ilkka_nissila Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p><em>But AFAIK, Nikon makes absolutely ZERO money with me going secondhand.</em></p> <p>If you buy a D4 second hand, or a D3s, this particular camera will be removed from the second hand market and there will eventually be someone who will get tired of trying to find a second hand camera of this type in an agreeable condition and price, and they'll go and buy a new D4s. So indirectly Nikon will make some money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p>$7,000 here in Toronto (ok-I tell a lie-it's $6,999.99). Sure glad I don't want one! cb :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <blockquote> <p>there will eventually be someone who will get tired of trying to find a second hand camera of this type in an agreeable condition and price, and they'll go and buy a new D4s.</p> </blockquote> <p>why wouldnt that person just buy another used d4 or d3s? only working sports/action pros can really justify the cost of the d4s. for everyone else, if the price falls enough, they might consider a d3s or d4 as an alternative to a d800 or Df, at about the same price point.</p> <p>The problem, and this has been discussed before, is that nikon created expectations with the d300/d700 for capable high-end bodies at reasonably affordable prices, and ever since has been backing away from that. i dont see the d4s market as being very wide at all, and the high school sports shooter who needs better frame rates than a d610 or d800 isn't going to need or want the d4s' extra bells and whistles, compared to d3s and d4. a a d4 would be a step up for those shooters, but a d4s wouldnt be worth the extra $$, which in this case would be considerable. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p>Why does Nikon persist in -not- putting in more cross focus points? So often I find the focus area is not in the 15 point cross zone, always forcing me to focus & recompose. I'd happily pay an extra $100 for a focus sensor that every point is cross. That is my one major beef with all the Nikon pro bodies and the only reason I'd ever even bother looking at a 5D Mark iii.<br> Come on, Nikon!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <blockquote> <p>'Capture' in the software name suggests it is only meant to be used in the initial steps of post-processing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Before NX, Capture actually captured, as well as processed. But Nikon figured out they could make more money by spinning off some of its features as the separate Camera Control package. Capture NX kept the name, but not the function.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p>Aaron - because upgrading the AF module is development cost? Besides, they had enough problems getting the multicam 3500 to work right on the D800. They were way ahead of Canon up until the 5D3/1Dx release. Now, consensus seems to be that they're behind - although I've certainly not seen a review to show what the software changes can do. I'm a little surprised that they didn't manage to respin the AF module with the D4s; I'd be really surprised if it was unchanged for the next flagship respin.<br /> <br /> Mike: Bear in mind that you're looking at figures for a D4, not a D4s. DxO haven't tested the D4s yet - though as I said, given the minor other improvements, I think Nikon should ship them one fast if there's anything to see there.<br /> <br /> You're right, the D4's sensor is not far ahead of the D600/D800 sensor - about 2/3 to 3/4 of a stop, generally, at high ISO (the 1Dx has much less of a benefit over the D4) - image for image, the D600/D800 splits the difference between the D3/D700 and D3s/D4 - generally being closer to the D4 except at the D4's magic ISO 1600 figure. And the D800 stomps on the D4 at minimum ISO, which in turn stomps on the 1Dx; at the (quite useful figure of) ISO 1600, nothing keeps up with a D4 (except a Df - and I maintain, for all the "new low-light champion" thing, that the D4 and Df sensors are within experimental error of each other).<br /> <br /> The small benefit, combined with the lack of need for speed, is why I was surprised that the Df didn't have a Sony sensor - but, however small, the D4 sensor <i>does</i> have some low light advantage. Having just had a go at rescuing an underexposed example of one of the surprisingly few pictures I had of my recently-deceased cat - shot in my dimly-lit living room, and she was a black cat - I'd actually have liked that extra 2/3 stop. I'm currently learning what DxO can do. Actually, now I look at it, the D3s figures are scarily similar to the 6D's (except in colour sensitivity).<br /> <br /> Barring a major change in branding, there was no way a D4s was going to have 36MP (and be a "D4x"). Nikon <i>did</i> have a flagship high-res model in the D3x, but both Canon and Nikon seem happy that the people buying high-res backs may be more amateur landscape photographers who want something light enough to carry than studio pros who dislike medium format. I still would not be surprised if Nikon brought their flagship sports camera up to 24MP at some point, if only so it doesn't look bad next to their DX range, but only if they can keep the frame rate. That shouldn't be rocket science to achieve. The faster gigabit ethernet connector from the D4s helps here, although I'm a little surprised that they didn't incorporate XQD2. Nikon did go to 16MP because they claimed the 12MP of the D3s was a bit small for a full page spread - I believe that's a genuine merit to the D3s to D4 upgrade, if you're doing magazine shots. Not that it would stop me getting a D3s if offered. Higher than that is a harder sell, especially with web content so prevalent.