Will You Purchase a D4?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by gary_mayo|1, Jan 12, 2011.

  1. I know I will be looking it over pretty closely. If I can get half the money back out of mine, and the price is around what the D3 cost when it was introduced, I would go for it if the camera is everything we expect it will be.
    Will you be purchasing a D4?
     
  2. Not in the next 2 weeks off of clist or ebay - since the product hasn't been announced yet (unless I missed it while at work today).
    Even then - when announced - I'm going with the it depends answer. Depends on what improvements it has over a D3, D300, D700 and if those are enough for me to write out a check.
    Dave
     
  3. What kind of improvements do you expect that would convince you to upgrade?
     
  4. This is silly. There's nothing to indicate what a D4 will be, what it will cost or when it will be announced.
     
  5. Will You Purchase a D4?
    Here we go again............ slow day............??
    This is silly. There's nothing to indicate what a D4 will be, what it will cost or when it will be announced.
    +1
     
  6. "At that point, why not go medium format?" $9,400 would be my main reason and I don't need 40MP.
     
  7. "At that point, why not go medium format?" $9,400 would be my main reason and I don't need 40MP.​
    And this is precisely my point.
     
  8. What is a D4??? no such thing yet
     
  9. D4 is just a bad omen...We'll probably see a d5 before a d4;)
     
  10. The D4 is a total dog camera. I don't know how Nikon could produce such a piece of crap. No Composition Detection, only 34 mpx when the 1DS mk6 has 35, terrible results with underexposure at ISO 256,000, only 400 focus points, of which only 200 are cross type. Nikon had better get with the program or I'm switching to Canon.
     
  11. One intelligent person should be able to make a gestimate in what the D4 or D5 would be like .... Clearly some people have upgraded dSLRs over time from the D100 to the more present cameras. And the answer would be likewise, it's obvious, some people would get the D4 like how they got a D3 and a D2, while some people may prefer a newer D700 or a newer D300 ......
    It's not like I would be using my D3 up until 2030.
     
  12. You can find plenty of guesses on the net, but they're just guesses. There's no quality information. Anybody who knows anything, even what year a hypothetical D4 could be expected in, is under an NDA and can't tell you.
     
  13. At that point, why not go medium format?​
    Because a D3s...
    • has liveview, which I find indispensable for macro and product work.
    • has a lens family that ranges from 8mm to 600mm, including 5 highly respectable macro lenses, two of them tilt/shift.
    • performs surprisingly well at ISO 3200 and 6400.
    • has arguably the best autofocus system in the entire camera industry.
    • costs about half of what a MF costs.
    • shoots 9 frames/second.
    • supports tethered shooting.
    • has a comfortable, integral vertical grip.
    • has a 1/250 x-sync speed, for double the flash to ambient ratio of the 1/125 sec Pentax 645D
    • has video.
    • can beat the 645D in shallow DOF portraits.
    There's no reason to expect the D4 to not exceed the D3 capabilities in every way, shape, and form.
     
  14. D4 is just a bad omen...We'll probably see a d5 before a d4;)
    It's not a "bad omen" to Nikon or Canon. Nikon had their film flagships F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6. Canon has a 1D mk IV.
    Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...
     
  15. Wasn’t it wonderful when you got your upgrades automatically? Kodak released the new film and you got it when you picked up your next brick of film. Best of all, the upgrade was free.
    Ken Fretz
     
  16. Kodak did just release the new film, and I did upgrade to it, and it's freakin' fantastic.
     
  17. It's not a "bad omen" to Nikon or Canon. Nikon had their film flagships F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6. Canon has a 1D mk IV.
    Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...​
    What about Canon not making a Powershot G4? It went straight from the G3 to the G5.
     
  18. Personally, I'm thinking of dumping my DSLRs and switching to my cell phone camera.
     
  19. It is funny to listen to the responses. For most of us who have purchased D3's and D3s' for Sports, the D4 will be very interesting. Looking back on the advances that Nikon has made in the past 4 years since the inception of the D3, it seems to me that the D4 will be incredibly innovative, and to simple dismiss it as silly is, a bit premature.
    The D3 and then the D3S have totally changed what the sports shorter can achieve.
    For those who scoff at the new technologies and say..."what did you do 10 years ago?", I say, the pictures today are better in low light. I do not apologize that I am taking advantage of the newer technology.
    I do not need strobes indoors, where others do. IMHO, strobes look extremely un-natural. High ISO shooting, in my arena is mandatory for good sports shooting. I have found that as you move up the sports chain, the lighting gets better, and the need for high iso camera decreases. There is however, still a great need for sports shooters who can handle crappy lighting. I get called many times because my pictures are bright, clear and crisp, when others are not. Equipment has a lot to do with this.
    I have seen much written about the possibilities of what the D4 "could" be. If it is 1/2 as innovative as the D3 was, then I will be signing up early. The rest of you can call it silly or whatever. As far as the medium format Pentax? Different horse for a different course. It is not a high ISO sports camera.
    Even Shun, who is ALWAYS tight lipped about the release of new Nikon products has hinted (totally between the lines of course), that an upgrade for the D3 could occur during 2011.
    I currently shoot with a pair of D3S's. I am constantly shooting with other sports (mostly canon) shooters who can not understand how it is that I am achieving bright crisp shots at ISO16000. I can only imagine that the D4 will raise the bar that much further.
    Dave L:
    If I remember correctly, you purchase and were very pleased of the results of your D300, and said you would never upgrade. until you saw the results of an FX D700, and then you upgraded.
    As I have grown older, I have learned the wisdom of never saying never:)
    Personally, I am very interested in the possibilities of a D4.
    Respectfully,
    Harry
     
