Will You Purchase a D4?

<p>Harry, you are a wise man. </p>

<p>John T, I hope you are incorrect about smaller. Not comfortable holding a big lens with a small camera. Fuji went from a full body camera in their S3 to a D200 sized camera in their S5, and now they are all but out of business. Pro's want a full sized camera. </p>

<p>Many (almost all) of you miss-read my question. I did not ask anyone what they thought the camera would be like, only if you intended to trade up, when it comes out.</p>

<p>I think we can all agree, Nikon is a great camera maker. The D4 (quite possibly be called D5, look at Fuji S3 to S5 and they are sister companies to a degree) should be a logical next step in the progression of photography.</p>

<p>Oliver, I suspect Zack is refering to subject`s magnification. The larger magnification the shallower DoF; a head portrait on a bigger format will be physically bigger at the screen, hence with shallower DoF. Obviously it implies to get closer to the subject in order to equally fill the frame.</p>

<p>Another consideration is the final print size, where the perceivable DoF can be altered due to the higher or lower enlargement needed for each format.</p>

<p>I am holding out for the D10x, because I <em>can</em> predict its features and benefits. I can predict this because at that point, anything is possible. Additionally, we will have approached the point of equilibrium, where digital imaging technology has reached a sustainable level of product maturity. The cost/benefit analysis performed by talented photographers needing or desiring the Nikon Flagship model will become easier, as we seemingly have all that we need or want in a photographic instrument. The sensor will be upgradable using sensor modules. Most users will elect to send the camera in to Nikon for the sensor upgrade.</p>

<p>The sensor will no longer be flat, but will be shaped like the most perfect light gathering instrument known: the human eye. With the new curved sensor, we will not think of megapixels as we do now, as the technology used in the design of the individual photosites will be immeasurably superior. The microlenses of the D10x sensor will eliminate chromatic aberration as an issue in digital photography. Additionally, the light-gathering capabilities of the new sensor will be so sophisticated and efficient that discussions of high-ISO performance will be a thing of the past. The resolution of the new sensor will surpass the finest medium format sensor available today. The processing algorithms of the D10x will be sophisticated to the point of solving many of the digital challenges we encounter today. Pincushion and barrel distortion will no longer be encountered. The photographer will be able to select from three different aspect ratios without compromising any resolution considerations.</p>

<p>Nikon will design new lenses to function perfectly with the new curved sensor. Additionally with the D10x, Nikon will continue to support its legacy F-mount lenses backward to pre-AI. The D10x will detect the use of older lenses from the days of flat plane of focus. The D10x will automatically adjust the processor algorithms to compensate for using older glass with the ultra-high resolution sensor.</p>

<p>The D10x will be lighter and less bulky, as electronic viewfinder technology will eliminate the need for a mirror. New battery technology will subtract from the weight of the D10x, while adding to individual battery life. The D10x will have a built-in grip, but the camera's lighter weight and more affordable cost will appeal to a wider customer base.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor will be upgradable using sensor modules.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a roll?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In a roll?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Think sheet film.</p>

<p>Nikon's interchangeable sensor, if realized, will be very useful as it would probably allow easier cleaning of the AA filter surface, and swapping between high-resolution and high sensitivity high speed modules. Thus there would not be a need to have separate D4X and D4(s) models; people could simply use what they need for a given task.</p>

<p>Yes, I will buy a D4. I expect approximately 18MP, low-light capabilities and speed comparable with the original D3, and a fix to the live view, allowing the picture to be taken in LV mode without the mirror going down and up just before the exposure. I also hope there will be an improved AF sensor with better performance with the peripheral AF points.Finally, I hope there will be more interchangeable focusing screen options, at least one of which would be designed for fast glass (f/1.4-f/2).</p>

<blockquote>Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...</blockquote>

 

<p>FWIW, the electronics company I work for made a point of skipping product number 4 (and 13). I commend Nikon and Canon for avoiding this nonsense. But I'll still be amused if Sigma ever produce the analogue version of the SD10.<br />

<br />

I've no immediate plans to upgrade my D700. Pretty much the only thing that would make me consider it is Nikon opening up an API so that I can fix the interface to my requirements (as some do on Canon compacts) - or if Nikon implement the <i>entire</i> list of other suggestions I sent them in a fit of optimism a couple of years ago.<br />

<br />

Ilkka: 18MP and low-light comparable with the D3? Do you have 1D4 envy? :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most target of compact cameras is a fool peoples.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that a fact, now?<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor will no longer be flat, but will be shaped like <em>the most perfect light gathering instrument known</em>: the human eye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The human eye <em>isn't even close</em> to being that.</p>

