Will You Purchase a D4?

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>Because a D3s...</p>

<ul>

<li>has liveview, which I find indispensable for macro and product work.</li>

<li>has a lens family that ranges from 8mm to 600mm, including 5 highly respectable macro lenses, two of them tilt/shift.</li>

<li>performs surprisingly well at ISO 3200 and 6400.</li>

<li>has arguably the best autofocus system in the entire camera industry.</li>

<li>costs about half of what a MF costs.</li>

<li>shoots 9 frames/second.</li>

<li>supports tethered shooting.</li>

<li>has a comfortable, integral vertical grip.</li>

<li>has a 1/250 x-sync speed, for double the flash to ambient ratio of the 1/125 sec Pentax 645D</li>

<li>has video.</li>

<li>can beat the 645D in shallow DOF portraits.</li>

</ul>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Dave!</p>

<p>You aren't longing for the faster AF and better AF coverage pattern of the F6? How about CLS?</p>

[don_harper_the_edge]

<p>Quote:<br>

"You Shure Don ? , I understood it was going to be an E4 ( no moving mirror anymore..) ;-)<br />btw Februari is announcement month, so mark my words.. :-)"<br>

<br />Actually not only are they eliminating the mirror but the viewfinder as well. It will simply project the image into your brain.<br />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.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not superstitous myself but "4" means death in Chinese.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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).</p>

[dan_south]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I guess Nikon can call the camera D-yon.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Ty Mickan - wow, that's the biggest list of useless features to be found on a camera I've seen so far......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Among the "useless features" that I listed was the breadth of the lens lineup. Interesting thing, the lens lineup. Here's something <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Xyyq?start=10">you said</a> last week:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I bet your own list of "useful" features could top it, for uselessness. You're confusing "useful to Ty" with "useful to the majority".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>still trying to figure out what any of that has to do with making a good photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I think the best possible focus (liveview for macro, Nikon AF for action) would contribute to "making a good photograph".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are people who can afford and justify a 645D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you think that a smaller sensor is better than the a larger sensor,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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..."</p>

[vojislav_mileti__263_]

<blockquote>

<p>Joseph: What is it about this thread that's bringing out the nastiness</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>No, but in the past month, I have bought an N90s, an F5, and an F80.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00Y1ZI"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=290903">Leslie Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 13, 2011; 05:40 p.m.<br>

The nikon F4 didn't do that well, did it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're joking, right? I hope so, because if not you're clueless. The F4 did <em><strong>quite well.</strong></em></p>

 

[Mike D]

<p>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. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>You're joking, right? I hope so, because if not you're clueless. The F4 did <em><strong>quite well.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<em><br /></em></p>

[photo5]

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

[pcg856]

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>What is a D4???</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A small scale bulldozer built by Caterpillar</p>

</blockquote>