Nikon D4 overview

@marzal- hahahah! Will the f100 hold up?! It's a beast! They are built like tanks and quite weather proof. The only down side is the more limited AF and frame rate, vs a "pro" single digit camera. But heck, if you want the frame rate, the f5 is cheaper than a D60 these days.

And as proof of how amazing the F100 build is, here's a ninja, using one in the rain: http://youtu.be/2MCF8FJSuSw

As we all know, ninjas are sweet, and the combination of a ninja and an F100 could make anyone's head explode.

It's hard when there are still lots of cases of stuffing MP and the outcome is noise and lower-quality MP than the predecessor.

Applies to both of you - русскому языку также не мешало бы поучиться. В оригинальной заметке должно быть "когда же" (а не "когда уже"), а в ответной - запятая после "тогда" и "по-английски" (с черточкой), вместо "по английски". Just my two cents :)
Looks like a great camera, though - although I'd agree with the medium format comment in the original post. Cheers to both of you from a non-native Russian speaker :)

The D4 requires a new battery because of new Japanese regulations. The D3 is better in low light than the pro-sumer D7000. Size and weight of D3S/D4 are about the same. D4 also has the all new card format.

CF cards are easier to deal with. You don't have to worry about exposed contact elements like an SD card. It makes it easy to throw the full card in your pocket. I'll take one less thing to worry about on the job over a slight convenience while working in the office any day. I'm not familiar with the xqd yet.

On the other hand, you don't have to worry about bent pins in SD card slots, and SD card contacts are much easier to clean if they ever get dirty. If dirt gets into the little holes on a CF card, cleaning looks like a nightmare.

actually, yes,
it is common problems on CF for clumsy people, problem ussually at the card reader, even branded like Sandisk,
never happen with me but seen some cases around

anyway, after using SD, I prefer on using SD as it is smaller
and easy to connect anywhere

> Nikon is not playing DSLR MP catchup.

simply because it doesn't have good enough technology for that, same to Canon.

calm down, I said neither Nikon or Canon have the technology (it looks that onchip parallel ADC is required for fast readout), and I won't take side with either Nikon or Canon (or Sony who has the technology) because I am only a user.

The video is good enough for TV. Several shows use DSLR video. They love it!

Shooting videos is VERY different from shooting stills at professional level. I doubt a professional will really use it as a still + video camera. At that level equipments tend to be specialized, not generic.

It can only be a good thing. If the professional video market is threatened by still cameras, then that should see improvments in both fields. I would like to see exactly how much this feature costs to the consumer, Im sure it will be an insignificant % of the to total R&D of this camera.

@CADIGITAL I agree with your comment on resolution. Anyone needed to print massive for a living should really consider MF.

DSLR's will all have video from now on out.

1. How much does it cost to put video into a camera? Nothing, because cameras already have the fastest processor the body and current state of tech will allow. R&D is basically the only thing that the money goes into, which is void if 100 people buy the camera

2. Option #2, for those who feel that they are paying for video: Manufacturer starts creating two different processors (increase mftg cost), to create one unit that sells at the base price with no video and another that sells for $100? more? This is not practical as it would decrease margin on both units resulting in less profitability.

3. While there are a few benefits to having a camcorder, most consumer to prosumer level audiences get more "bang for the buck" with a DSLR. Moreover, with increasing tech and processor speed, any deficits DSLRs have now is likely to become marginal in the near future.

Anyone agree?

first of all, video is a thing thats just possible now, you cant manufacture it cheaper because its lack of video functions. because its implemented with software, the sensor readout is fast enough, the cpu is fast enough and the cards of course

and secondly, you are right, its just you :)

i dont know ANY reason why i should deactivate functions that a product would be capable of^^ thats sony/panasonic style

when the d4 has the cpu/sensor power to theoretically do video, then i want it .. for 6k i want everything implemented thats possible :)

I think he got the point,
in my place, we are using that voice control recognition on camera

we hire a photographer,
we tell him what to do, if we want him to take photos,
we call him and he come,
if we want him to re-take the shots,
we tell him and he will recognize my voice as I am the one
who pay him
and if I think pictures already enough, I can easily said some command
and he will shutdown from taking pictures

cool, huh ?
bet photoboy don't has it on his cool iPhone

yabokkie:

Have you got RAW files from either camera you'd care to share, including extraction software?

becasue the RAW files are cooked differently, you won't be able to tell even you have them (or read DxO reports). the test will need two cameras shooting through the same lens (like 50/1.4S) at well controlled conditions and the result is, again, only a word.

you don't need a Cosina but you can use it. I guess the image quality may be hardly distinguishable for real life shots, only that 1DX's AF and frame rate are better and more attractive for pros.

