Nikon D3S vs Nikon D7000 for all types of photography?

What are the pros and cons of both of these models? Are they good with wedding photography/portraits/kids photos etc…
Are they quiet?

I have colleagues who own both.

Pros usually have at least one full frame and one APS-C sensored camera. The APS-C cameras extend their telephoto lenses the equivalent of half again the focal length.

I for instance use a 300 mm f/2.8 lens on a Nikon D300 when shooting sports, giving me the reach of a 450 mm f/2.8 lens

Here is how the sensor performance of the D3s and D7000 compare.

http://www.dxomark.com/...nd2)/Nikon

As you can see, the D3s performance at high ISO settings blows away the D7000 performance.

As you know, the D3s is a much sturdier build than the semi-pro D7000, but for what you are doing, the D7000 should do the job.

D3S pro: it's one of the finest DSLRs in the world.
D3S con: between the camera and the lenses, it will cost you about $16, 000+ before you press the shutter even once.

D7000 pro: It's a good camera to learn with and can take as fine of a picture as the operator is able to produce.
D7000 con: it's not a D3S.

Unless you have money to burn, the D3S will be a waste of money. Your question is like someone saying, "Lamborghini vs. Hyundai? Which is good for driving around town and taking the kids to school?" They both are, but that's not what a Lamborghini is made for.

Any camera is good with wedding photography/portraits/kids' photos, etc. If you are starting out, the D7000 will be fine and you can learn and practice with it and then once you are making enough money to justify a D3S, go for it. But it's a waste at this point.

Hey, not to discourage you totally - if you're rich, get the D3S and the lenses to go with it now.

Two different beasts. I've owned both and the D7000 was a back up camera. The D7000 is really good for video. The D3s is far superior.