Dan: My initial reaction is that this is a huge disappointment. I have a D600, and I love it. This camera is only 0.5 fps faster? Come on! It should at least be as fast as the D700! Everything else about the camera looks virtually the same as the D600. This camera better have a buffer at least 3x as large. Please tell me why I would want this over my D600, and a few extra AF points isn't going to cut it. Neither are a better LCD or viewfinder. 1 more stop of high ISO performance, maybe. I'll be looking forward to the reviews. I want 8 fps!
I think the D750 is going to be a great camera, but I agree with much of what you say. The main upgrade that it offers is being full frame, decent resolution, with video capability.. the other stuff isn't anything earth shattering and frankly, Nikon dragged its feet getting this far.
I have often said that "fast" shooting starts at 8fps, but even so, for most things I'd rather have the D750 over the D4s and I fancy the larger bodies most. I think Nikon will hit a home run with this camera as an "all a'rounder", especially if it offers a powerful low iso punch.
SantaFeBill: This seems a most strange camera: It's billed as an action camera, but the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 sec. My D200 goes to 1/8000. I know, smaller sensor in the D200, so less distance to travel, but still ... . Then, you've just introduced your top of the line xxx FX model, the D810, and now you introduce a less expensive camera with AF _improved_ over your top of the line one? Didn't the developers of the one talk to the developers of the other?And the F6 (obviously full-frame :-) ) will flash sync at 1/250, according to its specs on Nikon U.S., although to me the difference between 1/200 and 1/250 sync wouldn't be in itself a deal breaker. But note that the F6 will do 8fps with the battery pack (moving film!). So I don't understand why the D750 'action camera' doesn't have the same frame rate.
@McCool69 and @Richard Murey...You guys are killing me. :)Fill flash doesn't do much to stop action in broad daylight without the combined blurred edges + sharp-in-focus look.
The difference between 1/2000, 4000 and 8000 is more than an "academic" difference (water spray and shooting at f/2 or wider in bright day conditions (think of a sunny beach), are several examples where it can make a notable difference; however I do agree that most photographers don't normally encounter situations where it's an issue.
Looks like the D750 is a great camera; I like it better than Canon's latest mid-range offering. What took Nikon so long?
albatros46: At first I thought Wikipedia was in the right, after all the law is the law. But even if the macaque did press the shutter release, Mr. Slater created the opportunity for the monkey to take the picture. According to him and his guide, the camera was set up on a tripod on auto settings to bait the monkeys into touching and playing with it and hopefully to snap some pictures. For one to "ape" (excuse the pun) the photographer and take a picture of itself is not so hard to believe. According to Slater he was holding the tripod while this took place.
Even if Wiki has the legal right to display the picture they should probably respect Slater's wishes and remove the photo as a matter of common courtesy.
If I'm holding the tripod for a famous photographer, I still shouldn't have claim to making the photograph. The monkey took the photographs and that should be then end of it as far as I'm concerned. Had the photographer toggled the shutter via remote, then we wouldn't be her having this discussion.I agree with Wikipedia.
tabloid: I think the design and looks of the DF makes it a mans camera…not like the poofy/bling/girly looking stuff around today.
Again…great looking camera.
What in the heck is a "man's" camera? All cameras are simply cameras that either work for your professional or personal needs or it doesn't. Whether it has rainbows and pink giraffes stamped all over it is of no consequence to usability and image quality.
ofior: Hey lacikuss, why would I worry about the resale value of smething I do not intend to sell?
Oh it's just peachy down here in Florida... you know how it is... "Would you like some sunshine with your 85% Humidity, or just horrible humidity with afternoon thunderstorms on the side?" Best in photography to you Serickmetz :)
... and for many photographers who use a camera as a working tool, even old cameras are worth more being put-to-use than they are on the used market. I have no idea how much my old-as-dirt (2005) Nikon D2hs is worth... but I know that I can make more shooting web-work with it than I can putting it up for sale.
While I mostly use other cameras now, I'm not concerned about selling something for a measly few hundred dollars when I can still make a few thousand with it... but I think that's the difference between people using cameras as opposed to collecting them or owning the latest and the greatest just for the sake of having it.
I always thought people concerned about the resale value of a freaking camera were infantile (and I'm being kind); akin to buying a puzzle and then wondering how much you can get for it at a garage sale... Resale value is mostly predicated on what low-cost hi-tech options are available at the time at the time you try to resale your old camera.
nicolaiecostel: What's the flash synch speed ? Oh dear .. Several times slower than the competition. How many modern lenses can you buy off the shelf for it ? Several times less than the competition. The price has a reason.
Flash sync speed is a great concern to many because unlike what many budding photographers think, you're likely to use flash of some sort any time you use this camera to shoot people-for-pay... that means glamour, fashion, art nudes, porn, large family portraits, medical illustrations, etc.. from dim light to daylight, flash is almost always used.
