tore_helming

<p>I have both the D4 and the D3s.<br>

There is no substantial difference in image quality at higher ISO settings using raw. If you pixel peep the D4 has less artifacts and seems to retain detail and color in the shadows slightly better. <br>

The D4 has a superior AF-system: it´s faster, more accurate och more reliable in low light. I have tested the cameras side by side and when the D3s fail to focus the D4 most often still will lock focus.<br>

Two of the best improvents with the D4 are however the base ISO of 100 and the significantly better DR (shadows) at ISO 100-1600. <br>

The D3s was superior over the D3 concerning high ISO quality. The D4 loose nothing at high ISO compared to the D3s but is a better camera for image quality in the ISO 100-1600 range.<br>

I think Nikon did the right thing giving priority to an improved AF and better image quality at the low and mid ISO settings.</p>

 

<p>Yes, even my D3s shows surprisingly much noise at ISO 200-400 if underexposed.</p>

<p>One thing almost all people seems to forget to mention is that the new VRII is more light sensitive than the VRI. The old one was not really f2.8 at 200 mm but the new one seems more true to that aperture. In summary: VRII requires 1/6 -1/3 EV less light than the VRI.</p>

<p>How many fast primes do "we" need, when and why in the emerging new "Happyland" of the D3s? Is the DOF not shallow enough at f2.8? Is it really practical for the wedding photographer to use the upcoming new 24/1.4, 35/ 1.4 and 85/1.4 together with the present 50/1.4 and maybe also a 200/2 for distant shots in the church and at the party? What´s the pros and cons with the above prime line up vs a zoom one: 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and the new 70-200/2.8 VRII?</p>