Previous page Next page

Nikon D4s First Impressions Review

February 2014 | By Jeff Keller


Preview based on a pre-production Nikon D4s

It's been two years since Nikon introduced their flagship SLR, the D4. While that camera has undoubtedly stood the test of time, Nikon has decided that it's time for a refresh. That camera is the D4s which, on the surface, doesn't look much different than its predecessor. That's because, by and large, the major changes to the D4s are inside its magnesium alloy body.

The biggest changes on the D4s are its processor (now covered by the Expeed 4 standard), wider ISO range (topping out at 409,600), group area AF feature, and slightly faster burst speeds. Nikon has also reduced viewfinder blackout time, made transitions more 'smooth' when shooting time-lapse, and added 1080/60p video recording. Movie aficionados will also enjoy the ability to use Auto ISO when using manual exposure, audio range and level adjustment, and the ability to output uncompressed video over HDMI while simultaneously recording to a memory card.

Nikon D4s key features

  • 'Newly designed' 16 megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor
  • Expeed 4 processing
  • ISO 100-25,600 (expandable to ISO 50 - 409,600 equiv)
  • 51-point autofocus system (same as D4)
  • Group Area AF allows for more accurate subject tracking with less 'distraction'
  • 11 fps continuous shooting with continuous AE/AF
  • New 'small' Raw size (approx. 8 megapixel)
  • 1080/60p video for up to 10 mins at 42Mbps or 20 mins at 24Mbps
  • Smoother transitions when shooting interval or time-lapse stills/movies
  • CompactFlash and XQD card slots
  • Gigabit Ethernet port, in addition to support for WT-5A wireless transmitter
  • EN-EL18a battery provides 3020 shots per charge (CIPA)

In addition to those features, there are numerous small changes that have been made, with the Expeed 4 processor having a lot to do with it. Probably the biggest benefit of Expeed 4 is a wider ISO range, which now tops out at a whopping 409,600 (this is the Hi4 setting). The processing system has also increased the top burst rate to 11 fps (with AF). And speaking of increased speed, the D4s' mirror has a shorter travel distance, which reduces viewfinder blackout times.

There have been subtle changes to the camera's exposure system, starting with the ability to use face detection to determine metering while using the OVF. Exposure changes when using live view, interval shooting, or time-lapse movie are now less abrupt. Speaking of interval shooting, you can now take up to 9999 shots per sequence. The Active D-Lighting feature now has an 'Extra High 2' setting, though Nikon says that will look pretty 'artsy' at that point.

Another small change worth mentioning is the camera's ability to use the Auto ISO feature while in manual exposure mode. This allows you to choose a shutter speed and an aperture setting and let the camera decide on the necessary ISO. And, because the D4s has an Exposure Comp button as well as two control dials, you can apply exposure compensation so that you get your chosen image brightness, when working this way.

The D4s uses the new EN-EL18a battery for power, which allows for an incredible 3020 shots per charge (CIPA standard). Those who own EN-EL18 batteries can use them as well.

Compared to D4

Below is a quick comparison of the major differences between the D4 and D4s:

 
Nikon D4
Nikon D4s
Sensor
16.2MP FX-format CMOS
Processing Expeed 3 Expeed 4
ISO range (standard) 100 - 12,800 100 - 25,600
ISO range (expanded) 50 - 204,800 50 - 409,600
Group AF area No Yes
Maintains focus point when changing orientation No Yes
Continuous shooting w/AF 10 fps 11 fps
Top Active D-Lighting option Extra High Extra High 2
Top movie resolution 1080/30p (24Mbps) 1080/60p (42 or 24Mbps)
Interval shooting limit 999 shots 9999 shots
Ethernet 100Mbps 1000Mbps
Memory cards
CompactFlash, XQD
Batteries used EN-EL18 EN-EL18a, EN-EL18
Battery life (CIPA) 2600 shots 3020 shots*
* with EN-EL18a battery

As you can see, everything on the D4s is an improvement to the D4 - at least on paper.

Autofocus

The biggest news, in terms of autofocus, is the D4s' ability to continuously focus at the camera's highest frame rate (a feature limited to 10fps on the D4). Another way of looking at the 'decreased viewfinder blackout' that Nikon is promoting is: 'having the mirror in the position that allows AF, for longer.' As such, we suspect the redesigned mirror mechanism plays more of a role in allowing the extra 1 frame per second focusing, as the camera's more powerful processor. What it certainly hasn't changed is the AF sensor itself, so it's mostly a case of making the most of what's already there, rather than radically overhauling the camera's capabilities.

Although it doesn't detail or quantify the changes, Nikon promises that the autofocus algorithms have been tweaked and improved - which could prove to be the most significant change. The only example of this given is that the AF lock-on is now slightly less easily distracted by objects crossing in front of the intended subject.

Beyond this, there are a couple of small feature additions, but no claims of any fundamental re-thinking. The D4s now includes a focus point mode in which the AF point will switch to the nearest comparable position, as you rotate the camera - jumping to the top left position in portrait orientation if you'd selected the top left point while the camera is in the landscape orientation, for instance.

There's also a Group AF mode, in which the user can specify a cluster of five points to focus on, rather than having to choose a single point. The existing system did allow you to specify the number of surrounding points that the AF system would consider, but the new mode gives much greater weight to the four points adjacent to the selected AF target. As with many of the AF behavior tuning options in cameras at this level, we suspect the benefit of this feature will be specific to a certain shooting situation, and its value will only be revealed when applied to that situation.

Movies

Perhaps the biggest surprise to us is how little the D4s has gained in terms of movie functions. The headline change is that the D4s can now shoot 1080 video at frame rates of 60p and 50p (at bitrates of around 48Mbps), but beyond that, there's not much that's changed. There's been no improvement in whatever limited the D4 to 20 minutes of video recording: the D4s hits a similar limit, with high bitrate 60p restricting the camera to just 10 minutes of footage capture.