Well, with a Nikon D700 and the 85mm 1.4 Nikon I've shot really lowlight.

And then I've also used a D3s with the Zeiss (Cosina if you will) 85mm 1.4, and the Zeiss is significantly better in lowlight than the Nikon lens, yes I realize it's different cameras.

I have not done the test of using the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 on the D700.

> Also the D4 may have a less audible shutter.

the shutter is completely silent if you read the specs, when shooting at an amazingly fast 30 fps, at 1080 resolution.

@HowaboutRAW - How can you not see they are clearly saying that Nikon are holding back technology for profit? It is obvious that we no longer need two Cameras (D4 and D4x) to do the job when one chip could easily do both tasks , Hasselblad and others have accomplished this by having a large chip with a reduced quality stetting for low light/low noise/high speed. Plus I am convinced that voice control would be very useful to me. There is no room on the modern DSLR body for more buttons. Nikon took off the AE button. To me the idea of saying ""lock exposure"" with your eye up to the viewfinder would be amazingly useful. My iPhone can understand voice already with 100% accuracy, why not my camera? Nikon are they best out there. I can remember when the F4 came out it was a revelation, filled with great ideas and new tech, the D4 is a joke by comparison. I do not care how much technology is used to convey my ideas into the camera, what I personally dislike is excessive automation.

The camera has a computer inside with a webserver, that can be used to remotely take and see the pictures from the Internet. I'm not sure that's something the D3s has, but for some that's a valuable feature, furthermore multiple of them can be sync, and one can be the Master over other cameras. This means taking shots from different sides at exactly the same time.

Looks to me like an interesting feature (that of course many here will trash and complain about). If this is hackable or Nikon plays their cards right, for sure that computer will mean the development of a larger set of features!

post removed

> D4, should have 30MP.

maybe 40MP, 50MP, or more (a lot more hundreds of MPs). there is no proof smaller pixel sizes affect picture quality, except at highest ISO settings. actually the 1.x micron pixel sensors in point-and-shoots outperform D3S on per area basis, in both SNR and dynamic range (but it will be very costly to make the sensors as large as 35mm FF).

there are several reasons Canon and Nikon chose less pixels. one is neither company have the technology to readout at high speed with low noise (Sony has it). another is for sports and photojournalism, there are always subject blurs which make high resolution exposure very difficult.

the result? we will see one day 8K (30MP) video cameras kick these shame "flagship cameras" out of the market, in 10 years time.

> high pixel counts don't affect quality?

smaller pixel, less pixel quality, no problem with that. the image quality (or SNR at the same resolution) is another story. D3X is better than D3 if you do some NR (as D3 does on camera) and resize it to 12MP. D3X's problem is not image quality but something else like frame rate.

not offending but you obviously have no knowledge about camera nor image quality. do some study man.

I think the D4 should have had a 30mp sensor but optimized the sensor for pixel binning at 15mp. That way the camera could have have the performance and ISO for the photojournalists and sports photographers, and also have the resolution for studio photographers.

Camera's with more advanced sensors have been binning pixels for years.

I'm actually disappointed in the D4. Seriously, internet shooting? What the point of that? A $6,000 security camera?

nakeddork:

The Yen is up against the US dollar because of the earthquake.

A 30 MP sensor binned to 15 MP would still have 30 MP sized receptors. So there may less heat generated but there are still some other 30PM sensor problems.

If you can find one, a D3x is still 8000usd.

PHOTOboy73:

Get over the voice recognition and touch "suggestions".

@Ben Tomohiku :

Although I dislike the ancient 5DMKII focusing system, the noise performance should not be that bad.

Anyway, the D700 is for sure a mid-level king of darkness.

Ben Tomohiku:

Wouldn't getting a D700 be cheaper than a D4, and still much better in lowlight than the Canon 5D MII?

The D700 is marginally better than the 5D Mark 2. 1/3 of a stop better. The only camera with any sort of significant upgrade in low light to the 5D Mark II is the D3s, which is 4/5ths of a stop better. As for the focusing system, it isn't the best for sports that's true, but the center focus point is just fine for all other photography.

treepop:

Have you shot and printed from say 6400 ASA RAW files shot with both the Canon 5D MK II and the D700? (The test photos must have large areas of dark shadow.)

I'll rely on that kind of testing, not assertions about how many stops one camera does in comparison to another.