Nikon D4 overview

UPDATE: Click here to read our first impressions of shooting with a the D4 (including samples)

Like its predecessor, the Nikon D4 looks as if it’s going to be an incredibly impressive camera. Nikon has looked to its professional user-base and tried to work out what it needed to add or adjust on a camera that just a couple of years ago represented the best they were capable of. The result is a camera with few big changes but a extensive series of small improvements.

The biggest change is, of course, the improvement in video capabilities. Given the increasing demand for video footage from professional photographers, and the incredible success of Canon’s 5D Mark II in the professional video market, it was inevitable that Nikon’s pro flagship would need to offer a more compelling feature set than the existing models.

Beyond this, the changes to the stills-shooting specifications are relatively modest – there’s a higher-resolution, 16.2MP, full-frame CMOS sensor and the ability to shoot at 10 frames per second with autofocus, but that’s about it. The new chip's capability has prompted Nikon to offer an ISO range from 100-12,800 that can then be extended to 50 – 204,800 (Hi4). The significant changes, beyond video, are a profusion of smaller tweaks, additions and improvements to what was already a well worked-out camera. These include a carbon fiber shutter rated to 400,000 actuations that can fire at up to 1/8000th of a second.

The biggest technical changes are the addition of a 91,000 pixel ‘metering’ sensor, replacing the 1005 pixel example used up until now. This sensor is used for much more than just metering, playing a key role in subject tracking, white balance and 'Active D-lighting' (a trick Canon seems impressed with, given the appearance of a similar system in the 1DX). The higher-resolution sensor allows the camera to offer face detection when shooting through the optical viewfinder.

Then there are the ergonomic changes to the camera’s body. Again like Canon’s 1DX, moves have been made to make the ergonomics of portrait-orientation shooting more closely resemble those of shooting in landscape format. The camera no longer features a dedicated AFL button, instead gaining push-button joysticks for both the vertical and landscape shooting orientations. An additional rubberized lump has also been added to provide a better grip in the vertical orientation and an additional function button added next to the vertical shutter button.

Key Specifications:

  • 16.2 effective megapixel, full-frame sensor (16.6MP total)
  • 10fps shooting with AF and AE, 11fps with focus and exposure locked, 24fps 2.5MP grabs
  • 91,000 pixel sensor for metering, white balance, flash exposure, face detection and active d-lighting
  • ISO Range 100-12,800 (extendable from 50 – 204,800)
  • MultiCAM 3500FX Autofocus sensor works in lower light and with smaller apertures
  • Two sub-selector joystick/buttons for shooting orientation
  • 1080p30 HD video at up to 24Mbps with uncompressed video output
  • New EN-EL18 battery (21.6Wh capacity, CIPA-rated at 2600 shots)
  • Twin card slots - one Compact Flash and one XQD

Click here to read page 2 of our Nikon D4 Overview

Comments

Total comments: 859
12345
PHOTOboy73
By PHOTOboy73 (Jan 10, 2012)

"the Wrong Camera Too late!" These guys from London pull no punches in their black ops review, but I am amazed by their suggested improvements, Nikon should hire them:

http://www.photography-factory.co.uk/photographyreviews/2012/01/nikon-d4-review-the-wrong-camera-too-late-16mp-1080p-30-hd-video-iso-12000-xqd-is-that-it-v-canon-5d-hasselblad-h4d-pentax-d645/

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 10, 2012)

Um, any idea if those guys in London shot in RAW, I see no reference to RAW.

And they appear to be Nikon D3(sx) haters; they spend a good deal of time defending Canons. Sounding like those who think an Audi R8 is the same as Veyron. (Yes, I know the two cars have the same basic parent company, unlike the DSLRs.)

Look the D4 could be some disaster, though it's very unlikely. Much more is that the new Canon will have yet again serious deficiencies.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Jan 10, 2012)

what improvements? a higher megapixel sensor? senseless article, waste of time

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 10, 2012)

mike kobal :

These London Lads just don't like the D3 bodies. Like you, they lost me when they started complaining about low pixel count.

1 upvote
gurgeh
By gurgeh (Jan 10, 2012)

I am going to summarize the suggested improvements for those who can't be bothered to read that:
1. in addition to face recognition the D4 should also have had nipple recognition which would've come handy for the paparazzi (yes, they really do say that)
2. they should get rid of the buttons and replace them with a touch screen (yes, they do seriously suggest that too)
3. err.. I stopped reading after that so those will have to suffice

photoboy73 I was going to accuse you of wasting 10 mins of my time, but you actually taught me something useful today: never visit photography-factory again.

2 upvotes
d3xmeister
By d3xmeister (Jan 10, 2012)

I read the article. It seems that they are very favorable. ,,Best AF in the world, Best skin tones, Best 16MP quality ever, Best video,,
They gently critique a few things but that's it.

So it's clear who is the blind fanboy. It's not them, it's you guys.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 11, 2012)

d3xmeister:

Did they post RAWs or Tiffs extracted from RAW, or even shot directly into Tiff?

Damn! I missed the nipple recognition request.

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (Jan 11, 2012)

Let's say, at their spelling of "C moss wowes" just cracks me up ;)

0 upvotes
Dominique Dierick
By Dominique Dierick (Jan 9, 2012)

Does the WT-5 Wireless Transmitter allow for programmed bulb exposures remotely? Anyone knows?

0 upvotes
dimalozz
By dimalozz (Jan 9, 2012)

Where is AE-Lock button?
Why P/S/A/M modes are still in button?

So, all other things are perfect :)

0 upvotes
JeffWu
By JeffWu (Jan 9, 2012)

I am not a pro photog, but after inheriting a slew of Nikkor lenses from my father, and taking a few photography classes in NYC, I decided in 2008 to invest in the Nikon D3 and have been shooting with it ever since. I paid no attention when the D3x and D3s came out b/c I knew the D3 is all I ever needed. Now, comes the Nikon D4 and a few features over my D3 intrigue me, as follows:

1) The D4 sensor has better light gathering capability into each of the 16.2 million pixels, which I understand will greatly enhance my photos over the D3s (I see Joe McNally's photos and they look fantastic);

2) The metering system is more accurate - this ability to ability to correctly expose my human subject w/o having to point and hold down the A/E lock to me is gold (if it works like advertised); and

3) The autofocus tracks subjects better b/c of the more points on the 3-D tracking matrix.

To me, these 3 added features plus the addition of full HD video really makes this a worthy upgrade for me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
calking
By calking (Jan 10, 2012)

You'd actually pay $6000 for those 3 features? This is a professional camera for a working pro. That money would be better spent on pro instruction.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jan 10, 2012)

I doubt we see actually too many improvements in image quality compared to D3s, but in the most difficult situations. Maybe much better DR though?

All this High iso hype is sometimes too much. The actual High iso differences between modern pro to prosumer cameras are after all quite minimal.

What is the ability to gather light two times more? You get to shoot 800 ISO instead of 400 ISO, that's +1 aperture, not that much. Or you get to shoot 1/125 instead of 1/60, not that much.

(monster size) D3s has only something like +1,3 F-stop better light gathering ability than (nice to carry around) D7000 has, and so far D7000 has had better DR and that's at least what I need much more than High iso or super duper tracking ability and other nonsense like that ;)))

D3s 3253 ISO vs. D7000 1167 ISO / DxO

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 14, 2012)

Rage Joe:

Where are you getting the D7000 dynamic range comparison to the D3 and D3s?

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jan 18, 2012)

HowaboutRAW,

You can check the DRfigures here:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape

And the DR of D7000 feels really good in real life too. Really happy with that.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 18, 2012)

Thank you for the link.

Now, I don't trust what DXO publishes.

Glad you like the D7000.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jan 26, 2012)

Ok, as a general rule I agree with you, better to be sceptical what you read on different sites, but my experience supports their measurements at least to a certain extent.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

@howaboutraw: perfect comment haha

0 upvotes
HaiderAfridi
By HaiderAfridi (Jan 9, 2012)

Wow that is an impressive bit of machinery! Love it.

1 upvote
webrunner5
By webrunner5 (Jan 9, 2012)

I bet the owners manual is as big as a telephone book lol. Wow, this thing is a dream camera for sure. Well done Nikon!!

7 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Jan 9, 2012)

The release of Canon 1DX tells us the life cycle of APS-H ends. We can see that high end DSLR product lines have been gradually migrating to FF/FX leaving APS-C as the middle/entry level products.

While D4 is a real update of the D3 (I don’t think it’s a D3Sx or D3Si), it’s nice to see the megapixel war has been slowed down. A 16MP FX sensor (or 18MP FF of 1DX) is a balance between quality and quantity. As a D700 user, if weight does not matter, I would get a D4. But 1340g is really a bit too much (for me).

3 upvotes
ph0enix2012
By ph0enix2012 (Jan 9, 2012)

1340g? Nikonusa.com lists it as 1080. Your D700 weighs 995g without a grip so it's actually heavier than the D4 gripped.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 9, 2012)

ph0enix2012:

B&H in New York lists the weight as 1340g, with battery and card.

