjective hands-on user experience and objective tests. Before I continue, I just want to issue a few disclaimers.
1. I am a working wedding photographer, not a lab technician. So do not expect a blow by blow technical review.
2. I have been using Nikon equipment since I picked up photography so I have zero experience with other brands of camera. So I cannot give you a comparison of the D3S versus 5D Mark II for instance.
3. My review is based on a pre-production D3S and a production unit of 70-200VR II, and a D3 and 70-200VR. This is not a super scientific test with a big batch of equipment.
4. All images posted here are straight from camera. Apart from resizing for web viewing, the images are not altered in any manner.
SUBJECTIVE HANDS-ON REVIEW
I shot three weddings using a D3S side-by-side with a D3. Nikon has not changed any of the menu settings or button layouts on the new camera. There are only two additional buttons: Quiet mode which is placed on the top left dial; and the Live View button, an addition that also allows 720p video recording, just next to the voice memo record button. Other than that, the D3S feels & operates exactly like a D3.
(ISO 250, f/3.2, 1/250 at 195mm, D3S & 70-200VR II)
D3S feels a tad more responsive and faster. I am not sure if it was a placebo effect, but that was how I felt. Interestingly enough the D3S uses the same CAM 3500 auto focus system that is on D3. I was shocked to see a fully charged EN-EL4a battery recording over 3100 pictures in a D3S when D3 averages 1800-2000 pictures with the same battery! I didn’t have a chance to do an extensive test on D3S’ power consumption but the indicator clearly showed the camera registering over 3100 shots since I last charged it.
The new 70-200VR II feels solid and “fatter” because its mid section has a bigger diameter than the VR verison. It seems to lock focus a bit faster than its predecessor. In the three weddings I shot, I was never let down by the new lens. I trust its AF, performance and sharpness instantly.
(ISO 640, f/1.8, 1/800, D3S & 50mm)
The absence of vignetting around the corners of the frame is the most noticeable difference I note on the VRII. Vignette control was set to LOW on the D3S just as it was on my usual D3 + 70-200 VR combo and I saw no vignette at f/2.8 or 3.2. While I didn’t have a chance to test D3S with VR at the three weddings that I shot (carrying one 70-200 is heavy enough), a later controlled test proved that the disappearance of vignette has nothing to with D3S or its firmware but purely by the VR II’s optical brilliance. You will see that when I couple the VR with D3 or D3S, the vignette reappears.
Now, the vignette issue on the 70-200VR has never bothered me. I kinda like it actually because I routinely add vignettes during post production to my images to draw focus to the subject. This is a matter of personal preference. I guess not having any vignetting straight out of camera is preferable. Removing vignette takes considerably more effort while adding vignette requires only a simple click on a Photoshop action set.
(photo: ISO 100, f/7.1, 1/160, D3S, 70-200 VR II)
I do not have a habit of using Auto WB so I can’t comment on how the D3S performs in this regard. Like its predecessor, I find the colour very accurate and pleasing right out of the camera. I prefer my pictures warmer because the skin tone just looks more pleasing which is why I routinely reach for cloudy white balance. On the D3, cloudy can render a picture too warm. With the D3S, cloudy WB just gives the right amount of warmth. Again, this is is highly subjective.
One of the reasons I steered away from Auto WB is because I find in some instances, the D3 renders images a bit too cool in Auto WB. In the D3S, with the handful of shots I’ve got on Auto WB, images seem more neutral than in the D3. Again, I want to stress this is not conclusive, just my general feelings & preference.
(photo: ISO 1000, f/1.8, 1/320, D3S, 50mm)
The big thing about the D3S announcement is the improved ISO performance. Now, this interests every wedding photographer I know. I have a distrust for advertised specs. Sure, the camera gives us higher ISO range but how usable are they? This is a more important question. From the LCD screen ISO 12800 looks very usable even after you zoom in several levels for further scrutiny. With the D3, I rarely ventured beyond ISO 3200. Even on the LCD screen, you can see noticeable ISO improvement. I went ahead and shot a part of a wedding banquet on ISO 6400 and 12800 with the D3S. The D3 gives you clean images at high ISO but the D3S surpasses it. More on this in the objective tests.
