Previous page Next page

Nikon D4s First Impressions Review

February 2014 | By Jeff Keller, Rishi Sanyal
Buy on Amazon.com From $6,496.95


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
116
I own it
187
I want it
31
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1049
23456
Jahled

Ho ho, KR got this one a bit wrong didn't he!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

You mean the 24MP claim?

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer

Might as well consult the Farmer's Almanac for predictions on photo equipment.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

I think the 16MP sensor was a safe bet for the D4s.

I predicted interchangeable lens mirrorless systems 8 or 10 years ago. Helps that I owned a M mount rangefinder film body back then. And tried out that Epson digital rangefinder.

0 upvotes
select

I was expecting better burst frame rate... 11fps when canon 1dx can do 14fps...
when you do sport photography there's a huge difference

still using XQD and CF cards?? I hoped they put SD UHS II slots

no gps and no wifi

no 4k video, no focus peaking and no Zebra

what are you doing Nikon?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Maji

Were you planning to upgrade to a D4s from your D5300 if it had those features?

16 upvotes
Adrian Van

This camera pushes video ability to 1080 60p, so CF Extreme Pro 7 top speed cards offers faster write speeds for large HD video files than top SD UHS 2 and CF considered more reliable and robust for heavy users. Too many reports of SD failures by heavy users for my liking and SD not as fast for Full HD video write speeds. Most full time pros would most likely prefer CF and XQD over SD anyday, I would. My thoughts. D4s camera is not intended for general consumers non-pros, maybe a few will buy, more likely mostly pros buy at this price. D800 and D610 are bought by by both pros and enthusiasts.

3 upvotes
SergioSpain

to be fair, the 14 fps burst rate of the 1DX is with AE/AF lock, which is not very practical in sports. Under more normal conditions the 1DX drops down to 12 fps.

10 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

select:

Given what XQD can do, and separately what the new CFast cards can do, SD card slots are unlikely.

Bet there's some work to making 4k video work really well--shooting time, raw output, etc, so you'll have to wait for the D5 or buy a video camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Adrian Van

Or buy the Panasonic GH4 for 4K video, if you really need it, or a dedicated 4K video camera.

1 upvote
Cristi Timote

I think it is nikon d4 walked less to soft! is appreciated as they tried to escape or the "S" right! So much! :)

0 upvotes
armandino

1DX 14fps are also in jpg only mode, no raw

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

armandino:

Thank you.

0 upvotes
John F Keller

The D4 already had the ability to use Auto-ISO in the manual mode. I did several dives with a D4 in a housing using this, finding it excellent to be able to set a shutter speed to stop the motion of fish, f/8 with a 17-35mm for DOF, and letting the camera set higher ISO as I went deeper or the light from about changed.

1 upvote
SergioSpain

this new feature is for video mode. Plenty of cameras have auto-iso in manual for stills.

3 upvotes
topstuff

I'm sure someone will be along in a moment comparing it to an Olympus EM-1.

It seems every camera is compared to an EM-1 these days.

Whatever the question, some people think the answer is m4/3.

5 upvotes
Jahled

Of course they will, it wouldn't be DP Review comments without a mindless dialogue of passionate argument concerning technological detail

2 upvotes
AngusCNH

Is time to paid more money , ppls

0 upvotes
Black Box

I remember some pretty bright photos taken by D4 in almost complete darkness. How useful this 400K+ ISO actually is? Why not just equip the camera with an IR lamp and sensor?

1 upvote
sharkcookie

Beause IR based night vision is basically monochrome.

1 upvote
exdeejjjaaaa

any oils drops on sensor ? those new mirrors..

2 upvotes
GPW

What! it's not DX

0 upvotes
mandm

Yes it can shoot in DX format with DX only lenses, all Nikon FX cameras can.

1 upvote
jeffharris

It's too small!
How will I ever fit it in my pocket? ;-)

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

And it doesn't update my Fbook page.

1 upvote
Nick8

Just one thought, not related to this new great camera in particular…
In the film era, both the ASA and DIN standards were used for the film sensitivity.
100 ASA was equivalent to 21 DIN.
I think DIN would have been a far more practical choice. ISO 409,600 would be equivalent to 57 DIN.
Another 2 steps in sensitivity from 409,600 and the ISO will become 1,638,400 vs 63 DIN.
Certainly that cannot fit on a dedicated dial :)

15 upvotes
Black Box

Easy! Night vision.

0 upvotes
Graham Meale

I've often wondered how big and cumbersome ISO numbers have to get before we go to a sensible logarithmic scale such as DIN. Can you imagine a conversation "Are you going to use ISO 409,600 or go up to 819,200?" Dumb.

8 upvotes
olyflyer

Yes, you are right. ISO never made sense in this aspect, DIN would be much better.

1 upvote
Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik

Not sure if you're aware of it, but ISO is actually derived from both the ASA and DIN system. Also, there's absolutely no reason not to write common abbrevations such as 25k, or 100k, or 500k.

3 upvotes
Nick8

Correct, it is ISO 12232/2006, which defines both, the arithmetic and the logarithmic scales.
The problem is that, practically, only the arithmetic scale is used by manufacturers.
I see a very easy solution. Digital cameras’ menu should offer the option between the arithmetic scale and the logarithmic (DIN) scale.
In that case every photographer could choose the scale type he/she feels more comfortable with. Let the user decide.
It is something very simple to implement and worth doing, IMHO.