<br /> <br /> Off the specs, I'm not very excited, which is a shame for a flagship. The D4 was already not all that mind-blowing, given the D3s before it. Of course, if the tests start showing much better AF performance and a significant low-light boost, I'll suddenly sit up and take notice. Whether the high-profile switchers to Canon do the same is another matter. I know Nikon have been busy, but I'm a bit surprised that there isn't more here.<br /> <br /> If the purpose of the halo model is to generate interest, I have to agree with Mike that a "D400" might have done a better job. Maybe Nikon feel that the amount of traffic generated by the Df (you're welcome) was enough publicity for a while.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 <blockquote> <p>Why does Nikon persist in -not- putting in more cross focus points? So often I find the focus area is not in the 15 point cross zone, always forcing me to focus & recompose.</p> </blockquote> <p>When I reviewed the D3 back in 2008, one issue I had was that on the Multi-CAM 3500, the 15 cross-type AF points were too concentrated, in the center three columns only. However, that same AF module works better on the smaller DX frame on the D300, D300S, and D7100. In early 2012, as soon as I found out that the D4 was also using that same AF module, I immediately realized that we would be stuck with it until the D5.</p> <p>I am looking forward the D5, hopefully in another year and half, and we should see more cross-type AF points spread across the frame.</p> <p>But I can't imagine how expensive the D5 is going to be.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottelly Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p> . . . and will they go with two UDMA7 CF card slots, like Canon did with the 1Dx? I hope to see a 24 MP Nikon D400 with that (2 UDMA7 CF card slots) . . . and fast shooting (10 fps) with a humongous buffer. Wi-fi and a built-in GPS would be nice too, as would 4K video. While we're wishing . . . how about a 3.2" articulating screen Nikon?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <blockquote>But I can't imagine how expensive the D5 is going to be.</blockquote> <p>That kind of depends on how the professional journalism/sports market goes - there's a lot to be said for taking footage of ongoing action with a cell phone, or placing a GoPro right next to the action in a sports event, especially since both can now shoot 4K viideo...<br /> <br /> If the journalists have very little money, the D5 may have to be cheap (if Nikon still want it as a halo model). I keep hearing stories about how budgets are being cut. If the journalists have no money at all - or have moved to another style of shooting - the D5 may be priced for collectors and be stupidly expensive, like the F6; it might also not be as fast. I guess we'll see. It may even rely on on-sensor phase-detect, like some Sonys.<br /> <br /> I'm hesitant to be critical of the Multi-CAM 3500 - it's done me proud in the D700 (and a bit less proud in the D800). Having come from a 7-point 300D, an AF module which lens you move an AF point to somewhere useful was a revelation. On a 300D I focus and recompose; on a D700 I just move the AF point, unless I'm really aiming edge of frame. The D800 reduces depth of field, so focus-and-recompose is out anyway. On the D700, it was competing with the 9-point AF of the 5D2; on the D300, it was competing with the 19-point AF of the 7D. The 5D3 and 1Dx recover the state of the art, but the 3500 is still a very good system (don't get me started on what's in the 6D). Which doesn't excuse the need to upgrade it, but I'll wait for the D5.<br /> <br /> Honestly, most of what I'd like Nikon to fix at this point is software. The SRAW support is a good start, if on the wrong camera. I wish a software fix could be rolled out for the D800 - I'd pay D3300 money for a firmware upgrade with my feature request list in it. There may be some surprises when the D4s gets a proper review, but I doubt they'll have fixed everything they could have.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p>Scott: You're channeling Thom Hogan with the articulating LCD idea, but I'd honestly doubt it will appear on a journalist model. It's lovely to have, but awfully easy to break. I'm mindful of the pentaprism housing on my F5 being titanium, because that's what Nikon think build quality for journalists should be.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure that UDMA7 cards are quite as fast as you'd hope, though they're faster than most current SD cards. I hear only good things about the performance of XQD, but whether Nikon are really committed to it is another matter. They didn't remove it with the D4s, but nor did they upgrade it to XQD2, so it's hard to say.<br /> <br /> I've said enough about the "D400"/"D4dx". I believe Nikon could do it (though the 11fps upper limit on the D4s gives me doubts), and some people would buy it. I'm not sure that they will. I don't think the D4s is a big enough jump over the D4 to stop a 10fps 24MP camera with a big buffer from poaching sales, should one be released. I don't know whether Nikon actually care about making money from the D4s, or whether its purposes is solely advertising that trickles down to the D5300: if they want it to sell, I think an un-crippled D7100 is going to be a problem for it. That doesn't mean that a D7200 might not appear eventually with a bigger buffer and, maybe, 8fps.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_spooner Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Ilkka, I enjoyed your post so much (especially the last paragraph), I read it to my wife. Very wise words indeed. I have been following different technical forums since Al Gore invented the internet :) I have found people will post things they never would say in person, and it seems there will always be much complaining. Thanks for making me :) Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 <p>Andrew - Sure, there are development costs in everything. Amortize out 100k units sold at $50 extra higher cost? Not too bad an R&D budget. Yes, there was lots of trouble with the focus mechanism on the D800. I tested mine immediately when I received it. I'm sure it won't be the last focus problem, either.<br> Shun - You're right. On my D300s, the focus points aren't too bad. But on the D800, they're way too concentrated. There's so much going on away from the center zone for nicer composures. I'd just love one day not to have to do the focus and recompose dance. That was old with my Canon AE-1 and Nikon N80.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylebybee Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>I like my Nikon D7000, but the new Panasonic GH4 is making me think about jumping ship, the touch screen focus is intriguing as well as focus peaking, but I could care less for 4K video.<br> I wonder how many D4s's Nikon will sell over maybe an improved APSC or M4/3 camera, improved in the way of adding some of the features that are on the competition, touch screen, etc.. Also there seems to be a trend among professionals to down size the overall package.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>The touch screen of my phone stopped working in -14 C when I was in Riisitunturi in Lapland last week. There was no way to answer calls or to make them (if an emergency had occurred and I had relied on that, well, that would be a huge problem). My D3X with push buttons worked flawlessly, and so did my work phone which doesn't rely on a touch screen but has buttons. Also since to get some stability in hand holding, one normally presses the camera against one's cheek - how do you use the touch screen in such a situation, and how do you prevent it from inadvertently activating and issuing commands to the camera? I'm sure such problems can be solved but there does seem to be a reliability issue in adverse environmental conditions. Also in rain my touch screen equipped smartphone often ceases to work. Rain is not that uncommon, even if cold temperatures are to most people.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>There appers to be some improvement at the ultra-high ISO settings:</p> <p>http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310</p> <p>100k and higher seem in particular to be improved. I wonder if it is due to improved signal processing or a tweaked sensor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Ilkka: That's pretty impressive, I have to admit. It's hard to tell how well the autofocus is doing compared with the D4, but the JPEGs are significantly better. How much of it is JPEG processing and how much is raw is another matter - I can't currently really look at the raw files. If this is representative, I'll definitely look forward to DxO's tests. (This looks like a really impressive improvement, which makes me a bit surprised that they didn't shout more about it.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Ilkka, interesting link.</p> <p>What's a bit odd is if you look at 'detail' like the facet cuts on the diamond earing, the D4 images are definitely sharper, but equally the chroma noise on the skin tones is far better on the D4S.</p> <p>Those go-cart images are very clean. That's the kinda ISO I use... I want one!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Yes, Mike. Nikon should immediately send a D4s to all the regulars on this forum, if only to stop us (okay, me) ranting about the Df. :-)<br /> <br /> With this kind of performance (depending on how much of it is present in the raw files compared with the JPEG), I'll withdraw my previous thought of "meh" and assumption that nobody will talk about this. I'm actually excited again. Now, if only I had a spare £5200...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>I wouldn't draw conclusions about the focus system based on a few quick snaps; this requires more careful testing and real-world use to find out how the new camera's AF works. Image quality of the sensor (+lens) should be tested on a tripod preferably with live view focus to isolate the contribution of the focus system from it, and the focus separately tested after fine tuning it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>A while back, Ralph said:</p> <blockquote>Well, whaddya know! It does! I only just started using auto-ISO since I bought my Nikon Coolpix 'A'. I just tried it on my D3s, and it works perfectly well in manual mode! I even have exposure-compensation active (however, with only one dial). I wonder why the DPreview "first impressions" article touts it as a "new" feature of the D4s?