Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S

[lycan]

As a person who owns both, I find the Nikon to be far superior in terms of noise performance at high ISO settings and focus tracking during high speed bursts, among other things.
.

hmmmm that's why the large majority of sports photographers use Canon 1DX, right? They all must be stupid to use an inferior machine...... come on!

 

[abouho]

As a person who owns both, I find the Nikon to be far superior in terms of noise performance at high ISO settings and focus tracking during high speed bursts, among other things.
.

hmmmm that's why the large majority of sports photographers use Canon 1DX, right? They all must be stupid to use an inferior machine...... come on!

Most of them use the inferior machine because their lens collection will not attach to the superior one.

 

[scyrene]

I seem to be in the minority of people who still get excited by increasing maximum ISO speeds. But can someone explain, why/how is it possible that the difference between maximum base ISO (25600) and extended is 4 stops, whereas in Canon cameras (the 1DX/5D3 at least) it is just 2? Does it make a practical difference? Is it just another means of notating it? In my experience (300D->50D->5D3) the highest usable ISO is 1 stop below maximum base ISO (depending on what you're using it for). So extra extended settings would be irrelevant. Is Nikon different?

They could extend it 100 stops if they want. Big question is... how useable / how noisy is it?

Just because the camera says it can do 409600 ISO does not mean you would be happy with it. Until we see what it looks like at these high ISO, only then can we judge what is useable.

From what I have seen out of the 1Dx, some of the high ISO images are actually quite good.

Would be interesting to see if the Nikon can capture anything close to this at 25600

That kind of backs up my rule of thumb, being shot 1 stop below the maximum native ISO (although for that sort of shot, more noise is probably acceptable than a bird portrait, for instance).

 

[cellomaster27]

As a person who owns both, I find the Nikon to be far superior in terms of noise performance at high ISO settings and focus tracking during high speed bursts, among other things.
.

hmmmm that's why the large majority of sports photographers use Canon 1DX, right? They all must be stupid to use an inferior machine...... come on!

The 1Dx is superior in most things except for, and I agree with the ISO. but fps is faster, tracking is really good... I thought focus tracking on the D4 was worse than the 1Dx.

 

[DIABLO]

;D ;D ;D The only comparison that would be hard for me is Warner Bros vs Disney (Looney Tunes vs. Mickey, Donald, etc) ;D ;D ;D

Why so hard? Mickey is better/smarter then Donald ;D ;D ;D

They are both Disney so no comparison! The comparison I mentioned was Warner Bros vs Disney!

Warner Bros hands down! I'll take that wascally wabbit and Wile E. Coyote over any disney character any day of the week.

 

[abouho]

As a person who owns both, I find the Nikon to be far superior in terms of noise performance at high ISO settings and focus tracking during high speed bursts, among other things.
.

hmmmm that's why the large majority of sports photographers use Canon 1DX, right? They all must be stupid to use an inferior machine...... come on!

The 1Dx is superior in most things except for, and I agree with the ISO. but fps is faster, tracking is really good... I thought focus tracking on the D4 was worse than the 1Dx.

If you set second shot priority to focus on both cameras, the D4 will only shoot when something (literally anything behind your focus point, including infinity) is in focus while the 1DX seems to take tons of shots where nothing in the frame seems to be in focus. Also, if you set the D4 to 3D tracking, it avoids jumping from close distances to infinity, seeing as how people are unlikely to travel that fast.

 

[MovingViolations]

I wouldn't mind having a 1DX on one hip and a D4s on the other. One thing I fault Canon on is there lack of images for us to tinker with from the 1DX. All this time and they seem to think we all are going to be shooting a great white all the time. Canon touted the 1DX as the all purpose body so why didn't they put up some images with a 17 t/s and a 24 t/s lens for landscape shooters? And why the portrait photos taken down with nothing put up to replace them? I have no doubts as to the 1DX being a great all around body but I'd still like to see what it can do on paper from my large format printer from the kind of glass I'd like to use. Canon has the glass for great landscapes and architectural work but for the very large prints Nikon (aka Sony) has the sensor. Nikon dust & oil problems bother me. Pins falling into the bodies from cable connections don't speak well for Nikon either. There is a reason the 5D MIII is still priced higher than the 36mp Nikon/Sony D800 and I think it is body quality. For now I'm still going to shoot my decade old 1D MII. 2015 will get here and maybe Canon will leap frog the D4s in a big way. Now they are not that far apart. Just give us a clean shot @ ISO 6400 Canon.... I much preferred Canon's old marketing of a studio/landscape model with full frame sensor and then the 1D with the APS-H sensor for high speed sports. 20 MP on the H and 24 on a full frame would suit me fine. I don't see any incentive to jump ship to a D4S for those with a 1DX. On the other hand if one has limited glass and a 7D then after the pundits make their rounds and some real world images are available to critique the D4S could steal a few 1DX sales.........

 

[Niki]

After two years or whatever and everything updated, except for some video rubbish, it's still a step or two behind the 1dx, well done Canon. When they go all in, it's simply epic...

+1

Im also getting the 1Dc (if there is an update this year)

 

[Robert Welch]

;D ;D ;D The only comparison that would be hard for me is Warner Bros vs Disney (Looney Tunes vs. Mickey, Donald, etc) ;D ;D ;D

Why so hard? Mickey is better/smarter then Donald ;D ;D ;D

They are both Disney so no comparison! The comparison I mentioned was Warner Bros vs Disney!