2 upvotes
WhiteBeard

Actually, the ISO is exactly the old ASA scale with a fancier name. I agree that using the 1024x multiplier would simplify things from ISO 25600 on up keeping a straightforward linear scale when moving to 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k ISO instead of using the DIN log scale which only engineers can love.
And to think I was very happy "pushing" my 400 ASA Tri-X film to 800 in the last century...

1 upvote
red fuji

Here is a nice camera bag for this camera

http://www.louisvuitton.com/front/#/eng_US/Collections/Men/Mens-Bags/products/Camera-Bag-DAMIER-GRAPHITE-N58027

0 upvotes
Jude McDowell
0 upvotes
jeffharris

Cheapskate!

1 upvote
Devendra

sorry.. more like this will be perfect. will keep the thieves away
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Animal-Friends-Zebra-12-161-177-Backpack/28806844

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

At least it doesn't advertise Nikon in large yellow letters like the strap.

0 upvotes
WhiteBeard

Nikon could bundle up camera and case for 9999,95$; that would be a steal! I predict good sales in Saudi Arabia...

0 upvotes
q8wizard

can this camera lead us to think of an upgrade for the d800 soon?

1 upvote
Mike Davis

ISO 409,600 is eight stops faster than ISO 1600.

Fairground rides: 1/250 sec. @ f/16
Night street scene: 1/200 sec. @ f/16
Interior by candlelight: 1/60 sec. @ f/16
Landscapes by full moon: 1/2 sec. @ f/16

0 upvotes
bobbarber

You can do those shutter time and aperture combinations with your current camera, can't you? And you get something like an ISO 409,600 shot when you adjust the exposure in post, right?

2 upvotes
andresllopart

The image quality after iso 6400 is not very nice or usable imho, according to the samples on the internet... I was hopping something really good but those high iso that claims are as good as a phone camera iso 1600 10 years ago...
Got really excited for second when I saw the title...

0 upvotes
Howard Prendergast

The point of increased sensitivity is the ability to capture a good/excellent image in less light, as when shooting at night, shooting fast moving things (vehicles, athletes, animals) in moderate to low light. That is the point of it.

The numbers only gives one a symbolic reference of the capability of the camera/film and settings used. You can go ahead and use whatever setting that you want to get the best image based on recommendation from the manufacturer or other expert or your own tests.

It is true that some cameras have higher low light resolving capabilities than others as i am guessing that the D4s is one of the best if not he best. NO, you are not going to get the same low light image quality from your prosumer or enthusiast camera by matching the settings.

2 upvotes
bobbarber

Howard, I don't think that there is any increased sensitivity. My camera, admittedly a dinosaur compared to this one, performs the same at low and high iso. In other words, 1/60s, f5.6, ISO 1600 (recommended by the meter) is the same as 1/60s, f5.6, ISO 400 on my camera, after the ISO 400 shot is pushed two stops in post. I am talking pixel-peeping identical results.

Therefore, if this camera's top ISO setting were 102,400, and you took a shot at that ISO underexposed by two stops, and then pushed it two stops in post, would the result be any different than dialing in ISO 409,600 and using the camera's recommended metering? I'm betting not.

Listing these extraordinary ISO numbers in the menu is a parlor trick that people have fallen for. The numbers likely do not represent increased sensor performance, but decreased exposure. You could take a similar ISO 409,600 on any Nikon full-frame, by adjusting exposure, without the manufacturer "allowing" you to do it with a menu setting.

0 upvotes
Howard Prendergast

I hear what you are saying Bob. My point is that I do believe Nikon when they say they have better low light capability in the camera. (I have not used the camera so I can't know for sure) My point is not that putting up fancy numbers will give you more sensitivity, numbers are just symbols and not the actual thing, but the point is the sensor/processor combination is supposed to be more capable so the number is there to indicate that.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
bobbarber

Howard,

You're probably right. There probably is some advantage to this sensor and processing combination. Sensors do seem to get better with time, even if only slightly. I'm still not convinced, though, that Nikon made measurements and concluded that the D4s objectively merited an ISO 409,600 designation, whereas the previous D4 model didn't.

Edit: I also think that a performance increase in the D4s would have been better shown by objective reviews that demonstrated lower noise at the same ISOs that the D4 had in the menu. Raising the number doesn't do it for me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
imsabbel

I oppose the current trent of DPReview to label articles like this, which barely would rate as a preview, with a "review" name.

3 upvotes
JPR.lda

This is an amazing camera, it is all that D4 should have been from the start,

BUT

No Wi-Fi
No Dual CF cards
No 4K video

I will keep my D3s, until D5 or D6 has these features

4 upvotes
Vince P

I and others can't have a wi-fi enabled camera. (Even if you can disable it) for certain events, so it would have to be an option. I think it' safe to say that it would be any easy add on if they wanted to include it otherwise so it seems like Canon & Nikon are keeping this modular for these reasons.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
ajendus

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that this is what "the D4 should have been"?

2 upvotes
vFunct

Amazing high-ISO comparisons of D4 vs D4s (per Macrumors): http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310

It's at least 1 stop better than the D4, which already has a much better sensor than the Canon 1Dx.

3 upvotes
armandino

I am skeptical of 1 stop improvement, . I am sure it is better, but we are talking incremental. Less noise but more smudging. I do find a better white balance in the pics. And noise wise D4 is not much better than the 1DX. A bit better in dynamic range, not so much in noise. At least up to 25,000 ISO

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
AKH

D4 has 1.3 stop better dynamic range (13.1 versus 11.8), 24.7 bit color depth versus 23.8 bit and only marginally better high ISO performance than the 1Dx.