  20. Joseph, many of your points are incorrect.
    A D3S ... (my responses are in italics)
    has liveview, which I find indispensable for macro and product work. Can't argue that. Of course several models do, but putting a digital back on a Hassy won't do it.
    costs about half of what a MF costs. Not if you want the same number of pixels it doesn't. A D3X is $8,000 body only, compared to a Pentax or Mamiya body and lens for $10,000. If I had the money to spend, I'd gladly give up two megapixels for a larger sensor, even if I didn't have 24 to start. Shoot, I have 12 now and I'd be happy to drop to 6, if my sensor was 'medium format' sized.
    supports tethered shooting. Every digital medium format I'm aware of, even separate backs for old cameras, does this.
    has a 1/250 x-sync speed, for double the flash to ambient ratio of the 1/125 sec Pentax 645D Either will sync faster with off-camera flash, and some Canon, Mamiya, or other models sync faster or slower than that with on-camera flash.
    has video. Can't argue that either. But I can argue that if you're shooting video professionally, EVERY Nikon DSLR leaves a LOT to be desired.
    can beat the 645D in shallow DOF portraits. I call serious BS on that. Clearly you're not familiar with the difference between film/sensor sizes. As a generality, you get about half the DOF with the larger sensor, and that doesn't even take into account the fact that MF uses longer lenses, which also reduce DOF. I don't have specs in front of me, but I believe a Mamiya with an 80mm f/2.8 has about the same DOF as a Nikon with a 50mm f/1.4 ... so unless you're using a 55mm or 58mm 1.2, you're not losing anything there. And if you were, you'd be losing your autofocus.
    There's no reason to expect the D4 to not exceed the D3 capabilities in every way, shape, and form. Agreed. There's also no reason to assume it will be a large difference. I found the D90 to be a huge step up from the D80. I found the D80 to be just a D70 with more megapixels and an SD card.

    I left off the ones I agreed with :) Cameras are like cars. Bigger cameras are designed for bigger jobs - in this case, bigger prints. You can cram 500 horsepower into a Suzuki, but it's still not going to be able to tow a trailor or push a plow as well as a truck with 150 horsepower. It's just not designed to operate that way. But it will accelerate and corner better, because it IS designed to operate that way.
    Similarly, you can't say your Nikon D3 is better than a digital MF, because it's not. It's designed to do different things. Now it's good enough to be used for just about everything, but it's not specialized for big prints and wider dynamic range the way a digital MF camera is. Even in the days before digital, MF cameras lacked VR or blazingly fast AF (either because they were usually used on tripods or because the lens elements are so much bigger and heavier), but were the go-to cameras for print and advertising work.
    This is not a Leica situation, where they expect you to buy an underwhelming camera just so you can buy their awesome lenses. Regardless of what you'd like to tell yourself, professionals that use digital MF cameras do not purposely handicap themselves with worse and more expensive cameras for bragging rights. If Nikon designs the D4 to compete with digital MF cameras, you'll find many users just switching to the MF cameras.
    Personally, I'd like to think Nikon is smart enough to avoid this. Again, if I had $10,000 to spend on a camera and my choices were 'medium format' or 'Nikon D4 that wishes it were medium format,' I'd be an idiot to buy the Nikon.
     
  21. The D4 will not have any important new features, it may even lose some features and/or megapixels. However the D4 will be a lot easier to handle, it's much smaller and lighter than the D3
     
  22. Harry, by "that is silly..." I think Andrew meant the question, and the whole discussion about a non-existant camera was silly, and not that the D4 was silly.
    As a generality, you get about half the DOF with the larger sensor, and that doesn't even take into account the fact that MF uses longer lenses, which also reduce DOF.
    Zack, if "that doesn't even take into account the fact that MF uses longer lenses", what does it take into account?
    John, you must have a crystal ball. Could you tell me if I'm going to get that job I want so much?
    I'm sorry it seems like I am nitpicking with everyone, I just couldn't help it. As for the bad omen, I want a D13! What do you guys think it will be like? Will you buy one?
     
  23. What about Canon not making a Powershot G4? It went straight from the G3 to the G5.​
    Most target of compact cameras is a fool peoples.
     
  24. Harry, you are a wise man.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  25. 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.
    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.
     
  26. I am holding out for the D10x, because I can 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  27. The sensor will be upgradable using sensor modules.​
    In a roll?
     
  28. In a roll?​
    Think sheet film.
     
  29. 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.
    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).
     
  30. Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...​
    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.

    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 entire list of other suggestions I sent them in a fit of optimism a couple of years ago.

    Ilkka: 18MP and low-light comparable with the D3? Do you have 1D4 envy? :)
     
  31. Most target of compact cameras is a fool peoples.​
    Is that a fact, now?
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
     
  32. The sensor will no longer be flat, but will be shaped like the most perfect light gathering instrument known: the human eye.​
    The human eye isn't even close to being that.
     
  33. 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 :)
     
  34. Only if it compensates for the photographer......
     
  35. No, I do not want one. I have enough gear for a decade or two.
     
  36. Ilkka: 18MP and low-light comparable with the D3? Do you have 1D4 envy? :)
    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.
     
  37. 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.
     
  38. No but I might for the D5
     
  39. Nikon will not skip number 4 because of some superstitious reason like other Japanese companies. They did have the F4
     
  40. D4? The Era speaker? The Alesis drum module? The Suunto Dive Watch?
    Those D4s actually exist, at least.
    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.)
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. I know many will disagree, but I remain steadfast that the major problem - even with professional level digital - is lack of dynamic range - specifically lack of gradual highlight control and separation.
    Color negative film is still superior in this regard.
    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.
     
  43. 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?
     
  44. No, unless it had interchangeable viewfinders like my film Nikons and a dynamic range better than my Fuji S5.
     
  45. Get a newest version of Photoshop, it's cheaper isn' it?​
    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...
     
  46. I'm just sitting here on the end of my seat waiting for the D5. ;)
     
  47. Will You Purchase a D4?
    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.
    Why don't we stay in the present, rather than breaking out the crystal ball?
    Jus' sayin'
     
  48. 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.
    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.
    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.
    For instance, I'd never use film to shoot sports or wedding/event candids.
    I like to play devil's advocate :)
     
  49. Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...​
    How is the canon 1d4 selling? The nikon F4 didn't do that well, did it? I'm not superstitous myself but "4" means death in Chinese. It actually might do nikon good, say, just for marketing purposes, there's a big coming potential market in China and Chinese mainlanders are somewhat a superstitous bunch...I don't care either way.
     