The D4s can now adjust audio volume as it records, but there are no additional features to support movie capture: no focus peaking or zebra, and no additional high bitrate settings for the frame rates already offered by the D4. Unlike existing Nikons, the D4s can now simultaneously output uncompressed video over HDMI and record to internal memory cards.

Overall, though while the D4s makes sense as a camera head - buried in a rig with external monitors and recorders bolstering its capabilities - it's hasn't taken any big steps towards being the modern photojournalist's stills and movies all-rounder. This isn't to say the D4s isn't a credible camera for using video; just that, after years of manufacturers insisting on the importance of video as a tool for working photojournalists, we're surprised to see so few changes or additions have been made.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 819
12345
sierranvin
By sierranvin (1 week ago)

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...)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 week ago)

MPs do matter, too many get in the way of decent image quality at anything but ISO 50. Perhaps you had a different meaning in mind, like more MPs are better as general rule.

Somehow, I'm sure the AF on the D4s is a good bit better and faster than on this Sony. Then there's the frame rate thing.

But hey, since I don't care about AF speed or frame rate I'll be glad when I get to see serious raws from this A7s. (Too bad about the likely raw compression.)

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (2 weeks ago)

Just tested the studio tool with the D4s and the NEX-5T (a fairly modern APS-C/DX camera), and found that their ISO capacity did vary that much:

I selected incandescent light, and the patch of greenery in the upper right corner. Set the ISO to 102400, which the 5T can't follow, so stopped at 25600, and as far as I can see (I use a calibrated iMac) there was little difference in noise, at that setting. Menas a camera that costs maybe a tenth of the D4s can deliver almost the same image quality, just two ISO steps behind!

Tried the D610 as well, but that doesn't go any further either, but seems to be just one ISO step behind, at less than half the cost! Lowering the D4s to 51200 gives a very similar result, if not the same color balance!

An amazing camera in many ways, this new D4s, but had I the money to buy one, I'd buy a RX1R, and throw a party!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 weeks ago)

That sensor in the Nex 5T is plenty good at higher ISOs, for an APSC sensor. But it’s not really useable much above ISO 10,000. Whereas the D4s doesn’t show real problems until above ISO 30,000. This is, of course, shooting raw with both cameras.

So you’re deluding yourself if you think that Sony can equal the high ISO performance of the D4, D3s, D4s, Canon 6D, Canon 1DX, even the Leica M240 is astoundingly good at ISO 6400, but then can’t be pushed beyond ISO 6400.

Suggestion: Get many more raws from whatever camera, skip drawing conclusions based on the DPReview examples.

Macs don’t have particularly good monitors either, it’s a color depth problem not a resolution thing.

0 upvotes
amandl
By amandl (2 weeks ago)

Nikon D4s - why this gadget sucks!
I bought a D4s..took my first shots (RAW)- no chance getting them into Lightroom (latest ver) in a propriet way. Converting them to DNG and doing an import is not an option... OK why should Nikon sent any information to companies like Adobe for changes in their RAW specification. All real pros are using Nikon software - that seems to be the thought at those japanese Productmanagers..
ok so far - I've to wait till Adobe has done the reverse engineering to geht the changes in the format...
2nd why buying a new released model is no more option for me was - I put the Pocketwizard mini TT1 onto the D4s. switched on the Flex TT5 receivers (all on latest Firmware) triggered the Cam in higspeed mode since I had to do some higespeed shootings and... the flashes where only triggered at the first shutter release... Answer from Nikon Support: not compatible... and 3rd party product... not supported... so that's why I can say the D4s is a useless pice of rubbish!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 weeks ago)

Adobe Camera Raw 8.4RC1 will extract these raws, is that not available to you?

Also the latest CaptureOne looks to extract these D4s raws.

Then what do your comments have to do with the image quality from the D4s?

And did you say own a D4 before the D4s?

Of course many buy cameras like the D4s to avoid the use of a flash, but okay a trigger isn't compatible from an earlier model. Software written for Windows XP doesn't always work on Windows 8 either.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
feraudy
By feraudy (2 weeks ago)

Your rant reeks of anger. Not very objective.

1 upvote
DonClaudio
By DonClaudio (3 weeks ago)

The Lexar 64GB Professional 1066x CF Card did not fit into the CF slot of two D4s bodies I've tried. We tried two cards to confirm this finding with both D4s bodies. The 64GB 1000x Card did fit in the D4s. I've tried the 1066x cards in different Nikon and Canon models and the cards fit without any problems.

Does anyone else have issues in regards this matter?

0 upvotes
Stephen Scharf
By Stephen Scharf (3 weeks ago)

I wonder if you're actually going to do a review on this camera, like you promised, but never did with the Nikon D4 or the Canon 1DX.

Let me give you a tip from having worked in the corporate product development world for a long time: It's better to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and *never deliver*.

1 upvote
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (4 weeks ago)

I needed a basic camera for selfies and facebook/twitter photos and this was perfect! A little hard to use and heavy, but not too bad. Be sure to get the fisheye lens for that classic duck face look, plus it makes your arms look thinner.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 weeks ago)

Really, you have a D4s?

Sure it's not the D4, you know the one that's out and available.

"This looks great for selfies, and I plan on getting the fish-eye for the duck visage look." That phrasing would make your joke work.

0 upvotes
DonM999
By DonM999 (4 weeks ago)

At least we're one step closer to the D5.