</blockquote> <p>Belatedly, I've found out: It's because Nikon <a href="http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/PLLFUrEQR4jsr16srTmx1EQMQzM/PDF/D4S_D4_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf">says</a> "ISO Auto Control for Manual Exposure: D4s Yes, D4 No". I guess this isn't just auto-ISO in manual mode but something weirder - unless the D4 is unusually missing this feature and I hadn't noticed. DPReview have been lagging at getting hold of the flagship products for full reviews, so I'm not sure they'll show it - I'll keep an eye out for the manual appearing on Nikon's support site. (Incidentally, the "high ISO photos" samples on NikonUSA are useless - you get a two screen-sized images shot in daylight with wide apertures - I'm surprised they're not at base ISO, but it doesn't actually say!)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Having another look at the thread Ilkka linked to, I see there are now some raw image conversions. They're based on a shot at ISO 25600, but several have been given -1 exposure in the raw converter, making them effectively ISO 12800 with ETTR. At the pixel level, they're not exactly smooth, but they're not bad - with the unadjusted ISO 25600 version being appreciably worse. Still probably usable, though, and there's a decent amount of highlight recovery, considering. The JPEG from the camera seems to have pretty heavy noise reduction applied - there's no grain, but it's got compact-style edge clustering. I'd like to see what DxO's latest low light tool can do with the raw file. The lack of low frequency chroma detail (blotchiness) is pretty impressive, even in raw, though I suspect the highest ISO mode is a joke. I'd certainly not be scared of ISO 12,800, and I'd probably be willing to run up to 102,400 at a push. It's a good response to Andy Rouse's owl images from the 1Dx at ISO 16,000 - but obviously it's not a very scientific test.<br /> <br /> Fingers crossed for more once the camera is available to full reviewers.<br /> <br /> Well, all of a sudden I want one, especially if the AF is a big step forward. Which makes the whole "five grand" thing a bit of a shame. Sigh.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>I should point out that while the D4S also has a 16MP sensor just like the D4, Nikon has made it very clear that it is a newer version of the sensor. That is why its ISO range is different and high-ISO results are better. The D4S also has improved video capability, capturing 1080/60p video. All of those point to a new, improved sensor.</p> <p>In other words, the Df, which has the same sensor as the D4, no longer has the latest 16MP sensor from Nikon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Shun: Yes, I'm just surprised that it was possible to get the level of advance that seems to be appearing. My impression had been that we were near the theoretical limits for camera sensors (getting to the individual photon level); clearly there was more to squeeze out. I said I'd believe it when I saw it; fair enough, I can see it. Though I'd like to see some more authoritative numbers than simply deducing everything from some ad-hoc images, however impressive. "DxO or it didn't happen" - I think that's the phrase. It may be that the raw difference, while clearly there, is less impressive than the JPEG difference, like Canon's situation with the 5D3 vs the 5D2, and it would be nice to have a better idea of what gap really exists.<br /> <br /> Anyway. So much for my assertion that "Nikon can't do a D700 replacement, because there's no D3s-type sensor upgrade to put the flagship model ahead of the D4". I guess there is. I wondered whether the D700 was partly about dumping stocks of the D3 sensor when the D3s appeared - though Nikon obviously either had a <i>lot</i> of sensor stocks, or kept that line running for a while - but, if so, the Df is an interesting choice of how to dump remaining stock of the D4 sensor.<br /> <br /> I guess at least it solves the "Df has better low-light performance than the D4" problem (even though I believe the difference is negligible).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studio460 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 <p>Andrew said:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Belatedly, I've found out: It's because Nikon <a href="http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/PLLFUrEQR4jsr16srTmx1EQMQzM/PDF/D4S_D4_Comparison_Sheet_en.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">says</a> "ISO Auto Control for Manual Exposure: D4s Yes, D4 No". I guess this isn't just auto-ISO in manual mode but something weirder - unless the D4 is unusually missing this feature and I hadn't noticed.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>This was in reply to my earlier query (thanks, Andrew) why DPreview states that auto-ISO in manual mode is a "new" feature in the D4s (since this is an available feature in preceding D3-series cameras). Can any D4 owners comments on this? Doesn't the D4 allow auto-ISO in manual mode?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_christensen3 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 <p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1159437">Mike Halliwell</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 25, 2014; 04:46 a.m.</p> <p>Yippee!...first email for the D4S pre-order is <strong>£5199</strong> ... that's <strong>$8600</strong>.....ha ha.....not very funny.<br> Maybe they don't want to sell very many? Odd marketing strategy.<br> Copenhagen will beat you: USD 8,730 pre-order !!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now