  50. I was really hoping we'd stop using cameras with mirrors and shutters by now
     
  51. Zack, I don't mean to reignite that thread that just got "solved" a couple of days ago (I am pretty sure you and Gary both remember it), but you won't have shallower depth of field simply because you have a larger piece of film behind the lens. The reason you get shallower depth of field with larger formats is because from the same distance, in order to get the same angle of view, you have to use a longer focal length lens (in order to increase the magnification). If you don't use a longer lens, you need to move in closer (again, to increase magnification), but then the perspective will change. If you do not change the distance, the only reason a medium format camera would have shallower depth of field is because of the longer lens. If you don't take that into account, there's nothing else, that's why your statement in which you said "and that does not even take into account the longer lenses" (or something like that) was wrong. Because it does.
    Combine that with the fact that for a Nikon DSLR normal and portrait lenses are easily available with maximum apertures of f/1.4, while f/2.8 is considered a large aperture for medium format (I'll have to admit I am not that clear about the above mentioned Pentax system, but for my Bronica SQ-A, that's the most I can get), and medium format will suddenly not have all that much shallower depth of field.
    That all being said, I would still prefer a medium format digital camera over a D4 if it was going for the same price and I could afford it. Being that I cannot afford either, my answer to the original question is "no, I am not going to buy a D4".
     
  52. Joseph, many of your points are incorrect.​
    Zack, what a diplomatic way to put it. In the same vein, I'd say that your observation is incorrect, and pretty much every point that you try to make is incorrect.
    A D3S ... (my responses are in italics)​
    There is a button at the top of the response window with a giant quote symbol. Give it a try. Then you can be incorrect, but at least readable.
    has liveview, which I find indispensable for macro and product work. Can't argue that. Of course several models do, but putting a digital back on a Hassy won't do it.
    Never said that it would. There's currently no MF liveview.