OBJECTIVE TESTS
It would be pointless to review D3S and 70-200VR II without a meaningful objective test in a controlled environment. I really want to find out how good these new equipment are. The objective of this test is to see how much details the new lens render versus the old lens, and how good is the D3S’ high ISO performance. This is why I chose to shoot these three figurines as my subject and a dark table top as my backdrop.
I shot a series of pictures with the following setup and hardware combination. All shots were taken from a tripod with VR switched off, Adobe RGB, vignette control low, tungsten WB, in RAW + large jpeg fine.
D3 & 70-200 VR @ ISO800, 1600, 3200, 6400, HI 1 (12800), HI 2 (25600)
D3S & 70-200 VR @ ISO800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, HI 1 (25600), HI 2 (51200), HI 3 (102400)
D3 & 70-200 VR II@ ISO800, 1600, 3200, 6400, HI 1 (12800), HI 2 (25600)
D3S & 70-200 VR II @ ISO800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, HI 1 (25600), HI 2 (51200), HI 3 (102400)
I was pleasantly surprised at the improvement the D3S and 70-200 VR II had over their predecessors. The findings are based on the JPEGs straight from camera with high ISO noise reduction set at normal on the D3S and D3. Here are the four main discoveries I found on the D3S and 70-200 VR II.
1. Better High ISO Performance on D3S?
The D3S at ISO12800 is comparable to the D3 ISO3200 and the D3S at ISO25600 or HI 1 looks cleaner and more pleasant than the D3 at ISO6400. D3S users will effectively gain two additional stops of usable ISO performance. The result astounded me and dispelled my initial skepticism. ISO25600 or HI 1 on a D3S is the highest I would go for my wedding work.
2. Details & Resolution of the VR2
The additional ED elements in the 70-200VR II make a huge difference in the sharpness, details and resolution of images created by the new lens. The difference between the VR & VR II were so great that I thought the softness on VR lens were created by accidental knocks on the tripod. So I re-shot with the VR lens several times using the self timer to minimize shakes, yielding the same results. Download the files: D3S, 70-200VR, f/2.8 at 200mm versus D3S, 70-200VR II, f/2.8 at 200mm.
It is important to note that the new lens also eliminated the fringing and ghosting that is so evidently shown in images from the 70-200 VR lens. Pay attention to the groom figurine to see my point. In this particular test, I find the VR2 give details and sharpness at f/2.8 that the VR can only match at f/8. Now before we conclude that f/2.8 on the VR II is as good as f/8 on the older lens, we must bear in mind this test was done on very small figurines which amplified the weakness of the older lens. I suspect the differences between the two lenses may not be as obvious when we use it for portraiture. Perhaps someone else could verify this with further testing as I just ran out of time.
3. The VR2 is brighter
The other good news is that the 70-200 VR II is 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter than its predecessor. Same scene, same light, same camera body, same manual setting (ISO800, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/5 sec) with two different lenses, you can see how the new lens produces noticeably brighter pictures. That is great news for low light shooter.
download the images: D3S, 70-200VR, f/2.8, 1/5 sec, ISO800 versus D3S 70-200VR II, f/2.8, 1/5 sec, ISO800
4. 200mm at 1/13 sec with VR2?
I’ve read Cliff Mautner’s review that he managed to pull off some sharp shots at 200mm, 1/13 sec using the VR II technology. I have no doubts in Cliff’s review & integrity, but I reasoned that perhaps him being a fabulous and experienced shooter had more to do with pulling the shots at 1/13 sec than the technology itself. Well, I repeated the feat hand holding and shooting vertically at 1/13sec which is a more difficult attempt. Horizontal shooting is easier, thanks to the Joe McNally grip. With the older lens, I could only come close between 1/30 to 1/40. Happy to report that VR2’s improved technology works as advertised.