<p>No, I won't be upgrading my D2X yet, as it still does everything I need in the studio (and it's only worth about $3.50 now)! For anything requiring more detail, resolution, dynamic range, etc, I pull out the 4x5 or 8x10 :)</p>

<p>Only if it compensates for the photographer......</p>

<p>No, I do not want one. I have enough gear for a decade or two.</p>

<p><em>Ilkka: 18MP and low-light comparable with the D3? Do you have 1D4 envy? :-)</em></p>

<p>No. A 50% increase in pixel count while keeping the speed and sensitivity of the original D3 would seem to be reasonable in a development time of four years (especially since Nikon have said that they intend to make a better compromise between resolution and SNR in future FX cameras). I have no interest in a Canon camera, particularly one that is not full frame.</p>

<p>I'd say folks who bought the D3S or the D3X are likely candidates to buy the D4 too. Most people who replied in this thread probably have lower end cameras like the D300s, D3, or D700 (relatively speaking of course). So you are not asking this to the right audience here.</p>

<p>No but I might for the D5</p>

<p>Nikon will not skip number 4 because of some superstitious reason like other Japanese companies. They did have the F4</p>

<p>D4? The Era speaker? The Alesis drum module? The Suunto Dive Watch?<br>

Those D4s actually exist, at least.<br>

I think it's interesting to talk about and even fun to speculate, but it would be impossible to answer whether or not to buy one. (For me, I can say no, because I'm more in the market for the also-non-existent D400 or D800.)</p>

<p>If it offers a significant advance over my D3x, and the price isn't too much more than the D3x was when it was first released, I probably will buy one. Otherwise I'll be looking for a new back for my Mamiya AFD.</p>

 

<p>I know many will disagree, but I remain steadfast that the <strong>major problem</strong> - even with professional level digital - is l<strong>ack of dynamic range</strong> - specifically <strong>lack of gradual highlight control and separation.</strong></p>

<p>Color negative film is still superior in this regard.</p>

<p>I am sorry to step on the toes of anyone who sold their film F4s and N90s and invested $20,000 in D3s, etc. When the Nikon D9 comes out, with film - like dynamic range and highlight control, your D3s will be sell for about 50 bucks on Ebay.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Why do people need a D4 if they are still doing post processing in Photoshop. Get a newest version of Photoshop, it's cheaper isn' it?</p>

<p>No, unless it had interchangeable viewfinders like my film Nikons and a dynamic range better than my Fuji S5.</p>

<blockquote>Get a newest version of Photoshop, it's cheaper isn' it?</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes, but not by as much as you'd hope. I'm on CS4 Design Premium. To upgrade all of Creative Suite to CS5, at UK prices, is £619, which is enough that I'm not tempted to do it soon even if I'd like the content-aware fill, and more than the camera my other half is considering buying. Buying it from scratch really would cost more than my D700 or all but one of my lenses. Mind you, if I could afford a D3x...</p>

<p>I'm just sitting here on the end of my seat waiting for the D5. ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>Will You Purchase a D4?</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>This question is just a bit PREMATURE, don't you think? Nikon has not announced any D4 , and God only knows what it will feature, in fact, who knows if it will even be called a D4.</p>

<p>Why don't we stay in the present, rather than breaking out the crystal ball?</p>

<p>Jus' sayin'</p>

<p>A reply to Oliver, who asked (paraphrased), 'If you're not taking longer lenses into account, then why else would DOF be shallower with a larger sensor?' DOF is determined by the reation of the f-stop (which in itself a relational number) to the size of the lens, to the image plane. I'm oversimplifying the math to make it easier to explain, but if your sensor or film is twice the size with the same lens, you can expect about half the DOF.</p>

<p>An 8x10 view camera with a 210mm lens on f/8 might yield INCHES of DOF with 8x10 film (and have a field of view around what the eye sees), while you might get 9-12 feet in focus on an APS-C camera focused to 10 feet.</p>

<p>To Andre, I'd remind you that getting maximum dynamic range out of film requires shooting it at something other than box speeds. 400 ISO film gives me great range, but only if I shoot it at 100 ISO. Admitted it's still better than my digital is at 100 ISO, but it does mean that you can't get that dynamic range at high ISOs; at 3200, the D300s will regularly shoot better photos than my film Nikons, and even my Hassy. That doesn't make film better or worse mind you ... it just further reinforces that they are best for different things.</p>

<p>For instance, I'd never use film to shoot sports or wedding/event candids.</p>

<p>I like to play devil's advocate :)</p>