    costs about half of what a MF costs. Not if you want the same number of pixels it doesn't.
    That is true. However, since only about 1% (if that) of MF shooters that I've seen have any idea what the highest f-stop they can use before diffraction limits their detail, it's also a totally irrelevant point.
    A D3X is $8,000 body only,
    The thread was about the basic D4, the low light/high speed body, not the D4X. If we're going to hypothesize new things, we might as well hypothesize a 48mp D4X, with more mp that the Pentax or Mamiya, but still thousands cheaper.
    compared to a Pentax or Mamiya body and lens for $10,000.
    I've only seen the Pentax for $10k sans lens. That's how Pentax announced it for the US and UK, an extra $1000 for the 55mm f2.8 normal.
    The lens they "give away" in the Mamiya system is an 80mm f2.8. That's a normal for a "real" medium format camera, a 70mm diagonal 645 film body. It's not a normal for what I've come to call a "tweener", the 55mm diagonal sensors that get MF backs down into the $10k range. In other words, it's got a "crop factor" relative to the existing MF lenses, and the existing MF viewfinder. You did know this, right? That any MF you can buy for $10K is the medium format equivalent of a Nikon D7000 "cropped" body.
    On a 55mm diagonal tweener sensor that 80mm Mamiya is equivalent to a 63mm f2.2 on the Nikon (yes, the crop factor works both ways, f2.8 on the "tweener" medium format Mamiya is equivalent to f2.2 in terms of DOF on the FF). So, a 50mm f1.8, a $100 normal, on the Nikon is actually a much better normal: shallower DOF by almost a stop, and it's only 1.15x the diagonal, instead of the infuriating 1.45x of the Mamiya (or Blad, LOL. At least with Pentax, you can get a real "normal" normal for the tweener). You can also get the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor, the new AF-S, which has pretty impressive image quality and 1.3 stops more shallow DOF capability than an MF normal, for $400.
    Why do Mamiya and Blad give away those 80mm normals? Because that's about all you can do with a normal that's 1.45x the diagonal. 63mm equivalent? There's nothing like that in the 35mm world, and for good reason. Did you know that, back in the early 60s, before all the 35mm SLR makers came out with 50mm f1.4 normals, they offered 58mm and 55mm f1.4 normals. Photographers hated them. Despite the high optical quality (they're pure, symmetrical double Gauss or Planar designs) photographers found the focal length annoying. And that was only 1.33x the diagonal, not 1.45x. So, the camera companies made 50mm f1.4 normals, asymmetrical double Gauss variants, with more aberrations, because that's what photographers want.
    If I had the money to spend, I'd gladly give up two megapixels for a larger sensor, even if I didn't have 24 to start. Shoot, I have 12 now and I'd be happy to drop to 6, if my sensor was 'medium format' sized.
    Why? What do you expect to gain from the larger sensor? The Kodak and DALSA sensors that the MF makers use are so far behind the technology development curve, compared to Nikon, Canon, or Sony sensors, that the smaller (but not much smaller, just 22%) sensors used in their FF cameras outperform current MF sensors in terms of dynamic range and color accuracy.
    Every digital medium format I'm aware of, even separate backs for old cameras, does this.
    The Pentax 645D doesn't. There's lots of discussion about that, here, on LL, on dpReview, etc. Google is your friend. And, since...
    1. Javier specifically pointed to the Pentax as a reason to go MF (it is, after all, the only MF on the market with anything that remotely resembles acceptable ergonomics, an AF system from this century, and it launched with a decent normal. Mamiya eventually countered with their own 55mm f2.8).
    2. some Pentax fans checking serial numbers report that the 645D now accounts for over half of MF sales, from all makers.
    It now appears that tethered shooting isn't part of the "modern" MF... ;)
    has a 1/250 x-sync speed, for double the flash to ambient ratio of the 1/125 sec Pentax 645D Either will sync faster with off-camera flash,
    Actually, neither will. They're both focal plane shutter cameras. You'll get part of the image cut off if you try. You really, really shouldn't start a post with a comment like "many of your points are incorrect" if you don't have the knowledge to back it up and you're not willing to do the basic research.
    and some Canon, Mamiya, or other models sync faster or slower than that with on-camera flash.
    Pretty much all Nikon and Canon models can sync faster using on camera (or off camera, as long as you're using their own matching flash units), but it involves using "FP sync", which doesn't really solve the fill lighting ratio problem. Some Mamiya models can, if you use leaf shutter lenses, but it isn't a leaf shutter normal that they're giving away free. ;) Seriously, you're talking an extra $2,000-3,000 for their "LSD" lenses, to get that faster sync. Just three lenses, and the price of high speed sync is $7,500.
    has video. Can't argue that either. But I can argue that if you're shooting video professionally, EVERY Nikon DSLR leaves a LOT to be desired.
    True. But every Nikon DSLR gets better than the last one, and this is about a hypothetical D4, remember...
    can beat the 645D in shallow DOF portraits. I call serious BS on that. Clearly you're not familiar with the difference between film/sensor sizes.
    And I state, categorically, that you are the one engaging in the "serious BS" and that you are the one "not familiar with the difference between film/sensor sizes."
    As a generality, you get about half the DOF with the larger sensor,
    As a "generality", that wasn't even true in the film days, and it's sure not true in these days of shrinking sensors. And it's easy to prove.
    and that doesn't even take into account the fact that MF uses longer lenses, which also reduce DOF.
    It's not taking that "into account" because it's flat out not true. Unlike you, who is "not familiar with the difference between film/sensor sizes", I've shot everything, APS, FF, 645 (both real film and cropped digital), and 4x5. And, maybe 25 years ago, when MF film was somewhat viable, I sat down with a DOF calculator and proved that what you're spouting really is just old wive's tales.
    I don't have specs in front of me, but I believe a Mamiya with an 80mm f/2.8 has about the same DOF as a Nikon with a 50mm f/1.4
    Oh, this is going to be good...
    Well, first off, DOF is simply "similar triangles", so it's pretty obvious that the only way to get the same DOF with f2.8 on a Mamiya as you get on a Nikon at f1.4 is to double the diagonal (after all, 2.8 is double 1.4). 43.3x2 = 86.6. Now, the only way to get that on MF is to go to a 6x7, which has an 86.6mm diagonal, exactly. 6x7 is the "true" medium format, exactly twice the diagonal of 35mm "miniature format" and half the diagonal of 4x5 "large format". Most MF shooters are unaware of this, that a 645 isn't "medium format", it's a "slightly larger miniature format" that shoots a lot more like 35mm than LF. And that the new 55mm "economy" cameras are only 1/4 the way up the scale between "miniature" and "large", with 3/4 the way still to go. They need a new name, hence "tweener". But I digress. To restate 2x1.4 = 2.8 ;)
    Now, singe we can't actually buy a 6x7 digital, how about the $10,000 cameras we can buy, with those 55mm tweener sensors. Let's visit our old friend, the DOFmaster online DOF calculator. You can either manually select a COC of 0.030mm for the FF or just select FF. For the 55mm sensor MF, select 0.038mm. (The Pentax 645D setting gives you 0.05mm, which is correct only for 645 film. And even then, is a little off, it should be 0.0485, but most DOF tables and calculators use 0.050 for the COC for 645 film. A traditional 3% error).
    Subject at 10 feet...
    • 50mm f1.4 on a FF DSLR or film, DOF = 1.02 ft
    • 55mm f2.8 on a 55mm FF, DOF = 2.15 ft
    • 80mm f2.8 on a 55mm FF, backing up to 12.6 feet because 80mm isn't really a normal on a 55mm sensor, DOF = 1.60 ft
    ... so unless you're using a 55mm or 58mm 1.2, you're not losing anything there.
    It looks to me like you are, about half, in fact.
    And if you were, you'd be losing your autofocus.
    Then it's lucky you had all your assumptions wrong about the DOF, so I can keep my AF and still have twice the shallow DOF capability of a $10,000 MF system.