0 upvotes
peevee1

You'd think in 2014 a top-of-the line camera would have 802.11ac and double UHS-II slots, not the outdated CF and non-starter XQD.

5 upvotes
DaytonR

I also expected that Nikon would have got rid of CF starting with this camera

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Under The Sun

Funny that even Sony does not use XQD on their own high end cameras.

0 upvotes
Zoran K

This is a tool for certain group of professionals.

7 upvotes
yabokkie

that when we go higher and higher performance, it gets more and more difficult to have a one fit all solution and still be the best for everything.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jaygeephoto

Yes, a professional's tool for sure. These camera's are in a different realm than most others. Comparisons to other types is meaningless; like comparing earth moving equipment to compact sized pickup trucks - they serve different clientele.

2 upvotes
yabokkie

by far the largest group of professionals.

2 upvotes
photog4u

I wonder if Peaking Zebras would have been a patent infringement?

0 upvotes
Jim Salvas

Nikon introduces the 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Undoubtedly a great model.

12 upvotes
technotic

Heavy cameras make make you a pro. The heavier your gear the more pro you are.

4 upvotes
vFunct

Heavier cameras also get you more clients.

Professional photographers know that, to close a deal, show the client the biggest camera.

NEVER go into a meeting with a point-and-shoot or mirrorless. You'll get laughed out.

20 upvotes
yabokkie

> heavier your gear the more pro you are.

very good someone can see it, it's easy to see.

0 upvotes
guiri

...of course, a heavier camera is easier to hold still...and more stuff DOES take more space...geez people.

7 upvotes
Jim Salvas

I forgot: it has to be heavier to be easier to hold still because most Nikon lenses ARE NOT STABILIZED and neither is the body! How could I have forgotten that?

$6,500 and no stabilization on a $1,700 lens like the 58/1.4? Those pros must sure have steady hands.

3 upvotes
taktak91

1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was probably the last of the great, truly American Cadillacs. Cadillacs since then are poor attempts at copying Mercs and Bimmers. They don't look or feel American.

0 upvotes
PamlicoKid

It would appear that Jim is a WMS.

0 upvotes
Jim Salvas

Jim is a guy who likes jokes and satire, but there apparently are lots of folks around here who don't get satire.

0 upvotes
commiebiker

no joke, and even less who can deliver it

0 upvotes
technotic

I now charge by weight. If a client wants me to use a larger heavier camera they have to pay more for a session. Someone has to pay for my back treatment.

0 upvotes
richard cohen

A nice freshening of what already was an amazing camera. Not enough to get me to upgrade however....maybe a D5 some day.

0 upvotes
Gary Martin

This is a professional tool, usually attached to big, high-performance and expensive glass. Forum junkies, camera fetishists and gear collectors need not apply.

8 upvotes
SeeRoy

I wonder what proportion of these cameras are actually sold to "working pros"? Of course we'll never know that.

7 upvotes
yabokkie

sports/events and portraits?

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

...but they'll sell it to any doctor, dentist or attorney who wants one.

1 upvote
OBI656

Nobody Knows Anything ... Highly recommended article to read !

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/nobody_knows_anything.shtml

5 upvotes
Ferling

Agree. Other than that article, at least I've spent considerably less time online as a result of the nothing worth reading about, otherwise.

0 upvotes
Rick DeBari

Wait a minute! DP Review hasn't posted the full D4 review yet after two years! Still waiting! Sorry couldn't resist. ☺ lol

15 upvotes
Stealthy Ninja

Also there's not 1Dx review. Just sayin'

0 upvotes
jhendrix

Anyone have an example of ISO 204,800? Does it look like pointillism?

1 upvote
joejack951

Try Google Image search. I found a bunch of images. It's pretty by 204800 (on the D4, not sure about the S) but usable for a small image. I'll take noise over motion blur any day (and have my D3S set to use auto-ISO up to max ISO).

0 upvotes
Yohan Pamudji

If you turn on noise reduction it looks like a Monet.

1 upvote
imsabbel

Looks like ISO 1600 color film and is about as usable (i.e. depends on the circumstances).

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf

Now we are heading towards the million ISO mark, is there a major technical difficulty of providing say, ISO 10?

8 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

I think the problem is that it would be too easy.

3 upvotes
areichow

You could simulate it the way other cameras already do - shoot RAW, over expose by 2 1/3 stops and fix it in post.

Other than that, I suspect that bringing down base ISO even more would reduce low light performance. I imagine more people are willing to use an ND filter than reduce high ISO quality by 2-3 stops.

0 upvotes
peevee1

When sensor providers will finally make one with global shutter, ISO as low as you want will be available automatically, without loss of DR (unlike the "overexpose and pull back" method).

0 upvotes
elf kerben

So, in half or a year these package as an D700 successor with optional battery grip and i will forgot the missing D400 all these years.

1 upvote
Just a Photographer

Better think of a D800s instead - No D700 follow up is to expected as it is already available as a D800. Though many refuse to believe so.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
elf kerben

I like speed and old glass, so i prefer the 12MP-16MP over 36MP or more. So i if Nikon will miss the chance to do it right, i use my equipment till it goes away and then i will see. :)

I have the longer breathe, not Nikon. :) So like the innovative Oly lens and the EM1 or the Fuji X setup. Maybe with the EM3 or Fuji T3 this systems right for me, with a lot of nice lenses and i will switch.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

more pixels the better.