You are going to ask me about the video mode right? When handed the camera, I was told that this particular pre-production unit did not produce the best videos. I respectfully agreed with Nikon not to comment on the D3S video capabilities until I get my hands on the final production unit.
In light of the findings here, are there any doubts the D3S and 70-200VR II would be highly coveted items? I’ve ordered mine. Hopefully they’ll arrive in time to be placed under the Christmas tree. The rumour that Nikon gifts me boxes of Nikon gear to write this review is an urban legend. I pay for every piece of my camera equipment and I have receipts to prove it. Nikon, if you are reading, please bring us some sexy wide angle prime lenses in 2010!
A big thank you to Nikon Malaysia for providing the highly scarce D3S & 70-200VR II for review.
These cool photographers also published their reviews on Nikon D3S & 70-200 VR II:
Cliff Mautner, Marcus Bell, Rob Galbraith
Tags: 70-200VR, 70-200VR II, D3, D3S, Nikon, Wedding Photographer, Wedding Photography
Great review louis.
As am using 2 d300s now and looking at migrating to full frame, d3s will be an option simply because of the ISO technology. ANybody know the RRP for D3s? and will D3 price goes down?
On another note, hope that Malaysia Nikon Service Center can be better and world class as its equipments are.
Hafiz Ismail
[...] hype? Is 70-200VR II worth the upgrade price tag? To answer these questions and more check out this review. « Celestial [...]
thanks for the review i find it very helpful to have an tested write out by another user rather than lab report on its specs. i personally is waiting for the vr2 as i have tested the 300mm vr at 1/60 on a d3 hand held i got 8 out of 10 pics sharp. it shows that the vr2 can really do the job. but after u tested the 70-200vr2 i now know that the vr2 really works wonders.
Thanks for the great review.
Makes me sad for my 70-200!!
With the obvious blur on the figurine.
Keep up the good work!
Good review~
Where do you book your VR2 lens from? safe journey to Perth
Gilbert: from nearest Nikon dealer. Stock will be scarce for a while.
Great review Louis, thanks for the insight. I am very sure the moment it hits the shelf that these products will be out of stock pretty soon. Much like when the D3 was first launched.
Thanks for the review. appreciate it so much. 1st review from Malaysia i think.
VRII definitely i will get one. D3s is very tempting but my D3 still can perform very well in most condition.
Louis,
Good article !! Keep up the good work
Learnt something bout the VR lens here…good article bro.
Dear Louis,
Many thanks for your well balanced review.
I really like your small figurines of the photographer and what I presume is a wedding couple,all in old fashioned Asian dress.
I collect Asian figurines and collectibles and would surely like to include a set of figurines that you used as props.
Can you tell where I could buy a set of these figurines.
Many thanks and kind regards,
Fred Kramer
the Netherlands
thanks for the great review.
Fred: they were gifts from a client. Old Hong Kong was the brand. They were bought from HK but I had no idea which retailer. Wish I could be more helpful.
I’ve seen that kind of figurines, They also have WWII, Egyptian, Roman Empire but they cost a fortune each.
Anyway, thanks for this review Louis all the more I’d buy the new 70-200 but I’ll probably get that next year.
Great review Louis! Well balanced and very informative.
Now I feel like getting the new lens too! Poison man..
Wickered!!! I almost owned a 70-200 VR. Thanks to Louis, I have a chance to own a VRII.
I think the 1/2 stop brighter improvement has already convinced me to seriously want to order one NOW !
You are dangerous !! - like a dope pusher, man ! First you lured me and got me hooked to buy the 70-200VR immediately after the shoot at Lynette’s wedding..and now, I am sold..
take my money before I buy that car
Hmmm maybe the Cabriolet is more fun , no?