On the BH website the D3s is listed as 1240g, battery and card not specified.

The D3s and the D4 are very close in weight because the bodies are very similar.

Whereas the D700 is a good bit smaller than the D3s--I've used both.

1 upvote
pc168
By pc168 (Jan 10, 2012)

@ph0enix2012: as HowaboutRAW says, 1340g is including the battery. But well, D700 is heavy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cerrito Kid
By Cerrito Kid (Jan 9, 2012)

Having read the intro. review [which was nicely done] and most all the following comments, I think I will continue to stay with my M6. These cameras do too much thinking for you, plus I never attended MIT.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 9, 2012)

How's that M6 shooting at ISO 10,000, even with a Noctilux?

D4 sure has manual settings and focus. No the shutter and mirror are not likely to be as quiet as the M6's cloth shutter alone. Then of course you can't mount a 400mm lens on that M6.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yukonchris
By yukonchris (Jan 10, 2012)

Though I don't own an M6, I generally agree with your sentiments. This camera is probably a technological wonder, but I prefer something with basic controls and no on board AI. Also, I generally have no need for much over ISO400, so the amplification values available here would be wasted on me. Small size and weight, big sensor, and direct manual controls for me please.

0 upvotes
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Jan 13, 2012)

So don't buy a D4 or even a DSLR. Who said you have to squander all your dollars on camera?

Modern pro 135 dslr has clearly different user/usage segment than Leica M. I own and use rangefinder and I love them. But that does not stop me picking up my 1-ton bag of Nikon for various assignments.

They are just apple and orange.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 15, 2012)

> Modern pro 135 dslr has clearly different user/usage segment than Leica M.

DSLR or not, Leica can't be called pro camera.

0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Jan 31, 2012)

@yabokkie - Yes it can, and will be. Quality is there, the rest is photographer. Pick the right tool for the JOB. Circumstances are always the most important consideration. Look at Helmut Newton. He used to do a shoot with a blad, ser up the shot, took his readings, shot 3 of 12 frames and packed up. Pro.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

if you cause a nikon f6 you can use a d4 too , its a nikon, man! :)

0 upvotes
Pradipta Dutta
By Pradipta Dutta (Jan 9, 2012)

This is exactly what I wanted (obviously, I don't need anything more than a D3). I don't want very high mega pixel. I want subtle improvements to the D3's AF module and I want improvement on high ISO performance of D3 (I am not referring to D3s but D3). I think, I get all of the 3. So, I am sold. Now it depends on how quickly B&H can fulfill my order ;-).

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jan 9, 2012)

This is D3Si

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Jan 9, 2012)

No USB 3.0? Would be nice to use with new XQD card.

1 upvote
mailman30
By mailman30 (Jan 9, 2012)

professionals don't plug their cameras into their computers they use dedicated readers.

2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Jan 9, 2012)

Clearly you're not a professional.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Jan 9, 2012)

@mailman30: In our studios (4 or them) all photographers shoot with cameras connected to a computer. This way they can see the shot right away in a full magazine spread size. Quite clearly you have never visited a professional photo studio.

7 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Jan 9, 2012)

I think your find Mailman30 meant if you shoot on a card a pro most of the time will take the card out and put it into a card reader as there is less chance of data loss. Shooting tethered is totally different and that the D4 already has covered.

2 upvotes
Noah Stephens
By Noah Stephens (Jan 9, 2012)

It seems to me, pulling a card out of a camera and putting it into a card reader would increase the chance of some sort of corruption happening.

1 upvote
costinul_ala
By costinul_ala (Jan 9, 2012)

there is no data loss when using a card reader or a cable ..... how did data corruption got here ? :)
tethered shooting doesn't need usb 3.0 and yes, for bulk transfer I think most people use a card reader, i do and i am no professional. it is just that spitting X GB of JPEG+RAW from the camera is not very practical because you can't use the camera, you discharge the battery and it is slower

1 upvote
mathieuasselin
By mathieuasselin (Jan 9, 2012)

Sorry Missimo for the pretentious replys and obviously you are not a pro or obviously you are a pro... I don't see in which point you say that you were one or not. But obviously some of the replyers are not proffetionals, because proffetionals don't write this way. Back to the cable...Yes proffetionals use cables from the camera to the computer, actually proffetionals had use all possible ways to transfer... Why?: because things go south more often that pros will like.
In any case, yes it will be nice to have a fast USB connection, you have no idea how many times a card reader fail or the wireless connection don't work if you have one. So you are left with the on camera wired connection. Ad violins you are to a professional.... Hahahhaa that was funny.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mathieuasselin
By mathieuasselin (Jan 9, 2012)

Sorry last part is an auto spelling mess!!!

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Jan 9, 2012)

Not all pros work in a studio.

4 upvotes
wasserball
By wasserball (Jan 9, 2012)

I take lots of pictures with the D700, 55K so far. I use USB to download the images from the camera to the computer. This puts a lot less wear and tear on the CF card having to remove and install after using a card reader to download images.

0 upvotes
Dominique Dierick
By Dominique Dierick (Jan 9, 2012)

When I need to upload images fast for a newspaper, I do not use the in camera connection. Using an external reader works much faster.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 10, 2012)

My cards download at 65-74 megabyte per second from a FW800 reader and around 40/s in my $10 express card reader in my laptop. Why would I waste time or wear and tear on batteries to use the slot in the camera?

I've worked with professional in studios who shot tethered. Whenever I did the same work they were doing, I never wasted my time tethering. My results were the same or better, but I spent less time at it. YMMV.

The only professional I worked with who I consider a skilled professional with work I respect, only shot tethered when he was using a betterlight back (no choice there!)

I've been using DSLRs professionally for 8 years and I have never had an issue with the pins in card reader or a CF card. They are designed for repeated insertion and removal. I've seen people break them, but I've also seen people destroy a manual transmission. I don't think the issue is the gear in either case. Mini USB ports are notoriously flimsy, but only because they are subject to...

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 10, 2012)

...catastrophic failure that comes from user error (see: "I tripped over the cord!").

I've noticed a trend of users who shoot Canon in the studio like tethering and Nikon users don't. Nikon has always had a great UI for reviewing and inspecting images in camera. Canon's UI has historically been incredibly laggy, even on their top end models.

With 3" screens and current camera speeds (Canon's playback has come a long way and is at parity in my opinion) there's really no need for tethering anymore. Some old timers still insist on it, but that's a shortcoming on their part, not good technique or a shortcoming of the gear.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mailman30
By mailman30 (Jan 11, 2012)

to shaocaholica: I am a professional, in fact I shoot for the new york times so I am surprised by your comment. Every single professional I know uses card readers so why by my comment would you assume I am not?

to petka: although I am a newpaper photographer I do have studio experience and have shot tethered myself. I just don't see usb 3 as an important upgrade, even shooting raw with a 1ds mk iii the photos pop up almost instantly over usb 2.0.

There were some good comments made about shooting tethered and I suppose usb 3 could help there but I would personally use the ethernet connection to shoot tethered but usb 2.0 would also be more than enough for speed.

In the end a card reader is many times faster than using the camera, I would rather put wear and tear on a card reader then a 6000 dollar camera, and there is battery life to think about as well.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Costaricabirdwatcher
By Costaricabirdwatcher (Jan 8, 2012)

As always giving us the very best advise for both our jobs and pockets. Just wondering??? how much better!! than D3s on high ISO, i shoot birds in Costa Rica's rainforest, therefore low light in comes in the package on my country. Could you please advise over this matter. ( by the way hope i made myself understood, since its not my first language.
Gracias
Randall Ortega Chaves

0 upvotes
therathman
By therathman (Jan 11, 2012)

I have a D3s and will probably rent a D4 to check the performance difference in low light. Do not buy until you know there is improvement.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Jan 8, 2012)

Nikon has a very specific market for this camera. The Nikon D4 is for very-busy photojournalists and documentary photographers... primarily. The big newspapers will buy a dozen or more for their staff. Some event photographers who only want the best will also buy in.

This camera is also for photographers who have to get the shot period. You are a big-time fashion or wildlife photographer. Yes, this camera can take the sand, snow, dirt and rain during that $50k a week shoot. You are the man and need the best tools that won't let you down.

If you are shooting weddings at $800 a pop or you get an occasional gig, I would save your money. You don't need a brick of a camera. A Sony SLT-A77 kit would suffice.

If you want to be pretentious or burn money on a camera that will never be used to its fullest capacity, this camera is also for you.

The D4 has several key attributes and I will list them in importance: 1) Access to Nikon lenses. 2) A tough as nails workhorse 3) State of the art.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
18 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 9, 2012)

"This camera is also for photographers who have to get the shot period. " ----------> So what other photographers do, they do not want to get the shot. They just turn away and do not take the shot. I wonder how photographers did all these decades without D4. Its a great tool but you sound too condescending specially with words like this: "If you are shooting weddings at $800 a pop or you get an occasional gig, I would save your money. " Yaa right.