I'd like to have a 48MPix or 72MPix D700X, willing to accept lower resolution readout at fastest frame rate (8-9 fps) if Nikon says it's impossible for them to handle full resolution at that speed, then the user will have to choose between downsizing and cropping, or both, like they already have for video.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Smeggypants

"I'd like to have a 48MPix or 72MPix " WHY?

4 upvotes
yabokkie

please read the sentence before what you quoted.

0 upvotes
wetsleet

What is the utility of a 72Mpix FF DSLR? Already at 36MPix the resolution limiting step is no longer the sensor but the lens, due to diffraction, on apertures smaller than about f7.
That is not to say there is no point using smaller apertures, but when you do you won't notice any advantage from the 36Mpix over lesser resolutions.
Push the Mpix ever higher and the diffration limit comes at ever wider apertures, until there is no remaining resolution advantage to be gained throughout the aperture range. Meanwhile the cost is ever increasing file size.
I suppose the advantage is that you know your sensor capabilities are beyond your lens capabilities, so you are realising the maximum performance possible from your lens. Then at least you have to call a halt to increasing MPix any further.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

He doesn't understand that smaller pixels introduce noise into the image because there is a lower signal to noise ratio.

0 upvotes
elf kerben

@yabokkie

My "old" glass (24-70 AFS, 85/1,4 D) performs well with 12MP maybe with 16MP. My friends D800 shows the limit of these. So if you need 72MP in this sensor-technology, i think you need a lot money for lenses which are atm not exist. :)

0 upvotes
yabokkie

who said more pixels is for resolution only? it's more for resolution now for all the cameras are resolution challenged but it'll go beyond lens resolution for better SNR.

more pixels the better (the limit is size of atoms).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
technotic

Don't forget Quark cameras, way better - better resolution and dynamic range. Atoms are way too big - full of space don't you know?

2 upvotes
yabokkie

the bottom line is pixel should not resolve.

a lot of problems we have with low resolution sensors (that is, lower than twice of the highest lens resolution) comes from a single soure: pixels resolve.

semiconductors, physics also favor smaller pixels for they have better efficiency than larger ones (which is one of the reasons behind mobile camera boom).

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Sdaniella

no, Nikon simply doesn't have fast processing power for 48MP or 72MP

D4/D4s has only 176MP/s speed processors, so:
176MP/s ÷ 48 MP= 3.6 fps (1 processor)/7.2 fps with 2 processors
176MP/s ÷ 72 MP= 2.4 fps (1 processor)/4.8 fps with 2 processors

using Nikon 1-series mirrorless processing of 210 MP/s:
210 ÷ 48 = 4.4 fps with 1, 8.8 fps with 2 processors
210 ÷ 72 = 2.9 fps with 1, 5.8 fps with 2 processors

Nikon needs either to double inclusion of 2 processors or have newer processors, or both, or Canon processors AND Canon mirrors !!! :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie

let's think Nikon has a 180MPix sensor and 180MPix/s image handling capability, then we can have 1 fps at highest resolution (for landscape, for example), and 10 fps at 20MPix for sports.

that 20MPix can be binned from the whole frame or cropped from the center (smaller than 1 inch diagonal, for bird shooters), or somewhere between.

0 upvotes
Zerg2905

Canon has that sensor, not Nikon. Sorry. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
gskolenda

I don't get it! $6,500 bucks for a 16mp FF camera body, they don't need to sell very many of these to make a huge profit, regardless of the market conditions!

This is a big time Rip in my mine, I would take the D800-D800e any day over this camera.

3 upvotes
ARTASHES

Sport, sport ...

6 upvotes
jkoch2

No "huge profit" unless they sell enough units to cover fixed costs and overhead, which probably eat up a big share of revenues of the high-end niche.

"Market conditions" aren't good for traditional cameras, so Nikon can be credited for steering carefully.

1 upvote
Daedbird

You are not the market for this camera GSK, but I am guessing you do not make $40k+ a year as a professional portrait/wedding/newswire photographer......

1 upvote
Smeggypants

sad so many people are still hypnotised by the number of MPs

11 upvotes
Dave Oddie

"You are not the market for this camera GSK, but I am guessing you do not make $40k+ a year as a professional portrait/wedding/newswire photographer......"

I thought they all used iPhone's for that these days ;)

4 upvotes
Gesture

Nikon=continuous improvement.

1 upvote
Heaven is for real

meaning the last camera was subpar? Is Nikon beginning to be like Apple or Microsoft? Incremental updates? nothing new?

5 upvotes
Just a Photographer

I'd say its more like milking your customers.
Be honest to yourself, what brings the D4s really to the table if you already own a D4?

That one stop ISO improvement is a laugh, the rest could be done by a firmware update. Probably that extra stop is already a firmware only thing.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
yabokkie

Nikon is killing off Nikon.

2 upvotes
Wally626

That Mac Pro was a real incremental upgrade ;). Continuous improvements make sense until there is a big reason to change. On sensor PDF once it reaches majurity will be a big reason to rethink the pro cameras. The Sony A6000 is the first hint of how fast a system like that can be. Not yet in full frame and not all the features of the top Canon and Nikon systems yet, but not that many years out. EVF is also close but not quite as good as the best FF cameras. But we have not seen what the vendors could do with the budget for a viewfinder in a $7000 camera versus the budget for a $1400 camera. The final stage will be fully electronic shutters up and past 1/8000 sec.

0 upvotes
DenWil

If you use three or four bodies at a time, year round it makes perfect sense to make incremental upgrades in the product- as units are worn out and replaced the D4s can be worked in without conflict.