    And, just for grins...
    • 80mm f2.8 on a 67mm $36,000 Mamiya or Blad with a 67mm diagonal sensor (yes, those 12 mm really do come close to quadrupling cost, that's the reality of silicon chip manufacturing), at 10 feet (That's what it costs to get back to shooting the lenses approximately as they were designed, another $26,000 beyond that tempting $10,000 "come on" price) DOF = 1.18 feet.
    So, if you're willing to put $40,000 into the MF project, you can almost match the FF. Almost. ;)
    But if we're talking about portraits, my "axe" on the FF is the 135mm f2.0, and I lean pretty heavily on the 85mm f1.4, too. Both bitingly sharp lenses at the plane of focus, with some of the smoothest bokeh ever outside the plane of focus.
    It's hard to do apples to apples, because the 55mm diagonal makes it hard to find MF lenses to do the job right in the portrait range, so I'm going to bracket them, and hold the subject distance at 10 feet.
    • 85mm f1.4 on FF (1.96x diagonal) DOF = 0.35 ft
    • 110mm f2.8 on 55mm MF (2.00x diagonal) DOF = 0.52 ft
    • 120mm f4.0 on 55mm MF (2.18x diagonal) DOF = 0.62 ft
    • 105mm f2.0 on FF (2.42x diagonal) DOF = 0.32 ft
    How about a bit tighter shot?
    • 150mm f2.8 on 55mm MF (2.72x diagonal) = 0.28 ft
    • 135mm f2.0 on FF (3.12x diagonal) DOF = 0.19 ft
    • 210mm f4.0 on 55mm MF (4.0x diagonal) DOF = 0.20 ft
    • 180mm f2.8 on FF (4.15x diagonal) DOF = 0.15 ft
    And that about sums it up for the MF shallow DOF myth. Hey, maybe MF stands for "mythological format". ;)
    There's also no reason to assume it will be a large difference. I found the D90 to be a huge step up from the D80. I found the D80 to be just a D70 with more megapixels and an SD card.
    You're drawing inferences about D4 from D70?
    How about we stick to reality, or at least the D1, D2, D3 line...
    • D2 (compare D1X to D2X or D1H to D2H, your choice) doubled both resolution and processing power, and added a much more advanced AF system.
    • D3 (compare D2H to D3 or D2X to D3X) doubled both resolution and processing speed, improved high ISO by better than a stop, went from a 28.5mm diagonal APS sensor to 43.3mm FF, and added liveview.
    Similarly, you can't say your Nikon D3 is better than a digital MF, because it's not. It's designed to do different things. Now it's good enough to be used for just about everything, but it's not specialized for big prints and wider dynamic range the way a digital MF camera is.​
    And yet, in side by side testing, it beat multiple MF cameras soundly for wide dynamic range.
    Even in the days before digital, MF cameras lacked VR or blazingly fast AF (either because they were usually used on tripods or because the lens elements are so much bigger and heavier), but were the go-to cameras for print and advertising work.​
    In "the days before digital" MF was dying, with an average of 40% sales decline, per year, from 1990-2000. 35mm was becoming the "go-to cameras" even then.
    This is not a Leica situation, where they expect you to buy an underwhelming camera just so you can buy their awesome lenses.​
    That is true. MF lets you combine underwhelming cameras with underwhelming lenses.
    Regardless of what you'd like to tell yourself, professionals that use digital MF cameras do not purposely handicap themselves with worse and more expensive cameras for bragging rights.​
    Actually, it appears to me that they do. Bragging rights, to impress art directors.
    If Nikon designs the D4 to compete with digital MF cameras, you'll find many users just switching to the MF cameras.​
    You may find this startling, but whether or not FF was designed "to compete with digital MF cameras", that's exactly what it did. Users weren't switching "to the MF cameras", they've been switching from them, every single year for the last 20 years.
    Personally, I'd like to think Nikon is smart enough to avoid this.​
    Nikon is smart enough to realize that, if they just keep doing what they're doing, playing leapfrog with Canon, that MF will pretty much go away by itself. To get back to your car analogy...
    Nikon and Canon make tremendous product lines, 200hp sports cars, 100hp economy cars, 600hp trucks. Blad and Mamiya are squirrels, trying to cross the road. Here comes a tire!
    Again, if I had $10,000 to spend on a camera and my choices were 'medium format' or 'Nikon D4 that wishes it were medium format,' I'd be an idiot to buy the Nikon.​
    No comment.
     
  53. Andrew - But I'll still be amused if Sigma ever produce the analogue version of the SD10.​
    I must be ahead of my time. I made that joke back in 2005 ;)
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14202822
    I'm still surprised Sigma named a camera SD10. Their first DSLR SD9 was based on the film body SA-9. So if there's an SD10, it implies the existance of SA-10 "Saten". The Japanese are much more sensitive to the sonority of pronounced acronyms and product names than westerners are (Like "Toyoda" becoming "Toyota", or "Quan Yin" becoming "Canon").​
     
  54. Christopher Sperry - 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,​
    This is a common misconception. The human eye is spherical because it rotates in a socket, enabling it to look in multiple directions. The focal length of the lens is not the radius of the sphere, it is approximately the diameter. But, like most lenses, it projects a nearly flat field, with "spherical aberration"approximately 10x the focal length, or 20x the radius of the eyeball. That is why the highest resolution section of the retina, the central fovea, is flat, and does not follow the curve of the eye, at all.
     
  55. Joseph, the quote window doesn't say who wrote what. Or maybe it does, and my version of Internet Explorer just doesn't support it. I felt that using italics was easier, since it took up less space to make the same point. For a somebody that calls my post unreadable, you've done a bang-up job of showing me how it's done.
    Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read your entire post. There's a lot of maths there. You've already made the assumption that I'm a moron, so if you really want me to follow along with what you're saying you'll have to seriously dumb it down. APS? Focal plane? I don't know what these things are. Please use as many small words as possible. I did click on the DOFmaster link though because it's bright blue and caught my limited attention.
    In the future, you may want to refrain from linking to things that even slightly discredit your argument. While your link does discredit the myth that larger sensors produce less DOF automatically (and I can admit when I am wrong), it also says that a D3 with an 85 f/1.4 wide open at 10 feet gives you .35' DOF, while a 6x6 with a 150 f/4 is a .46' DOF at 10 feet. If you bought the 200 series with a focal plane shutter, you could use the 150 f/2.8, which is .33' DOF, less than the Nikon., and much less than the "half the depth of field" you say your Nikon gets.
    Your Nikons will sync faster than 1/250th of a second if you use an SC17 cable and cut the line that lets the flash and camera talk to each other. You will lose flash power, but it will sync up to 1/2,000 - 1/8,000th of a second depending on camera and flash power. I have not tried this with a 645D, but since it works with every other hotshoe camera I own, I suspect it works here too. You can also use the FP mode while using the CLS system.Any MF with a leaf shutter will sync at any shutter speed. Additionally, I own several flashes that sync with my film Nikons at 1/500th, well above the camera's listed speed of 1/60th. You're wrong here. Feel free to bring out more maths if you'd like.
    And impressing art directors? Vogue is still frequently shot with film. Annie Leibovitz uses 5Ds and 1Ds to shoot large amounts of her material. Terry Richardson shot a large campaign for Yves Saint Laurent with a Yashica 35mm T-series camera. Yeah, you're probably right about how people buy $40,000 cameras to impress art directors. I mean shoot, most of those people actually know less about diffraction and circles of confusion than you do. You should probably have their jobs.
    Diffraction? Seriously? Yes, you're technically correct. However, Adams, Weston, and many others started a photo movement based on an aperture that was guaranteed to produce diffraction. Ansel Adams, the guy who is almost singlehandedly caused a million photo students' heads to explode from math, said, 'don't worry about diffraction if you want to get more depth of field.' So if you want to be 'technically' correct, I'll be happy to give you that one, but in spirit you couldn't be much more wrong.
    Oh, and a tether out to a computer, while not live view, serves the same purpose. I figured a man of such obvious intellectual superiority over me would have pieced this one together. Again you're technically right that there's no 3" Live View on the back of digital MF cameras, but I can accept being wrong when I'm "not using live view" on a 17" laptop monitor instead.
    I'm not going to address everything, because you obviously have much more time on your hands than I do. I also suspect you'll use that little quote button to slice up my comments and take me out of context. I'm also suspecting another full page of math and links. Have fun.
    Garrison K (and others) can vouch for the fact that I admit when I'm wrong, and he's put me in my place several times and I thank him for it. But I still stand by my previous statement that several of the things you said were incorrect. If you'd prefer, I can addend that to 'correct in wording but incorrect in spirit, and wholly irrelevant to boot,' if it makes you feel better.
    When it comes down to it, all your math simply hides the fact that you clearly do not understand the differences between camera types. You may know the facts (or at least google them) and attempt to make me look like an idiot by quoting pages of info, but the fact that you would say D3s are just as good as MF cameras, or that anyone needs any camera in any price range to impress people for big jobs, displays an ignorance of the inner workings of the photographic industry far deeper than a lack of math skills.
    To everybody that isn't Joseph ... sorry for the stream-of-conscience rant. I had a long day today, and I'm obviously taking it out.
     