1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (1 month ago)

Look, it just a camera for the cost of a car, so what? Is there any point comparing ISO performance you are never going to use? I have not EVER, not even ONCE gone higher than 800 ISO on any digicam since I gave up film, and the fast lenses available mean that you never need to. The problem is the temptation to use slow , bad zooms, instead of more range limited and faster good ones or primes. NOw we can buy good f1.8 primes at 28mm, 35mm 50mm and 85mm and have 2470 and 70200 zooms at f2.8 the need for high ISO has gone.
As no camera I have ever used can go above 400 without it affecting resolution in any case, I fail to see why there are such discussions among people who anyway have not got and do not use these cars!!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 weeks ago)

Many people shoot at higher ISOs, particularly higher than 800.

Higher ISOs also allow faster shutter speeds in dark situations--indoor sporting events for example, while allowing the photographer to avoid the use of a flash.

0 upvotes
Albert Fok
By Albert Fok (3 weeks ago)

As you say, you only need a 3100.
You cannot comment for the performance of a high end camera like the D4 or D4s if you do not shoot wild life like birds in flight or sport. We need 1/1200s at least for shutter speed and 1.4X to 2 X extender to obtain as close as possible to the target. At this set up like a 300mm f4, with a 2x extender, the aperture drops to F8 , what do you think if it is not a bright day to set ISO? I'm telling you I always need 1600 and above.

1 upvote
rwbaron
By rwbaron (1 month ago)

It appears Nikon has cleaned up the RAW performance by a good half stop compared the D4 which is admirable. I would say 409,600 D4S is not quite as good as 204,800 on D4 but close. I also looked for the 1DX to compare but alas not on the list so I took the 6D and wow, I had no idea the 6D was that good at low light high ISO shooting. Very close to the D4S at 102,400. This is good news for all of us regardless of brand.

0 upvotes
Rickard Hansson
By Rickard Hansson (1 month ago)

I have an hard time seeing that difference whe nwatching the raw samples. I would say they are almost identical in RAW performance. It seems that mostly JPG engine benefits from the new hardware.

0 upvotes
rwbaron
By rwbaron (1 month ago)

I see it in the skin tones and hair in the 4 portraits and in mid-tone colors. IMO there is definitely an improvement over the D4. Try setting the D4S to 409,600 and the D4 at 204,800 for the comparison.

0 upvotes
Peter62
By Peter62 (1 month ago)

There is absolutely NO difference to the D4.
That's a fact.

Actually, every cheap Fuji comes extremely close. Go to Low Light, ISO 25600, point to the colored 6 circles and compare with the cheap X-M1 or the even cheaper X-A1.

There is a very, very small difference. But at what price?

0 upvotes
rwbaron
By rwbaron (1 month ago)

Not sure what you're looking at. First, the Fuji X-M1's max ISO is 6400 so how did you compare at 25,600? Second, the D4 in RAW is considerably better at 6400 than the XM-1. The Fuji is soft by comparison and the D4 at 12,800 is about the equal of the XM-1 at 6400 but the D4 is considerably sharper.

0 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (1 month ago)

You a7, Canon and D4 users are right. There is no need to be concerned about the D4s. It's an inferior camera to what you're using now. And hardly improves on what the D4 offers and hardly justifies it's price. DPR got it wrong, so did Nikon.

Feel better? That's what you wanted to hear right?

Most people will never use 400,000 ISO. But like the power rating of a car, the top end number gives an indication how the camera performs at lesser values. We really don't need more than 50hp to cruise at highway speeds, but most are way beyond that. An ISO rating of. 400,000 means more mortal values of 3200-8000 will be usable to the point of understatement.

The level of measure beating here is what amazes me. The back and forth of debate over 1% of 1% of what the camera can do makes a Star Trek convention look like a room of well hung thoroughbreds. Your 1Dx is amazing. Your 5DIII is amazing, your Fuji is amazing, your a7/r is amazing with its 3 system lenses. The D3s, D4 are still amazing too. It's a good time to be shooting. And cost? It's irrelevant. People buying this have not just picked up photography. They are likely selling something in irder to upgrade. $6500 is not $6500. It's $6500 minus was they sold to subsidize it. Many are making money with it and will pay it off in one week. So talk about cost is pointless.

I'm looking forward to getting my $1300 D4s soon. ;-)

6 upvotes
stevenhacker
By stevenhacker (1 month ago)

Brilliantly stated and absolutely correct.
As a pro shooter I am damn proud to have a $1550 D4S. Now if LR 5 would just update to process RAW I'd be so much happier!

1 upvote
RPac
By RPac (1 month ago)

I actually think it's great for both those who are willing to upgrade from the D4 to the D4s for $1500, as well as for those who still own a D3 or D3s and are now able to get used D4 bodies at a more affordable price.

+1 on the LR5 issue, would also be great if Nikon would provide a free LR5 license with their flagship camera (like Leica does with their M).

http://rolandpache.com/blog/the-nikon-d4s-is-out-does-it-deliver-the-goods/

0 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (1 month ago)

You are absolutely correct! Pros don't really complain. They look out for the next camera that has what they need and purchase it because it's a business need for them. If not, then we just keep our current setup and move it along.

0 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (4 weeks ago)

Your reply was amazing! I know this to be true because I was amazed!

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (1 month ago)

High ISO has no improvement at all over a D4.
The improvement is at JPEG processing and NR level.

So basically no improvement. Only software. Nothing some basic Lightroom can't do.

I won't deny I'm underwhelmed. Especially when many sources where claiming a full stop improvement when the D4s was announced or previewed.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (1 month ago)

Try looking again as the high iso has been improved on Raw. Not much but it has been improved.

0 upvotes
E33CE3B34AE443C48B7742BEE37F4C2F

It looks to me that D4S has less details in the highlights than D4.

0 upvotes
ScottRH
By ScottRH (1 month ago)

I would buy two if it had no XQD.

3 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

No difference form d4 to d4s in RAW, but the d4s is better at JPG at very high ISO. Worth paying for the d4s if you have a d4 or d3s? No.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (1 month ago)

Yes there is. You can see there is less noise on the D4s. Not a huge amount but enough.

