Just Posted: Nikon D4 Studio Test Samples

Now that Adobe has released Camera Raw 6.7rc1, I thought I'd compare the high ISO extraction done with Adobe to extraction done with Capture NX 2.3.1.

I chose the ISO 6400 raw and the ISO 25600 raw, Adobe easily beats Capture NX for noise control, detail retention, and blotching on the dark areas of the bottle.

I look forward to getting more D4 raws to extract with ACR 6.7.

Mar 9, 2012permalink

Just a little question:

Does anyone know when D800 and D4 will be avaliable regularly? I've heard these camera will not be regularly on the market until 2013. I need know that, cause I plan go to USA, just to buy one of them, in my vacation (August). But if these camera will not be available B&H, Adorama, Ritz, Best Buy, Amazon, I don't go to USA.

Mar 7, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

I am frustrated, several days ago I checked the same test and D4's samples were a bit darker, today they have identical exposition than D3s one, did the Dreview replaced D4 sample shots ?
PS Now D4 looks better that 2 days ago !!!

Mar 6, 2012*permalink

New Guy Wanna Learn

Great ISO from D4 compared to previous Canon dslr...

I personally think extra high but excellent ISO range will be more useful for amateurs (ahem, like me) than extra high resolution, which i think is more suitable for professionals or those who like studios...

I use the Canon 550D...but its quite 'impossible' to use 60 fps video in low light situation, without all the noise dancing around the screen everywhere...my kit lens almost limit me to 30 or 24 fps video..and using a nifty fifty would severely reduce the FOV...

Hope they will reduce the resolution and make ISO 204 800 as clean as my 3200 soon...then wow, my f3.5 kit lens can be turned into an f1.2 prime!

Mar 6, 2012permalink

Sarge_

I'm among those who don't see any high ISO advantage to the D4 over the D3.

The video specs look like a big improvement, and the focusing ability is likely improved, but I think I'm more likely to add a D800 to my D3 than trade the D3 for a D4...

Then again, this one single studio shot is just one tiny little piece of the story, though, so I'm withholding judgment until I see a lot more reviews...

PS: Please don't waste everyone's time with inciteful, juvenile, fanboy troll posts. Seek therapy, not negative attention.

Mar 6, 2012*permalink

You mean the D3s, not the D3, correct?

Mar 6, 2012permalink

aris14

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

Mar 6, 2012permalink

rudymnv

You can compare studio shots of different class cams, but... for instance... some people use their equipment to take sports photo at Olympic Games. It's all matter of perception.

Mar 6, 2012permalink

PicOne

How valid is the comparison tool when you change lenses used for the test shots? For detail resolution.. are we seeing sensor, AA filter differences, diffraction or lens differences?

Mar 6, 2012*permalink

kadardr

D3s and D4 show very similar results. Their FF sensor is much better than any APS-C sensor.
Consequence:
I need a camera with FF sensor, but a cheap one, I mean like max. USD 1500 for the body. Who is going to bring it?

Mar 6, 2012permalink

bcalkins

A used 5D Mark I is waiting for you :)

Mar 6, 2012permalink

miles green

It's not going to happen... (i'd like one too!) A used 5D mark I is not going to be better than a new top shelf APS-C for low ISO, DR, resolution, etc.
If you want it for the DOF control, then yes, but that's another thing, and even then you'll need to use primes if you want to be able to say "you can't do this with any APS-C camera".

Mar 6, 2012permalink

mrcameraman

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

How well do those Audis do against an Enzo or the F458?

Note, not say which is which camera?

Do you shoot with a D3s?

Mar 5, 2012permalink

AkinaC

@howaboutRAW: For a pro, a right camera to get their job done is enough, doesn't matter which camera is.

btw, still depends the where the Audi is race against, although Ferrari is powerful but in some narrow place huge cars like Enzo may be found difficult to drive (Same to cameras and any other gadgets)

Mar 6, 2012permalink

AkinaC:

None of those cars are actually for racing.

Mar 6, 2012permalink

BJN

Impressive. I wish such great sensor performance was available in a more compact and affordable body.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Have you looked into the D700?

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Lanski

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

elefteriadis alexandros

-So you are not astrophotographer.. you have right but people tend to be impressed by the numbers.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Well, the numbers! For many people numbers are everything!

