crazzy88ss Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Well the new Nikon D4 is announced. Long story short: It's roughly what the D3s should have been. A rough quick breakdown: - 10-11 FPS - ISO 100-200k - 16MP - 1080p with more advanced movie control - umm.. yea... that's kinda about it. - Oh yea, $6,000 Brochure - http://imaging.nikon.../pdf/d4_12p.pdf Nikon News - http://www.nikon.com...flagship_01.htm Looks about the same as the D3 and D2. If it's not broken, don't fix it, I guess. The next news will be on the D700 & D300s replacements. Rumor has it that the D800 will be a 4FPS 36mp FX body and D400 will be roughly the same with "insanely high FPS." *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 $6k is a wee bit too much... Here's hoping that the d700 and d300s replacements are cheaper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0moonman0o Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 now the debate lies in real world samples then will know 1dx or d4 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 $6k is a wee bit too much... Here's hoping that the d700 and d300s replacements are cheaper! Well naturally they will be. Just how much cheaper, and what kind of improvements will we see are the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0moonman0o Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 ahahhaah @ the tag! crazzy88ss 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Unless Canon does something about their ISO, highly unlikely, Nikon will own Canon once again (D3s vs 1D Mark IV). D800 is just around the corner and will most likely be a D3x replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Whats the ethernet port used for? http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/7799914638/DSC_0070.jpg?v=1297 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Whats the ethernet port used for? http://3.s.img-dprev...0070.jpg?v=1297 Probably direct to web and controlling camera thru web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Big price tag and now with nikons pricing policy eg. 0 discounts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If you think it's expensive the camera is not made for you ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 A lot of people have been saying the D4 is SOOO expensive (not so much here, but other places in particular, like facebook - I have already made my comments there)... I don't see how? It's not any more than I was expecting, The D3 in american dollars in 2007 was $5,000... Adjusting for 5 years of inflation, and the fact that CAD prices are usually more, the D4 is not THAT much more than the D3 was when it was released. Or maybe people are just ignorant to the fact that the D4 is part of Nikon's flagship line, directed at PROFESSIONALS (and moonman, not that he isn't professional haha) who are likely using the camera TO MAKE A LIVING. That having been said, yes it is "expensive" but it's NOT any more expensive than I was expecting. And if you weren't expecting it to be this expensive, then you shouldn't even be looking at it to buy (again I am talking mainly about other comments at other places, and again I have made my comments where they are needed) That is my short rant for the day. Also, if I am not mistaken, I believe Crazzys specs on ISO are just a bit off, standard ISO goes from 100 to 100k, and then can be pushed up to 200k (which he states) but also can be lowered to 50 ISO (which is not mentioned) And if the D800 is expected to have 36mp and 4fps, then it looks like it is indeed replacing D3x, which IMO is mainly used to compete against medium format cameras in controlled setting fashion photography segment. (low FPS, high megapixel) If that's the case, and the D400 is an FX format it might be my new upgrade!!! Woot woot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 There's hardly been any inflation the last few years. "What cost $5000 in 2007 would cost $5251.95 in 2010." (2011 #s are in yet). I've heard a lot of pros say $6k is too much considering there isn't that much of a difference from the D3s in terms of #s. It hasn't been around long enough to see many images yet. Joe McNally says it's awesome, though. And being able to push the ISO down to 50 doesn't make up for the extra $750 difference ;) At the end of the day, it's just a piece of gear. blahblahwhaawhaa. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 not entirely correct. inflation as such no. BUT the economy isn't what it was and expensive gear sells a lot less than it used to. which means less is made, which pushes the design and construction costs fo each individual item up, which increases the sell price of the items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Apparently standard ISO goes up to 12800. Everything beyond that is HI mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Apparently standard ISO goes up to 12800. Everything beyond that is HI mode. correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wombatt Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Uncompressed 8 bit 4:2:2 HD video recording :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 There's hardly been any inflation the last few years. "What cost $5000 in 2007 would cost $5251.95 in 2010." (2011 #s are in yet). I've heard a lot of pros say $6k is too much considering there isn't that much of a difference from the D3s in terms of #s. It hasn't been around long enough to see many images yet. Joe McNally says it's awesome, though. And being able to push the ISO down to 50 doesn't make up for the extra $750 difference ;) At the end of the day, it's just a piece of gear. blahblahwhaawhaa. :) ... As I said, comparing American USD and CAD, not JUST inflation. And I do not mean a flat conversion, because the few percent difference isn't usually all there is. Point is, it isn't much more expensive than one should expect. IMO. That is one of the main reasons I buy almost everything in the US, even after paying for an additional 13 percent (Ontario tax) on top of the US tax for whichever state I purchase it in, AND the conversion AND occasionally duty, is because things are still cheaper. (hence why I compared the $5,000 US DOLLARS being almost $6,000 CAD DOLLARS plus 5 years inflation) As well, you'll notice that I didn't say it was equal or cheaper, I SAID that it was more (even after conversion and inflation) all I said was not THAT much more. ($750 on $6k is not enough for people to be going crazy about - again not here) Although I guess I was a little quick, I am looking into it a bit more, and it appears that for cameras, there really isn't a big difference in US and CAD prices, at least not compared to some other electronics. So for that, I admit I was wrong. (and me being Canadian I thought the price you quoted in the article of 6k flat was CAD, looks like the CAD price is 6300, but hey, what's an extra 5 percent lol) But, clearly, I still stand by saying I don't think $6,000 is too much for a top of the line camera, and is by all means reasonable. Now, onto the batteries... Those are friggin' expensive. I thought my D90 batteries were a pain to buy LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 D4 ISO sample shots - http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Nikon-D4Nikkor-8518-af-s/20915871_LhHTdj ISO 204800 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Apparently standard ISO goes up to 12800. Everything beyond that is HI mode. Can you guys explain what HI mode in Nikonland means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Just a way for Nikon to say that it isn't native ISO, which is expressed in numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Just a way for Nikon to say that it isn't native ISO, which is expressed in numbers. Yes, I understand that, but what is the difference between native and non-native ISO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Technically, and don't take my word for it, but I presume it would, besides many other things, have something to do with a safe usable voltage for the sensor. Everything beyond that works, but is not considered "safe", let alone quality wise, hence the over the top grainy look and more chance for hot/stuck pixels on the sensor. Just like with a CPU, if you increase the voltage you would gain performance. However the temperature will go up as well and there's more chance of burning the CPU (highly unlikely nowadays, but you get the idea). In case of a sensor it is bit different and other variables are in play, but the principal is the same, more voltage means better performance (higher sensitivity) but with consequences (loss of quality). In layman's terms, native ISO simply means suggested usable ISO. Although LO-1 (ISO 50) is more than usable, but I believe it works by simply underexposing internally by 1 stop and doing some minor noise clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Actually I believe it has to do with calibration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts