Sounds like I'm in the minority, but Xtrans is the reason I bought my X-E1. An X-series camera without XTrans? Why?
Menneisyys: Also note that the high-speed video modes may be suffering from pixel binning. That is, the 720p120 mode may, in reality, only capture at half the resolution in both directions; that is, 640*360.
At least that's the case with the iPhone 5 running on iOS7 (see http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/87/will-ios7-indeed-support-60fps-video-recording-yes-it-will for some precise resolution measurements.)
All in all, the photo-related improvements are indeed minimal, even if you take the, compared to the iPhone 5, double-Megapixel panorama mode, the somewhat (not much - the difference is WAY smaller than, say, between 1/3" and 1/2.3" or 1/2.3" and 1/1.7") larger sensor and brighter lens into account:
- still no double capturing (which would HIGHLY be useful when you'd like to include the image of the person taking the shot in the final video / pic too), unlike in LG G2
- no OIS (see LG G2 and Lumia 1020 - or, if you're looking for something cheaper, the Lumia 92x or the HTC One)
You keep mentioning "OIS" - on this and the other thread. iPhone has had image stabilization for years - what specifically are you looking for?
Yep, confirmation they're abandoning photographers and only providing old and or dumbed-down versions of the software I (used to) use. Hopefully another company will be able to pick up the slack.
Guess that's the end of Photoshop for me - no way in h*ll I'm paying a monthly fee to use it :/
So cool - I bought Color EFex a couple years back, and now I have the whole suite for free :)
That second / middle shot is stunning - be sure to check it out full-sized.
I love it - I know they can't retrofit the Digital Split Image and faster focus to existing X-E1, etc., as those are hardware-enabled, but hope they give us a firmware update for focus peaking, which can certainly be done with the existing hardware :)
I was *very* happy with the 24-105 when I shot Canon - can't imagine paying $600+ more for shorter focal length. What were they thinking?
Some of the new / updated features look like real improvements (Smart Lighting, enhanced detail / sharpening, etc.) - I've recently re-instated DxO 7.x in my workflow, and look forward to the new version :)
I checked out an M9 at a local camera shop to see what all the fuss was about. It was a lovely experience: the camera is clearly a fine piece of work, the rangefinder experience is enchanting and the lenses are to die for. But it's also heavy like a brick, has no hand grip to speak of, and has a *very* noisy sensor which was outclassed even when it was released.
I just can't buy into the idea of an $8k camera (no matter how seductive the look and feel) with a fixed, antiquated sensor. Unless you simply have money to burn, it doesn't make sense with a device you'll need to upgrade every 2-3 years.
Looking at the raw comparison, D800 is better even at 100% starting with ISO 3200 (not to mention D4, which is a high ISO *monster*). Resized to the same output, the D800 tromps all over the 5D III.
To be clear, they're all amazing :)
I was thinking I was going to sit out this round - but now that I've seen the actual output and had a chance to play with it, I may actually go for the D800(E). Downsampled to 16MP (which I would want to do anyway, 'cause who needs those honkin' files!), the D800 has virtually identical noise characteristics to the D4 but much better detail retention. So you get the best of both worlds: great high ISO performance when needed, incredible detail when needed, even a good-sized DX crop mode. I like it.
Very nice. Especially instructive to take the raws and compare with D4 *at the same output size* (e.g., 16MP). In this scenario, D800 noise performance is virtually identical with the D4, but retains more detail. If I were buying, I"d get the D800(E), shoot raw, and downsample all my high ISO shots to 16 (or even 12) MP - best of both worlds.
lensberg: The Nikon D4 is essentially an overhyped camera... but i suppose that was to be expected considering the fact that it was propped up prematurely to assume the high ISO crown from the D3S.
Considering the fact that there is a 2½ year time span between the D3S & D4 ... Nikon seem to have made virtually no advances regarding ISO performance...
Just look at that furry patch that resembles tiger skin at ISO 6400 on the D4 and you'll notice severe ammounts of noise reduction at work... blurring out the fine textures & fibres completely... by contrast the D3 & Canon 1D Mark IV manage to preserve the textures whilst delivering a natural looking image...
The intricate pattern on the green & purple fabric is totally smeared out by the D4 though funnily the white cross fibres remain intact ... Now compare it to the D3s sample which is excellent... even the 1D IV manages to retain more detail...
You must be looking at the JPEGs, the NEFs tell a completely different story. The D4 retains quite a bit more detail and better color accuracy than the DS3, pretty much across the board, and is comparable in noise when viewed at the same resolution.
Looking at the 1D Mark IV, though, I'd say there's not much to choose between the D4 and 1D Mark IV, given appropriate noise reduction and sharpening, etc.
ivan1973: D4 is definitely no better than D3S despite having a larger sensor. Can't wait to see 1Dx performances.
HowaboutRAW, showing your ignorance of raw processing software? Nikon Capture NX 2 2.3.1 has been out for some time and, *yes* we do have the raws and have been working with them, thank you.
rhlpetrus: To those that are seeing the D3s better, check these larger crops side-by-side, including colors and detail:
Yes, D4 is virtually identical to D3s in the normalized versions, but with better color accuracy and detail retention. Nice little upgrade - not counting all the new features, which makes it a *big* upgrade ;)
rhlpetrus: For those that still think D3s is better, check the shadows behavior at base ISO (CNX2):
That's pretty dramatic :)
hyperthreading: I have a question.
Why were the tests made with the Nikon 85 f/1.8? They should be made with the Nikon 85 f/1.4.
If you are testing a Nikon high-end camera that costs $6000, should you not be testing it with the best Nikon lens which costs $2200? Why was it tested with a midrange lens which costs $500?
Cameras should be tested with the best lenses.
The 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 85 f/1.4, according to Nikon MTF charts.
atamola: The D3s is clearly better than this pre production D4. There is no question about that. It's amazing. Really amazing: only 4 extra MP and 2 years later and (according to this samples) Nikon haven't figured out how to improve over the D3s.
Processed from raw, downsized to 12MP, D4 is identical to D3s (if not ever so slightly *smoother*). I think it's remarkable they managed to keep it that close with 1/3 more resolution.
HowaboutRAW: Interesting point about the trialware version of Nikon's Capture NX 2--yes fully updated:
The trialware version of Capture NX 2 does NOT open D4 raw files. Don't think that I want to pay Nikon for a capacity my copy of Photoshop CS5 will have in a few weeks, I hope.
Also makes me wonder about those claiming to have looked at these raw files with Capture NX2.
Hope someone from Nikon USA is reading this string of comments.
The latest version of Capture NX2 (2.3.1) absolutely *does* open and edit D4 files. I have it and used it to look at these NEFs.
Wonder why there's such a controversy about this? I've read several snide comments about whether or not people could actually view the raw files. The answer is, "yes" :/