Nikon Officially Announces the D4S, 16MP, $6500

[studio460]

<p>I no longer own a CS license, so I can't view the D4s RAW files in the "ClubSNAP" thread, previously linked here. But in the .JPG comparisons, the D4s images show a significant loss of detail at moderate ISOs, compared to those of the D4. Is it fair to conclude that the in-camera .JPG engine of the D4s is applying overly-aggressive NR?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Ralph, I don't think anything can be <em>concluded</em> from those quick snaps. It's best to wait until the camera becomes available for proper testing. In-camera noise reduction is adjustable, anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ralph, I think <i>overly-aggressive</i> might be a matter of opinion. But aggressive, yes, at least for those images. So do some of the attempts to denoise the results from a raw file - the input is certainly not noise-free. There are also a couple of results of raw conversion (one plain at ISO 25600, one with an exposure shift taking it back to ISO 12800) with no additional noise reduction; these are much grainier, but also look less painterly to me. Of course, I'm sure you can play with the camera's internal JPEG settings.<br />

<br />

Nonetheless, the raw files do seem to be a significant step up on what the D4 is achieving - though I'd really like to see a side-by-side raw comparison. The lack of macro-scale colour blotches on the D4s is a good improvement, and there may be a colour cast fixed as well. How much improvement in the final image comes from improvements to the JPEG engine and how much comes from the raw sensor is a bit hard to tell just from this, especially since I don't own a D4 (or Df) to test with. I'm sure the D4 is doing its share of aggressive noise reduction already, going off the sample crops shot side-by-side. The D800 has <i>some</i> noise even at quite low ISO, which doesn't stop me shooting it at ISO 6400 and above if I need to, so I'm not expecting perfection here.<br />

<br />

So no, this isn't enough information to make a very informed decision, but it's certainly interesting - I wasn't expecting enough of a difference to get excited about, whereas it looks as though there might be.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Video Nikon put out. <br>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6tdncHV13s</p>

<p>I AM!! Or like Madonna puts it "strike the pose".</p>

[aaron l]

<p>I added a review page to my site:<br>

<a href="http://aaronlinsdau.com/nikon/d4s/">http://aaronlinsdau.com/nikon/d4s/</a><br>

that I will add information to as it becomes available.<br>

For those folks over in the UK, you can buy a ticket over to New York, pick up a D4s body, then fly back for far cheaper. <strong>£5199 - </strong>Owch.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Aaron: Sigh. That used to be true of buying Creative Suite as well. (Though once you've paid import duties, it doesn't usually work out that way.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A well-known rumour site has pointed out that the D4s manual is <a href="https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18884">now available</a>. Other than a change in wording, I can't see a difference in the stated support for auto-ISO in manual mode between the D4s manual and the D4. Also, it appears that the "small raw" support is a bit preliminary - particularly, you can't post-process small raw images on the camera, and they're always stored uncompressed. Here's hoping they get it sorted and us D800 users might get a firmware upgrade (pretty please, Nikon?)<br />

<br />

Allegedly the D4s is due to start shipping very shortly, and indeed has shipped early to some places. Amateur Photographer in the UK say they'll be "taking a first look" at the D4s in the 15th of March edition (the next one), along with the X-T1, but I'm not sure how thorough that test will be. I'd like to see DPReview get back to doing proper tests of high-end cameras soon...</p>

[Mike D]

<p>If it were 24 MP, I would be in big trouble. Since it's only 16 MP, I'll just save my money and wait for the D400. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>You might be waiting a while, Michael, although I'm sympathetic.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Amateur Photographer has <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540443/ap-s-exclusive-nikon-d4s-video-interview?utm_campaign=ap_newsletter_140304&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua">an interview</a> about the D4s. I've not watched yet, but it might contain something of interest.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly, Michael: Do you have a particular need for 24MP from a high frame rate camera? My assumption that Nikon would go 24MP at some point is based solely on the D4(s)'s position as a "halo" camera, and that it's incongruous for the high-end device to have lower resolution than the DX cameras, not because I believe that professional shooters (who would want a D4-class body) particularly need the resolution. At least, excluding those who'd just like a D800 in a D3x body for compatibility reasons, but 24MP doesn't really give you that.<br />

<br />

Just curious whether you're actually a pro in the market for a D4 who has actually got a need for resolution. Nikon (and, to an extent, Canon) don't seem to think you exist. :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Belatedly, Michael: Do you have a particular need for 24MP from a high frame rate camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't speak for Michael, but I can certainly use 24MP or even more from a high-frame-rate camera for the purpose of capturing action.</p>

<p>The reason I need more pixels is not that I need to make huge prints of some bird flying or some athlete running. The problem with action photography is that precise framing is frequently not possible due to unexpected movements and actions; sometimes the speed is simply too fast to follow precisely. Usually I need to leave more space around the subject so that I can crop to have a better composition. When you start with 16MP, it won't take much cropping and suddenly you are down to below 5MP of usable image area. 24MP would be great, but once again, you need more expensive electronics to move 24MP instead of 16MP, and the price for the D4S would have gone further through the roof.</p>

<p>If you shoot still subjects such as inside a studio, landscape, etc., you can compose slowly and change to a lens that matches your composition so that you can use most of the pixels on your camera. Typically my prints have the aspect ration of 11x8.5, so I need to crop from the long end of a 3:2 image, but I can retain 70%, 80% of the original pixels.</p>

<p>I have said this many times before, assuming that Nikon can produce some D400 that can move 24MP @ 8 fps in a sustainable manner within $2000 is simply unrealistic. Mechanically, the shutter assemply, mirror, etc. have to be enhanced. In that sense, I am not satisfied even with the D300 and D700's construction. A D4/D4S is great, but they cost a lot of $$.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>As someone who shoots sports for a living I myself do not "need" 24MP. 16 is just fine thank you. When you shoot the kind of volume I do storage space becomes an issue. <br>

I am very satisfied with my D4 it was a nice step up from my D300 and D300s. I would have been happy with a 16MP D400 at a little less money....</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, gentlemen. Shun, I concur that I've relied on the resolution of my D800 to allow me to fix framing issues with moving subjects, so I can see how Nikon's "16MP is enough for a double-page spread" claim isn't always an option. I see Michael's point too - though hopefully the "small raw" (if applied to a higher-res sensor and with compression enabled) might help a bit there. I'll be interested to learn what Nikon's implementation actually does. Maybe object tracking and digital image stabilization (by moving the capture region around the frame) would allow for some lower resolutions combined with some flexibility in framing - if you trust the camera to crop, of course.<br />

<br />

Oh well, I guess we'll see what the D5 brings in a few years...</p>