4 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Jan 9, 2012)

@zxaar Condescending, but he is right.

2 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Jan 9, 2012)

There are those who have to get the shot... others are just trying their best and hoping it works out. Many of us hope we are the former not the latter.

1 upvote
HaiderAfridi
By HaiderAfridi (Jan 9, 2012)

I am in the latter group. And I think your summary makes perfect sense.

2 upvotes
Rexyinc
By Rexyinc (Jan 18, 2012)

my d3 and now ex-d3x ( sold the d3x a couple of months ago for $7k ) were perfect for weddings, i'd only use the d3x for a couple of large group shots outdoors and the centre wedding album spread which was 4 large pages wide - single shot from the d3x would cover that nicely - whereas the d3 could not do that due to lack of res. couldn't use the d3x as fast as i use the d3 though - the d3 was and still is perfectly fine.. however i've moved away from doing $5k+ weddings and totally into video now..

so my choices are a d4 $6k with a ninja $1.5k and/OR a JVC 4K video camera for $5k.

only complaint about these rigs is the weight after 12hours of carrying both around - they get very very heavy after a few hours of shooting.. so if i was still shooting high end weddings - i'd be looking at the lighter d700 or whatever comes next.. might be called a d800? -

0 upvotes
Rexyinc
By Rexyinc (Jan 18, 2012)

and if that has the same clean video out - i'll buy a couple for sure.. just for the clean video out... The d4 just has this very nice film like look to the video feed - and the in body crop is excellent also ( just like the d3x did crops for dx and 5:4 modes also but stills ) so i know that the crop modes are very useful !

The JVC 4k video camera is perfect for my needs as I can crop a full HD from the massive 4K images.. perfect for punches and steady cam & jib use :)

When the d800 comes out and if it has the clean hdmi out - I'll put up a video clip of me throwing... no full on smashing my canon bodies against a brick wall haha..

however ... if the d800 doesn't have in body crop and clean HDMI out - then I'll buy a couple of GH2's along with the JVC instead.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

jimmgarza, what are you talking about? are you a nikon spokesmen? why do you tell people who will use it? sometimes i dont get formums^^

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Jan 8, 2012)

hopefully it shows that they only need 16Mpixel because they bring out a MX format called megaX aka midium format :)

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Jan 8, 2012)

nikon is a rather small company i would be suprised if they have (willing to spend) resources to develop a medium format camera.

R&D would be expensiv and the medium format sector is not that big.
nikon has no foot in the medium format business.
no body, no sensor, no lenses.

i thought it could be possible when they buy pentax... but wait... pentax was just bought by ricoh. :)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

Henry, you are hilarious! You call Nikon a rather small company, and then you say they are unlikely to bring out a medium format camera. Do you know who makes medium format cameras? Do you think Sony, HP or GE are making medium format cameras? lol No, it is little companies, like Hasselblad and Mamiya, not big companies like Canon and (to an extent) Nikon, or monsters like Sony. You do realize that Nikon makes all sorts of products that are not cameras, right? Have you ever been to Nikon.com?

7 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Jan 9, 2012)

Troll Henry

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Jan 9, 2012)

O'Henry-Nikon is one of the companies of the Mitsubishi Group, a private company with US$248,600,000.00 in revenue for 2010.
If going medium format makes good business sense, they can.
For all who think the flooding of the Nikon factory in Thailand will force Nikon out of business, they have the backing of the Mitsubishi Group to get them up and running again.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

nikon IS rather small, look the numbers up on their wikipedia entries

employees for example, nikon 24000, canon has 200000, thats nearly 10 times of nikon

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Jan 8, 2012)

super update nikon !!

it shows how far the d3 was, and the d700, when you consider the minor updates after nearly 3 years.

also i like the 16Mp

only thing i dont like is no screenprodector, dont tell me how tough the glass is, no screenprotector is no screenprotector.

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Jan 8, 2012)

The glass might be made of the Corning glass on most cell phones...CANNOT be scratched !!

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 10, 2012)

It'll come with a screen protector, they just like to do product shots without them. And that's not true, gorilla glass CAN score and will shatter, just not so easily.

Best policy is always to wrap it in a prophylactic and play it safe.

0 upvotes
Rexyinc
By Rexyinc (Jan 18, 2012)

had my d3 since new - dropped it a million times - ( and on my toes :( ouches ) .. dropped from 3meters up onto sharp rocks.. still not a scratch.. so don't worry about the screen - it's tuff as. mine has paint chips all over but the screen looks as good as new still.. wish they made the entire body from that glass stuff - then i wouldn't have a mark on it haha!

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

sorry, man 3 meters on a rock and no scratch, i dont believe that^^ i dropped a d700 1 meter, backcase broken, a d3 around shoulderheight, also concrete mirrorbox had a crack, af motor had to be adjusted, bajonett had to be adjusted, and i lost a 20 2.8d :)

1 upvote
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Jan 8, 2012)

The Web browser remote shooting is a great addition and will prove increadibly useful !!! Yes !

1 upvote
Robert Newman
By Robert Newman (Jan 8, 2012)

Nice but expensive camera. I think I would opt for the new Canon 18mp machine over this however. Actually, I still use my Mamiya RZ67 and my 4x5 Sinar P along with an Epson 700 scanner for a variety of work. I don't get the dynamic range of a good digital SLR and clearly there is some quality lost in going from analog film to digital for final printing, but there is plenty of resolution and for studio or architectural shots, there are times when I prefer this approach. It forces me to compose more carefully and meter more intelligently than I might if I just used a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon 5D2, but like all tools it has limitations and when I have time and a specific application for medium or large format images, film can still make sense.

0 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Jan 8, 2012)

Very useful comment on the D4, thanks.

5 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Jan 8, 2012)

I must have misread the title "Tell us why you still use a medium format film camera".

I'd swear it said "Nikon D4 Overview".

9 upvotes
Carl Sanders
By Carl Sanders (Jan 8, 2012)

Of interest that we use same kit formats, P2. Though we us V system and Nikon instead of Rz67 and Canon.

0 upvotes
Tharizdun
By Tharizdun (Jan 8, 2012)

This camera is actually cheaper then the Canon 1Dx. And real ppl have tried it out, not just an announcement with a far of release date.

3 upvotes
rkimoto
By rkimoto (Jan 8, 2012)

While I do appreciate and respect your opinion, I still don't get why would you even access a website called Digital Photography Review or, viewing an article about a DSLR, when you only use film and clearly don't care about DSLR's.

2 upvotes
arri120fps
By arri120fps (Jan 8, 2012)

the DSLR's massive improvement over last few years has narrowed the image quality difference between two systems. I have the V system for studio stuff and landscape. Last summer, I printed a 20X24" taken from D3s with excellent quality that can fool many experts as it was taken from medium format. To me, quality is not really a issue, rather the price is..

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Jan 8, 2012)

Tharizdun you are telling bull as usual.
as both cameras are not released yet nobody can say how much you have to pay for them WHEN they are released.

but yes the canon can cost a bit more. because it offers more.

canons 1D X has been tested just as the nikon D4.
only a moron would believe that canons 1D X has not been tested by canon explorer of light members for a long time.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

rkimoto, he said his main camera is a Canon 5D2. That means a Canon EOS 5 D Mk II. That is a digital camera dude.

0 upvotes
ColdViking
By ColdViking (Jan 8, 2012)

@rikimoto - is there anything about "My main camera is a Canon 5D2" you fail to understand?

0 upvotes
rkimoto
By rkimoto (Jan 9, 2012)

Sorry @Scottelly and @ColdViking but I don't know about Canon models, this comment basically says that this camera doesn't fit his needs and, he would rather buy a Canon. Well, that's just common sense, if you're a "pro", we know that if you only shoot Canon, Why change to Nikon and have to invest in lenses all over again?

To me, it just sounds like somebody that doesn't care about Nikon products, only Canon's. There are other places/forums to comment about Canon if that's your preference. "Meh" comments are not needed.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

so you always switch system whe you buy new system cameras? last year a canon with a fine set of primes, and if you dont like it the next year a nikon with a set of glass? or how exactly do you plan to do this? are you only using one zoom?^^

0 upvotes
Ivan Azzopardi
By Ivan Azzopardi (Jan 8, 2012)

I am a bit surprised about this camera. If it is used for studio photography imo i think an 18- 22 mp would be better as to upgrade from 12 mp is not that much and in terms of sports you need a long lens like 600 F4 or else you need to crop. Maybe it is good for low light photography that would be nice.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

It's not a studio camera. Nikon sells the D3X for that purpose.

7 upvotes
petepictures
By petepictures (Jan 8, 2012)

Very nice camera. Now that everything is being said, I am going to take one of my Hasselblad film cameras and going out to shoot. I am just more inspired to shoot on film lately.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

Great, really. Which film scanner do you own, or do you still print from an enlarger?