So, these people, they aren't photographer, they are gears buyers and consumers.

Mar 5, 2012*permalink

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

Natan Lorenzi:

I personally have used ISO 10,000 in an everyday setting. Yes I made real prints from the files.

Mar 6, 2012permalink

clk_walker

D4 not available in studio comparison tool.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

D200_4me

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

altenae

Well Said.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

pacogwapo

Mar 5, 2012permalink

bryPT

agreed! +10!

Mar 5, 2012permalink

d3xmeister

Maybe I am crazy but I see red color blotches even at ISO 200. The D3s seems much clean at all ISO settings, blacks are black and color blotches start only at very high ISO.
The D4 looks like an entry level DSLR at low-medium ISO's.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

AshMills

You ordered an OM-D right?

Mar 5, 2012permalink

tmy

As a small addition to the post above...

I also use a lot of Canon gear when issued to me, and I am looking forward to trying out the very well speced 1Dx. I am sure that it'll be a great camera as well and be well up to the great standard that Canon produce in their pro line of cameras.
Looking forward to the 5DIII as well with the new AF. As popular and important that the 5DII was, the dodgy AF was always bit hard to accept. The IQ was great, so even if left as it was, it'll be a great improvement. A soft, slightly out of focus image is no good no matter how low noise or perfectly coloured your image is.
And importantly, Nikon in this new release has kept the prices reasonable. That is to say that it is not heaps more expensive that the D3s. In fact I'm sure by the time it is readily available, it'll be pretty much be the same price.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

tmy

So much bickering and pixel peeping.

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

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Gundam F91

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

Mar 5, 2012permalink

YBJL

Cannot even clearly read the book's title when the iso is 25600. I don't think it will happen to Nikon D4. Thanks to show how bad 5DMk3 is.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

sandy b

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40810023

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Gundam F91

Idiot Bill1969, I am a Nikonian.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Gundam F91

Exactly, you are dum.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

The Imaging Resource has a more comprehensive set of D4 sample pics out there.
Worth comparing. (and they use more consistent lense/F data than was the case in the DPR sample)

After you look at it you find the same we saw here, but in a wider variety of sample shots

1. No difference in IQ AT all
2. The picture quality when you zoom in and make objects the same size on a canvas of equal size is IDENTICAL - i.e. there is no higher resolution/quality from a crop with the 16mp sensor. (disappointment!)

So, whatever the benefits are, they appear to be limited to much better video and a bunch of refinements like back lit buttons, slightly improved ergonomics and so on.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Fair enough. But I think many of the upgrades are valuable to the outdoor photographer with fast moving subjects. Upgrades if available for the D3s many of us would gladly send our cameras in for.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

That appears to be the case: the D4 does not improve over the D3s in IQ.
It does, however, improve in other areas.
Thus, nothing revolutionary or ground breaking. Just an expensive upgrade.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

My humble prediction 1D X vs D4/D3s

When the light get really low Nikoners will pack up their gear and head home. Once home they will find a comfy corner, curl up into a little ball so to cry themselves to sleep.
Night night sleep tight. :P

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Damo83

Canon marketing must love people like you who passionately support their camp. Why you would love to love them is beyond me. Maybe I don't understand because I prefer to spend time developing my own work rather than watching from the sidelines which brand is the current heavyweight champion of the camera world.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Trolls will be Trolls I guess.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Poss

Nothing humble about your prediction...

Mar 5, 2012permalink

These Canon/Nikon comparisons are quite interesting, but I find generally of limited practical applicability. Most of us have made a system choice long ago and are now vested in lenses. Few if any would give up that gear, switch bodies, and buy set of new lenses...

seems to me its a constant tug of war between the two manufacturers, each one being on top for some time.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

ashwins

Pathetic post, Ape.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

nanoer

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Marco 2k7

can't argue with that. well said.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

You're absolutely right.
I switched to Sony because I'm a tech head.
Many of the things Sony offers are a little gadgety but I love them.
Does that make me a better photographer?
No, not at all. But I enjoy it more which is the only thing that matters to me.
Everybody should find the brand he's happy with.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

tobias2003

30 years ago the Sony camera division was known as Minolta.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

carnaby

No, the one that masters connectivity, will win. Both Nikon and Canon masters your 4 points well enough already, but the one that masters connectivity to the internet and different agencies best, will win, because these photographers will sell more pics.
The same of course applies for wedding photographers, where an assistant, which doesn't even have to be on site, can fetch and edit pictures and video in realtime from the camera and produce content that the guests can bring with them before leaving.... or that is available on facebook or whatever the next day...
or is viewable on a large screen on site dureing the event in question...