0 upvotes
Rickard Hansson
By Rickard Hansson (1 month ago)

stu 5 - the difference is so small that it is irrelevant and will not be seen in most cases. The power of the new D4s is in the jpeg engine.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
select
By select (1 month ago)

honestly, I'm not impressed...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

There are other sources for raws from all of those cameras, in my testing experience (I own neither) the Df beats the 6D for higher ISO work, but they are pretty close.

0 upvotes
Mikael Risedal
By Mikael Risedal (1 month ago)

Who beats who regarding high iso?
You can not compare for example Canon 6D and D4s and high iso, Canon are here at Dpreview exposed after 1/3200sec F 5,6 and Nikon are exposed 1/8000sec F5,6 and 24600 iso. A major difference.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

There are other sources for raws from all of those cameras, in my testing experience (I own neither) the Df beats the 6D for higher ISO work, but they are pretty close.

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

DPR has stated they go after a consistent image result/exposure not using exact settings on every camera. Not all lenses perform exactly the same nor is ISO 800 identical on every brand or even between models within the same brand!

After all, when you take pictures you go for an exposure not going out to shoot at f/2.8 1/400 and ISO 400 and 3200 and see "what happens" now do you?!

0 upvotes
OBI656
By OBI656 (1 month ago)

I am comparing this NIKON chart with Sony A7R and I can see, that NIKON is way behind ...

NIKON RAW 50 ASA vs SONY RAW 50 ASA

so where is image quality with this NEW expensive NIKON ....

0 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 month ago)

Different target audience, not a useful comparison. For higher ISO or for sports it does look the other way round. Or do you pretend the A7r is a sports camera?

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

OBI656:

Take lenses into consideration too.

0 upvotes
io_bg
By io_bg (1 month ago)

Why compare boost ISO modes?

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (1 month ago)

Compare the high iso ones in artificial light. The A7r is way behind.

0 upvotes
W4YNE 1
By W4YNE 1 (1 month ago)

I'm waiting on a Canon 5D with 4K video....... 5D-Mk4k

1 upvote
Ronald1959
By Ronald1959 (1 month ago)

Honestly? I am not impressed at all. I hope not for the nikon guys that nikon will replace this one over 4 years.

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

do not worry, seems like Nikon is moved to 2year cycle strategy.

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

no, they've been refreshing their pro model line at the mid point of their replacement cycle, i.e. 2 years after the initial launch, e.g. d3, d3s, d4, d4s.

0 upvotes
pitaw
By pitaw (1 month ago)

Nice D4s, but bulky and heavy...I'm still waiting for a D700/D610 size, with D4s features...maybe in a year or so?

0 upvotes
NikonUser2013
By NikonUser2013 (1 month ago)

I saw the new D4S at the local Photo show at Birmingham. It is FAR superior to any any that Canon , Olympus etc have on the market. The build quality is excellent to say the least. Very impressive

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

Wow, you could tell that from looking at it? "far" superior is an extremely bold statement. The 1D X is built like a tank too, dude.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

let him say, obviously he does not know what he is talking about and most people realize that. Probably the first time he saw a pro body in his life ;-)

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (1 month ago)

It says something (not sure what) that people are actually discussing 400,000 ISO. They should have a contest "justify this feature" where somebody creates an image that really benefits from having this.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

Increasing the maximum ISO setting could be a measure of the ISO capabilities of the camera, so in some regards it is valuable. I do think that for the specific case it is just a marketing strategy, just like the max iso rating on the 5D MKIII. The difference is that the D4s is screaming "I can you don't". While the 5D is crying "me too"

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

To HowboutRaw ISO performance obsession. Where is this magical D4 ISO performance when compared to the 5D MKIII up to 25,600 iso in raw. Never mind the 1DX.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

Sorry in my experience the 5D III isn't particularly good above about ISO 12000.

Anyhow the Df beats the D4 for high ISO performance.

As you know the Canon 6D also beats the 5D III for high ISO performance, and may beat the D4, but not the Df.

Stop with the claims about the high ISO performance of the 5D III, it makes you look like you don't know much about high ISO work.

Now, it could be that the 1DX would beat the D4, but the 1DX doesn't quite have the DR of the D4, so here's where better lenses really help.

High ISO performance is important to me, so you can expect me to comment on a camera like the D4s, but skip commenting on say a D800 or 5D--except when I see high ISO claims about those cameras.

4 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

HowaboutRaw, what is your experience in actual photography besides pixel peeping on the internet and looking at the DXO ratings? I shoot sports professionally and at least 100,000 out of the 200,000images/year I click are at 6,400-25,600 Iso. I shoot with 1DX and 5D MKIII often sharing business with D4 users. For any practical use any claims of major ISO performance leaps are vapourware in this ISO bracket. Proper exposure, focusing locking and speed are far more important. Look at the raw files comparison even here on preview. How can you say that there a critical difference? Where is your supporting proof?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Ronald1959
By Ronald1959 (1 month ago)

I agree with armandino. I shoot with a canon 5d and the exposure and focusing is fantastic. Former nikonshooter Scott kelby finds the ISO from the canon amazing.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

a:

I’ve shot with both the D3s and the D4, only tested out the Canon 5DIII.

Don’t claim to have shot as much as you. But I’m basing my claims on far more than “pixel peeping”.

I rarely shoot with AF lenses, here I think optically good Canon lenses are usually better than Nikon, but I use Zeiss.

“professional” can indeed mean that you’re selling images, however it doesn’t mean that the images are printed well or used for more than a tiny web photo display.

Again, you seem to think that I think the Canon 5D III a bad camera, I don’t, just don’t think it can match the 6D, D4, D3s, or D4 for higher ISO shooting.

I’ve not looked at raws from the D4s yet because ACR 8.4 hasn’t released and the beta refuses to install.

