Just Posted: Nikon D4 Studio Test Samples

The more I use the Studio shot comparison the more smile I get when comparing cams not necessarily in the same class ...
OK, it' s studio ... but it's fun to see tat 1k $ lower price sometimes have better or practically the same IQ.... The same stands for weight and sometimes sensor size...

I have been a Pro for over 30yrs.. Fighting over if canon or Nikon is better. Is like saying a Lamborghini is better than a ferrari..?... They are both top notch. It's personal. Over the years I have found that Canon might be a little better on the portrait side and Nikon is a little better on the sports action side, But that is just Me.... Shoot what You like... They will make more...Just keep shooting....

I think the DPR comments are heading in to a new territory. Fanboys and trolls annoy me as much as they annoy the next man (and that's a LOT), but I do genuinely value the honest analysis of educated photographers when faced with these image samples, partly because I don't always trust my own eyes the first time round. Also, my experience is limited and the consensus of the more reasonable-sounding posters is actually useful to me as a (small) part of my decision making. To those of you who bemoan the Nikon/Canon war, I totally agree with you - it's pathetic. However, I'd ask that you don't squeeze out the educated analysis that we still do get here. These cameras cost a small fortune. They deserve to be subject to the closest scrutiny, including pixel-peeping (I'm spending £X grand on a camera - I want to know these things!) I know the Can/Nik trolls are idiots. I know that photography is about "getting out there". What I don't know is the fine detail about this camera's performance.

I can't understand this war (Canon vs. Nikon). Really, people will use astronomic ISO? Really, the most of people use up to 6400 iso. I don't need iso 204800, or even 12800. Shot what I can't see? No, really, I'm a photographer not a researcher.

Somehow I think the pros who make a descent living from their photography will not find the D4's ISO capabilities a hindrance to their ability to deliver pro results. A lot of people on here just need to go out and start making photos instead of fretting over a camera's specs night and day. I promise you'll be a lot less stressed if you stop worrying about whether or not you have a better camera or lens than everyone else.

the D4 is sure not a bad camera.. it´s just that the IQ is not that much improved. and no pink fanboy eyeglasses will change that fact.

btw: canons 5D MK3 is already amazons bestselling camera.... and it´s not even released. so much about "too expensive".

i guess there are many people out there, who don´t care a sh* t about all what is discussed here and just upgrade their gear .... no matter if they are nikonians or canonians.

So much bickering and pixel peeping.

The D4 is fine as a replacement for the D3s. Having come from the earlier D1x, thru to D2x/H, D3 and now with D3s, I see it as a good new model in the line. A small improvement in the MP while also slightly improving the incredibly great AF and low light ISOs that the D3s has.

There are also masses of new improvements that Nikon have included that alot of naysayers have not even considered, but for a camera that most of us have to use on a daily basis, those improvements are very useful to the handling of the camera and also to our workflows. Being able to shoot super clean images at 25,000 ISO is not the only thing that makes a camera great.
A professional camera is one that has to be good to hold and use daily, sometimes for long hours, easy and intuitive to control and of course, be reliable. Of course, Image Quality is important too, but at this top end of the industry, I doubt that either Canon or Nikon would release a complete lemon!

Canon 5D Mark III beats them all. See the link below (it's in another language but look at the ISO performance which is better than any Nikon's flagships):

http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php?id=6365

It is clear that who ever master these 4 things will win the war. The lens technology, Sensor technology, Digital Signal Processing (DSP also its SW) and its Marketing. The last 3 are even more important than the first. See how quickly Samsung and Sony are catching up in photography! 30 years ago they were just purely electronic. And Samsung were still an OEM.
For us, the only thing we can do is to advance our photography skill. Then, any equipment in our hand will do the same.

I'm wondering who of us posting here has a personal advantage if Canon is better than Nikon, or vice versa...
Just enjoy your gear, all of them are offering results much better than we ever expected!

It is very funny to read how Canon funboys are trying to prove, that Canon is not loosing the game, by comparing D4 with D3s. The only thing they omit, that both D4, D3s humiliatingly destroy all Canon's which are present on the test.

Anyway even if D4 is worse than D3s, the difference is so tiny, that it does not have any practical significance.

So, they topped up the Martini?

I'm confused. You're all saying the D4 looks better but in my view on RAW mode the D3 looks better. I've checked about 4 different places and the D4 has so much more colour noise.

Just the fact it is a little better than the d3s with 40% more pixels is huge! Not to mention the detail it preserves especially the red at ISP over 12800 which is extremely hard to do.

Sensor efficiency is at about the same level with both these cameras. Its going to be pretty hard to make a quantum leap, or any leap, with current tech. I would think if you have a D3s with lower shutter count, don't shoot much video, and are happy with the AF, you don't upgrade. Of course, If you don't have a D3s, the d4 for roughly the same price is a no brainer. Canons up next, looking forward to the reviews. I wonder if they managed to increase their sensor efficiency to the level of the D3s-d4.

