Discussion in 'Nikon' started by paul_b.|1, Mar 21, 2012.
Interesting Paul. How high the ISO was ?
Most of the shots on the first page are at ISO 100. Most of the high ISO shots are on page 2. If the click the blue 'i' button on the right side of the image (you must position your cursor over the image to see the button), you can see the shooting information.
The D4 appears to be about the same as D3S in the high ISO department, both of which are excellent.
Thanks Elliot. You are right. D3s and D4 are probably the same. Thom Hogan wrote today a very important article about this comparison. I don't think there will be a huge difference between those two cameras regarding ISO performance so the D3s is not garbage still.
Matter of fact, if the D3s or D3 price goes down to an affordable level, I will go for either one of them. That will be a huge jump for me, going from the D300 to the D3. More than enough for the years to come.
Also a GREAT review here :
Sorry : is not in english , but you can still watch the pictures
Maurice, you make a very good point. And it's true for the D700 as well. The newest generation DSLR's are not obsoleting the prior generation like they did back in the D1-D2-D3 generational changes. I think the engineering has reached a leveling out period. Perhaps we are heading back to the days when a pro-level Nikon body enjoyed a 10-year product cycle?
That's right Dan. It is like buying a 2011 and 2012 car; probably and most likely, we will not see any difference in performance. What they want is our money.
The newest generation DSLR's are not obsoleting the prior generation like they did back in the D1-D2-D3 generational changes. I think the engineering has reached a leveling out period.When you compare the video capability between the D3S and D4, you'll have very different conclusions. For still image capture, the D4 is merely an incremental upgrade from the D3S. That has been very clear based on the specifications.
I don't think innovation and technology changes will suddenly stop. Expect 3D capture to gradually get popular for both video and still capture.
Shun is absolutely right, the change between videos is huge. In all areas, resolution, compression, if you are in half way serious about shooting a decent video, the D4 towers over the D3s.
You think these cameras are using an in camera noise reduction software? And the image right out of the sensor may be different? I always wondered about this.
Anyone has an idea?
Time ago we talked about the future of still images... someone said that we are already in the count down for still photography.
Well, the D4 is the first with a "video rec" button near the shutter release, 1080p, and a HDMI plug. I know nothing about video, but this is exactly what we`d like to have for our first videos at work. We are currently using a crappy camera and my D700.
In this respect the D4 seems to me a dream machine; 16Mp photos and full HD video with a macro lens without separating the camera from the face. It was not available when the D700 was released.
I don`t even checked the noise tests... at this point I don`t care so much about it, sincerely.
For any kind of quality video that people are (perhaps) willing to watch, you need to approximate Hollywood standards since that's what viewers are used to. That's the problem - you need a crew. A still photographer can produce a perfectly competent reportage or series about an event or a subject by him/herself, at little cost. I doubt very much that video will increase in popularity from what it is today. In fact I think the presence of the internet in people's homes has probably reduced television watching considerably, and very little of this online time is spent watching videos. Thus I'd say still photography is thriving and video is on the decline.
Hmmm... I agree that mass people will prefer TV broadcasts or high quality productions (that Hollywood standards) but I bet more and more people are looking for specialized topics that are not even available outside YouTube.
I currently don`t have a TV machine but a high resolution, enormous screen and a couple computers. My kids only see videos a la carte on internet. My next screen will be a LED TV, just because it`s cheaper. Always with internet connection.
There are very informative, formative, personal, interesting and useful videos on internet. I`m not refering to "camera box opening" and others... but scientifical and technical reportages in all topics (well, I`m sure you know about this). At work, we are noticing that still image communication is not enough; people demand videos together with high resolution images.
I agree that most internet videos are of very low quality, but this is changing so fast. Current technology are not at the price and level that people demand.
In this case the camera is here, but internet is not so fast enough yet.
I think the presence of the internet in people's homes has probably reduced television watching considerably, and very little of this online time is spent watching videos.i'm gonna say (gently) that's not quite right ilkka. the medium is changing. dont forget about people who access internet from mobile phones who might watch a video while waiting for a subway...
if one person spends 5 minutes online looking at a video clip, no big deal, right? now, let's say 22 million people spend 5 minutes each looking at the same youtube clip...now the prognosis is different, yes?
IMO, video is increasingly important. there will always be a [big] place for stills, but you cant deny what's happening.
Separate names with a comma.