Then, how's that ISO 10,000 medium format film working out for you?

That first paragraph is a serious question--really saying what do you think of the Imacon/Hasselblad film scanners or do you stick with that medium format Nikon (now Pacific Image) scanner?

Second paragraph question isn't serious.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Carl Sanders
By Carl Sanders (Jan 8, 2012)

Know what you mean and we also use CFV back on it as well.

0 upvotes
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (Jan 8, 2012)

I'm curious why the lcd is non move-able, I'm no pro but I find it one of the best upgrades from the a700 to the a77, especially when the camera adds video. Probably the market does not need it, but it beats me as to why not.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Jan 8, 2012)

A camera like this must be able to take hard knocks, movable screen would break much too easily and take more space also. Amateur toys are different.

4 upvotes
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (Jan 8, 2012)

Makes sense, most pro film camera's also don't seem to have them also stops at the amateur level (Canon, low end Panasonic) top end Akigami, Panasonic and Sony are all without one.

0 upvotes
pacogwapo
By pacogwapo (Jan 8, 2012)

I think you can connect it to an extra monitor for serious video taking

2 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (Jan 8, 2012)

The E-3 and E-5 have flip-out screens and they're legendarily durable.

3 upvotes
R Johns
By R Johns (Jan 8, 2012)

@ Petka...

While I understand your point, a swivel LCD that can close in on itself provides much more protection against hard knocks than an exposed stationary LCD.

Hugo has a valid question. Shrugging off his question and those cameras with swivel LCDs as "amateur toys" comes across as being rather dismissive. A good photographer respects the fact that his/her skills are what make a great photo, not the camera. The reality is, there are many photographers, who use "amateur toy" cameras, who will consistently take better photos than most people who end up purchasing this $6000.00 D4.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just trying to set the record straight... :0)

5 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 8, 2012)

No offense meant with "amateur toys". Running around with 2 or 3 camera bodies hitting against each other and whatever is what this class of cameras are designed for. No time flipping the LCDs open and closed. Sorry, have been doing this since -78. There are situations when a flip-out screen would come in handy, I am first to admit that, but I would still no get one for serious press work.

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Jan 8, 2012)

i less thing to break off or fail. the oly e3 had issues with moisture entering the lcd. it also adds considerable bulk to the camera, esp. if you are going to weatherise it to match the rest of the camera. lastly, no one(who is going to buy one) is demanding it.

3 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Jan 8, 2012)

I am with you: a tiltable screen would be a great addition to this camera. They can be made quite reliable even if you carry your camera all day long as proved by Olympus cameras. Yes even so it is still one more thing which could break. So does the metering, autofocusing, top lcd screen (I've broken on a D200, not precisely a flimsy camera), etc so let's all use cameras with manual metering and focusing, no top lcd, less buttons etc. These issues of reliability evades the true debate: is it useful? More importantly, are there shots which I would miss because I don't have this feature. The answer is definitely "yes". IMO that's what matters to a true photographer at heart (pro or amateur). As for reliablity, the solutions is a back-up camera, not removal of a key feature.

1 upvote
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Jan 8, 2012)

I suspect that many pros have not spent much time using a tilt-swivel screen, as they haven't long been available on DSLRs.
It's a very useful device, and once you've used one, you'll want one.
War photographers taking shots around corners or over a concrete shelter without risking their head, press photographers aiming over crowds, those that use video, using Liveview on a very high tripod, shooting from ground level without having to sprawl...
Yes, you can live without one, but yes, you will find it useful...

2 upvotes
rkimoto
By rkimoto (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd rather have an OLED display before a swivel LCD. As I like shooting landscapes, an OLED display would make me squint my eyes less.

1 upvote
fingersitchy
By fingersitchy (Jan 12, 2012)

At my art school, (San Francisco Art Institute) I attended a summer session with a visiting artist Imogene Cunningham - a legendary photographer. Some of her BEST work was taken with a plastic lens throwaway camera. She insisted that the photographs were about the moment and the photographer, NEVER about the camera. It's great to have a reality check, and a level perspective about the tools we use.

0 upvotes
Rexyinc
By Rexyinc (Jan 18, 2012)

shooting weddings - a tilt screen would be great for all those arms held up high to get the group shots shots that i do - i shoot blind and although i seem to do fine most of the time - even with the 14mm on it i would like to be able to take just the one shot and know I've got everyones head in the shots - a tilt screen would be perfect for that shot.. but i'd hate myself if i broke the screen off after a drop - and i drop it a lot lol... screens glass is tuff as and has never even scratched on it..

0 upvotes
srados
By srados (Jan 8, 2012)

I do not know why o why touch screen is soooooooo important for taking pictures???It does SLOW DOWN process of taking pictures...

1 upvote
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Jan 8, 2012)

Erm, why are you talking about a touch screen here, did you get lost ?

5 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 8, 2012)

After reading (some of) these posts it is quite clear that people writing them are not professional photographers, experienced photographers, or even photographers at all. Just gadget enthusiasts. Amazing lack of technical knowledge (why is bigger sensor better?) and real life action/news photography experience (iPhone can take just as good pictures).

Both D4 and EOS-D1X will be amazing cameras, best that is possible at the moment, and I will be getting one of them as soon as possible. It will help me to take better pictures, not so much because of super sensor but faster and more responsive autofocus, better low light sensitivity and high fps. These are the things that really count, not MegaPixels, missing Bluetooth, GPS etc. Do I need to get my shots immediately to social media, hell no! I need to have a camera which enables me to complete my assignment in the dark rain of real life with pictures fit for a full spread in a glossy magazine.

In 4 years better again, hooray!

26 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Jan 8, 2012)

You're funny. I laugh reading you're comment.

2 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Jan 9, 2012)

Well that's the funny thing, because the tools of 'gadget freaks' make their way up to pro models just as often as visa versa. My first digital compact, the Canon S40 had video, it's only recently that DSLRs have needed to have this to sell at all (admittedly, with much better quality). Serious cameras avoided even being associated with the likes of face detection AF, which is now being toted as one of the D4's 'killer features'.

There is certainly a line between innovative gadget and state of the art technology, a lot of it being in the raw performance, efficiency and build quality involved, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss innovative features. It wasn't so long ago that AF, or even digital capture itself was considered strictly for amateurs. These are incredible cameras, but in many ways very conservatively featured. They don't have a monopoly on what constitutes a photographically useful feature, even if in sheer hardware they make for very reliable and efficient photography.

0 upvotes
Steve
By Steve (Jan 10, 2012)

bigger sensors of course have less noise, as the .. oh i forget the technical jargon.. pixel buckets dont overflow onto neighbouring buckets. with smaller sensors there is less interference between those... uh.. photo receptors...

0 upvotes
therathman
By therathman (Jan 11, 2012)

Well put - I agree - Low light indoor sports is my main venue, and events that do not allow flash. The faster focus, higher ISO and increased presets interest me most. 1-2 additional FPS will not make that much difference. I will definitely test these features before buying.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 2, 2012)

@petka, what exactly are you talking about? a cameras soul? why do make better pictures with it when its not about its technical advantage ? wanna sound esotheric ?^^

0 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Jan 8, 2012)

How long will the D4 stay before the next one will come 2 or 3 years. What will the P&S camera's and other DSLR's and mobilephone's brands do durings those 2 or 3 years. Innovation will continue. Has this one a bluetooth inside to communicate with Camera remote apps (Android/IOS) to send your jpeg file immediate to social media ? I've seen (holded) the Canon EOS 1DX. I'm not impressed by the latest flagships of Canon and Nikon. Hopefully Panasonic+Leica don't fall asleep. Just wondering. Marcel.

1 upvote
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Jan 8, 2012)

Who misses the LCD swivel ?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

MediaDigitalVideo:

Have you shot stills with the D3s or the D700?

0 upvotes
tresise
By tresise (Jan 8, 2012)

If you read the specification and examples the whole camera can be controlled remotely on any device with a web browser.

The camera has its own http server so you can take the pic, including focus, save, transfer and upload with out touching the camera.
So no need for bluetooth or even an app its all there, just add the wireless receiver to the camera, or plug in an Ethernet cable.

4 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jan 8, 2012)

People that buy this camera are not interested in social media and other gimmicks (99%).

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

AnHund . . . "social media and other gimmicks." Are you serious? You think social media is a gimmick? You can't possibly be serious. That would be a ridiculous statement, considering the viewership/user base. Do you realize how many people use social media as their primary form of entertainment and communication today? Do you have any idea how fast social media is growing? Do you realize this site, which YOU are using, has significant social media components? This site is a hybrid social media and product review site. Do you realize that? Are you an ostrich?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 9, 2012)

Scottelly:

Yes, social media is a gimmick. It's the AOL chat room of 2011.