Mar 5, 2012*permalink

bewing77

Definatly. A D700 with my iPhones connectivity capabilities would open so many real oppurtunities to make more money from my business, much more so than a 36 MP D800. I don't undestand why the big players fail to realise some simple facts of our near future: 98% of all still images will be viewed on screen and transfered by web, thus super high resolution and IQ should be a secondary feature; people growing up today are impatient. They never had to wait for a photo lab to develop their film rolls and they don't want to wait even a couple of days for their wedding pictures, they want them right away. The first actor that brings a camera like this to market wins right out. It's been shown time and time again tha big corps who fails to do the right thing can and will be overthrown by small actors doing it right.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

QSMcDraw

Why would we want one company to win a product war? So they have no competition, charge whatever they like, and never need to improve? Nuts.

Mar 6, 2012permalink

Andycnv

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

aberlinck

I Agree. D3S is better than D4

Mar 4, 2012permalink

ZAnton

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

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

altenae

Really.....

Canon and Nikon deliver both superb DSLR's
Both Canon and Nikon will do PERFECT for 99,9 % for us...

Read the topic of Rozsas Adam...
Indeed pros are laughing on all these topics...
It seems ALL is about Canon vs Nikon...

It's not.

It's Fanboys not Funboys.....

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

Good job!
It only took you two sentences to prove that you're a fanboy, probably way more than the people you accuse of being fanboys.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

The reason people compare the D4 to the D3S is because the D3S has set the stanndard for high ISO excellence...

The fact of the matter is that they don't "destroy" anything... using your logic one should also assume that the D3S sales trounced the 1D Mark IV ... which you, me and everybody else knows is not true...

You're constantly comparing a full frame sensor (D3S or D4) with a 1.3 crop factor sensor (1D Mark IV) ... to gain bragging rights about their ISO prowess... If thats seems like a fair comparison to you... by all means brag away...

The true test will be between the Canon 1D X & 5D Mark III ... In all probability the Nikon D800 will have APS-C level ISO performance at ISO 3200 and above... so one wouldn't really consider it a contender for anything other than resolution...

There is no denying that the D4 seems like a good all round camera... but its not going to set any precedence as far as low light photography goes...

Mar 4, 2012permalink

AshMills

So, they topped up the Martini?

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Poss

Nah... just some red ink...

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Photogaz

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

I agree. The D3s has better IQ

Mar 4, 2012permalink

The D4 only looks better in the eyes of a Nikon fanboy... I don't know what people are looking at... or how they are trying to justify this mediocre performance by the D4 at high ISO's...

I cannot figure out where this supposed detail retention is in the D4 at ISO 6400 and above... It is generously smearing fibres, cloth patterns with finely tuned sharpenning trying to compensate for detail retention... and is clearly distorting the levels of pigment saturation...

Look at that colour chart as a prime example of a smudge fest... the D3S one looks almost perfect at ISO 6400 maintaining the squares in geometric symmetry... But the D4 sample looks like a polychromized semblance of an indistinct square with a "smooth" appearance.

But the fact still remains that numerous people across the board are realizing that the D3S is still top dog as far as high ISO is concerned...

There are only two legitimate contenders for the High ISO crown now... the Nikon D3S and the upcoming Canon 1D X.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

One more thing... based upon the sample images i've seen & scrutinized... even the Canon 5D Mark III will give the D3S & D4 a run for their money... and probably come up trumps against the D4 throught the ISO scale...

Mar 4, 2012permalink

@lensberg Can't figure out where the superior detail/per pixel sharpness at ISO 6400 and up? See the "Eastman Kodak Company, 1997" on the Kodak Greyscale Chart. On the D4 this text is clearly legible, on the D3s, barely. Not enough evidence? The queen of hearts. And this from a pre-production D4.

