Will You Purchase a D4?

leslie_cheung · January 13, 2011

Odd, that this myth persists a decade into the 21st century...

</blockquote>

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.

garrison_k. · January 13, 2011

I was really hoping we'd stop using cameras with mirrors and shutters by now

raczoliver · January 13, 2011

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".

joseph_wisniewski · January 13, 2011

Joseph, many of your points are incorrect.

</blockquote>

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)

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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,

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

The Pentax 645D doesn't. There's lots of discussion about that, here, on LL, on dpReview, etc. Google is your friend. And, since...

<ol>

<li>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).</li>

<li>some Pentax fans checking serial numbers report that the 645D now accounts for over half of MF sales, from all makers.</li>

</ol>

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,

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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,

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

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 <a href="http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">DOFmaster </a>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...

<ul>

<li>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</li>

</ul>

... so unless you're using a 55mm or 58mm 1.2, you're not losing anything there.

</blockquote>

It looks to me like you are, about half, in fact.

And if you were, you'd be losing your autofocus.

</blockquote>

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...

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

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.

<ul>

<li>85mm f1.4 on FF (1.96x diagonal) DOF = 0.35 ft</li>

<li>110mm f2.8 on 55mm MF (2.00x diagonal) DOF = 0.52 ft</li>

<li>120mm f4.0 on 55mm MF (2.18x diagonal) DOF = 0.62 ft</li>

<li>105mm f2.0 on FF (2.42x diagonal) DOF = 0.32 ft</li>

</ul>

How about a bit tighter shot?

<ul>

<li>150mm f2.8 on 55mm MF (2.72x diagonal) = 0.28 ft</li>

<li>135mm f2.0 on FF (3.12x diagonal) DOF = 0.19 ft</li>

<li>210mm f4.0 on 55mm MF (4.0x diagonal) DOF = 0.20 ft</li>

<li>180mm f2.8 on FF (4.15x diagonal) DOF = 0.15 ft</li>

</ul>

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...

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

No comment.

joseph_wisniewski · January 13, 2011

Andrew - But I'll still be amused if Sigma ever produce the analogue version of the SD10.

</blockquote>

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").

</blockquote>

joseph_wisniewski · January 13, 2011

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,

</blockquote>

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.

zack_zoll · January 13, 2011

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.

garrison_k. · January 13, 2011

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.

</blockquote>

Several? What? C'mon now... :p

joseph_wisniewski · January 13, 2011

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,

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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.

orcama60 · January 14, 2011

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 !!

dan_south · January 14, 2011

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!

;-)

rossb · January 14, 2011

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.

bob_bill · January 14, 2011

I wanted to be the first to ask: Should I buy the D4 or wait til the D5 comes out.

Christopher Sperry Photogr · January 14, 2011

Keith Reeder and Joseph Wisniewski

</blockquote>

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

jose_angel · January 14, 2011

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... ... !

ilkka_nissila · January 14, 2011

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.

garrison_k. · January 14, 2011

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.

scottelly · January 14, 2011

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.

jens_g.r._benthien · January 14, 2011

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

</blockquote>

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?

CvhKaar · January 14, 2011

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 . :-).

don_harper_the_edge · January 14, 2011

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

CvhKaar · January 14, 2011

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.. :-)

Dave Luttmann · January 14, 2011

I skipped the D4 and went for a second F5 instead. That was I never need to upgrade the camera!

wenhan_xue · January 14, 2011

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.

RaymondC · January 14, 2011

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...

Sign In

Will You Purchase a D4?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in