No, this part of the DPReview website is a comments board, and my "friends" can't post "what up dawg."

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
therathman
By therathman (Jan 11, 2012)

this camera is not for posting to social media - use your phone for that. Your comment unfortunately exposes your lack of understanding of the purposes of this type of camera.

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 8, 2012)

It simply amazes me on what specific feature a camera is touting/missing that gets people in a frenzy. From "we want a optical viewfinder" on compact systems to "LiveView and video capabilities are stupid" on FF cameras.

Insert another gripe: "We want GPS!"...

The stubborn photographer who pines about a "proper VF" will no doubt cry over "my old Nikon F3/ Canon A-1 took great photos without any GPS". A pen and paper was good enough plotting down your location.

I'll add to the list: "My Canon 7D has accelerometers for leveling...why doesn't this have it?!"....or "my smart phone has a touch screen! Why not this?!"

9 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 8, 2012)

You just can't please some people most of the time. Or something like that. You are 100% right, of course.

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

You're right! Why DOESN'T this expensive camera have all those things? No . . . it doesn't need them. Neither does a cell phone. But the iPhone is outselling every other phone, because it DOES have those things. GPS? (not quite, but it gives the basic functionality of a GPS in most locations here in the U.S.) A touch screen? Yes. An accellerometer? Yes. Video? Yes. Wireless networking? Yes. And a whole slew of other features. Does a cell phone really need these things? No. But it's nice to have them. Do Nikon cameras really need 14 bit color or in-camera image editing or interval timer shooting abilities? No. It's nice that they do though, right? It would be nice if they had ALL the cool stuff that they could have, but don't, like a heads-up display in the viewfinder, faster video (1080p60), a built-in solid state hard drive, wireless N networking, and SO MANY other features that Sony cameras will eventually have. So why not beat Sony and Canon to the extra features? All of them.

0 upvotes
photophill
By photophill (Jan 8, 2012)

If have a question I have been wondering about for a while?
I have a D7000 DX body. And the D4 FX body has practically the same specs in regards to sensor resolution and sensor megapixel size. Yet the D4 has a larger sensor that leaves me with the question, "What is the real advantage with the larger sensor size?" For me a larger and heavier body and compatible lenses is no real advantage. Regards PhotoPhill

p.s x15. I couldn't agree with you more! ;-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

Try renting a D700 and you'll see. Don't forget to shoot in RAW too.

2 upvotes
1972 snr
By 1972 snr (Jan 8, 2012)

In addition, all digital photography should know and understand that sensor size does matter. The larger the sensor, the more light that is able to hit the sensor, thus ending with a better quality image in most cases. This is why compact camera systems will never match the quality of a DSLR, and to take it a step further try a medium format system and your mind will be blown.

6 upvotes
Fullframer
By Fullframer (Jan 8, 2012)

""What is the real advantage with the larger sensor size?" "

Really? LOL.. Sound like the Noob's at the camera stores taking up the clerk's time with stilly questions while the real pro's are trying to get in and out buying their equipment. Try doing some research... However, in response to your question.. Better depth of field for one thing on the bigger full frame sized sensor. As the other poster said, go rent a D700 and see. D700 only has 12mp but can get better pics than the 16mp D7000 esp indoors, no flash. I've used both.

0 upvotes
tresise
By tresise (Jan 8, 2012)

as Pro photographer & BSc Photo science - the larger sensor has a number of advantages, one the individual pixel are larger - trying to cram all of those pixels into a smaller format has disadvantages in terms of the 'quality' of the sensor.
Regarding the comment about depth of field and sensor size- total nonsense depth of field is a function of the focal length of the lenses and aperture only - I have seen a similar comment elsewhere no idea where it derives from but it is total nonsense.

0 upvotes
henricoo
By henricoo (Jan 8, 2012)

No nonsense at all I think! The proportion between object and picture (sensor size) has also influence on depth of field. Take the same shot with a FF camera with 50 mm f 2.0 and a APS-C camera with 35 mm f 2.0 and you will discover less DOF on the first one (with a smaller sensor you have to mount a smaller focus length to get the same angle of view). That's the reaseon why compacts with a tiny sensor takes pictures with everything sharp and also why macro shots has no DOF at all left with full aperture (the proportion has become 1:1). DOF is a function of focal length, aperture, distance and sensor size.

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

In some ways the full-frame sensor is NOT betteer Phil. It depends on what you are using the camera for. Will you be shooting with long lenses? Keep your D7000. Do you need to shoot in low light with small apertures, because you are trying to get multiple objects into focus? Then you will need to shoot at high ISO settings, and you should get a D700 or D4 or some other full-frame camera. The ultimate camera right now (for low ISO shooting) is a camera with a small sensor. It is the Sigma SD1. It is capable of capturing the best image quality of any camera that can shoot fast (5 fps or faster). It has its limitations though, as does every camera. No camera is perfect for every purpose.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 9, 2012)

@tresise & henricoo: I think you're both right. DOF is a function of absolute focal length, aperture and subject distance. 50 mm f2.0 will give the same DOF regardless of sensor size, but with different angle of view, of course.
If, however, we're talking about equivalent focal length, then DOF is a function of sensor size too. 50 mm (equivalent) f2.0 will give larger DOF the smaller the sensor is, but the angle of view will be the same.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 10, 2012)

henricoo ... DOF has nothing to do with sensor size .. :)))
Its just the equation. Its because you need less focal length to give you equivalent focal length on film. This illusion you are getting is because for same angle of view focal length is much much smaller on compacts than fullframe.
similarly actual aperture size on big sensor camera is bigger physically to lit bigger sensors. All confusion you are getting is because they are different sensor sizes, so their actual focal lengths are different. otherwise on exactly the same focal lengths, sensor size doenst matter to get DOF. understood?

0 upvotes
henricoo
By henricoo (Jan 12, 2012)

Naveed, of course, that's clear to me. A lens does not know what sensor is in behind. What I try to explain is the bigger the sensor, the easier it is to achieve smal DOF with lenses that project a similar angle of view. When you take a picture with FF it is easier to isolate an object than using a compact with a much smaller sensor (and a lens with a much smaller focus length), using the same aperture. So full frame is in advantage to achieve smal DOF over APS-C. Just because you can use lenses with longer focal length. That's what this topic was about isn't it?

0 upvotes
Rexyinc
By Rexyinc (Jan 18, 2012)

1. d200 and 18-200 for weddings - no stress no bad back
2. d3 and 35kg's of glass - = very tired and sore after 8-9 hours shooting straight..

stick with the dx and be happy :) wish i stuck with the smaller rigs in some ways but image qual is what fx is all about and doesn't compare with dx .. honestly think most brides n grooms probably wouldn't spot the difference though - as none complained about the d200 wedding albums i used to make.. apart from me.. lol

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
xl5
By xl5 (Jan 8, 2012)

Here we go again a new model comes out and we get the usual fan boy bun fight over Canon V Nikon. The funny part of this is REAL photographers don't give a S%$£ and here's why. A REAL photographer knows how to "make a photograph" with any camera and could get equally fantastic results with an entry level or a top spec Nikon, Canon or in fact Sony/Pentax etc.

It's the "all the gear no idea" crowd that spoil this site with the tit for tat garbage every time. Take some advice, stop spitting insults at each other, pick up your gear and go take pictures. That way at least you might come to realise that it's the skill and the eye of the person wielding the camera that captures the image which will turn heads not the camera on its own!

19 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

Because "REAL photographers" made all sorts of brilliant 16" by 24" prints with 6400ASA colour 35 millimeter film. (Irony.)

Leica basically bankrupted itself by ignoring important advances in digital still imaging.

Go right ahead and shoot with your iPhone, or that less than good Lytro--yes, I've handled one of those enough to make that call.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 8, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW

Your example doesn't reflect what xl5 is conveying. I don't think a "real photographer" would make posters from 6400ASA film.

You need to stay within the bounds of each camera's limit. Entry level cameras can take good photos even without 51 AF or 6400 ISO usability. You would be suggesting this "real photographer" would try to make 30" prints from heavily compressed JPEGs on a P&S camera.

Even the dumb iPhone (or any smart phone now) can take a decent photo. You just have to compose and have proper lighting (stay in ISO 100) and steady the camera. But don't try to make posters out of your phone.

The higher end cameras won't make better photos, but take better photos in less than ideal situations/environments (low lighting, rain, fast action).

3 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Jan 8, 2012)

I think it is a combination of the photographer's skill and THE RIGHT camera for the job. I don't think you can use iPhone if you have an assignment to shoot the Superbowl or World Cup soccer.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
photophill
By photophill (Jan 8, 2012)

I heard a recent analogy regarding "skill". A restaurant patron complimented the master chef on his exceptional meal. And then mentioned "You must have an excellent oven?"

5 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 8, 2012)

@xl5
Did Dpreview mentioned that this site is for REALLL Photogs only?

If not what makes you think you should insult people using this site who'd like to talk about technical stuff?