As far a 5D Mk III, you can say it all you want, but based on Canon Europe mediocre samples and what we know about the sensor technology of Nikon vs. Canon, I would wonder why you would.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

ashwins

Yes Photogas, there's so many guys on this forum who only see what they WANT to see rather than seeing what is obvious with neutral, open eyes.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

I don't understand the debate. It's like asking any breakthrough product to have another breakthrough when it gets upgraded. It doesn't happen that way. The D4 is evolutionary at roughly equivalent IQ to the D3S. A decision was made clearly to have the output have more detail with slightly more noise at ISO 6400.

You get one of these because you need a full frame, integrated grip camera either for the new video feature or you are a photog with fast moving subjects and you shoot outdoors a lot. The upgrades in buffer, frame rates, weather sealing, etc. are nice.

As for Canon vs. Nikon, the issue is whose system are you already invests in.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

D1N0

The colour noise on the d4 is blown up more, because of the larger zoom factor(colour noise is not a single pixel, but a group of pixels). The difference is not really noticeable when you scale the images to the exact same size. Also the d3s image has much more softness on the sides en corners, so nothing there can really be used for comparison.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

@ marike6 - I agree with your assessment that there are certain aspects in the test image that are reproduced better by the D4. Actually i was referring to the coloured squares on the left side of the chart...

Looking at the Kodak colour chart in its entirety, it is abundantly obvious that the Nikon D3S produces a crisper, sharper and a more faithful image than the D4.

Look at those little furry balls on top of the chart... the purple & red ones in particular... you can clearly distinguish the intricate fibres on each of them... by comparison the D4 produces a much more muted and artificial looking image...

Now look at the white-grey-black spectrum at the bottom of the chart... you can clearly see the differentiating definition that the D3S is able to achieve whilst progressing from dark grey to black... In the D4 sample... there is virtually no difference in the shades of back towards the end of the spectrum... and there is only a faint trace of individual borders visible...

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Regarding the "Eastman Kodak Company, 1997" you mentioned... compare it against the Canon G1 X and look at the result... the grey is much better reproduced by the G1 X and the text is equally as well rendered...

Now at the same setting of ISO 6400 scroll over to the "KODAK Grey Scale"... and look at the quality of the Canon G1 X image... the grey background is cleaner & the text is much sharper...

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Damo83

@lensberg – I don't see what you're seeing. For the colour and greyscale charts the D3s and D4 are basically on par with each other. But i areas mentioned the D4 edges out slightly. Also check the Martini bottle, paperclips and the 'Tin Light'. I'm looking at ISOs above 6400 BTW.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Poss

I think the D3s 's DOF is slightly shifted forward and D4's slightly backward. Better said, one front focuses slightly the other back focuses slightly with the same lens. That's pretty evident (at least to me it is)

Mar 5, 2012permalink

Really, do you will use astronomic ISO? Really, the most of people use up to 6400 iso. I don't need iso 204800, or even 12800. Shot what I can't see? No, really, I'm a photographer not a researcher.

Mar 5, 2012permalink

footlong

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

yabokkie

the pixels are 34% smaller in area. so if signal qualities are about the same at pixel level that will mean more than 0.4 stop improvement of image quality besides better resolution. Nikon says near 1 stop and I understand it as better sensor + better NR.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

sandy b

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

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

yabokkie

even if the QEs are the same, D4 got better readout and that should be a major source of the improved quality.

yes 5D2 is still great. resolution itself means image quality so the expectation should be high for D800 which is likely to become a new standard.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

ManuelVilardeMacedo

'Its going to be pretty hard to make a quantum leap, or any leap, with current tech.'
You're absolutely right. Current technology has hit the end-stops.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

ZoranC

C'mon guys, all these statements and analysis and nobody seems to care that exposure didn't seem same and that DOF was not same?

Mar 4, 2012permalink

yabokkie

it's almost impossible to get the same exposure for different cameras. that's why most of my tests are through a single piece of Nikkor, not a very good one, for both Nikon and Canon bodies. but still I have no way to control shutter (I can set them to the same value though).

Mar 4, 2012permalink

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

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

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

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

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

I would have expected
- marginally more high ISO and DR - kind of as clean at 6400 as D3S at 3200
- higher (not the same) IQ and detail at low iso

why?
recent years have been full of innovation. look at the mirrorless. the Fujix100 shoots awesome pics, and now the samples of the X1Pro look like what aD3S might look like on an APS C sensor.

anyway... yes, expectations were too high. lets see what 800s look like!

