sierranvin: How interesting, Nikon. @ $400/MP, this fab D4s is equivalent to the Sony a7R being priced at $14,400! Except the a7R only costs $2,300, or $63/MP!Who's your friend?
(And thanks in advance to everybody who is about to tell me MP don't matter...)
I have both the D4s and D800E. The D800E is great at lower ISO's (phenomenal at ISO 100), but the D4s leaves it behind at higher ISO's, esp. above ISO 6400 (and is still awesome at base ISO too) and is an all around better camera handling-wise, imho.
James Booba: Filmed on D4S ... rofl.
looks pretty good to me - what's so bad about the quality in this clip?
Xentinus: I would prefere a review of any other camera which is not reviewed yet.
Barney - you consider this an article????
h2k: Unboxing? Are you serious?
I had a brief look at the unboxing photos just to check if you really meant "unboxing" or if your unboxing news item was some kind of satire.
No, they seem to be serious. DPR does unboxings now.
Next a tut on how to do selfies with a D4s?
Does this mean that DPR might, God forbid, actually review a Pro-level camera? If not, why the hell post this same cr_p that many others have already posted. The quality of DPreview content continues it's descent...
wudyi: Face Detect AF is BIG plus in this camera which has me seriously thinking about it now.
Face detect AF is only in LV. The D4 has this as well as the face detect AE - the D4s only adds the ability to turn the face detect AE off.
put your hands where I can see them and slowly step away from the saturation slider....
2eyesee: I can't believe Barney has the time to go hiking and enjoy the sunshine with his RX100II when we haven't even got our review yet! :)
So now we know why the 1DX and D4 have not been reviewed - they have not picked up DSLR's in months as they are too busy with their mirrorless cameras and iphones to get to them.
The RX100II night shot is fine to post on Facebook - but beyond that it is a noise-reduced mess and way inferior to what a good FF DSLR would deliver. I'm fine with people being OK with these shots and wanting decent IQ in a portable package - but there are significant IQ trade-offs that come long with that - so I hate when people try to suggest that they come even remotely close to what a good DSLR would deliver in the same situation because that is complete BS.
Virtually Grey: It's a Supermarine Spitfire, not a Seafire. Or is it known by another name outside of the UK where they were made?
It's not a good example of an airshow picture anyhow - way too high a shutter speed so no real prop blur - he might as well have snapped it off with a P&S.
PerL: 1. No question - DSLRs are still the way to go for best results.2. If you dont want to make any effort, I guess it is time for another hobby.3. There have always been simpler, more portable, easier cameras to use, but always as a complement to the real stuff, and everybody knew it.4. When convinience is king - the end of photography as an art is near.
No biggie - Audiophile quality HiFi Equipment is still around for those who care about sound quality. The average person could care less about IQ (hence the success of crap like Instagram), but if you want IQ and DOF control, the DSLR and it's future evolutions will not be replaced.
Must be a smoker
JEROME NOLAS: Poor cry baby! Mom, nobody loves me any more!
I'm amazed he didn't bother to level the horizon :). Actually, not that great of a shot - other than the pose, the shot is not well framed (imho).
cd cooker: Is it something that a built in WiFi connectivity couldn't accomplish? This is a very expensive accessory.
"Remote shooting by combining the WR-1 with WR-R10/WRT10 wireless remotes is also possible" - There's your small reciever solution!
I can get most his reasons except where he says it's fast - a "fast" phone has yet to be brought to market!
marike6: What did we learn? That the 24-70 Nikkor is still the best standard zoom money can buy, the D800E the highest resolving camera DSLR in existence, and that the Tamron 24-70 VC, especially on the D800, is a great value.
I would hope that the brand new Canon 24-70 would be a better performer in lab measurements than the 5+ year old Nikon lens? Why would that be surprising to anyone? However, until Canon puts out a D800E competitor, it's a little moot as the new Canon lens is limited by the Canon body(at least in terms of achievable maximum resolution).
jjnik: In the unaltered image you can barely see this. I'm not saying there is not an issue, but videos like this blow it WAY out of proportion. In most uses, you'd never even see that dust in your final image. I'd only be really concerned If it keeps doing this after a few cleanings.
Exactly - I had a ton of spots on my D800E after the first thousand or so shots, but they did not come back after cleaning it.
Agree - but what he shows in the video highlighted this with curves adjustments to make it far worse than it would ever be in real images. Again, not denying there is not an issue, but trying to keep it in perspective.
What would help most is to see if it's an initial "break-in" issue that can be cleaned and not come back or if it's persistent.
In the unaltered image you can barely see this. I'm not saying there is not an issue, but videos like this blow it WAY out of proportion. In most uses, you'd never even see that dust in your final image. I'd only be really concerned If it keeps doing this after a few cleanings.
VivaLasVegas: Holy smokes......6D just smoked Nikon D4 in low light AF, -3EV vs -2EV. Oh and one more thing, 6D can be customized with tracking, acceleration and deceleration tracking AF sensitivities......D4, D800, and D600 can't!
Obviously, he's messing with us as no normal person would post the ridiculous stuff he does - doesn't mean we can't mess back with him.
What is particularly entertaining In this instance is that, in his rush to his usual Nikon bashing, he's actually pointed out that in his beloved Canon world that the $2100 entry level FF 6D "smokes" the $3400 semi-pro 5D3 and $6800 pro 1DX for low light AF: " -3EV vs -2EV" as he says!