I am really bored by cliche like yours

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

HeezDeadJim:

I never said one couldn't take good photos with a P&S. (I would say it's pretty hard to make a good 12"x16" print from 300KB jpeg though.)

Since you missed it: My point about 16"x24" prints from 6400 ASA colour film was that such a possibility didn't really exist with 35mm film. (Yes, I know one could do it, but there'd be huge grain problems, and then likely focus ones too.) Now someone (even a "real photographer" whom you claimed wouldn't do such a thing) can take those photos in a dark theatre or a nightclub and use them. Good luck doing that with a Canon G12 sans flash--and I have some really good 12"x18" daylight photos done with my Canon G2, the 4MP camera.

What is it you think "real photographers" do by the way?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
tresise
By tresise (Jan 8, 2012)

HMMM as a 'REAL' photographer with 35 year experience of the photo industry, (analogue and digital) good quality equipment allows me to take the images I want to the standard and quality I require.
Low grade entry level cameras particularly lenses simple don't have the quality. That why there are pro cameras and amateur cameras.
At a recent show of wildlife photography at the V&A all of the images except 3 had been taken on Canon and Nikon equipment.
So as a REAL photographer I do care a great deal what I use.

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 8, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW:

and you missed my point about using your cameras within the scope of their limits. You can't expect a G12 with a pop-up flash to take good photos in a theatre. Yes it could do it, but not well. That's why "real photographers" (using OP's wording) would use a higher grade camera that does better with noise to do it.

"don't think" =/= claim...I never claimed he wouldn't, but probably not since, as you mentioned, lots of grain.

What do I think "real photographers" do (OP's wording, again)?: Well like BMWX5 mentioned, they stay within the limit of their cameras. If THAT camera doesn't meet the specific needs of the task, then bring out something that will. Hence why you don't bring an iPhone to do the Superbowl coverage for your newspaper.

It works the other way around too: If you need to take a photo of a recipe to email to your sister, a pocket camera/phone will suffice. You don't need to pull out the full studio with 8 flashes and a 24MP pro camera to do that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

HeezDeadJim:

No, that wasn't your point. You didn't say that there are reasons for selecting pro camera like the Nikon D3s.

You defended xl5's dumb comment about what "real photographers' do. Don't claim otherwise.

Who is "OP", introducing what someone else may or may not have said in a different part of this comments sections, just makes my point that you don't want to deal with the fact that you defended xl5.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 8, 2012)

HeezDeadJim:

Oh, I get that OP is original post.

By the way best not to claim that you didn't say "real photographers" wouldn't do a poster from 35mm film at ISO6400. What you did there is call lying.

0 upvotes
speedshots
By speedshots (Jan 8, 2012)

I agree with xl5 about his comments,if you are a dedicated photographer shot and compose yourself.Quit the P's and Q's and all that #$%^& about this camera and that. Mr.photophill,are you a snob or a real photographer.Get a life and try other cameras and you'll see why this Pro cameras are there and not for the faint of heart people like you.Wake up,Hello there...........get with the programs guys........sounds like little bitches on PMS..........Every camera from A to Z will get you the best photo's that is best for that model....IF....YOU KNOW HOW TO PHOTOGRAPH or just tick off ppl here to get your rocks off..........nuff said...........my 1 cent said and done......for those un-educated morons with nothing to do but bash at the FORUMS...........GET A LIFE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 8, 2012)

You're very good at misinterpreting and accusing people of things they don't/didn't say or do. You used "real photographers" condescendingly, I followed suit. I really don't want to spell everything out for you if you didn't understand that.

When I said "bring out something that will", I didn't think I would need to specifically mention your blessed Messiah Nikon D3s (I could have easily mentioned the Canon 1Dmk4, but that would still have made you cry).

HowaboutRAW, how about you stop being immature child and go do something productive instead of commenting on darn near everyone's post you don't agree with. You really waste a lot of space with your attempts to just be indifferent. Why don't you go shoot yourself (with a camera, of course).

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (Jan 8, 2012)

So all "REAL photographers" use old crappy cameras, and they don't care what features the new ones have, right dumb-ass? I guess you're here, because you are not a "REAL photographer" huh? If you were a "REAL photographer" you would be out shooting with your 4 megapixel Olympus, not giving a crap about the equipment you use, right?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 9, 2012)

HeezDeadJim:

Yawn, no you got called out for lying about something from this string of comments which is easy to quote:

You first: "I don't think a 'real photographer' would make posters from 6400ASA film."

Then you later: ""don't think" =/= claim...I never claimed he wouldn't, but probably not since, as you mentioned, lots of grain."

See the problem.

0 upvotes
realspeed
By realspeed (Jan 17, 2012)

The D4 must be the biggest mistake Nikon have made to date.Its not everyone who wants a movie mode stuck on to a stills camera. The number of times movie mode is use is fractional compared the stills option. Those serious in making movies will get a camcorder anyway.
Nikon cut out movie mode option make it stills only.and then the price can be drastically reduced. Listen to the amateur photographer not the pro and get things right.

WAKE UP NIKON TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY WANTED

Realspeed

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
1 upvote
newcameraguy2821
By newcameraguy2821 (Jan 8, 2012)

Here are new videos about the Nikon D4:

WHY - Nikon D4 Release Video
http://shrt.fm/xeULIF

Photography Talk - Updates and The New Nikon D4
http://shrt.fm/zXktdT

Nikon D4 who's it for?
http://shrt.fm/yIRYa2

Gizmo - Nikon D4 Unveiled + Sample Video
http://shrt.fm/wj9fjT

Nikon D4 Vs Canon 1Dx
http://shrt.fm/xNl4XF

Nikon D4 - Which? first look review
http://shrt.fm/AvqqYr

1 upvote
jameshamm
By jameshamm (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't understand why only a mono microphone? They couldn't squeeze in another one in that body?

1 upvote
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 8, 2012)

Because built-in mics are just "built-in mics"—doesn't really matter whether mono or stereo. For professional audio quality you need to use an external mic on the hot shoe.

0 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Jan 8, 2012)

@ jameshamm, yes, why a mono mic. Don't understand it too. I've a Panasonic DMC-FZ100 with a small stereo mic on top en it records excellent stereo sound.

0 upvotes
papabear2
By papabear2 (Jan 8, 2012)

I use a Canon 60D and have found the external mics problematic on camera. I now use the onboard mic audio as a 'reference' audio to serve for placement of audio gathered from Zoom H4s or lavaliers that are closer to the subject or other sources

0 upvotes
William Koehler
By William Koehler (Jan 9, 2012)

It is fairly common for pro video cameras to come with a single mono XLR mic. The expectation in the pro space is for top level quality you will be using, at minimum, an aftermarket pro microphone or second system sound. And the microphones used for final production audio will be placed a lot closer than sitting on top of the camera.

0 upvotes
mee
By mee (Jan 8, 2012)

Does the video quality of this D4 anywhere near MPEG-2 or R3D? I find AVC/AVCHD is very compressed, No?

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Jan 8, 2012)

Nope. Its 24Mbps MPEG4. It can take ~2.5K stills at 24fps in stills mode but thats not going to be useful in shooting most things.

0 upvotes
mee
By mee (Jan 8, 2012)

Thank you shaocaholica. Any difference in quality compared to Sony A55/A77 ? You still shoots Sony don't you?

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Jan 8, 2012)

I switched to Nikon when the D700 came out. I don't know how it would compare to the Sonys. We'll have to wait for some real samples but I don't see it as really an improvement on whats already on the market for the past 4 years.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 8, 2012)

Most of these MPEG-4 & AVCHD Long GOP interframe codecs are at 17Mb/sec to 24Mb/sec capture bitrate for video. For instance, with Sony and Panasonic now, it is 24Mb/sec unless you do 60p and double the frame numbers per second, and then it only goes up by a meager 4Mb/sec. With the $6,000 Nikon D4, the rate it is "up to" 24Mb/sec, ha-ha-ha-ha!!! All Long GOP codec, which is pretty bad.

Which makes the totally different Nick Driftwood and similar "hacks" into the Panasonic GH-series cameras and some other cameras really only sensible choice to make for top-flight codec. Instead of interframe, you would intraframe (i-frame), and your video bitrate would be somewhere around 155 to 176Mb/sec, instead of 17 to 24Mb/sec. Huge difference.

0 upvotes
mee
By mee (Jan 8, 2012)

Exactly what I have been thinking whether it will be wise and worthy to spend $6000 on 24Mb/sec or otherwise.

0 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Jan 8, 2012)

FOR those of us with less than Bankers' Bonus incomes, probably the MOST exciting thing about the D4 ... is that it heralds the long-anticipated D800!

Brian

9 upvotes
mrmut
By mrmut (Jan 7, 2012)

NASA chosen Nikon. The price doesn't mean anything up there, only quality and reliability is important.

5 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Jan 8, 2012)

Yep - but the used to choose Hasselblad - even better cameras - but maybe now too expensive in Obama's new lean administration!