Every product is not released with an eye towards the customer throwing away what they have and buying this. Many pros buy new copies every year. It's great that upgraded versions are released.

3 upvotes
Gesture

Good thoughts by everyone. Nikon, Canon = Honda, Toyota. The newest model doesn't obsolete the earlier ones. But it will be interesting to see how PDAF on sensor and EVF evolve/advance.

I think the OVF could do more with integrated overhead display, but that isn't where the industry is trending.,

0 upvotes
Carlos Loff

Oh Yes ? So why does the D600 got the same Focus specs than the D7000 when there was already AF improvements for the D7100 when the D600 came up ??? CONTINUOUS, WHERE ???

0 upvotes
Howard Prendergast

Awesome camera, supremely capable. I would love to try out one for a week or two. I don't have a need for it's capabilities, I shoot Corporate Portraits, but I would definitely get it if I was a sports/journalist/wildlife photographer. It is a pleasure seeing all these cameras, the competition for the consumers attention is hot these days.

5 upvotes
dg90

It´s a camera to knock out a gorilla and making some close-ups.

No chance with a MILC ... a gorilla will drink it in one second!

2 upvotes
RichRMA

Only thing is, FPS. DSLR's seem to max-out around 10fps and there as already one mirror-less that does 40 I believe.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung

Sure!
Nikon 1 can!

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer

Right on! Let's see a Canon camera knock out a gorilla!

0 upvotes
Sdaniella

all digicams (are mirrorless) ... means fps SHOULD be highest/fastest compared to mirrored systems ... PLUS VIDEO fps always surpasses larger stills ...

of course video MP lower than stills MP, there is a trade-off, faster fps means lower MP (if one holds processing speeds)

so, the REAL key is, has PROCESSING SPEEDS REALLY PROGRESSED ?

yes, of course !

if you IGNORE CANON! (see below)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sdaniella

ONLY if you ignore CANON !!!
FF MP-FPS:
6D: 20 MP x 5 fps = 100 MP/s (2012)
5DMkIII: 20 MP x 6 fps = 120 MP/s (2012)
1DMkIV: 16 MP x 10 fps = 160 MP/s (fastest Pro: 2009)
1DX: 18 MP x 14 fps = 252 MP/s sizzlin' fast (fastest Pro: 2011)
1DC: 18 MP x 14 fps = 252 MP/s sizzlin' fast (fastest Pro: 2012)
APS-C MP-FPS:
7D: 18 MP x 8 fps = 144 MP/s* (2009 *w/new firmware)
70D: 20 MP x 7 fps = 140 MP/s (2013)

Nikon FF MP-FPS:
D600: 24 MP x 6 fps = 144 MP/s (2012)
D610: 24 MP x 6 fps = 144 MP/s (2013)
D800: 36 MP x 4 fps = 144 MP/s (2012)
D800E: 36 MP x 4 fps = 144 MP/s (2012)
D3s: 12 MP x 11 fps = 132 MP/s (slowest Pro: 2010)
D4: 16 MP x 11 fps = 176 MP/s (slowest Pro: 2012)
D4s: 16 MP x 11 fps = 176 MP/s (slowest Pro: 2014)
Nikon 1:
V2**: 14 MP x 15 fps = 210 MP/s (fastest Nikon 2012)
if one uses Nikon 1 series processing on D4 series, it only gets 16 MP @ 13 fps (fail; slower than Canon 1D) at lower MP (double fail; not high as Canon 1D)

**remember, fps plummets as noise increases

4 upvotes
Sdaniella

basically, Nikon hasn't yet caught up to Canon for MP-fps image processing speeds for STILLS in any given model or year ...

re: mirrored fps ... Nikon's FF maxed out at 11fps, so couldn't do 13 fps with Nikon 1 processing ...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sdaniella

btw,...
if upcoming 7D update comes along at 20MP
Canon could use 'old' 1DX processing power:
252MP/s ÷ 20 MP = 12.6 fps ... (adjust max fps downwards according to image MP increase)

unless newer Canon processing speeds it up further ...
most likely 1D update would get that later on (DiG!C 7) first over 5D or 7D updates.

note also, smaller mirrors with less mass should always be faster than larger mirrors (so a 20MP APS-C 7D update could hit 13 fps)

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1

Using your calculations, $700 Sony Alpha6000 - 11 fps * 24mpix=264MP/s.

5 upvotes
rrccad

yeah except peevee that the sony is only writing out half the data if that. where most of the cameras listed above output it all without the mash up that sony does it it's "RAW"'s .. which i'm wondering if they should be even called raw files.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PrakticaB

Please Pentax if you consider the FF put this sensor! 16 MP are more then enough!

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie

I think Pentax is working hard. but they don't have good resources now and users should be patient.

0 upvotes
RichRMA

They should go the opposite way, 64mp, the same density as m4/3rds right now. Why offer the same thing as Nikon?

1 upvote
dg90

If Pentax would make a FF camera, dpreview had no time to make a review, because - as example - [NikonCanonSonyFujiOlympus] releasing a very nice hand strap ... or bean bag with a shiny logo. ;)

4 upvotes
dg90

@RichRMA - you´re right. If it´s not a Nikon or Canon, it´s clearly a fault to release a 16MP FF. :D

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

If I were Pentax, I wouldn't want any part of the FF SLR market. And I wouldn't get any, either. Not now, anyway.

0 upvotes
antares103

Pentax is probably aiming at the FF crowd with the 645D. If I am gonna drop 5-10K on a camera body, I am going Medium format.