Here, and you should really know this, for these examples one can’t draw conclusions without many more examples from different situations shot with different lenses.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

R:

I mentioned neither exposure or AF on the 5D III. (I assume both are good.)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

manual focus at ISO 25,600... what sort of photography do you do? You seem to belong to a very rare species of photographers... You might be right on what you are looking for yourself, your advice might not work for 99.99% of the other photographers on this planet. Mean no harm, you might be the most creative as well for what I am concerned :-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

a:

Yes manual focus at ISO 20,000. (Think the beyond that is pushing the D4's capacity, unless you want to use heavy NR.)

And the thing about high ISOs, applies to Canon too, and AF, those ISOs allow for faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures; that second makes manual focusing easier.

0 upvotes
FiReDuCk
By FiReDuCk (1 month ago)

I do not see any difference between D4 & D4s especially in RAW format, yes i can see small margin improvement over WB especially shooting JPEG mode in D4s.

Again - i'm glad I'm not buying D4s. I'm hoping D5 will have 135 focus points - that would rock my world lol

4 upvotes
MichaelK81
By MichaelK81 (1 month ago)

It looks like the noise reduction with JPG output has been greatly improved. Sadly, I see absolutely no difference in RAW noise (and I would imagine, most photographers using the D4s shoot RAW). Glad I stuck with my D4 and didn't upgrade.

-----------------------
Michael Kormos
Fresh & Modern Family Photography
MICHAEL KORMOS PHOTOGRAPHY
New York | San Diego
http://www.michaelkormos.com
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelKormosPhotography

0 upvotes
szak1352
By szak1352 (1 month ago)

Okay, we've got a new peak with the ISO 409600. That's marketing.

It's more important that I can see no difference between the D4 and D4s RAW performance. They're basically identical, which is good news. D4 was and is an excellent performer.

I like the JPG output on the D4s better though...

0 upvotes
Joe Federer
By Joe Federer (1 month ago)

I dunno, on a blind test with 3 friends, everyone said the ISO6400 D4s RAW was better than the D4 version.

It's better, just not by a ton.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

szak1352:

Look at raws from the Df too, those are considered better at higher ISOs than raws from the D4.

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

that's apparently all that is different on the d4s - the JPG output.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

RedFox88:

So you mean that the Df is a better high ISO lowlight body than the D4s?

Unlikely, so I'd wait for other samples.

0 upvotes
szak1352
By szak1352 (1 month ago)

There just might be some difference in favour of the D4s.
Down to the negligible level.
Also true for Df vs D4.

(Nevertheless I'm sure, if someone would show me two identical pictures, I could still pick one as a better performer...)

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (1 month ago)

That sensitivity of ISO 409600 is real?

If you download the test pictures, you'll find that the EXIF data for exposure ISO 100 and 409600 are respectively:

F5.6 1/50s
F16 1/8000s

Doing some calculations, it is easy to see that the settings for ISO 409600 gave an exposure 1280x smaller than for ISO 100. This means the actual ISO sensitivity was 128000, and not 409600!

Is Nikon cheating here?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (1 month ago)

Maybe that setting has reciprocity effect that causes 2 extra stops of exposure to be used.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (1 month ago)

As far as I know, digital sensors don't suffer from reciprocity failure effect.

0 upvotes
xt1isdabomb
By xt1isdabomb (1 month ago)

ISO 409,600 looks terrible. Forget it..I'll wait for digital full frame to mature a bit.

6 upvotes
dko22
By dko22 (1 month ago)

downloaded D4 as RAW developers in general and Photo Ninja in particular don't yet support the S and there's no point at all in just looking at the comparometer which is known to smudge Fuji XTrans files.

I had expected the D4, which at worst is only slightly behind the D4s, to have a clear advantage at 6400 over the Fuji XTrans cameras but in fact carefully looking at various parts of the low light image in Photo Ninja with both types of noise reduction (v3 and v4) at standard settings and also with noise reduction completely switched off, the overall result seems to be comparable with minor advantages for one side or the other in detail or noise depending on exact setting and parts of the image looked at.

I still find it hard to believe that my X-E1 really is as good a low light performer as a current Nikon FF but this is what the DPReview files show when downloaded and examined in a competent developer. And the Fuji is clearly ahead of the D7100 to which it should be comparable

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

Pentax is probably the king in in-camera image cooking. since Sony sensors output digital signals directly there is no room for Pentax or Fuji or anyone else to improve image quality with a better ADC. all are pure digital noise reduction.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (1 month ago)

The FF has a faster shutter speed in the test, aside from that, there is 0.5 or +1 stop in favor of the Xtrans.....which it seems there is little advantage in this Nikon.

In addition, the RAW files from the Xtrans is not reliable to compare to other sensors.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

dko:

Don’t worry, the Fuji doesn’t have the high ISO performance of the D4, or Df, and I’d posit the D4s. (Yep, I’ve shot my own tests with the XE1, XE2, XT1 and D4 and Df–the Fujis aren’t even close. Good for APSC though, like a Sony Nex 5 or Samsung NX300.)

It’s debatable that the Fuji is better than the D7100, but a basic Fuji lens would be better than a basic D7100 kit lens and lens optical quality really helps with higher ISOs. Yep, I also have my own raws from a D7100.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dko22
By dko22 (1 month ago)

HowaboutRAW -- I'll remain agnostic then about 7100 v FujiX. I haven't done enough personal tests to verify the Nikon sensor's performance. My only direct experience of owning a FF was the D700 which probably has a low light edge. Whatever -- overall I find Fuji meets my personal needs the best taking into account weight, cost etc.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

dko22:

Yes, right the Fuji XE2 is a good lowlight high ISO body for an APSC sensor. No dispute, but not the equal of something like the D3s.

Now, of course, good Fuji lenses are optically better than Nikon lenses and better optics helps with higher ISOs.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (1 month ago)

Actually only about 1 stop better than a Olympus E-P5.
(3200 compared to 1600) :-O

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

Oly should work harder with their lenses (maybe we can expect some improvements).