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jan 8, 2012)

Actually NASA has historically used both...

0 upvotes
fkrul
By fkrul (Jan 8, 2012)

People used to brag about their Omega watches as "Nasa's choice" for space missions.. Once I tell them Astronaut Gene Vernan wore a cheap Lorus Mickey Mouse watch to space they shut up. All Nikon fan-boys should shut up about Nasa as well. Any camera would make it. I have as many broken Nikon gear as working.

1 upvote
john d3s
By john d3s (Jan 8, 2012)

sounds like an end user problem...don't borrow my Nikon stuff.

0 upvotes
TOF guy
By TOF guy (Jan 8, 2012)

NASA has very specific requirements which have little to do with reliability in general, and a lot to do with the camera being able in an environment with no gravity. Example: cameras as specified by NASA cannot contain specific lubricants which are used in all dSLRs (except the D3s). Until recently all the cameras NASA used were custom-made by the manufacturer for that reason (except the Nikon D3s), and very few camera manufacturers are unwilling to custom-make to NASA's specific requirements. Hence the choice of Nikon. Of course Nikon's willingness to work with NASA is a very smart marketing move on its part.
So now here is the real question: is the D4 - successor of the D3s - also built off the shelf to NASA's specifications ? Don't know if you've noticed but Nikon makes no statement to that effect anywhere.

1 upvote
mrmut
By mrmut (Jan 9, 2012)

Hey guys, thanks for commenting. I would like to add more to my comment. I would like to point that I am not associated with Nikon and that I don't use their equipment (I use Olympus).
I doubt that other manufacturers can't meet NASA specifications, but there is much more to it. Up there lubricants aren't the only thing that counts, there is a lot of radiation, many users, constant changing of lenses, zero-g dust (susceptible to attraction by static electricity). etc. Equipment up there absolutely _must_ not fail. It amazes me that no one commented on 400.000 actuations claim, for me that is insane. Hasselblad was fine, but was cumbersome to operate. There were other cameras, and FF DSLR won as best from all worlds. It seems to me that Nikon is not superior per se, but that they have better quality control and software department. Soft dept is probably the main reason why they wipe competitions ISO performance related.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Jan 7, 2012)

Is the eye point any higher than the D3s?

I have real problems seeing all the VF info with my glasses on in the D3s and another 3 or 4mm of eye point would be welcome.

0 upvotes
therathman
By therathman (Jan 11, 2012)

Unless your eyes are really bad- use the diopter to change the viwewfinder to match your eye prescription - I find it works very well, and others do not borrow my camera because it always looks blurred to them. that way you will be able to see all the info you want.

1 upvote
Rickard Hansson
By Rickard Hansson (Jan 7, 2012)

Connectivity: Why have you forgot to include ethernet port?

0 upvotes
Vincent Jacobs
By Vincent Jacobs (Jan 7, 2012)

In the last image:
"... On the lower right is the Ethernet port."

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
GoodWords
By GoodWords (Jan 7, 2012)

Why does Sony give us great innovative feature and Nikon doesn't give us focus peeking or anything? And how long has it taken for them to have face tracking? All point-and-shoots have had it a for a while now. And I don't mean the fake tracking they advertized in the D90.

1 upvote
Tourlou
By Tourlou (Jan 7, 2012)

Face tracking in a point and shoot is done using the sensor. The D4 does it in SLR mode, not live view, using the light meter located below the mirror. Slight difference there!!!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

GoodWords

The Sony A900 has these features you feel Nikons lack? I think not. And that's the only Sony which is even sort of close to this camera.

Do you not understand how focus peaking works? Or what the R in DSLR means?

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Jan 8, 2012)

I guess the Sony F35 doesn't have auto focus nor peaking mode...
Sony must be ripping off the PROs....

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (Jan 7, 2012)

It seems another great camera from Nikon! A very good thing's that it looks like they've been listening to their users.
Anyway I think those cameras ( D3s, D4, 1D x, ... ) are too heavy for my liking, I'm actually anxious to see the coming new Sony FF "A99", I hope lighter than my current A900 and with all features I need!

1 upvote
DavidCH
By DavidCH (Jan 7, 2012)

Does anybody know... if the D4 shows also black AF-fields in the viewfinder?

In the D700 you can show in the viewfinder the active AF-field in black. If you push the button, the AF-field get's also red illuminated.
In the D3s/3Dx it's only red.

Why my question? I can't see the red fields in some conditions...
regards David

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
dmartin92
By dmartin92 (Jan 7, 2012)

I look at it, there in the hands of someone, and just the size of it tells me it is not for me.

A camera that size, it is of my past, but not of my future.

4 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 8, 2012)

Full size sensor takes its toll, and I assume they made it as small as possible with state-of-the-art technology while including all those features (how many different connections are there?). I you do not need them there are fortunately many good smaller cameras to choose from. I presently use Canon 5DII mostly, and even with the added size and weight these new top bodies would make my work easier (=better).

0 upvotes
rdphoto1965
By rdphoto1965 (Jan 7, 2012)

I just bought this camera (waiting for delivery, on the list, money down). I am extremely excited about all the functions, I have been waiting for the video to upgrade for so long I am still using my D2x. I work in the music industry and spend a lot of time shooting shows and backstage, the lit buttons are enough for me to buy this unit, but the high iso's and low noise are out of this world. I don't care about the "card issues" SO you have to put out some more cash for the BETTER technology, what else is new, you will have to do it sooner or later anyway. My Nikons have always been a GREAT investment and have paid for themselves over and over again. GRAB ONE!!!

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Jan 7, 2012)

Can see this camera making your life so much easier. Bet you can't wait to try in out on a gig.

0 upvotes
ManixM
By ManixM (Jan 7, 2012)

I think I am going to buy that 85 and the forthcoming D5x.
I might even buy a dead horse and build a another pink spaceship.

But for now I will take a pill, my D700, and try to make some great photos.

Happy New Year, folks! ;)

0 upvotes
Beckler8
By Beckler8 (Jan 7, 2012)

The extra controls for vertical shooting aren't needed. Why is a rectangular sensor still being used? Switch to a square sensor and either crop later, or in-camera with viewfinder masks, or whenever. Square also obviously captures more of the image from the lens--info. that is lost for no reason. Any possible reason not to do this, other than a slightly bigger sensor? (Though not necessarily). I don't think so, other than lack of thought.

6 upvotes
Andrew Wolfe
By Andrew Wolfe (Jan 7, 2012)

It would actually be a 50% larger sensor. 36mmx36mm. The way semiconductors work this would raise the sensor cost by more than 2X. That could very well be $1000 or more prior to manufacturing. That's one reason why there are no larger sensor cameras under $15K or so.

0 upvotes
Greg Erker
By Greg Erker (Jan 7, 2012)

And the mirror would have to be bigger, causing it to hit the back of many(?) lenses.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Jan 7, 2012)

Square sensors are not easy to design.

Camera thickness would be greater as the sensor plane will have to be moved back because of a bigger mirror.

The current lenses will be useless because the focus plane has shifted. It will mean brand new lens designs.

Might as well design a medium format box...

1 upvote
CanadianNikonPro
By CanadianNikonPro (Jan 8, 2012)

OMG - Buy a Blad man. Human beings eyes see in rectangles. Magazine pages are rectangular. Billboards, rectangular. Nearly every still image we see is rectangular. Square has always been the exception, not the rule. Few images look better in square. For those occasions there are enough megapixels to crop.

In my very experienced opinion Nikon has just taken another huge step in their continual search for perfection. I look forward to owning it.

0 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 8, 2012)

@CanadianNikonPro:

The human eye doesn't see in "rectangles". A round eye sees in...wait for it...ovals (not perfectly round). Since we have two eyes in horizontal, we see more peripheral than we do above or below us. So your "magazine ads" wouldn't work either since they are vertically taller than what you can naturally see.

By your logic, if we had a third eye on our forehead, we'd see in "triangles".

"Few images look better in square". And fewer images look better in 16x9 crops. Too much wasted space on the sides that only detract from the subject/focus of the photo. Why movies insist on even cropping to wider (1.85:1) is beyond me.

4x6 just starts to cut out the distortion on the edges, while 5x7 works best (for me).

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Jan 8, 2012)

Do some geometry, Andrew. 36x36mm sensor would not fit inside the picture circle of a 35mm camera lens. Sensor could be 29x29mm max. No gain over 24x36mm frame.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AlexanderKiselev
By AlexanderKiselev (Jan 7, 2012)

I want this so bad, nice one)
2 flashes and 16mpx)

1 upvote
tbower
By tbower (Jan 7, 2012)

IF, I say If the superb low-light high-ISO performance of the D3s has been carried over to the D4 uncompromised by the higher pixel count then I say kudos Nikon!

Looking forward to DP review's review and samples.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

You mean those DPReview jpeg samples and the RAW shot of the studio still life set up with next to no shadow? Yeah, I await those samples too, irony there.