If I am doing sports/action, a crop sensor is fine with me as the extra "reach" is likely useful.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel

This is a Nikon sensor, not a Sony, as far as I know, so there is no way it will ever end up in a rival brand model.

0 upvotes
bobbarber

Question:

Is this ISO stuff smoke and mirrors, or is it legitimate? I admit I'm in the stone age, shooting an Olympus E-410, E-420, and Panasonic G6. I know that this camera is light years ahead of those cameras in high-ISO capability--that isn't my question. I've done some experimenting with my cameras, and I don't see any difference between high-ISO settings and low-ISO settings. That is, an exposure of 1/60 second, ISO 1600, recommended by the camera, gives me the same noise as an exposure of 1/60, ISO 400, two stops slow according to the camera, once I equal the exposures in post.

So is there more going on to these fantastic ISO numbers other than calling what you've always been able to do by a different name? My E-410 tops out at ISO 1600, yet if I shoot a stop slow, I'm at ISO 3200. If I shoot two stops slow, I'm an ISO 6400. Does it make a difference that the manufacturer tells me that's what I'm doing on the menu, or not?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Edmond Leung

Think the whole bunch of Pixel Size, ISO, DR, Noise, Shutter Speed.....
then you know the importance of high ISO.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

it's the lens aperture that really defines low light performance. 4/3" lenses have too small apertures that they cannot let in enough light (4/3" should be able to work as well at 1/4 of ISO value given same aperture size).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RichRMA

Most find that "pushed" 400 ISO isn't as good as "normal" 1600 ISO exposures because there is less gain being used with the sensor.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

Yab, the full well depth of small sensors can't handle more light than they get.....that's the whole point of large sensors being better than small sensors.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

@howardroark, sorry to say but should do your maths again.

0 upvotes
grafli

@bobbarder:
The nikon D4s tops out at 25'600 ISO. When you go higher than that, the camera does exactly what you described. The camera underexposes a ISO 25600 picture and boosts it 1(ISO 51200), 2(ISO 102400), 3 (ISO 204800) or even 4 (ISO 409600) stops. Because the nikon sensor is Fullframe (35mm) it does have less noise than your olympus e-420 (@ISO1600) even when set to iso 25600.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

Yab, go online and look up the full well depth of smaller sensors. And if that doesn't make you a believer, then you should understand that smaller pixels means less capacity to store charge. Those pixels would have to be perfect to bring noise down enough not to affect image quality, and they aren't good enough (expensive to make them perfect) to avoid ruining whatever theoretical benefit you think they have. Do your "maths" again.

1 upvote
bobbarber

I know that the D4s is better in low light than my Olympus because of sensor size. I thought I made that clear in my original post. My question is not about a comparison between cameras, but a comparison between ISO settings, on the same camera.

But nobody answered my question.

As I see it, there is no increased sensor performance within a given camera when higher ISO is dialed in (as there was with film, when the emulsion was different). You get the same sensor performance, working with less light. Is that right? It is what I have noticed doing experimental shots. If so, then all of these high-ISO numbers thrown around are a red herring. Cameras don't have a sensor AND a high-ISO performance, they have a sensor, period. Shutter speed, available light, and noise are what they are, regardless of the shooter choosing a certain ISO.

Edit: RichRMA answered my question, but I got different results with my camera. High and low ISO were identical.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie

@howardroark, it's not pixel well depth. that's where you got it wrong. it's either per unit area or per frame (or a certain portion of the sensor).

pixels don't have to be perfect. they better have very very bad pixel quality for best image quality. for worse the pixel quality, better the image quality.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wudyi

Face Detect AF is BIG plus in this camera which has me seriously thinking about it now.

1 upvote
vFunct

Curious about this as well.

Too bad DPReview doesn't test sport AF quality in its reviews, and only pixels.

1 upvote
jjnik

Face detect AF is only in LV. The D4 has this as well as the face detect AE - the D4s only adds the ability to turn the face detect AE off.

0 upvotes
Jogger

lmao at all the butt-hurt mirrorless evangelicals. the fact is that none of the mirrorless offerings would be able to command a $6000 asking price for a body-only camera.

5 upvotes
agentul

well, they could, but then all of the DSLR die-hards would chant "you fail, mirorless is supposed to be cheaper". there's just no way to win this.

oh, how much is the Hasselblad Lunar again?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
new boyz

Some medium format cameras are mirrorless and the asking price starts from 20k. I know they are not really a mirrorless by today's definition, but just saying.

5 upvotes
bobbarber

Except that they are mirrorless, new boyz. It doesn't matter what people call them. We're not talking about the emperor's new clothes.

0 upvotes
nathantw

Hasselblad hasn't put their wood sidings on a mirrorless camera yet. Once they do it'll be $10,000.

0 upvotes
agentul

@nathantw
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/18/hasselblad-launches-lunar-mirrorless-camera

please show me where the pentaprism is on the Lunar.

0 upvotes
RichRMA

Of course mirrorless won't command $6000 price tags (except Leica) because none can match the specifications of a DSLR like that. There are pluses and minuses on both sides, but at the moment, no one is going to do action photography with a mirror-less if they can afford the Nikon.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba

Jogger, did you take a stupid pill before YOU posted that ?

1 upvote
peevee1

"the fact is that none of the mirrorless offerings would be able to command a $6000 asking price for a body-only camera."

Leica M was even more for ages...
But the whole point of mirrorless to achieve the same performance cheaper. I mean, Sony Alpha6000 does the same 11fps with AF for $700.

1 upvote
Jim Salvas

How much if this could have been accomplished with just a firmware update? Seems to me, almost all if it.