Well, Bugs Bunny is clearly smarter than Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck put together. Actually, putting Donald Duck with Mickey Mouse just makes Mickey dumber...so I guess that was dumb anyway.

 

[Rowbear]

;D ;D ;D The only comparison that would be hard for me is Warner Bros vs Disney (Looney Tunes vs. Mickey, Donald, etc) ;D ;D ;D

Why so hard? Mickey is better/smarter then Donald ;D ;D ;D

They are both Disney so no comparison! The comparison I mentioned was Warner Bros vs Disney!

Well, Bugs Bunny is clearly smarter than Mickey Mouse...

Maybe, but Mickey does it with Minnie...Grrrrr

 

[Viggo]

I'm going to say something about the D4, the AF system for tracking is superb, there, I said it. If you spend time learning the 1dx AF, it will perform better in complex situations, but both out of the box just tracking , the D4 works better by default, seriously good. Shot loads of bursts of cyclists dodging cars in traffic, and don't think I had one single shot oof, and I kept the button down. I was shooting the 85 1.8.

But, with erratic subjects and backlit and with things suddenly appears and pretty much any crazy movement the 1dx, with a little fiddling , the 1dx is sooo fast and accurate and just gets more keepers for me.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm going to say something about the D4, the AF system for tracking is superb, there, I said it. If you spend time learning the 1dx AF, it will perform better in complex situations, but both out of the box just tracking , the D4 works better by default, seriously good. Shot loads of bursts of cyclists dodging cars in traffic, and don't think I had one single shot oof, and I kept the button down. I was shooting the 85 1.8.

But, with erratic subjects and backlit and with things suddenly appears and pretty much any crazy movement the 1dx, with a little fiddling , the 1dx is sooo fast and accurate and just gets more keepers for me.

The AF system wasn't the issue with the D4...it was the constant lockups and other issues, which generally point out that it was rushed to market without the proper R&D that a top tier camera needs. It's a pity Nikon have sullied their brand with a lot of pros and there's a number of quite bitter guys out there who are very dissapointed and feel let down bu Nikon after such high hopes after the D700/D3.
While it's nice to see the D4s fix these vices...it's got a price hike and I really hope for Nikon that it's an improvement in reliability. As far as its specs....it looks to be worse on paper than a 1DX in almost every measurable metric, which is a pity.
While it's a nice camera for those already on a Nikon mount, i'm not so sure it'll attract new buyers and i'm pretty certain that there will be almost zero cross over from the Canon 1Dx.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I seem to be in the minority of people who still get excited by increasing maximum ISO speeds. But can someone explain, why/how is it possible that the difference between maximum base ISO (25600) and extended is 4 stops, whereas in Canon cameras (the 1DX/5D3 at least) it is just 2? Does it make a practical difference? Is it just another means of notating it? In my experience (300D->50D->5D3) the highest usable ISO is 1 stop below maximum base ISO (depending on what you're using it for). So extra extended settings would be irrelevant. Is Nikon different?

The range of uses ISO standard real analog signal amplifiers in each stage (100, 200, 400, etc.). The expanded ISO range is the same as Photoshop / Lightroom just pulls exposure digitally generating artifacts and random noise difficult to clean.

I've heard conflicting reports on this - some people say digital amplification is sometimes used within the non-extended range. But if you're correct, there's no advantage to having 4 extended stops over 2, right?

Whenever you want a clean image, you wouln't ever use the ISO expansion. My experience is that usable images can only be obtained 1-stop of ISO below the maximum native ISO range.

 

[pedro]

Whenever you want a clean image, you wouln't ever use the ISO expansion. My experience is that usable images can only be obtained 1-stop of ISO below the maximum native ISO range.
[/quote]


Thank you for this statement. Never heard of that before. Altough I like it a lot to fiddle with my extended ISOs, I will consider it sometime further down the road if I have the chance to "replace" my current cam. However, it remains the finest cam I've ever had for quite some time.

 

[canonvoir]

The real pity is that Canon doesn't have to raise their game that much to keep their lead. That is a loss for all consumers.

 

[mackguyver]

I was right, ISO 409600 is going to revolutionize shooting! Look at the fine details and complete lack of artifacts on this shot! Coal mines, Mammoth caves, and Marianas Trench here I come!

Full comparison here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310&p=8784844&viewfull=1#post8784844

It's a funny one, BTW, because the guy with the D4 has every shot in focus, and the guy shooting the D4S...not so much...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I was right, ISO 409600 is going to revolutionize shooting! Look at the fine details and complete lack of artifacts on this shot! Coal mines, Mammoth caves, and Marianas Trench here I come!

Full comparison here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310&p=8784844&viewfull=1#post8784844
It's a funny one, BTW, because the guy with the D4 has every shot in focus, and the guy shooting the D4S...not so much...

To me it seems a "special defect". Should serve to make photo identity document at night with the lights off. Ah Nikon marketing.

 

[tron]

The difference in focusing is so much that they should repeat the shooting. This is not an advertisement for D4s. It is the opposite!

Having said that it is obviously better than D4 at high ISO...

P.S Does it support AFMA? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Orangutan]

I was right, ISO 409600 is going to revolutionize shooting! Look at the fine details and complete lack of artifacts on this shot! Coal mines, Mammoth caves, and Marianas Trench here I come!

What's interesting is that ISO 409600 isn't labeled the way other high-ISO modes are, it's labeled "P" for "paparazzo." Quality needs to be just good enough to sell to a tabloid.

 

[Woody]

Nikon's timing is pretty awful: to release the D600 product advisory so soon after announcement of D4s? Sigh...