Mar 4, 2012permalink

I think some people are slightly disappointed that this is all Nikon comes up with after 2.5 years.

Don't get me wrong - while I totally adore my a55 (I'm not a pro by any means), I'd love to have a D4.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

@ Dr GP
But Sony and/or Nikon didn't make any of the sensors in those cameras. Why would they be any indication of what should be expected for the D4?

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

Gesture

Are we reaching a limit of what the modern lens, sensor and processing electronics can do, which is quite amazing if we think about it. Asking for 4 stops above 400 to be stellar?

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Yes and no. Read a little about binning.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Nb41

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

Mar 4, 2012permalink

What's your application? I am getting more detail out of the D4 files at ISO 12800 vs. the D3s. Maybe not enough for real world. But I am getting no worse with 4 MP more. For my bird photography, the ability to crop more is huge. Also the D4 essential comes with an installed buffer upgrade for those of us who need high frame rates. 10 seconds of 10 fps shooting is huge.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

Nb41

Unfortunately I don't have the D4 yet - sounds like you may have.

My application is in dance and performance and it is low light and at high speed. The D3s is a good camera! Any improvement would be a real help, but any degradation would also be noticeable so I am exercised about the possibility of the D4 not performing as well as the D3s. If it delivers the same image quality / noise / colour rendition etc. at 12800 or 25k and beyond then I would be happy. I expect it to focus better and the overall ergonomics to also be improved.

Bottom line - Improved focus with same high ISO as D3s would make me happy - i'm not looking for miracles, just a modest improvement at the extremes.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

arthurzhang

It is time for you to think about jumping ship to canon 1DX

Mar 5, 2012permalink

One more addition to my prior analysis.

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

Mar 3, 2012permalink

The Nikon D4 is essentially an overhyped camera... but i suppose that was to be expected considering the fact that it was propped up prematurely to assume the high ISO crown from the D3S.

Considering the fact that there is a 2½ year time span between the D3S & D4 ... Nikon seem to have made virtually no advances regarding ISO performance...

Just look at that furry patch that resembles tiger skin at ISO 6400 on the D4 and you'll notice severe ammounts of noise reduction at work... blurring out the fine textures & fibres completely... by contrast the D3 & Canon 1D Mark IV manage to preserve the textures whilst delivering a natural looking image...

The intricate pattern on the green & purple fabric is totally smeared out by the D4 though funnily the white cross fibres remain intact ... Now compare it to the D3s sample which is excellent... even the 1D IV manages to retain more detail...

Mar 3, 2012permalink

The green & purple clothe, smeared out it is not. The Queen of Hearts at ISO 6400, the D4 is much sharper that all the others, and in general it has the best balance of clean IQ high ISO and sharpness/detail. Overhyped? With uncompressed HDMI out, class leading high ISO performance, high fps, etc. Doesn't sound like hype to me. Sounds awesome.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

awesome yes if you never had a d3s. If you do, you feel limited progress has been made (outside the video). All around D4 is a much better tool than D3S, but clearly we all had hoped to not just get D3S + Video and a few more ergonomic buttons after 2.5 years.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

You must be looking at the JPEGs, the NEFs tell a completely different story. The D4 retains quite a bit more detail and better color accuracy than the DS3, pretty much across the board, and is comparable in noise when viewed at the same resolution.

Looking at the 1D Mark IV, though, I'd say there's not much to choose between the D4 and 1D Mark IV, given appropriate noise reduction and sharpening, etc.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Dragonfire

agree with marika6!
and for the ones who are dissapointed: it is not the D4's fault that is (ovarall) only a bit better than D3s, it is the D3s that was so goooood... :)

Mar 3, 2012permalink

If these pre production D4 files resemble the final D4 (and why would Nikon allow DP to use it if not), then I would agree that the IQ of the D4 is totally overhyped

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

Frank C.

we may be reaching the limits of tech. advances because of physics limitations, from now on those with the best and most creative coders will win

Mar 3, 2012permalink

@Henry H. Hertz Video freaks? aside, you must be quite a talented photographer if the D4 is not a good enough camera for you. Where can we see your work? What camera do you presently use?