2 upvotes
agentul

yup, new sensor and CPU circuitry are just a few lines of code away in this "push-button" age.

8 upvotes
Juck

lol baahhh-zing!

1 upvote
Zeisschen

End of the evolution and it became a big fat boring blobb of melted plastic. yawn

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

To be fair, it's rubberized magnesium alloy.

5 upvotes
agentul

steel or nothing! make Stalin proud, Nikon!

3 upvotes
RichRMA

Where is the titanium special edition for $15,000? Or is that only Leica and Hasselblad's purview?

0 upvotes
Zerg2905

Uh, boron carbide edition, anyone? Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Reservoir_Dog

They missed it again. Why no iso 3.276.800? Shame on you nikon!

5 upvotes
RichRMA

You can do that ISO if you want, you'll get an image, sort of.
Just shoot at 400,000 and push it 3 stops.

0 upvotes
arrr

Who asked for a D4s? *** Nikon where the heck is the D400?!

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
new boyz

While we're here, ask for the true D700 replacement as well(cheap(er) DSLR with 16mp D4 sensor).

0 upvotes
agentul

the D400 is vaporware, and will never exist. it's obvious, really. just like the Concorde v2.

0 upvotes
Michel F

@agentul: Oh how I really hope I can point out how wrong you were about the D400 a few months from now. Alas you are probably right.

0 upvotes
FrancW

its there already, but its called a Pentax K3 :-)

2 upvotes
PrakticaB

Well, everybody knows they sell it as Pentax K-3.

3 upvotes
agentul

@Michel F
look at what happened to the D90. from what i understand, the D7000 was not a real successor. Nikon seems to be in the middle of a transition in its product lines.

0 upvotes
Paco 316

Expandable to 409,600 ISO ... That is INSANE!

1 upvote
Heaven is for real

For end of the world photography when there is no light source at all!

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Heaven is for real:

Or for shooting at f16 in low light.

And realistically, not highly useable over ISO 50,000.

@Paco 316

Remember when people who knew about computers said: "1 gig of RAM, that's insane"?

Or from the video world: "A point and shoot digital still camera, that shoots high definition video, that's insane"?

2 upvotes
InTheMist

I want to handhold my pinhole photography.

0 upvotes
Beckler8

Gigantic DSLRs like this are becoming more and more niche - really just for certain pros that need specific types of performance. They should make a more versatile version, call it the D4V or whatever, that has many more video features like 4K, power zoom and AF that actually works. At least then hobbyists can justify the massive price and size because then suddenly it's a cinema camera as well.

0 upvotes
Daedbird

This camera was always a niche camera who have a main purpose of shooting stills. This was never meant to be a video machine.
While it makes sense for Nikon to build a more video-centric machine to take advantage of their lens selection, this does not need to be it.

5 upvotes
Beckler8

I would agree overall. I just think more and more pros can use mirrorless now and certainly for hobbyists like myself they're just making more and more sense. I always intended to get a top SLR but its getting hard to pull the trigger now because relatively speaking, they're *losing* too much versatility to other cameras but are still as logistically impractical as ever.

0 upvotes
tagomilonga

What if they miniaturized it and stuffed it in to the iphone, wait.. you have a camera in your iphone, so lets take some pictures... darn can't take pictures when on facebook/twitter all day...oh well

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
BeaniePic

World press photo cameras 2014. Nikon need this camera, but have a little way to go yet. http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/02/18/canon-1d-x-dominates-world-press-photo-2014-list/

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung

4K Video?
Arri ALEXA is still 2K!
Panavision Genesis is still 2K!
Arri and Panavision are not as Pro as Nikon???
I prefer 2K with 4:4:4 footage.

0 upvotes
Vegasus

Dear NIKON company, will u make the next D5 is mirrorless??? FF mirrorless like Sony a7?
I want FF Mirrorless, electronic viewfinder with similar features like fuji x-t1, wifi, bluetooth, built-in modem ( so take photo and send it right away to the internet, ho ho ho ho ) slightly smaller, lighter, expeed 5 perhaps, 20 megapixels, no grain at very high iso, ....

2 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

In that case, why not just buy an A7 and get what you want now?

3 upvotes
BeaniePic

If only the A7 did what it said...

0 upvotes
yabokkie

it might come with a mirror or mirrorless all depends on which can bring high performance. I have no doubt that we are going mirrorless eventually but at the moment mirrorless has no chance, not yet, not till we have high performance dual-pixel AF for example.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
InTheMist
2 upvotes
AlexRuiz

EVF's today are quite poor. If you prefer today's EVF's over OVF, I don't know what to tell you. It would be like choosing processed over natural foods.

0 upvotes
Vegasus

To Tonio Loewald, well, i cant just buy sony a7, i've got Nikon lenses, yet, with sony product, they build new and then stop, A mount, then E mount now FE mount, soon X mount and not backward compatible.

0 upvotes
krikman

Why you don't buy $50 copy of iPhone with all these bells and whistles already inside?

1 upvote
Vegasus

Oh Nikon,... why dont you put BUILT IN WIFI instead? THUNDERBOLT 2 connector, and 2 sd card slots not XQD. why no XQD? is sony stuff, usually doesnt last long, next time sony will make XQD type-2 with different shape again.

4 upvotes
MayaTlab0

I believe implementing thunderbolt would be rather difficult (I believe it requires a dedicated chip of some sort) and probably useless since its speed largely exceed the read / write speed you could realistically use. Right now the main interest of thunderbolt speed is for not loosing performance when daisy-chaining, but I doubt you'd connect your Apple display to your computer via your D4s. I believe USB 3 would be an easier thing to implement.