These comparisons seemingly suggest that the functioning of noise reduction by D3s may be more effective than that of D3, while the nature of CMOS equipped with D3s is expected to achieve only limited improvement,if any,compared to that of D3.
Reading the review in China, many thanks for Louis’s review. It’s helpful for me to have better understanding of AFS 70-200 VR II. But It’s so strange that the response to the review is somewhat different from the fans in P.R.China as http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=680265 . many readers here doubt if the review is true caused by “the old is the best” from the view of the strange troditional chinese culture. Anyway, I believe Louis’s review. The new 70-200VR II is much better than its predecessors.
Louis,
Thank you for your excellent review. I do have one question regarding your sharpness test(s) on the 70-200mm lenses (VR vs. VR II). Nikon recommends that VR be turned off when using a tripod (on the “older” VR lens)… was this the case when you created the test shot with this lens?
Yes VR was switched off when I tested both lenses on tripod. There is no problem with my 6-month old VR lens. I’ve been getting sharp portrait shots with it. However when we pit it against the VRII on such small objects, the resolution and sharpness of these two lenses became evident.
nice review…very straightforward and didn’t bore me to death..
This is a great review. Thanks for making the effort.
Thanks for taking the time to do such a thorough review and for showing us the real world images and experiences as well. Now…do you have a hook up that can help me get this equipment?
Why hide the EXIF?
Thank you very much for putting these comparisons together. I am impressed with the high ISO performance.
One could go crazy though dreaming of a D3s and 70-200mm VR II if one does not have the money, and won’t anytime soon.
I am not hiding the exif data. Pictures that are resized for web are created via Save for Web feature in PS which automatically stripped the exif data. There nearly a dozen full resolution files available for download via the blog post. These are straight out of camera jpegs that are not retouched or changed in any way. Pls download those and read the exif data.
Wow, what a great review, the quality of your review and the new lens and camera really show off the high Iso to my eye.
what a treat it would be to do available light and get high quality photo’s like you have shown in your review.
Hopefully with a bit of luck I can get this set up lens/camera combo very soon.
kind regards,
Evan Spellman
Thank for the review.
The original 70-200 VR was a “class leader”?
You must be confusing it with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS from Canon.
I have to say this was a really interesting article and cleared up all the questions about differences that I had except for one; noise reduction improvements vs. sensor improvements. I never shoot JPEG so I’m really not interested in NR improvements that aren’t applied when I use photoshop for my RAW conversions.
You really don’t need to do a new test, just use photoshop/lightroom to convert the two RAW test shots, and then we can compare with and without in camera noise reduction.
Thank you very much. I pre ordered both the D3s and 70-200 VII. At Photoplus in NYC I was able to hand hold at 200mm for 8th of a second in the am and 10th of a second later in the day; very sharp from the LCD. Great combo and I can’t wait to get it for my Jan 2, 2010 wedding..
A very good report on the cameras and the 70-200. What a shame I already have my 70-200VR already. I just wish I had come across this sooner.
Colin
Quote from Hafiz Ismail,
” On another note, hope that Malaysia Nikon Service Center can be better and world class as its equipments are. ”
strongly agree .. i’ve juz sent my camera n lenses a week ago n totally disappointed with their services .. especially on the way they handle their customers ..
anyway .. thank you Louis for the great review .. really appreciate it ..
thanks for the review… it’s another poison!
Good review! D3s noise control is really good! two stops gain from the already good D3!! Nikon made a right decision for not going for the megapixel race, but instead keep on improving the noise performance.
The D3S EXIF shows noise reduction as normal.
The D3 EXIF shows noise reduction as OFF.
Are you certain that you set the D3 to normal noise reduction?
I believe noise reduction automatically kicks in at different ISO’s on the D3 and D3S (2000 ISO v 4000 ISO).
Hi Neil: you are right. No idea why d3’s noise reduction was turned off! It’s always set on Normal. So this is not a fair straight comparison. I’ll retest it when I get the new D3s. Thanks for pointing out.