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (1 month ago)

I'd say "one stop better" isn't enough for a sensor four times larger in a camera that costs seven times as much. I would expect the Nikon to do much better than that.

I think Olympus is doing fine.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

as long as Oly is using Pana sensors (with some video features stripped off) there isn't much Oly can do with the sensor.

0 upvotes
Brilliantine Stick Inesct
By Brilliantine Stick Inesct (1 month ago)

Nikon and Canon are rapidly becoming dinosaurs. Mirrorless cameras will kill their business model. The mirror less efforts from both these guys have been poor. Olympus and Fuji are showing the way.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

what mirrorless cameras can do?
what's the difference between them and SLRs?

> Olympus and Fuji are showing the way
both need good lenses (probably they already have a couple of them and working hard on more) to become yet another good consumer camera system.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (1 month ago)

Mirror less sure has more trolls than the pro camera scene...

19 upvotes
TakePictures
By TakePictures (1 month ago)

This just doesn't show in the sales figures yet.

4 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (1 month ago)

Just had to reply to the dinosaur comment didn't you D1N0. :-)

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

> kill their business model

yes f-number cheating will kill everyone.

0 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (1 month ago)

Mirrorlesses do not have any future. They are TOO small to be handled in a natural way. FF-DSLR cameras like D4s are the real ones, with good ergonomics and optimal size and weight. On those we can rely, cheers.

2 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

Mirrorless will kill SLR is different than wishing mirrorless will kill Canon, Nikon and Pentax. Stay calm, when they've perfected the viewfinder and seen big enough market share your mirrorless fetish will also be served by these three big and very experienced names in the industry.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Jahled
By Jahled (1 month ago)

Oh really?

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (1 month ago)

Mirrorless sales are down way more than SLR sales.

For me, it's the speed. I gave it a chance - too slow.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (1 month ago)

We've heard talk of this coming mirrorless empire for half a decade now, but like oselimg suggests above, I don't think mirrorless will take off in a major way until Canon and Nikon release truly competitive systems.

The large masses, who don't really read reviews or visit forums like this one, are mainly aware of the two market leaders, and buy whatever they release. When Canon and Nikon put as much R&D and marketing muscle behind their mirrorless systems as they now do behind their DSLRs, then maybe things will start to change.

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (1 month ago)

And to vesa1tahti, I'd like to reply that it's ridiculous to suggest that there is one camera size that is best for everyone. People with small hands might not find a D4 to be optimal.
Also, I don't think the majority of people want to carry around a camera of that size for everyday purposes. If you're just going out for a stroll, wouldn't you want to take something more convenient with you?

Also, nothing prevents a mirrorless camera from being as large as a DSLR, or from having the same ergonomics. The benefit of mirrorless (from the manufacturers' point of view) is that you get rid of the mechanical complexity and cost of the mirror assembly, regardless of the size of the camera.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

if one thinks that video is the future, and we have dual-pixel AF already, there is really not much a mirror in the way of light path can help.

dual-pixel AF is the king,
mirror or mirrorless we don't have to care much.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (1 month ago)

Yes.... vesa1tahti... you are right.

Everyone SHOULD want a three pound camera that costs $6,000. I just don't understand why anyone would want to settle for anything less.

0 upvotes
kriztian
By kriztian (1 month ago)

I compared it to Nikon 610 and 610 wins at low iso but in low light or high iso D4 is far far better. Seems like the whitebalance also is better than 610 as is the coloraccuracy.

0 upvotes
Andrew53
By Andrew53 (1 month ago)

Canon 1Dx for comparison? Maybe it is too new?

3 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (1 month ago)

I generally like Dpreview, however they lost me since they do not have sample images of the 1DX, never mind the review. However looking at the comparison between the D4s and the 5D MKIII the D4s shows marginal superior performance at 25,600 starting pulling away above that. Considering that 1DX is better than the 5D MKIII at 25,600 (I own both and I extensively shoot in the 12,800-25,600 range) I think there is pretty much no practical difference between the D4/D4s and 1DX in the noise department in any useful ISO range that is not strictly survival mode (100,000 and above). Honestly I think that any of the current cameras should not be used at more than 25,600 iso for decent results and I do not see much need for anything above that excluding very, very specialized use.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
xmeda
By xmeda (1 month ago)

Pentax K3 review is where?

5 upvotes
Deutsch
By Deutsch (1 month ago)

You can select the Pentax K3 in the comparison above.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (1 month ago)

any day now.... so they say

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

I've just noticed that there is no D1x review. Wow!!! The main competitor. DPreview could have, at least, compare if D1x unpacks in low light as good.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (1 month ago)

Hahaaa!! sorry everyone I meant 1Dx. I must check also if I'm sharp as D4s. :-))))

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (1 month ago)

Why should anyone of these be reviewed here at all? The readers here won't by D4 or 1D. And those who by these cameras doesn't base their decision on dpr gold medals.
- But it is fun to read! :-D

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

it looks that the biggest thing about D4s is the new joystick button.

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (1 month ago)

Yeah, it makes all the difference when you are playing Titanfall...

0 upvotes
Peter62
By Peter62 (1 month ago)

Absolutely no visible difference to D4. In fact, the Fuji X-A1 is only very slightly worse than the D4s.

Disappointing.

1 upvote
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (1 month ago)

Is that the only difference between the D4s and X-A1?

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (1 month ago)

I spot two major differences:

1. The Fuji comes with a lens,and the Nikon doesn't
2. You can buy 12 X-A1 cameras for the price of the D4s

The Nikon D4s is actually much smaller and lighter than twelve Fuji X-A1 cameras. (3 pounds vs. 8 pounds.)