I thought The 5D2 really held its own pretty well in this test, especially in the lighter areas of the test. it lost it in the shadows and blacks, at higher ISO, but the extra resolution seemed to help. Waiting to see if the text on the bottom of the watch dial can actually be read with the d800. I'm thinking yes.

The D4 advantages for photographers (assumes you want an integrated grip 100% of the time you need full frame):

1. You won't be able to buy a D3S except used. So if this is your first FF camera with integrated grip...
2. Higher MP, especially useful for cropping. You must crop? A crooked hand held shot. Extra room for distortion management for a lens or to tilt a building up straight. A critter that is too hard to approach closely.
3. 10 fps for 10 seconds. Shoot anything that moves quickly? Sports. Wildlife.
4. Improved weather sealing for the outdoor shooter.
5. An XQD card with faster write speeds (eventually).
6. Weight savings vs. the D3S.
7. Under realistic shooting conditions, more shots per battery charge (5500 Nikon test vs. 2600 CIPA).
8. A chance to have a good video recorder around for special trips. Maybe not a reason to buy this, but it will come in handy.

Fanboys galore. I totally love it.
Would be even better if I had some popcorn.

Wow reading these comments it makes me think many were expecting miracles. Lets face it, the D3s is hard act to beat when it comes to noise preformance. The thing is Noise preformance isn't the only thing to consider when choosing a body. So what if the D3s and the D4 have similar or the same IQ? The D3s had class leading image quality and if the D4 is the same but with more megapixels what is there to be disappointed about? It's not like everyone has been thinking "gee I wish the D3s had better noise preformance."

The D4 has many other improvements over the D3s to make it a worthwhile successor even if the image quality is only slightly better or the same. You have to look at the whole camera not just one aspect that really didn't need improving anyway.

I've got 2 of these on order and I have to confess that these test shots are making me think twice. From what I can make out, the images seem better on the D3s above 6400 (which is where I usually find myself). In real terms the D3s is truly excellent - I was expecting the D4 to be at least as good. Not sure what to do now as 2xD4 is a lot of money to waste!!

One more addition to my prior analysis.

if you play with the raw files in NX, an play with noise reduction and saturation and and part. sharpness, it seems to me you can "get a bit more out of the D4" raw file. But again, the differences are REALLY small.

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...

imho the D4 is disappointing in terms of ISO performance in the most useable area below iso 6400.

not that the performance is bad!
just disappointing for a new camera when you compare it to the older models.

It seems to me that the D4 is better than any other of it's competitors, but we are yet to see samples from the Canon 1D-X. Then again, if I had a D3s I doubt I'd buy it... A different thing would be if I came from an older model, like the D3 or if wanted to jump from a lower category. Still, I think there's room in the market for a "baby D4" (16Mp, FF, around 8-9fps, in a lighter D800 body). Nikon should understand that in these times of economic slump not every photojournalist can spend 6000$ in a pro-body.

I spend 1 hour "pixel peeping"

My net conclusion: I am disappointed. The core IQ has essentially NOT improved over D3S

1. Comparison of raw file at ISO 100
Across the frame, the IQ is virtually the same. Some truly marginal differences, though:
- D4 has a tiny bit higher resolution, but it seems to depend on color of object whether this is visible. The reds seem cripser
- However, D3S seems to have slightly more saturated colors.
- D4 resolves text marginally higher, but you really have to look closely at a 300% magnification to say "I think there is a small difference"

2. At ISO 6400 -- which is the upper limit I am shooting at
In the center of the image, there are NO, absolutely no differences.
At the margin, towards edges , D4 resolves letters a bit clearer
Likely, that this is not a sensor issue but a result of shooting D4 at F11 and D3S at F8.

BUUHHH

The Plus of D4 : A bunch of new features & video -- some of which will only be useful for a small subset of pros.

This Nikon needs to be pretty well on the money with this D4, Fujifilm has the x-pro1 almost at market and their new organic sensor technology waiting in the wings.

now i know why nikon is stealing canon work:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/whoops_nikon_uses_canon_dslr_footage_to_launch_d800.html

Very useful. I was shocked to see how well the 1D Mk1v that has the same resolution on a smaller sensor does. But not happy at all with DP's exclusion of the 1Ds MkIII, and the 1Ds MkII.

To be able to compare files from a 1Ds MkII with those from its equivalent Nikon D4 (same sensor size and resolution) would allow everyone to judge progress since 2004.

And to exclude the 1Ds MkIII is wrong-its Canon's current top pro camera

D4 is definitely no better than D3S despite having a larger sensor. Can't wait to see 1Dx performances.

the real question for many is how does the D800 fares.
it looks like there is not much improvement over the D3s.

now 36 MP on a sensor will not make it easyer to shine on medium and high iso.

and spare me the downsampling crap....

i don´t buy a 36 MP camera to downsample all my images. that is plain stupid.
i buy a 36 MP camera because i want to print real big or crop the hell out of the images..... so no downsampling possible.
in fact i do nothing like that.. but that would be the reason for a 36 MP camera and it´s huge files.

if i print a maximum of A3 there is no reason for a 36MP camera and i rather go with a faster camera and less MP.