Nikon D4 Specs Revealed? 1D X Has Competition.

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

What most people who invent specs don't realize is if the D4 was already intended to be released in time for London 2012 then it is already pretty much feature-complete by the time Canon announced the 1Dx, that's why they pre-announced it 5 months in advance, they already have a good idea what the other guys would be releasing and they know it would be too late to add features at the last minute just to keep up with the competition. And we're not even talking about the effect of the earthquake, tsunami and flooding on Nikon's manufacturing...

And just to correct the historical record, the D90 was rushed to market only because Canon was talking up video for DSLRs a few years before that, thus tipping their 5D2 hand, and Nikon decided to pip them to get the "first video DSLR" tag, even if the specs were obviously rushed and inferior to what the 5D2 would bring a short time later. So maybe they were first to market on paper, but Canon evidently made theirs first in their dev labs, only it took a bit longer to release.

[obnoxiousmime]

To be sure, the D90 came first with DSLR video, but Canon's been out there trying to solidify their core competency by designing and producing their own sensors.  This has been, and remains, a shaky part of Nikon's business model (though not as bad as all the MF manufacturers who were apparently reliant on Kodak sensors).

I have some Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. Does this mean they will not be optimal on future Nikon bodies with the Sony sensor?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If this rumour did turn out to be true, it'd make you wonder if Canon and Nikon had signed a cooperation agreement.  Apparently, quite a lot of that goes on in Japan anyway...

Hah, it sure is interesting how they all seem to add just the same particular little things each at times. Either behind the scenes they have agreed to various things to some extent or they have lots of corporate spies (corporate espionage is pretty huge, way more than people think). Reminds me when the newsmags sometimes always decided to run the exact same subjects for in depth looks or covers etc. each week even when there were plenty of such stories that really weren't 100% obvious to have to tie in with that week.

With full RAW video out it seems Nikon didn't have to cripple their camera because of their video division squawking because they have no video division (or do they?).
I see they also ADD in f/8 AF and for multiple points.
The reach would be even a bit weaker still than for the 1DX though. Seems surprisingly they didn't at least hit 18MP themselves.

[NormanBates]

"Uncompressed video out through the HDMI port" doesn't mean RAW
it can mean anything between 4:2:0 8bit uncompressed to 4:4:4 10bit uncompressed (I think no HDMI external recorder goes beyond that)
even that higher standard is not RAW: it needs to have a picture style baked in (but on 4:4:4 10bit it can be so flat that in practice it's the nearly as good)

[Canon-F1]

ironie on/

wtf ... ONLY 16 MEGAPIXELS.... 

hey i can´t crop with only 16 MEGAPIXELS....   


/ironie off

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Interesting that no companies are yet licensed to make XQF cards muchless products that use them.  They do expect to license card manufacturers starting next year.

Nikon Rumors has not been too accurate as of late with their predictions, datas that were a sure thing have come and gone at least three times.

I would expect that the general info 16mp, etc is about right for a D4, but a XQD Card slot implies a camera that won't be available soon.

[Edwin Herdman]

To be sure, the D90 came first with DSLR video, but Canon's been out there trying to solidify their core competency by designing and producing their own sensors.  This has been, and remains, a shaky part of Nikon's business model (though not as bad as all the MF manufacturers who were apparently reliant on Kodak sensors).

I have some Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. Does this mean they will not be optimal on future Nikon bodies with the Sony sensor?

Is that an honest question?  I don't get it.  Your lenses should be good on any compatible body.  It's Nikon's business strategy I'm worried about (for their sake).

[DarkKnightNine]

at such high iso i doubt there will be a whole lot of difference between the 2 to be honest, I would expect great things from iso 100,000. I think we might see usability of images hit the ceiling in the 25k range
but noise tollerance is such a subjective thing as has been previously discussed. I think it will be spec bragging rights and thats about it.