Simply "on par" with the 3 others it is not, however. It completely outperforms the 2 Canons as expected and is equal or better than D3s at high ISO with higher resolution and better edge sharpness. Not sure what you're seeing below ISO 6400...and I'm not sure I care.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

@marike6

Henry H. Hertz is just a canon fanboy drunk on koolaid. Just look at his comments on the 5D3 news posts. He is down right abusive to many who dared criticize his beloved Canon or who disagrees with him.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

Jexmark

@ atamola

These ARE shots from a production D4, not a pre-production model.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

@Jexmark yes, you are rigth. For some reason I thought it was a pre production D4. Well, that settles it for me then: the IQ is not better than that of the D3s (it has some extra features though that can make it a compelling upgrade for a lot of people).

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Deeso

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

Mar 3, 2012permalink

I spend 1 hour "pixel peeping"

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

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

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

BUUHHH

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

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

Go above ISO6400 and try shadow areas.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

I agree with you. IQ has essentially not been improved.

I would add that the D3s delivers higher IQ .

I will add that this is a pre production D4... but I really don't expect the final product to be mcuh different.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Just did the same for 102400 ISO. SAME result - No difference. Except, D3S picture had some yellow dots in some areas.
I also downsampled the D4 to same size as D3S. Whatever differences there are, they are soooo minor that I have to say "Nikon after 2.5 more years, REALLY?"
Again, some features have definitely improved and they will make for a more pleasant pic taking. I have D4 and D800E on order, and will leave them open for now awaiting more tests, but for now I am a bit sad !!

Mar 3, 2012permalink

ARTASHES

Maybe/probably D4 will have better DR, and the load of new technology especially for video is THE reason to buy D4 instead of D3s (and not the improved SNR)
P.S. maybe we have reached the limits of CMOS technology with D3s in therms of noise performance

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

So basically you are saying the D4 is a 16 MP version of the D3s. I fail to see the problem. Same great noise preformance but more resolution.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

@ Josh -- I guess my point was I almost dont see any evidence of more resolution. Its almost invisible, and visible only at like 300% in certain color channels.
So yes, D4 is a great camera -- just not a step up from D3S in terms of IQ.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

I'm with you Josh. Those of us who need to crop benefit greatly. Bird photography for me. It is like we got a 25% zoom factor.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

@ DR GP and Henry M. Hertz

I said the D4 was basically a D3s with 16 mp but really that is not true.

The D4 also has better metering, AF, video, LCD, Buffer, FPS, an Ethernet port, light up buttons, and what ever else I am forgetting. You have to look at the camera as a whole.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

I assume that like the Nikon D3s and D700, the D4 will shoot directly into Tiff.

Any chance of DPReview doing the test setup shot as tiffs and then posting those tiffs for download? Yes, I get that the test scene doesn't contain much in the way of subtle color or subtle shading. But tiffs are better than jpegs.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

max metz

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

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Fearless_Photog

Oh, I didn't realize the X-Pro 1 shot at 10fps, had a huge RAW buffer, one of the best AF systems available, and a big selection of super telephoto lenses. I'll have to look at the press release again, because that's what it would need to put it on my radar as an alternative to the D4.

Oh wait, actually even if it had all that it wouldn't be an alternative, because I'm not one of those nuts who switches systems every time a new body comes out. In fact the only cameras I'm worried about comparing the D4's performance to are other Nikons, because that's what I use. How it compares to Canon really isn't relevant to me because I'm not going to sell an entire system of pro lenses, flashes and accessories because some non-photographers think another totally unrelated camera, that absolutely can't fill the same role, might have higher image quality. Remember, for the people who actually uses these cameras to take pictures, absolute image quality is just one of many important factors.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

pahountisg

I use canons but I admire the D3s.Even more the D4.
However, I have never seen better files than the sigma on a small dslr.Im also not fond of the sigma body, I m not convinced, but the IMAGE QUALITY... more to the medium format side today !!!

Mar 3, 2012permalink

max metz

No, I'm not trying to be disparaging about Nikon, merely saying that they need to respond to what else is entering the market.

I may be alone in being willing to change systems but it is in every nikon full fame users interest that Nikon remains viable and not end up like Kodak.