No, I'll attempt to rent the D4.

2 upvotes
kaipu
By kaipu (Jan 7, 2012)

Carried over!!
Its one stop better mate..
In D4 ISO 1600 is equivalent to ISO 3200 in D3S...

1 upvote
ZangN
By ZangN (Jan 7, 2012)

Nice camera! It's way too big for me, however. I am waiting for manual focus FM3d ;)

3 upvotes
BullyBeats
By BullyBeats (Jan 7, 2012)

Six large ones an still no GPS built in? Reminds me of the F3 you had to pay extra to get a standard flash shoe

2 upvotes
tbower
By tbower (Jan 7, 2012)

Yes, built-in GPS would be nice. Maybe Nikon is of a mindset that pros don't really care that much about it. My GP-1 is rarely off of my D3s, but that's just me.

0 upvotes
GoodWords
By GoodWords (Jan 7, 2012)

Saves me the trouble of having to remove it. A GPS installed in your camera is a security risk. I'll never buy a camera with a GPS in it.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Jan 7, 2012)

GPS is just another useless gimmick. I say this having a GPS in my Sony camera. It is always turned off. Happy to see that Nikon understands this...

0 upvotes
Derrick Louw
By Derrick Louw (Jan 7, 2012)

Hey, I just remembered I have a full frame 16.7 megaixel Canon 1Ds Mk2 somewhere (which was released over 100 years ago in digital terms!).

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

How's the autofocus, lowlight and dynamic range performance with that Canon?

The Nikon D3s beats the old Canon in all of those very important categories, and the D4 is very very likely to beat the D3s.

How much does a used Canon 1Ds Mark 2 sell for and how much does a used Nikon D3 (note no "s") sell for?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
markcuss
By markcuss (Jan 11, 2012)

is this camera hackproof??..
if it is connected through Internet, it can get hacked too right?..
so isn't that a big problem??..
btw..nice Camera Nikon..a serious competitor to its peers..

0 upvotes
Michail Fedotov
By Michail Fedotov (Jan 7, 2012)

Interesting,photo beside new model will better than beside D3S,but so on parameter he nearly copy Canon EOS 1D X. If amount of the noise will become below than beside Nikon D3S ,then I shall say- Nikon-best!!!!!!!!!

1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Jan 7, 2012)

Here's how I see it on the 1DX vs D4 debate.

Sensor: Totally remains to be seen as both cameras haven't come out yet.
I don't think a 2MP difference means anything at this stage.

Auto Focus: D4 has 51 points, 1DX has 61 points.
1DX seems to AF up to f/5.6 lenses, while D4 does F/8. What would someone with a camera like this be doing with a lens that can't open to F/5.6?

Speed: 1DX @ 12fps and D4 @ 10fps.
Don't know about buffer sizes but D4 may have the advantage with the new memory card type whatever it's called.

Card Slot: People who want 2 CF slots (many) will want the 1DX, and people who want to buy into a new expensive card type when there is little support will want the D4.

Hardware ISO: 1DX ranges from 100-51,200, while D4 ranges from 100-12,800.
Final verdict remains to be seen.

Video: Pretty much the same for both, but the D4 has some useful tele-crop modes. Perhaps this can be added to the 1DX before release?
1DX has the nifty feature of overcoming the 4gb limit.

1 upvote
stanic042
By stanic042 (Jan 7, 2012)

"What would someone with a camera like this be doing with a lens that can't open to F/5.6?"
how bout 600/4 plus 2x TC?

7 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (Jan 7, 2012)

It's not that the 1DX won't focus with f/8 lenses, the central block of AF sensors will not function as "cross type" on lenses slower than f/5.6. At f/8, you will still have horizontal sensitivity. I wish people would stop jumping to that conclusion. 9 out of 10 situations, this will be acceptable. If you, or anyone is the type of person who find this to be a problem, there is no camera that will ever completely satisfy you.

IMO, on paper the 1DX is a better camera. I agree that this opinion will remain to be proven or disproven when the two are compared side-by-side. At this level, there will be little to differentiate these two cameras.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Jan 7, 2012)

not sure why there is a need for debate. how many first-time dslr shooters are going to go for one of these.. none. so, if youre a nikon shooter, you get the nikon, if youre a canon shooter, you get the canon.

you also forgot how the canon is $1000 more than the nikon

8 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 7, 2012)

@JMichaelsPhoto IMO, on paper the 1DX is a better camera.

It's not a better camera if the IQ of previous Canon cameras vs. the Nikon alternatives is any indication. The Nikon D3x, and D3 have better high ISO, DR and basically, better sensors. This is a fact. All the bells and whistles don't mean a thing if IQ is not there.

Canon is sure being secretive about the 1DX, where Nikon D4 already has video samples on Vimeo, and it looks excellent.

http://vimeo.com/34666308

1 upvote
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (Jan 8, 2012)

@marike6

I try to stay away from absolute statements from an armchair perspective when I describe what I think about a camera. Everything is relative, opinions withstanding. I can however say that I respectfully disagree with your statement about the D3x, in terms of high-ISO capability as compared with even the 5DII. But that's just because I actually shoot canon cameras, as opposed to pixel peeping sample images on the web. I have shot nikon as well, and agree that the D3 and D3s both have better performance in that respect. But they are of course, roughly half the resolution. Which is why the debate is often rhetorical. You're comparing tools used for different purposes using the same standard, which illegitimizes your position. As I wrote, on paper the 1DX is a better camera. There should be no debate there until canon releases the 1DX for scrutiny.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Jan 7, 2012)

It should be the same price as a Canon 5D MkII, because it does the same things

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

How does that Canon do in lowlight again? Oh, right. And about the autofocus speed of the 5D Mark II? Oh, right.

The Canon fails against a D3s in both cases.

12 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Jan 7, 2012)

And a a high end restaurant should be priced the same as McDonald's.... because they do the same thing...

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

Cass_Rimportant:

Well the Canon 5D Mark II is a really good burger; it's just not Kobe beef, or amazingly tasty grass fed beef. So the McDonald's reference is unfair to the Canon.

Though it's amazing how many people keep bringing up the Canon 5D in these comments, without seeming to realize that the Nikon D700, D3 and D3s all not only exist but have a very loyal customer base.

0 upvotes
JMichaelsPhoto
By JMichaelsPhoto (Jan 7, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW For nearly double the resolution, the 5DII's lowlight capability is a relative tradeoff. While we're on the subject, lets not overlook the D3x in lowlight compared to the 5DII. That nikon fails against a junior camera in every case. Just sayin...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Poss
By Poss (Jan 7, 2012)

? Troll ?

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Jan 7, 2012)

JMichaelsPhoto:

How's the dynamic range of the Canon 5dmk2 compared to the Nikon D3x?

No, lowlight is not some "trade off" it's a major reason people choose the D3s and D700 over the Canon 5dmk2.

The Canon is a nice prosumer camera. But it's not good for sports or combat either.

0 upvotes
korayus
By korayus (Jan 7, 2012)

Hi, I wonder about XQD 125MBps bandwith. Is it camera's maximum transfer speed or XQD write speed? If we have faster XQD card future, will D4 capable transfer files faster?
Thanks...

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Jan 7, 2012)

The toggles are necessary, and make it possible (AT LAST) to use a Nikon vertically,to alter focus points with your thumb.Like the R1 though it should be anywhere inside the image.

I can absolutely guarantee that nobody worthy of the title "photographer" is involved in the design of these machines. A 1D Canon with a 24-70mm zoom has the same weight as a 5lb bag of potatoes.The D4 is almost as bad
And neither company even provides an ergonomic strap. a remote release, a case, a detachable screen, a rear-screen viewfinder, a decent mic or headphones, so you cannot buy one and use it for video anyway.

You have to spend at least another how much, delighting retailers who just adore you for your stupidity, when a Canon 60D with take HD videos just as good anyway, or a G2 Panasonic at a fraction of the weight and cost.

1 upvote
Russell McMahon
By Russell McMahon (Jan 7, 2012)

Re "Sony managed to squeeze 24mp into an APSC sized sensor, and retain very good ISO performance. ... " ha ha ha ha ha ha...., I wish it was true. I own an A77 ... ha ha ha .... ". The A77 is a lovely camera and with some useful bells and whistles that the D4 lacks. BUT a year from now I anticipate selling my years long acquired Minolta / Sony stable and buying a D800. Will wait for the early adopters to adopt and price to stabilise. A77 has much to investigate. But my 6 MP 7D Minolta has lower noise!. A77 - "very good high ISO performance ...". Alas no. Very sadly no. Terribly horribly no. HDR / DRO / 6 shots merged night mode, more - not a patch on an A700. Marvellous camera. But at ISO 800 it is starting to show its noisiness. At 6400 ISO, where a D700 starts to get a wee bit noisy an A77 is unusable.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Total comments: 859
12345