I agree with you on the 25k range.  The point for me will not be so much how high each machine goes in terms of ISO (like 51k versus 102k) but how clean they each are at ISO 12,800 and ISO 25,600.  Being somewhat limited to a usable ISO 3200 currently with my 5D, hell a clean ISO 12k or 25k seem like heaven!  I really hope this new sensor Canon has delivers !

I would have to agree. Most of these spec numbers are marketing hype and mean very little in actual usage. My 1D Mark IV can shoot in the 100,000 range but I hate the images that come out of it. I rarely push it past 6400 ISO and those would be extremely rare cases where I absolutely have to come back with an image and flash was prohibited.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"Uncompressed video out through the HDMI port" doesn't mean RAW
it can mean anything between 4:2:0 8bit uncompressed to 4:4:4 10bit uncompressed (I think no HDMI external recorder goes beyond that)
even that higher standard is not RAW: it needs to have a picture style baked in (but on 4:4:4 10bit it can be so flat that in practice it's the nearly as good)

yes, good to point out, I was way, way too sloppy in my usage, I meant what you wrote and shouldn't have used term RAW

[LetTheRightLensIn]

at such high iso i doubt there will be a whole lot of difference between the 2 to be honest, I would expect great things from iso 100,000. I think we might see usability of images hit the ceiling in the 25k range
but noise tollerance is such a subjective thing as has been previously discussed. I think it will be spec bragging rights and thats about it.

I agree with you on the 25k range.  The point for me will not be so much how high each machine goes in terms of ISO (like 51k versus 102k) but how clean they each are at ISO 12,800 and ISO 25,600.  Being somewhat limited to a usable ISO 3200 currently with my 5D, hell a clean ISO 12k or 25k seem like heaven!  I really hope this new sensor Canon has delivers !

I would have to agree. Most of these spec numbers are marketing hype and mean very little in actual usage. My 1D Mark IV can shoot in the 100,000 range but I hate the images that come out of it. I rarely push it past 6400 ISO and those would be extremely rare cases where I absolutely have to come back with an image and flash was prohibited.

Yeah those numbers are in good part just a game. Sometimes you might glean a little about how things might differ compared to previous models, but even then you can't be sure. Heck Nikon had an ISO6400 camera back in the pre-20D days I think and we know Nikon could barely, if even, handle ISO800 in a usable fashion then and even Canon got rough at ISO1600 and yet they said they had an ISO6400 cam and what one person thinks is a good point another may differ on by a stop or two. Canon used to be a bit more conservative as to claims in the past then but then switched gears, probably to not sound bad on paper in comparison to other marketing blurbs.

[Joe J7771]

at such high iso i doubt there will be a whole lot of difference between the 2 to be honest, I would expect great things from iso 100,000. I think we might see usability of images hit the ceiling in the 25k range
but noise tollerance is such a subjective thing as has been previously discussed. I think it will be spec bragging rights and thats about it.

I agree with you on the 25k range.  The point for me will not be so much how high each machine goes in terms of ISO (like 51k versus 102k) but how clean they each are at ISO 12,800 and ISO 25,600.  Being somewhat limited to a usable ISO 3200 currently with my 5D, hell a clean ISO 12k or 25k seem like heaven!  I really hope this new sensor Canon has delivers !

I would have to agree. Most of these spec numbers are marketing hype and mean very little in actual usage. My 1D Mark IV can shoot in the 100,000 range but I hate the images that come out of it. I rarely push it past 6400 ISO and those would be extremely rare cases where I absolutely have to come back with an image and flash was prohibited.

Yeah those numbers are in good part just a game. Sometimes you might glean a little about how things might differ compared to previous models, but even then you can't be sure. Heck Nikon had an ISO6400 camera back in the pre-20D days I think and we know Nikon could barely, if even, handle ISO800 in a usable fashion then and even Canon got rough at ISO1600 and yet they said they had an ISO6400 cam and what one person thinks is a good point another may differ on by a stop or two. Canon used to be a bit more conservative as to claims in the past then but then switched gears, probably to not sound bad on paper in comparison to other marketing blurbs.