Mar 4, 2012*permalink

toomanycanons

My D5100 stayed with the big boys up to ISO 3200.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

How's the weather sealing, and autofocus speed? And you have Capture NX 2.3.1?

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Marco 2k7

How's your wallet?

Mar 3, 2012permalink

ngc4565adam

In two or maybe three weeks, I'm going for one. For a D5100. I love it even it's not in my hands yet.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Nikon Rob

You must be delusional or by "big boys" you aren't referring to the D4. Side by side, the D5100 is noticeably worse than the D4 even at ISO 200. Some colors (magenta, purple) are horrid even at 100 on the D5100. If you're by chance looking at jpeg instead of raw, you might also want to note the loss of detail in the D5100's NR.

Mar 4, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

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

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

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

Mar 3, 2012permalink

altenae

Yep the mark IV looks very good for a 1.3 crop sensor

Mar 3, 2012permalink

ivan1973

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

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Got the raws and Capture NX 2.3.1 do you?

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Mike Cialowicz

Uh... the D4 has the same size sensor as the D3S. The resolution is a bit higher, and the technology is newer.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Henry M. Hertz:

I'd say the same, and basically have, about those posting comments on the jpegs from the CANON 5D III.

You could have bothered to check.

There is no point in drawing general conclusions about a dslr without raws and the software to extract those raws to the tiff format.

Done showing your ignorance of dslr photography?

Mar 3, 2012permalink

HowaboutRAW, showing your ignorance of raw processing software? Nikon Capture NX 2 2.3.1 has been out for some time and, *yes* we do have the raws and have been working with them, thank you.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

jwalker019

That's not the version one can get as trialware, now who is showing ignorance.

I already asked that question, and had it answered correctly, earlier today, in this forum. That you can't be bothered to find out the the trialware is still v2.3.1 is your problem.

Many here are not commenting on raws at all or are not commenting on anything more than what shows up in the DPReview sample box.

It's hard to imagine that you were so obtuse as to make that second mistake too, but you did.

You can see below were I comment on your past comment. You really should have known to look at what trialware version number is.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

Claudiu Paduroiu

Nikon D3s still a winner in terms of ISO.
I can't wait to see the 5DMIII and 1Dx.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Bassman2003

Thanks for this test. It is a great tool! Can't wait to see all four new Canon & Nikon cameras side by side for a comparison.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Peter Sills

Seems to be about 1/2 - 1 stop better than the last generation of the Canon cameras, and not quite as good as the last iteration of the Nikon (D3s).

Can't wait to see this alongside the 5DMIII and 1Dx.

Will be interesting.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

hyperthreading

I have a question.

Why were the tests made with the Nikon 85 f/1.8? They should be made with the Nikon 85 f/1.4.

If you are testing a Nikon high-end camera that costs $6000, should you not be testing it with the best Nikon lens which costs $2200? Why was it tested with a midrange lens which costs $500?

Cameras should be tested with the best lenses.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

The 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 85 f/1.4, according to Nikon MTF charts.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Bookie

The Nikon 85 f1.8 is renowned for its sharpness at all apertures. With the Nikon 85 f1.4 you are paying all that extra money for its faster speed (and possible better build). In terms of optical quality there really is no difference between the lenses. dpreview could have tested the D4 with the 50mm f1.8 which costs £100, another fine quality lens renowned for is optics. Price of the lenses isn’t the issue here.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

IMO, given the ISO capabilities of today's cameras, especially the D4, there is really no reason to shell out $1700 more for the 85 1.4 unless you shoot in conditions where the nano coating would be helpful. And since the 50 1.4 doesn't even have the nano coating there is no reason at all to buy it over the 50 1.8 The only exception is if you want/need the slightly shallower DOF for some reason.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

zodiacfml

+1 above. It is not only the price, lens making is a compromise of many factors. If you have a 1.4 glass, more likely, it is designed for apertures near that which has a very limited depth of field. On the D4, they used f11 for more DOF which, IMO, is better with the 1.8.There is a 85mm macro lens but only for the DX.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Mtsuoka

it's not only about how expensive, how wide the aperture or HOW MANY MP...

