Thoughts on D4?

[KmH]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII.
.

That is total, hip deep, bull****. :lmao:

Lets see some credible links to support what you said there.

Just how many pro studio Nikon shooters do you think abandoned all their Nikon gear to get a Canon 5D MK II, a camera that can barely hold it's own against the Nikon D700.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Josh where are you seeing factual specs for the D800?

Admittedly nothing factual 2Wheel, but when 95% of websites are saying the rumour is 36MP, something is happening. And also Sony are about to use a 36MP sensor in their next Full frame? For example, the rumours about the D4 being 16MP came true didn't they?

oh ok kewl, I thought maybe some news were out like the D4

It will be good to find out what the D800 has in store FOR SURE!

 

[manaheim]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII. For $8,000 of the D3x you could get a 5dII along with a some seriously good L glass.

This has to be one of the oddest things I've seen anyone say on here.

 

[Destin]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII. For $8,000 of the D3x you could get a 5dII along with a some seriously good L glass.

This has to be one of the oddest things I've seen anyone say on here.

Why? How many people do you know or know of that shoot the D3x? Compare that to the number you know that shoot with a 5d mkII.

When you're shooting in studio, you can easily get by with just about any camera with manual controls. I'm willing to bet that I could take a photo with a 5d mkII and a D3x and you wouldn't have a damn clue which was which. A studio camera doesn't need weather sealing, or to have the ability to track a football player on a dark field and take a clean photo of him at iso 6400, or the ability to double as a hammer if you happen to need to pound a nail in. When you're shooting in studio at your base iso, don't NEED the pro body. Is it nice to have? You betcha. Is it worth the extra $5,000 to choose a D3x over a 5d mkII... not to most people.

But that isn't even really my point here. My point here is that Nikon realized they had a gap in their line.. they were lacking a proper high resolution FX body for portrait/studio photographers that was affordable. Which explains their decision to put 36mp in the new D800. I'm not saying I like it, or that I agree with their decision, but from a business point of view, it makes sense for them to do it. They need something to compete against the 5d mk3 when it comes out, or else canon would steal even more of the studio photography market from them than they already have.

 

[Destin]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII.
.

That is total, hip deep, bull****. :lmao:

Lets see some credible links to support what you said there.

Just how many pro studio Nikon shooters do you think abandoned all their Nikon gear to get a Canon 5D MK II, a camera that can barely hold it's own against the Nikon D700.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Can barely hold it's own against the D700 at what? We're talking about studio work here. All you need is clean images at low iso ratings. Period. All the areas that the D700 is better than the 5d mkII don't mean squat in studio work, however the extra mp's definitely could come in handy for a studio shooter who's work is likely to get blown up. I'm not saying that 12mp's isn't enough, just that for studio work, there is really no downside to adding more, as high iso performance just isn't a concern.

EVERY, and I mean EVERY portrait/studio photographer who is worth anything in my area is shooting with a 5d mkII. Why? Because it's a GREAT camera for studio work. Sucks for sports because of it's AF and build quality, but it's a GREAT studio camera. The D3x is not $5,000 better than it. It just isn't. That kind of build quality, weather sealing, etc just isn't required for studio work, and is needlessly raising the price of the camera.

 

[nickzou]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII.
.

That is total, hip deep, bull****. :lmao:

Lets see some credible links to support what you said there.

Just how many pro studio Nikon shooters do you think abandoned all their Nikon gear to get a Canon 5D MK II, a camera that can barely hold it's own against the Nikon D700.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Can barely hold it's own against the D700 at what? We're talking about studio work here. All you need is clean images at low iso ratings. Period. All the areas that the D700 is better than the 5d mkII don't mean squat in studio work, however the extra mp's definitely could come in handy for a studio shooter who's work is likely to get blown up. I'm not saying that 12mp's isn't enough, just that for studio work, there is really no downside to adding more, as high iso performance just isn't a concern.

EVERY, and I mean EVERY portrait/studio photographer who is worth anything in my area is shooting with a 5d mkII. Why? Because it's a GREAT camera for studio work. Sucks for sports because of it's AF and build quality, but it's a GREAT studio camera. The D3x is not $5,000 better than it. It just isn't. That kind of build quality, weather sealing, etc just isn't required for studio work, and is needlessly raising the price of the camera.

I don't have a large sample size but just from casual observance of the photographers I like; Annie Leibowitz, arguably THE most influential photographer of our time, shoots a 5DmkII, Joey L (one of my personal favs) shoots a 5DmkII. I know this is only two examples but these are definitely not photographers on a budget. So there has to be merit to that camera outside of cost. Ironically, counter to Destin's point I think I've only seen Annie Leibowitz shoot the 5DmkII outside. I think she still shoots a Hasselblad inside the studio.

 

[rexbobcat]

Why exactly is the 1DX BETTER as you put it?? Even though there are no reviews out for either camera. Hmmmmm does sound a tad suspicious to me...

So you want to know what I think and it would mean alot to you Davey boy???

I'm thinking CANON TROLL!

ಠ_ಠ
I'm not a troll, I'm just saying. I was really jealous of people with a D3 as opposed to the 1D Mark IV, because the D3 was a better camera in my opinion. I was shooting a football game last fall and there was some douchebag working for a news station with one, and he was constantly being like "hey look at the shot I got, this camera is amazing", and it was lol.

I think that if the Canon 1DX doesn't have the problems of the Mark III, then I think it's a strong contender, so I don't have to envy those with a camera that I'll never have a chance to use, ever, because I shoot Canon.

I can't tell if being a technology nerd is a blessing or a curse when it comes to photography.

I don't think your statement would've caused controversy if you put it like this in the first place... I always get wound up when people start using the word 'Better'.