6 upvotes
mitsosmitsou
By mitsosmitsou (1 month ago)

Setting "print size" above, which is what matters when comparing noise between
different resolution cameras, actually D4s is about 1/3 stops better than D4 but
what is most impressive is that D800E is better than both, till ISO12800 and not only that, it has more clarity in the image due to high downsampling.
That is trully impressive given that D800E is 2 years old now!
At 25600, D4s goes a bit ahead the D800E.
XT-1 is very good but soft, so comparison is not that easy.

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (1 month ago)

Love the D800 but the image from the D4s is bit better at those high iso's it is certainly less noisy

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

mitsosmitsou:

Really the D800e avoids the significant banding of the D800 above ISO 8000? Very unlikely.

0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (1 month ago)

People comparing a $6000 camera for pros with a $1500 mirrorless. Welcome to the world of gear heads.

Meanwhile, in the real world, dozens of cameras of interest to hobby photographers remain unreviewed.

Fact is that for most people a review of a D4S is about as useful as a review of the Space Shuttle for a compact car purchaser. It's a waste of time.

While so many cameras remain untested , DPR has lost the plot.

19 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (1 month ago)

I agree mostly, but even in the car world, people like to read reviews of the "unobtainable".

2 upvotes
Photographer Jonathan
By Photographer Jonathan (1 month ago)

I see allot of comments about who needs 400.000 ISO, because no one would ever shoot using ISO that high, but I don't think these people get what ISO really is, but I compare camera ISO to a guitar amplifier, and if you turn a guitar amp up to 10 you can hear the buzzing of the amp, and maybe the buzzing starts at 4 but gets strongest at 10, but with a sensor when you turn it up to 10 witch is the highest ISO, you can see the noise the most, so with a guitar amp, the more powerful the amp is, the less you need to turn it up to get volume out of it, so you get the volume with out hearing the buzz, and with a camera sensor, if it goes up to a higher ISO, it's the same as a more powerful amp, it means that at 12800 ISO it isn't working as hard to amplify the sensor, so at 12800 ISO it's going to have less noise than a sensor that only goes to lets say 24.000 ISO, or 200.000 or so on, so in theory if the sensor went up to a million ISO, maybe 12800 ISO would look like the noise of ISO 500

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Rocky Mtn Old Boy
By Rocky Mtn Old Boy (1 month ago)

Great analogy!

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (1 month ago)

Well, that's true, but it would still be true even if you weren't given the option of using those highest ISO settings. The fact that you are given that option, makes people ask: "What do I need it for?".

Anyway, I don't think that it's always true, that if a sensor goes up to a higher ISO, then it's because the hardware is better. Often those higher ISO settings are made possible by improved NR algorithms, which may be applied even to the raw files.

0 upvotes
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (1 month ago)

It is a great analogy insofar this one clearly goes up to 11.

That isn't Nikon hatred, the same goes for Canon and the 2k setting on the 1Dx. I can't really see there's much discernible improvement here other than having one more setting above an already pretty unusable top number. It used to be only consumer cameras that offered unrealistic top settings, but those days are gone. It would be far cheaper to buy a D610/ANother and push the highest setting by a couple of stops to get a speckly mush...
[OK, this and the 1Dx may be slightly better due to their lower photosite density at extreme high ISOs, but the gains aren't that great].

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (1 month ago)

Except that the analogy doesn't work, because a stop extra ISO range, doesn't make the D4S "work any less hard" at say ISO 12800 than a D4 (with similar performance at ISO 12800 too).

Or 4 stops more range than a D800 doesn't give any meaningfule information for the ISO 12800 in comparison to the D800 either, since you can push a D800 to ISO 400k yourself too. In the end these top ISO ranges are all digital amplified ISO's anyway, just like pushed RAW files.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

Chris2210:

Think of it this way, one of the disappointments of the D4 was that it couldn't match the high ISO performance of the D3s.

Then the Df came out and really did match or exceed the performance of the D3s. Now Nikon has very likely matched the Df's performance in the D4 line.

Right, 400K is unrealistic, but it will be realistic to use on another camera in 10 years.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (1 month ago)

An interesting analogy since quiet, transistor based guitar amps have been around for decades yet almost nobody uses them--instead preferring old-fashioned tube amps which sound great but hum like crazy.

0 upvotes
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (1 month ago)

HowaboutRAW:

On paper the D4 was supposedly a stop better than the D3s [or at least it went up one more setting]. But I'd agree that the D4 didn't surpass the capability of its predecessor. It's just [at least in RAW, which ultimately is all that counts], I see negligible difference between the D4 and D4s. The D3/D3s did seem to signal a step change in what was possible at the extremes of signal boost, but since then what has happened? I'm afraid it's that that makes me doubt that unless there's some radical new approach, I don't see 400k delivering decently usable results even in 10 years time. We've seen a radical slowing of the gains achievable with complex algorithms vs the base level quantum noise.

I do hope you're right and I'm wrong though - even though decent files at ISO6400 are good enough for most situations and well beyond what was possible in the pre-digital era.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (1 month ago)

Fuji will not allow Raw file above ISO 6400. So it is very hard to say were they would end up. The Nikon D4s is the clear winner, three stops maybe just a little too much. A good one and half, maybe two. In the B&W image Nikon blacks have more noise.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

Wrong as well. If you look at purple, XT1 at 6400 and the Nikon 1 stop higher at 12,800. There is red speckle contamination in the purple in the Nikon and there is none in the XT1. Colours are grainy in the Nikon, not in the Fuji. The difference between the two is at most, 1 stop and more like 0.7 stops, if DPreview had that fine a resolution of speeds.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
badi
By badi (1 month ago)

km25 is right... the difference is about ~2stops in favor of nikon. Yes, there is more color noise in nikon, but also more detail. As everybody says, Fuji probably eliminates it in it's raw files, and actually that can be unpleasant in some situations (for ex. it's less efficient to average noise is multiple exposures)

But you should look at low ISOs as well...for my eyes, it seems like Fuji's ISO 200 is similar to the nikon ISO 800 or so :) ... here is a big issue for landscape and other fine detail shooting, where high ISO is not the only concern.