Mar 3, 2012permalink

agree re "test with best lenses"

On the 1.4 vs 1.8 -- not clear yet it makes a differences (look at early testers eg kenrockwell) -- difference may be bookeh wide open, but at f7 ...may not be very different.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

@ Bookie -- I think they tested this with the new lense that came out about 1-2 weeks ago, not the old 1.8. So the new one is not yet "known for its sharpness" although its hard to see why the new one would be worse than the old one...

BTW I have that new lense, and tested it against the 70-200mm F2.8 at 85mm. I did not find any discernible differences in IQ so far (obviously 1.8 gives a bit different possibilities, but you can get even better bookeeh at 2.8 if you zoom to 200mm i.m. humble opinion). The main benefit vs. the 70-200 is weight/size

Mar 3, 2012permalink

cesaregal

@jwalker019
You're right, but the Nikon MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the maximum aperture of the lens.
At f/11 Nikon 85/1.8 G lens has nearly 3200 resolution value,
Nikon 85/1.4 G lens has nearly 3450 resolution value.
I would prefer 85/1.4 G (less vignett. and chr. aberr.).

Mar 4, 2012permalink

Dan

Why would anyone get the 1.4? Maybe because its bokeh is better at all apertures (not just wide open)? In these samples posted, the point-source lights don't appear round. Maybe they'd be round with the 1.4? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=40778958

Mar 4, 2012permalink

The D3s is clearly better than this pre production D4. There is no question about that.
It's amazing. Really amazing: only 4 extra MP and 2 years later and (according to this samples) Nikon haven't figured out how to improve over the D3s.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

Processed from raw, downsized to 12MP, D4 is identical to D3s (if not ever so slightly *smoother*). I think it's remarkable they managed to keep it that close with 1/3 more resolution.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

The D4 is also showing more detail and acutance at the higher ISOs. Perhaps Nikon sacrificed a bit of noise to achieve more resolving power.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

I think we are seeing Exspeed processor differences and software in the JPEGS, giving a lot more detail and slightly more noise in the D4. The JPEG workups in camera RAW give huge differences that will matter to a bird photographer. That said, until Adobe updates camera RAW, I cannot evaluate the RAW images.

Mar 3, 2012permalink

pahountisg

ha ha, that is so funny!!!
You guys sound EXACTLY like the canon forum ! Nobody is satisfied :) !
What Im I doing here as a canon user? just checking out the new beast! Nice camera!!!

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

Interesting point about the trialware version of Nikon's Capture NX 2--yes fully updated:

The trialware version of Capture NX 2 does NOT open D4 raw files. Don't think that I want to pay Nikon for a capacity my copy of Photoshop CS5 will have in a few weeks, I hope.

Also makes me wonder about those claiming to have looked at these raw files with Capture NX2.

Hope someone from Nikon USA is reading this string of comments.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

The latest version of Capture NX2 (2.3.1) absolutely *does* open and edit D4 files. I have it and used it to look at these NEFs.

Wonder why there's such a controversy about this? I've read several snide comments about whether or not people could actually view the raw files. The answer is, "yes" :/

Mar 3, 2012permalink

jwalker019:

Thank you, as I specified, I was commenting on the trialware version of Capture NX2 (Windows 7 64 bit and checked for updates).

Good to be assured that at least the version one purchases and then successfully updates will open D4 NEF files.

Are you using Windows or Mac?

I guess I could go out and buy the disc tomorrow, install the software and update it, but that seems silly since I own Photoshop CS and it will get updated, soon I'd bet. So I don't really need Capture NX v2 for my purposes.

Though I wish that Nikon USA would add 2.3.1 as the trialware option. I checked and the trialware is version 2.3.0.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

Fearless_Photog

The 2.31 update has been available on the site for more than a week now, once you have the 2.3.0 trial version installed, you just install the update in addition to that. http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/61

As for all these people who think the D3s is better, if you either just shoot Jpeg, or can't figure out how to get the most out of RAW, by all means keep thinking it's better and don't buy the D4, it will cut down on the waiting list. It's pretty damn clear that you can get more out of the D4 files in NX2.

Mar 3, 2012*permalink

http://nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17660/kw/Capture%20NX%202.3.1

i have full version and updated to latest Codecs. that did the trick. Oddly, my prior version which was also 2.3 did not open D4 Raw files but after update it does.

cheers

Mar 3, 2012permalink