It's horrible to have a slow syncing camera when you're shooting certain portrait work outdoors. Flash only stops action basically when it's dark!
LucaPCP: Old cameras had big lenses, and relatively small bodies around them (because film did the trick). This D4s is ugly: a tiny lens attached to a huge black brick that contains the circuitry. It's starting not to make sense. I wish they gave me a light lens+sensor combo, tethered to the rest of the computer that I could keep in my backpack. It's like taking a photo while handholding a desktop computer.
Some of you need to realize that *many* people who make a living behind the camera prefer the larger pro bodies. I (like many) prefer the traditional "brick-like" pro bodies because I not only find it easier to hold, but it balances larger lenses nicely, it's less "wobbly" when panning due to its heft, and feels far more solid in my hand than my "toy" feeling Canon 5d2, which after all these years has been a work-horse camera for me, but I still prefer shooting Nikon (or Canon) pro bodies much better. Going from a pro body, to the smaller bodies for me was a let down in many respects.
All said and done, I'll take the heavier traditional "pro" body when given the choice if all else is equal. What's too large for you is just right for many other photographers.
Sad Joe: So the D4s is slighly better than a 3 year old Canon 5d3 which sells for well under 1/2 price - wow - must change all my kit - NOT. Guys don't be suckered - BOTH Canon & Nikon could bring out VASTLY better cameras for the same or less money - but won't as they wish to DRIP FEED us improvements and get us to keep updating our kit. Only fools with money to burn follow their lead - and don't give me the 'pros update all the time to stay ahead'. Rubbish - real - I have to make money - pro's are VERY careful about spending money….
The D4s is light years ahead of the 5d3 as far as I'm concerned. 18 or so raw shots and the buffer stalls, then it takes almost 5 seconds to clear the buffer? That's the buffer choking after only 3 seconds… so let's think real-world; you have 5 people in rapid succession coming across the finish line (you get the point).
Nikon/Canon don't make anyone upgrade. Though I've used every pro fast body Nikon since the D2H, I haven't purchased one since the D2hs. I buy what I need and I buy what will last me well into the future. I skipped the 5d3 and still shoot my 5d2 and would rather spend my money on a Canon pro body that offers far more resolution- corporations don't make decisions for me, I do.
Point blank- the D4s is worlds apart from the 5d3. Many of the features on my near 10 yr. old D2hs (Ferrari) make my 5d2 feel like a 1970's station wagon when it comes to cuts. wt balance, buffer, focusing, bracketing, and a host of other features that a pro body makes seamless!
webrunner5: What this review shows is that we are pretty much unable to see much difference between cameras anymore.
Just spend your money on a camera you feel comparable with and have a bunch of lenses with it and have a good time. End of story.
It's not just about "seeing" the difference and that's what many don't realize, but rather it's about how much latitude you have to get the shot in the first place. If you're shooting with a 500mm lens with a 1.4x attached, at dusk, do you have enough shutter speed to take a clean shot with the lens barrel resting on a bean bag over a rock? No? Then do you have the latitude to raise the iso to 6400 and still get a relatively clean result? Can you pop off 10 shots before the person, people, or animals turn their head? That's real world stuff. It's not just about sports, but rather speed and high iso prowess. If you've never had the need for such a camera, then you might not think of the situations where you'd benefit from what it offers.
If you've shot fast pro bodies before… you won't have to use your imagination on how the D4s can offer a myriad of benefits over other bodies new or old. The difference *can* be large in the capability to "get" the shot.
Sad Joe: Sorry - but what normal photographer shoots at 3000 ISO plus and if it takes that to start to see a visible difference… bit like saying if I blow the image up to 30 foot by 60 foot the 4DS is the winner….crazy !
And how does any of this translate to real world PRINT quailty - I'm ALWAYS shocked at how much of the image quailty is gone when I have photos printed.
In the getting ever shorter term NONE of this matters as smart phones continue to kill off camera sales….
You're "what NORMAL photographer shoots at 3000 ISO plus…" comment would make sense years ago, but today many photographers routinely shoot at 3200 ISO for paid professional work that's going to be printed on canvas… especially black/white prints. 3200 ISO doesn't give you that much latitude when you're shooting at dusk with a 300mm lens or longer, trying to coax as much shutter speed as you can possibly get from the camera.
Smart phones are great for the average Joe who just wants to post shots to the internet, but smart phones aren't even close to being a solution for photographers like me (although they are good enough to be professional tools for certain aspects of real estate, etc.. which I think is great!)
I'm more concerned about highlights, but the bottom line is that I can print from 3200 ISO files where years ago I couldn't get the same results from such a high iso. Soon 12,500 ISO will be good enough for routine professional prints (canvas).
Yes, this stuff matters.
Kater Karlo: Can anyone tell me from experience what kind of computer (preferably PC) I would need to develop such big RAWs and the resulting Tiffs / JPGs? I guess it must be a pretty fast machine, but what is the most important? Processing power, RAM, graphics card?Thanks...