  56. Garrison K (and others) can vouch for the fact that I admit when I'm wrong, and
    he's put me in my place several times and I thank him for it.​
    Several? What? C'mon now... :p
     
  57. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read your entire post. There's a lot of maths there. You've already made the assumption that I'm a moron,​
    Actually, I made no assumptions, at all. I simply treated you like you did me. I'm sorry that this offends you.
    Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to read your entire post.​
    Then, again, I'll return the courtesy.But I did catch something about you being able to prove me wrong by using a 6x6 on the DOF calculator.
    Can you please provide a link to the $10,000 6x6 80mm diagonal sensor MF DSLR that your argument depends on. Thank you.
     
  58. Would I buy the D4 ? No. Why ? Too much money !! Would I want to have it ? No. I am OK with my D300. Why ? Cause I need lenses, no new cameras. Once I do have the lenses, then I will think what new camera to buy. Probably by then, the D4 will be kind of obsolete. Anyway, my pictures looks as good as any taken with the D3. Missing something from that camera ? Not really. Only one thing I do have in my camera that still I do not know how to use, and beside, Nikon should make it automatic : AF TUNE !! It should be automatic or they should provide how ( step by step ) to adjust your lenses. I do hope, for all of you who would buy the new D4 ( predicted by Thom Hogan ) to have all of the features you have been talking about and .... that the AF TUNE is automatic, so as soon as you put your lens in the camera, and by just hitting the OK , your camera adjust that lens in a blink of an eye. Superb !! Enjoy it !!
     
  59. The Top Ten Reasons to Purchase a D4!
    (With apologies to the host of a certain late night television program.)
    10. Your next movie might be filmed on location in a poorly lit coal mine!
    9. Action shots of bats becoming a hot seller on micro stock websites!
    8. Weddings in caves could be making a comeback!
    7. Quick! Get one before Canon releases the 4D!
    6. Four words: High ISO bragging rights!
    5. You didn't really want to stay married, did you?
    4. The specs for the D5 not yet circulating on the rumor sites!
    3. Bloggers haven't found a reason to complain about it yet!
    2. Drive around with a D4 on the front seat (or in the trunk) of a brand new Mustang convertible, and women will notice you (maybe)!

    And the number one reason to purchase a D4:
    1. Canon doesn't make it!
    ;-)
     
  60. My wife say's I have to upgrade the refrigerator. I want one that has the vidio function so I can find out who snags the last chunk of pizza while I am sleeping. After I buy that then I might upgrade my tennis shoes. They squeak a lot when I am sneaking around. It's harsh on my stealth moves.
     
  61. I wanted to be the first to ask: Should I buy the D4 or wait til the D5 comes out.
     
  62. Keith Reeder and Joseph Wisniewski​
    My post about the Nikon D10x quite obviously contained science fiction, and was not intended to be taken so literally. My post was only intended to illustrate a point about DSLR upgrades and product life cycles. I think that most of us look forward to the day when digital imaging technology is mature enough that we approach what I termed "the point of equilibrium". In the meantime, I am hanging pretty close to my Pentax 67, my F4s, and my D80. Enjoy your photographic interests.
    "You can't believe everything you see and hear now, can you?" Jimi Hendrix
    Regardless, here is a link to the curved sensor article:
    http://cameras.about.com/od/technologies/a/human_eye_camer.htm
     
  63. Well, I have to say goodbye to the Nikon Forum for two days... (LOL) I`ll have a hard working weekend understanding the topics in Joseph`s post... (very interesting -seriously-, but... ouch!), if not, I`d never feel comfortable writing here again... :) I have already printed it on paper, took my photography books, dictionary and some food and water. My cellular phone is switched off. See you on monday... ... !
     
  64. If you bought the 200 series with a focal plane shutter, you could use the 150 f/2.8, which is .33' DOF, less than the Nikon., and much less than the "half the depth of field" you say your Nikon gets.
    But to get the same framing as you get with the 85mm on FX you need to move further back with the MF and 150mm lens. And the final result is that the 85/1.4 wide open on FX gives shallowed DOF than the same subject size and framing shot with the 150mm on cropped sensor MF.
    For shallow DOF, FX is very, very competitive, especially with the new 24/1.4 etc. for wide angle options that yield surprisingly stunning images wide open.
     
  65. Sigh. I'm in no hurry. The D1, the D100, the D70, the D2x, etc all useless dust collectors that are only worth a few hundred bucks.
     