    I saw the 1DX at Photoplus, and on the LCD screen, ISO25k images were stunning.  I'd say they are on par with ISO400-800 from a 1DS MKII.  I'm not one to blow smoke up a company's ass, in fact I feel that Canon has severely dropped the ball on anything made post-1D MKII (with the exception of the 1DS MKIII).  I still use 1D MKII and 1DS MKII's, and have yet to feel the need to invest in anything newer, that would take care of both in one (and FF).
    Until now.  After fully examining it at Photoplus, the 1DX answers all my qualms with a DSLR about still photos, other than faster flash sync speed. Well done, Canon.

[JR]

    I saw the 1DX at Photoplus, and on the LCD screen, ISO25k images were stunning.  I'd say they are on par with ISO400-800 from a 1DS MKII.  I'm not one to blow smoke up a company's ass, in fact I feel that Canon has severely dropped the ball on anything made post-1D MKII (with the exception of the 1DS MKIII).  I still use 1D MKII and 1DS MKII's, and have yet to feel the need to invest in anything newer, that would take care of both in one (and FF).
    Until now.  After fully examining it at Photoplus, the 1DX answers all my qualms with a DSLR about still photos, other than faster flash sync speed. Well done, Canon.

Wow!  Were you able to take sots with a memory card in by any chance?  Ok ok am dreaming now!  I so cant wait to see real RAW image from this puppy!  Looks promissing indeed...

[Joe J7771]

    I saw the 1DX at Photoplus, and on the LCD screen, ISO25k images were stunning.  I'd say they are on par with ISO400-800 from a 1DS MKII.  I'm not one to blow smoke up a company's ass, in fact I feel that Canon has severely dropped the ball on anything made post-1D MKII (with the exception of the 1DS MKIII).  I still use 1D MKII and 1DS MKII's, and have yet to feel the need to invest in anything newer, that would take care of both in one (and FF).
    Until now.  After fully examining it at Photoplus, the 1DX answers all my qualms with a DSLR about still photos, other than faster flash sync speed. Well done, Canon.

Wow!  Were you able to take sots with a memory card in by any chance?  Ok ok am dreaming now!  I so cant wait to see real RAW image from this puppy!  Looks promissing indeed...

The memory card slot door on all the display 1DX's were unaccessible; I was hoping to shoot a file on my CF card and examine it at home.  Going to have to wait until they are released, I guess.

[Orion]

    I saw the 1DX at Photoplus, and on the LCD screen, ISO25k images were stunning.  I'd say they are on par with ISO400-800 from a 1DS MKII. . . . .

maybe on the LCD screen, but not at full res and out of camera . That can't translate to ISO 400-800 from a 1Ds mkII. It just soounds TOOOO impossible to get that much clarity and detail from ISO 25k. . .

If true, though . . . . god help us (or just did)!

[Joe J7771]

    I saw the 1DX at Photoplus, and on the LCD screen, ISO25k images were stunning.  I'd say they are on par with ISO400-800 from a 1DS MKII. . . . .

maybe on the LCD screen, but not at full res and out of camera . That can't translate to ISO 400-800 from a 1Ds mkII. It just soounds TOOOO impossible to get that much clarity and detail from ISO 25k. . .

If true, though . . . . god help us (or just did)!

Obviously I said from an LCD screen, meaning that is all I'm judging it by. I was doing a brief comparative analysis, based on what a 1DS MKII file looks like on an LCD screen and then opened on a computer monitor. I don't understand how someone could think I'm trying to state definitive findings. But over the years of examining files on LCD screens then opening them on computer monitors, I'd say my assessment is a relatively safe barometer (comparing the 1Dx ISO25K to 1DS MKII ISO800 files at least, and possibly ISO400).
 We'll see; and I saw.