2 upvotes
instamatic

Probably because that would mean making the camera buffer even deeper to allow for continuous framerate at high speed, as SD cards tend to be slower than CF and XQD cards as of today. Added buffer memory adds costs to making the camera.

0 upvotes
InTheMist

What pro camera has built-in WIFI?

0 upvotes
AlexRuiz

Why is it that people are so obsessed with wifi or ther such gimmicks? Really? It sounds like the megapixel bs all over again.

2 upvotes
MayaTlab0

Couldn't it be used for wireless tethering ?

0 upvotes
Vegasus

AlexRuiz, I am not obsessed with wifi, I think wifi will help to reduce memory card corrupt files/images. I've had experienced where memory card got corrupted and i cant get the images, doesnt matter how expensive the memory card is, problem still there. I know there is recover software, but i must wait, waste for time.

0 upvotes
djsphynx

XQD? Pass.

1 upvote
Rbrt

Still no USB 3.0.

5 upvotes
InTheMist

What camera has USB 3.0 other than the D800? There is one.

0 upvotes
Ben Stonewall

Not very surprising and innovative enough. If Steve Jobs was still alive, he would have mocked Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX engineers. He would have made Apple to innovate their own DSLR with built in mp3 player, touch LED screen, 3.5G capable (sounds like iPhone). Bwahahahaha

I think Nikon and Canon did not introduced much changes and competition in their flagship DSLRs so as not to loose their market in the professional photographers arena. Professional photographers don't worry themselves much with the camera specs, but rather with their crafts. It's the prosumer photographers that worry too much about the camera specs, the pixel peepers and mongers. Nyahahaha

1 upvote
MayaTlab0

I believe that pro photographers would have readily welcomed a number of improvements on the D4s that Nikon didn't care to implement. Like an overhaul of their practically useless custom memory banks, or a flash system that works similarly as the iPhone 5S' flash, etc. Change is good as long as it's relevant, useful, practical.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Zerg2905

1. Muahahahahahaha! 2. Come on, Canon, 1000 FPS, full card no matter the size RAW buffer, and ISO 1638400 or nothing! Cheers! :):) + :).

1 upvote
agentul

what do you mean "card"? it should have a 1 TB SSD.

2 upvotes
Zerg2905

Right. A bigger card called SSD it is, then. Cheers! :)

0 upvotes
Heaven is for real

We heard this before. Nothing new or innovative about this camera. They just added a letter "s". Nikon could just have released a new firmware for D4 and done with it.

2 upvotes
agentul

took a page from the Apple handbook.

1 upvote
brendon1000

While I agree this camera isn't very inspiring do note that its got a brand new processor inside thats more powerful than the D4. Thats the whole reason for the higher price and added features like better ISO performance (claimed) and faster fps.

2 upvotes
Heaven is for real

"new processor" - incremental updates indeed. Been there, done that…Nikon is running out of innovative ideas.

0 upvotes
brendon1000

Don't disagree with that point BUT with your statement that a firmware update could have done the same thing which is what I was disagreeing with. All these new 'features' was made possible with a new faster processor.

0 upvotes
mauritsvw

"incremental updates indeed"

Professional cameras, which are workhorses which have to deliver year round and is used for earning a salary, is not the place to be revolutionary. Therefore they're playing it safe.

1 upvote
Neodp

...and you still believe there is such a good application for a camera this big? Plus, that the better benefits can't be in a D5300, or smaller sized camera? Have you heard of parts being made smaller? I'm not saying it needs to be any less than the same full-frame sensor, or that a pocket camera works well with a lens the size of a telescope. I'm saying it's filter-down and out of whack with size, price, and reality.

No. M43 doesn't have the answer yet, and neither does Sony's awkward cameras, with all their FF (and some APS-C) goodness; but what we are ever so missing, are these known and existing, good photographic benefits, COMBINED into an affordable, more mobile, total system.

Just because better *DOES* bring a better price (I get it) does not explain the ridiculous price differences. How many times better is $4000 compared to $400 folks? Yes! Details matter big; but how many times more expensive do you really believe these cameras are to manufacture? You've been snowed. Under!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
brian1366

Why are you ranting about mobility in a thread about the D4S? There is a purpose for this class of camera being so large. There are ergonomic advantages for sports photographers with huge 400mm+ lenses.
This is a pro tool and if you don't understand it, then don't buy it. There will always be pros who will.

6 upvotes
JackM

This is a sports camera, plain and simple. Sports cameras will continue to look just like this as long as human hands are as big as they are, and as long as human beings can go as fast as they can.

5 upvotes
fakuryu

If you just compared a D4 to a D5300, I guess you don't know what you are taking about.

7 upvotes
Neodp

If you don't see the D4 has massive negatives then I guess you are not being reasonable. Quality does not need to be that big, or that price, no matter what your needs are. You are certainly welcome to disagree. I understand, it also can't be too small, and retain quality; based on today’s offerings. But I was suggesting small full frame cameras, and lenses. The FF fixed lens RX1 shows us the size, like a system with a 35mm focal length lens could be.

1 upvote
venancio

all I wanted was a toy and they're giving me the kitchen sink... all kidding aside, i'll rate this with a double plus if it can bring Kelby back... meanwhile, i'll just mull on the thought as to whether 80% of these could be done with a firmware update or did it really need an Expeed 4... hmmm....

0 upvotes
Total comments: 1049
23456