  66. Go on a trip to somewhere exotic for a few weeks, and get some spectacular photos instead. In fact, you might even want to take a couple of models with you. Try the Seychelles!
    I'm assuming you have the 14-24mm f2.8 and a 200-400mm f4 VR in your bag already. You couldn't possibly have a D3x and not a 24-70mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8 already. If not, why the hell are you asking this question?!? Get lenses! Those are what you make the photos with in the first place!
    Of course, I obviously don't know you (or whoever might be considering the idea of a D4 upgrade from the D3x. That doesn't matter though. You could be shooting with a D2x and I'd still suggest getting those lenses (and a 50mm f1.2 manual focus, a 105 f2 DC, and a 135 f2 DC). It's the lenses! Yes, I'd like a fold-out screen version of the D700 that captures 16 bit color instead of 14 bit. I'd like it to have two memory card slots, and I'd love if it has a built-in GPS, like the Sony A55. But I'd rather have a D700 with all those lenses instead.
     
  67. Will You Purchase a D4?
    No. I have several MF and LF systems, as well as a Nikon system with prime lenses from 15mm to 600 mm plus a F4s with an extra waist level finder and MB-23 data back plus a FE2 with a MD-12. Very sophisticated systems with free sensor updates made and delivered by Kodak and Fuji at least twice a year.
    The 4D wouldn't be able to do what I can do with my F4s and film. Not even the current 3Dx features a freeze focus option...
    BTW, what means D4? Dumb Four, Depressive Four, Damaged Four, Demoralized Four, Deppen Four, Dustsucker Four, Dilirium Four, Destructive Four, Damn Four, Disillusioned Four, Drowned Four, Drenched Four, Domina Four, Doomed Four? Dee for what please? Dee for better images? Damn good as a paperweight?
    And what is digital? Still some lousy stuff that only uses 10% of the light that reaches the plastic in the tupper box, or finally something serious which will deliver 48bit off sensor?
     
  68. No, i would not buy a D4, unless I would win the jackpot in the lottery tomorrow... in that case I would buy everyting (D)SLR related that Nikon offers including lenses, just fot the fun of it.. :) ....
    Right now I'm quite happy with my D300, and my older film cam's , with these I can do everything i want to/ am capable of . :).
     
  69. My really well infomred source tells me that Nikon is skipping the D4 and instead will release the D6doubleX.
    Just thought you all would want to know. Details to follow.
    Don
     
  70. You Shure Don ? , I understood it was going to be an E4 ( no moving mirror anymore..) ;-)
    btw Februari is announcement month, so mark my words.. :)
     
  71. I skipped the D4 and went for a second F5 instead. That was I never need to upgrade the camera!
     
  72. I am curious about Shun's response with respect D4, not buying D4 or not. But so far he has been quiet. I will not buy D4 unless I can afford.
     
  73. After my first and only new D70, my D2h was bought used in 2009, my F100 and FM2N were used, I am actually looking at a 5yr old or 8yr old D700 for a cheap price. I rather just shoot 120 film in the most restrictive tripod landscape photog. No more am I getting a new camera...
     
  74. Because a D3s...
    • has liveview, which I find indispensable for macro and product work.
    • has a lens family that ranges from 8mm to 600mm, including 5 highly respectable macro lenses, two of them tilt/shift.
    • performs surprisingly well at ISO 3200 and 6400.
    • has arguably the best autofocus system in the entire camera industry.
    • costs about half of what a MF costs.
    • shoots 9 frames/second.
    • supports tethered shooting.
    • has a comfortable, integral vertical grip.
    • has a 1/250 x-sync speed, for double the flash to ambient ratio of the 1/125 sec Pentax 645D
    • has video.
    • can beat the 645D in shallow DOF portraits.
    wow, that's the biggest list of useless features to be found on a camera I've seen so far......still trying to figure out what any of that has to do with making a good photograph.
    there are people who can afford and justify a 645D. if you think that a smaller sensor is better than the a larger sensor, then you'll be pleased to know that Nikon make a "DX" sensor, it's a lot cheaper than the D3, and by your definition, should potentially produce better images.
     
  75. I skipped the D4 and went for a second F5 instead. That was I never need to upgrade the camera!​
    Hi Dave!
    You aren't longing for the faster AF and better AF coverage pattern of the F6? How about CLS?
     
  76. Quote:
    "You Shure Don ? , I understood it was going to be an E4 ( no moving mirror anymore..) ;-)
    btw Februari is announcement month, so mark my words.. :)"

    Actually not only are they eliminating the mirror but the viewfinder as well. It will simply project the image into your brain.
    It's so funny to see hardware lust in action and I guess most prevalent when people aren't out taking pictures. I shoot with what I have and by sheer volume come up with an exceptable photo now and than.
     
  77. I'm not superstitous myself but "4" means death in Chinese.​
    Quite right, Leslie. Same in Japanese, "shi" means death and the number four. I remember my Japanese language teacher telling us to use "yon" for four instead of "shi" to be more polite. My wife is from Japan and she says "shi" not "yon" so who knows.
    The Nikon F4 lasted from 1988 to 1996 when the F5 was introduced, so I don't think it was a failure per se, but certainly when the F5 was released it was so much better than the F4 as to make the F4 obsolete overnight. Also interesting that the F3HP continued to sell new all the way until early 2001. I don't know if this is because many photographers refused to upgrade to AF camera bodies or what. I never thought to buy an F4, it was too large and too heavy, I'd rather shoot with a 6x4.5 SLR at that point (which I did, a Bronica ETRS that I bought in 1995 and sold a couple years later when I bought a Mamiya RB67 ProS).
     
  78. I've wondered about the two Japanese words for the number 4 (yon, shi). I have heard them both, but 'yon' seems more common. Perhaps they're used in different contexts or in different regional dialects, or maybe one is more formal than the other. I'll have to ask some Japanese acquaintances.
    I guess Nikon can call the camera D-yon.
    But consider this. The letter 'D' does not exist at all in Japanese. They have the 'D' sound in words like 'demo' (but) and 'doko' (where), but their phonetic alphabet is not like those of Western languages.
    In Japanese, a consonant can't exist by itself. There's no 'D' or 'T' or 'B' by itself. Each consonant sound must be paired with a vowel. Therefore, they have a letter for 'da' and another letter for 'de' and yet another letter for 'do', etc. Why would people who choose to name their products with a foreign (Roman) letter scheme then panic if the name included the number 4?
     