3 upvotes
snooked123
By snooked123 (1 month ago)

That Fuji is quite soft even at the lowest ISO. That indeed is an issue if you want to use low ISOs. Nothing comes for free :(

2 upvotes
tom1234567
By tom1234567 (1 month ago)

Pentax K3 review is where?

3 upvotes
itkovian
By itkovian (1 month ago)

Looks to me that the D4s is about 3 stops (iso) better than the Fuji XT1. Now, that ladies and gentlemen is impressive!

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

Ridiculous. 1 stop or so. Try 3 stops, 6400 on the XT1 and 51,200 on the D4s. If that looks the same to you, it's time for glasses.

2 upvotes
HFLM
By HFLM (1 month ago)

You can't really compare it to Fuji, unless you make sure that an equal amount of noise reduction in RAW is happening. Can you guarantee that with Fujis different Sensor, remind you, interpolation in blue and red channels is going on (leading to detail losses or artefacts)? Until demosaicing is 100% correct a comparison is difficult.
But Fuji is certainly sufficient for most shooters.

4 upvotes
itkovian
By itkovian (1 month ago)

Fuji iso stops at 25,600. D4s stops at 409,600. So, yeah its actually 4 stops better.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

You're talking about ISO ratings, no performance. Faster is not better, it's just faster.

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (1 month ago)

lol

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (1 month ago)

Fujifilm and Nikon doesn't even use the same ISO ratings. Fujifilm overestimates them by at least half an f-stop, so a ISO 1200 photo from Fujifilm is more like ISO 800 from Nikon even when identically exposed.

You're comparing two different sensor sizes, two different sensor technologies, two different ISO ratings. :p While that can be fun, of course a full-frame top notch sensor is going to be at least approximately two f-stops better when taking detail into account and going beyond mere noise (which others have said can be surpressed). The X-Trans technology is cool but not magic dust.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (1 month ago)

Yeah, and something weird going on with the XT1 smearing details.

0 upvotes
saralecaire
By saralecaire (1 month ago)

I dont see any difference...

5 upvotes
lucinio
By lucinio (1 month ago)

Better to have more than 400,000 ISO or something more than 16 MP ?
When do you really need to use more than 25000 ISO (to be very generous... personally I never need more than 1250) ?
Very good camera of course, but unuseful for my needs.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

Better to have higher ISO capacity and 12MP.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (1 month ago)

How Earth-shattering could a new review be? The D4 is much like the D3x, which was pretty much the same as the D3s, which was the D3, all of which shared the same basic body. The sensor is improved, maybe, (the D3 still seems to be the low-light champion) but functionally, it's got to be pretty similar.

0 upvotes
Matei H
By Matei H (1 month ago)

I'm sorry what exactly is it that makes the D3 the low light champion? Your statement would have been solid in 2007, when the D3 was launched (and the reason I switched to Nikon). Now if you look at their bodies from a distance yeah they all look the same. But that is true about the pictures quality too. It's just a matter of how FAR AWAY you stand from your monitor. Just my 50c

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

RichRMA:

The D4s isn't much like the D3x.

And until the Df released the D3s, not D3, was the lowlight champ.

And the D3x is not at all like the D3x.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (1 month ago)

JPEG engine is definitely much better. Usable now.

2 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (1 month ago)

Otoh, here is where DPR team confuse interest with curiosity.

1 upvote
waxwaine
By waxwaine (1 month ago)

At base ISO 50 or 100 I can't see any better result or sharpness, considering the new one is moire's filterless. Even the older one looks less noisy at low iso! Worthless upgrade imho.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (1 month ago)

moire filterless? Really?

0 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (1 month ago)

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.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (1 month ago)

You should comment only when you know what you're talking about and/or have used it first hand over hundreds of actuations.

7 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (1 month ago)

You're just a troll. Use the Nikon 70-200 first, it's wonderful, use the 24-70, it could even be better than the current canon that costs much more, use the 14-24 which to this day is used by everyone for landscape, with adapters, because it still has no equal. Use the current nikon 85 1.4G, and I could go on all day.

And Sony glass, really ?

You are so biased ..

6 upvotes
vscd
By vscd (1 month ago)

Is he a troll or you just a Nikonfanboy? The 70-200L IS II from Canon outperformes the Nikon easily, the 85mm 1.2 L II is 30% faster that the Nikon (with an equal IQ from f1.4 on). I don't know much about the 24-70 from Nikon, the Canon one is quite nice except of short distances.

Sony glass is from Carl Zeiss, if you don't know them this would explain a lot of things.

You are so biased.

0 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (1 month ago)

"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.

2 upvotes
Matei H
By Matei H (1 month ago)

Steelhead3 hahaha do you try very hard to come up with statements like this? You seem like an expert in Nikon glass! Please tell me what is your favorite lens? And I'm pretty sure you used/ tested that 58mm that you're moaning about? This is the problem with this site that we have some people (couch photographers) with a lot of opinions about pictures/so called 'tests' of a brick wall that someone took, with a lens that they will never own or use from a brand that they hate but they have very very strong opinions about?! Why is that?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (1 month ago)

>70-200L IS II from Canon outperformes the Nikon easily

I think LIS2 is better but not by much. I once checked a VR2 that outresolved all the lenses from all the makers (except 200/2) at 200/2.8.

> "Sony glass is from Carl Zeiss…" Which is meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless. Leica or Zeiss usually mean "made by a third class Japanese maker."

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (1 month ago)

Rubbish. Advantage Nikon all the way from 14-800mm

0 upvotes
Total comments: 819
12345