If you were processing heaps of raw video, that would be one thing, but files from a 50mp camera? naththo is 100% correct, virtually any off-the-shelf computer with an i7 processor and a decent amount of ram will be more than sufficient.
SSD will make things run a bit faster, but it isn't a must have for photo processing. Decent processor and a lot of ram is all you really need… only spend more money after that if your system isn't adequate for your needs.
Keep in mind that a 50mp camera isn't generally considered "taxing" to an average appointed, modern desktop computer with even i7 and only 32 gig ram and no SSD.
ali alriffai: Everything in this camera is hot but flash syn @ 1/125 is a big downside :-(
Hasselblad has a faster sync., Mamiya has a faster sync where you can use leaf shutter lenses, or not. I think this is an area where Pentax dropped the ball. If Pentax had current leaf lenses or at least a 1/500th sync… at least they'd be somewhat up-to-speed in that regard.
1/125th sync is just nuts…. forcing people to pull out various Neutral Density filters just to be able to shoot on the beach without running the aperture down to the size of a gnat's bottom!
Brigcam: Might be better call this 55mm, the term medium format is getting a bit to nebulous
Actually, the Pentax (like the lowest costing MF Hasselblads) have a VERY noticeable amount of "crop" compared to the larger MF sensors.
ArcaSwiss: It would cost me $16,000 to upgrade my IQ140 back to IQ250. Same sensor. Need I say more ?
Legacy glass, using an adapter, etc… all boils down to Pentax not having any current lens/leaf shutter lenses, and still having a ratty sync speed that borders ridiculous in my mind if you're wanting to shoot portraiture outdoors with flash ** in many situations that wouldn't be an issue with a common DSLR or with other MF systems with much faster sync speeds **.
Such a slow sync speed becomes detrimental if you want to artistically explore the many possibilities of controlling action and background exposure using shutter speed.
That said, it looks like the new Pentax is a winner over all.
iae aa eia: I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.
MF sensor sizes are so varied that there practically isn't any standard other than the more money you pay, the more sensor you get the play with.
A P65 is about 40x54; in comparison the cheap Hasselblad's are about 32x43 like the Pentax and the difference in what you can frame in the viewfinder of a particular scene between cheap sensors and expensive ones is considerable!
gsum: This camera isn't medium format - it is MFDX. To describe it as MF is misleading. Looks good though and is almost free of the usual useless 'features' that afflict modern cameras.
Let's be cognizant of the real bottom line here, which is that the difference between two MF sensors can be considerable when you look through viewfinder; meaning one digital back may shot a very noticeably larger amount of a particular scene, than another digital back aimed at the exact same scene; same lens; same distance.
I think that's what (some) people are bummed about when discussing Pentax- others are bummed about the less-than-notable sync speed, which is fine for the studio/static work, but horrible for outdoor work as it doesn't give the photographer much in the area of artistic latitude at all… and I'm being nice. I wish Pentax would better the sync speed.
The new crop of MF CMOS sensors (Hasselblad and Pentax) are basically the same size, however a CCD of the same resolution camera by, say, Hasselblad has a size of 36x49, compared to the noticeably smaller 32.8x43.8 of the cheaper Hasselblad/Pentax.
Noticeable in real-world shooting.
Sounds like a nice camera.
Ray Chen: Love it that I can compare it directly to its primary competitor, the Canon 1D X, NOT!
You're not the only one raising an eyebrow at the obvious. Though the 1Dx is considerably older- it just makes sense to compare the two bodies because exactly HOW much better one sensor is over the other makes a difference to a lot of photographers looking to purchase either body.
steelhead3: This is a very good camera...the trouble is that it has to use Nikon glass, a step behind Canon and a big step behind Sony. Look at their newest 58 1.4, price wise their highest achievement.
"Sony glass is from Carl Zeiss…" Which is meaningless. That 's like saying a Nikon lens with a gold ring, or Canon "L" glass is excellent when that isn't true. The only thing true with lenses is that you have to base each lens on its own merits.
There are "gold ring" Nikkors that aren't that great; same with some Canon "L" glass… and the same goes for Zeiss. Just because its Zeiss glass doesn't put it heads above a premium lens from Nikon or Canon by default. In fact, a smart photographer will see whether or not the smidgen of difference (if it even exists for a particular Zeiss lens) is worth the premium cost over a comparable Canon/Nikon lens.
Depending on the lens, some Canon glass is better than Nikon and vice versa. Most professional photographers figure that out early on.
Heaven is for real: It shows the favoritism of DPReview. I don't recall other unboxing post of other brands!
By the way, camera is too damn big!
Too big? Nikon and Canon make smaller cameras that might be more to your liking and to the liking of photographers like you who want smaller bodies. On the other hand, Large cameras are more my liking and to the liking of photographers like me who'd rather have various features arranged in easy-to-reach array.
Cameras are like shoes- if it doesn't fit you, don't wear it. :)