Louis,
Thank you for your reply and honesty. In contrast other reviews are showing little difference between 2000 and 4000 ISO partly because the D3 noise reduction automatically kicks in from 2000 ISO to give the D3 an advantage whilst the D3S noise reduction has been turned off by the reviewer!
Rob Galbraith has specifically taken this noise reduction imbalance into account on his tests - he specifically mentions the different noise reduction starting points between the cameras. I see significant differences between the cameras in his tests from 1600 ISO onwards. Even more impressive when the exposure is increased to lighten the shadows/darker tones in post processing the D3s holds together whereas the D3 breaks up at higher ISO’s.
I suppose the only fair test is RAW (14 bit) with noise reduction turned off altogether as Nikon maybe applying slightly different noise reduction algorithms (even if the same noise reduction option is selected on both cameras) to suit ’slightly’ different sensor technology - the D3S sensor being redesigned and refined from the D3.
Thank you for your review. I shoot aerials in low-light and plan to upgrade my D3 to the s version.
Alamak! I’m wondering how much i can get from trade in my 70-200 VR1 now before i can grab this superb VR2! How much Desmond of YL would pay for my lense ha? Anyway thank Louis for this review!
Hi Louis,
There is so much of talk on many forums that the new VR2 doesnot have the focal distance as the older VR1. I just looked at the comparison pictures you’ve posted and I do see the difference in terms of closeness to the subject. Was that a problem with you when you were testing. The loss of the focal distance, is it a problem to you. You insight will be really helpful.
Thanks
Stevens
Hi Louis,
Foirst of all, let me say that I find your work simply superb and I find your blog informative and a source of inspiration.
I am also keen to know about your experience with the different focal lengths between the old and new 70-200 lenses. The 100% crops of the figurines are the same size, as are the full images, but we now know that this would have been impossible had they been taken from the same spot, so the 2 shots must have been taken a different distances from the subject.
Did you not feel it necessary to mention this, or did you assume that your readers were already mindful of the FL characteristics of the lens when they read your findings? Forgive my ignorance, but I have a feeling that a number of cutomers might have had second thoughts about placing orders had they been aware of the FL differences in the VR2 ahead of time.
After reviewing the hubub concerning the focal length shortening that takes place in the VR2 lens compared to the original VR1 lens, I have to wonder why you posted misleading images labeled as 100% crops? I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t your intention to post false info since you allowed readers to download the original JPGs. Unfortunately, after I down loaded the images from your site I could plainly see the focal length shortening between the two lenses. This is not as appearent in your side-by-side examples that claim to be 100% crops. When I compare the original images at 100% versus the supposedly 100% crops in the page on your site, I see a significant difference. This difference is not due to browser resizing, because resizing my browser window does not change the size of your examples.
It appears that you took two 100% crops, stitched them together into one image and resized it smaller to fit your web page. I’m not accusing you of intentionally doing anything unethical, but don’t you think that an image posted with the line “100% crop” on its face should be posted on-line at 100%? Resizing the originals, even if both are resized the same, renders the differences differently than if smaller sized crops of the original were posted at a real 100%. Your examples are very misleading in regards to actual noise and image size rendering differences.
[...] [...]
Great review, thanks for posting it. I have sold my 80-200 and am now getting the VRII, rather than trying to save a few more £££’s on the VRI
The high ISO of the D3S are very impressive although I’m not yet convinced by the 70-200mm VRII due to the focal shortening issues. Did you find you were short of reach at 200mm? My concern is where you can’t get closer to the subject, ie: back of church at wedding.
Tim: A few people have raised the issue about shorter focal length on the VRII. As a working pro, I don’t care about the spec sheet. All I care about is image quality and the experience of using the equipment. I know I am getting better images from the new lens. As to whether the focal length is shorter or longer, it has not troubled me one bit. I have been using this lens for almost 3 months. Glad I traded the old one for this.