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.

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.

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

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.