  79. Ty Mickan - wow, that's the biggest list of useless features to be found on a camera I've seen so far......​
    Among the "useless features" that I listed was the breadth of the lens lineup. Interesting thing, the lens lineup. Here's something you said last week:
    BTW, I shoot my weddings with a small format rangefinder with two prime lenses. I use a 1,4/35mm for 80% of a wedding. And a 1,4/75mm for the rest. I never find myself wanting for a longer or shorter lens. I used to shoot with slow f2.8 zooms.......glad those days are behind me.​
    You need a 44mm f1.8 and a 95mm f1.8 on a 645D to get the same look as a 35mm f1.4 and 75mm f1.4 on your Leica.
    The Pentax 645 45mm is an f2.8, a stop and a half slower than what you're used to. They don't have a 95mm, but there's a 75mm f2.8 (58mm f2.2 equivalent) and a 120mm f4 macro (94mm f3.1 equivalent). So, for a 645D shooter, "slow f2.8" isn't "glad those days are behind me", it's here and now.
    I bet your own list of "useful" features could top it, for uselessness. You're confusing "useful to Ty" with "useful to the majority".
    still trying to figure out what any of that has to do with making a good photograph.​
    Personally, I think the best possible focus (liveview for macro, Nikon AF for action) would contribute to "making a good photograph".
    there are people who can afford and justify a 645D.​
    True. And, there are a lot of different styles of photography, some of which the 645D is a much better match for than the D3. But it doesn't match my style, and from your statements, it doesn't match your style...
    But this discussion is about who is interested in a D4, in the context of a successor to a D3, and that's how I answered it. Are you a D3 shooter, who views the 645D (and switching systems) as an "upgrade path" from a D3? How about the 645D as a path from your M?
    if you think that a smaller sensor is better than the a larger sensor,​
    Actually, it's not something I have to "think". It's both visible and measurable. The issue isn't "a smaller sensor is better than the a larger sensor", it's the level of technology in the sensors. The Hasselblad, Pentax, and Leaf MF offerings all use DALSA or Kodak CCDs that have been essentially static in their development for the last 10 years, while Canon, Nikon, and Sony have been steadily advancing their technology.
    The 645D sensor is only 27% bigger than the Nikon FF sensor. But it's so far behind the times, technically, that it's size, in many ways, doesn't make up for its low performance. I remember when Luminous Landscape (heavily biased towards MF) put the 22mp DALSA (used in the Mamiya ZD and the Leaf Aptus II-5) against the Canon 5D, and the 5D won. And that was a bigger size difference, 1.40x the size of FF (twice the area), not 1.27x like the $10,000 Pentax 645D or Mamiya (more properly "MAC group") DM40. If outdated DALSA and Kodak CCD chips can't beat Canon, Nikon, or Sony even giving the MF twice the area of FF, then shrinking the MF to just 1.61x the area isn't going to cut it.
    And remember, you're not just waving a sensor at the subject, you're shooting a picture with a camera that contains that sensor. Part of the job of that camera is making it easy to get the picture, as far as focusing, composing, etc.
    What is it about this thread that's bringing out the nastiness. I get one guy who goes "many of your points are incorrect" and goes postal when those points are defended, and another who comes up with comments like "wow, that's the biggest list of useless features..."
     
  80. Joseph: What is it about this thread that's bringing out the nastiness​
    It's a topic about gear, Joseph. Whenever you're questioning myths (and shooting them down!) about someone's favorite gear, there's gonna be nastiness.
     
  81. No, but in the past month, I have bought an N90s, an F5, and an F80.
     
  82. Leslie Cheung [​IMG], Jan 13, 2011; 05:40 p.m.
    The nikon F4 didn't do that well, did it?​
    You're joking, right? I hope so, because if not you're clueless. The F4 did quite well.
     
  83. Hopefully I'm not being repetitive but the D4, being the top end, will probably be very heavy and feature ridden. I'm getting older and carry several bodies so I also need light weight bodies. The teenagers and twenty somethings who could carry the heavy weight bodies would probably migrate to increasingly capable smart phones that will be able shoot 16 MP images, process them, and send them for printing or attach them to their Facebook accounts or other social media site instantaneously. Don't laugh. Imagine a professional wedding photographer being able to do a shoot with a smart phone and have it uploaded, printed, and bound, ready for distribution before the last person has gone home after the wedding. The smart phones will replace the low end P&S cameras in the next couple of years and then they will start moving in on the pro gear. The D4 may already be a dinosaur.
     
  84. You're joking, right? I hope so, because if not you're clueless. The F4 did quite well.
    Didn't do well? Did quite well? I love these units of measurement. But Scott, you must not have been around back then. The F4 wasn't a hottie like the F3, F90x, F100, or F5. I agree with Lesllie, it was a bit of a bomb compared to the others. Of all the models I just listed, it probably had the least sales.
     
  85. The Canon EOS cameras were out at the same time the F4 was introduced. And an amazingly huge number of Nikon shooters jumped into the Canon EOS system at that time. When I first saw the F4, it looked huge to me, I had an FE2 at that time that I loved.
    The F4 never blew people away in terms of its AF performance. It blew people away by how well it was built, the thing is a tank! It did feel good in the hand too, all sculpted curves and stuff. Had a silent drive mode that was quieter than the manual winder on the F3, or so Nikon said. Huge and heavy, I never wanted one. Same goes for the F5, too big and heavy. The F100 is perfect for me, as is the F3HP when I want to go manual and shoot with Non-AI lenses.
     
  86. What is a D4???
    A small scale bulldozer built by Caterpillar​
     

Share This Page

1111