Better than what?? I always think. The Canon 1DX will be a wonderful camera that will serve Canon users well and the Nikon D4 will be a wonderful camera that will serve Nikon users well. But obviously from your statement you were not intending to necessarily begin a flame war.

Yes your right, the Nikon D3S was superior in many ways to the cameras Canon was offering, now Canon have raised the game and I think the 1DX will match the D4.

The wonder of both these cameras is the fact they are pretty much more than any human being could ever need, even the top Pros will not necessarily need every feature a D4 or 1DX offers. And that is why the D4 announcement is a very very special announcement for Nikon users, it is a camera than can serve any purpose known to man!

The D800 on the other hand will be useful for using on a tripod or in a studio and lenses will have trouble resolving 36MP. This makes the D800 a LIMITED camera in my opinion.

I still wish that either camera had an internal wireless transmitter for strobes. Then they would truly be the God cameras, and I would probably spend my life savings on one. :greenpbl:

 

[Garbz]

I'm thinking CANON TROLL!

I don't know about you but the "Quoted By Nikon_Josh" saying "I'm thinking Canon Troll" may just be the funniest thing I've seen all week.

91,000 RGB metering sensor is Wow. That's 45x more pixels than the D7000's 2,016 pixel RGB metering sensor.

Being a techie although thats impressive specs on paper, I'd like to see the real % gain in regard to overall performance =)

Didn't you hear? It does face detection! The first ever camera over $1000 to include this feature.

Oh dear lord I hope they dont use 36MP on the D800, thats just bad for low light photography...

There is a lot of indication on the rumour sites that you'll be sorely disappointed.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm thinking CANON TROLL!

I don't know about you but the "Quoted By Nikon_Josh" saying "I'm thinking Canon Troll" may just be the funniest thing I've seen all week.

Being a techie although thats impressive specs on paper, I'd like to see the real % gain in regard to overall performance =)

Didn't you hear? It does face detection! The first ever camera over $1000 to include this feature.

Oh dear lord I hope they dont use 36MP on the D800, thats just bad for low light photography...

There is a lot of indication on the rumour sites that you'll be sorely disappointed.

Haha, Aussies always like laughing at us english folk... well apart from when we beat you at Cricket ofcourse in your own backyard?? And also you didn't laugh too much when we beat you in the world cup final at Rugby? But at least you got a good laugh from my quote!

 

[Tee]

Destin- I think the argument to your first post was you implied many Nikon owners switched to Canon when the D3x arrived due to the price. KmH made the point that anyone that invested into a system isn't going to dump thousands into a new system. I agree with Keith. I would argue that many Nikon owners simply didn't upgrade to the D3x and stayed with their current system. That's not to say that the 5Dii didn't make a big impact into the studio scene. I won't argue that. But, you kind of meshed two arguments into one. I shoot studio work with a D700. I'm not going to sell my $10,000 system (body and lenses) for the 5D just because the new D4 is $6,000. See where I'm going with that?

 

[jake337]

Blah blah blah, D4 blah blah blah. Blah 1DX blah blah blah, blah D4 blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah D3S blah, blah blah blah D4.


Blah blah blah D4S, blah D4X.




Anyhoo, I was under the impression the D4 was the D3 successor, not the D3S successor. Doesn't anyone else think we'll see a D4S/D4X around the next Olympics?


If it is the case, since the D4 has 1-2 stops better ISO performance than the D3S, where would that place the D4S. Just food for thought.


In any case, my D90 will work just fine for years to come......

 

[KmH]

Doesn't anyone else think we'll see a D4S/D4X around the next Olympics?

Maybe no D4x, if the D800 has a 36 MP image sensor.

We will see a D4s in about 2 years, when Nikon updates the D4.

 

[cepwin]

I have to agree that most people stick with the system they have...so if the photographers mentioned were already canon shooters they might well upgrade...did any of them switch from Nikon? (I have no idea..just asking)...I would think, given the investment in lenses, etc. that a pro would have, they would be unlikely to switch brands unless there was something that was so compelling vs. the system they're using or could upgrade to within that system that replacing not just the body but all their lenses would make sense.

 

[matthewo]

Well remember the d3s is 12 mp and the d700 uses the same sensor as the d3s. Whats to say the d800 wouldnt use the same sensor as the d4? Then a d4x could use the 36mp. That would be best IMO

 

[manaheim]

I think it's not so much this, but more that having their studio camera cost over $8,000 really screwed them. Most studio photographers went to Canon for the 5dII because it was just as good of a studio camera image quality wise, and less than half the price of the D3x. There are VERY VERY VERY select few photographers who went with a D3x rather then a 5dII. For $8,000 of the D3x you could get a 5dII along with a some seriously good L glass.

This has to be one of the oddest things I've seen anyone say on here.

Why? How many people do you know or know of that shoot the D3x? Compare that to the number you know that shoot with a 5d mkII.

Why? Because it's completely anecdotal at best, and it's totally irrelevant.

If you had some sources of sales of the two cameras, that might be somewhat interesting, though you'd also need to do some factoring in for percentage of camera bodies sold for each maker. Frankly, the only things I found in my quick search were things indicating Nikon sold MORE pro bodies than Canon, which actually wasn't even what I expected to find... I know that Canon way outsells Nikon generally, but then Canon has a lot more products than Nikon, so it's possible that may be why. Not sure... whatever the case... unlike you... I'm not making wild claims without backing them.

When you're shooting in studio, you can easily get by with just about any camera with manual controls. I'm willing to bet that I could take a photo with a 5d mkII and a D3x and you wouldn't have a damn clue which was which. A studio camera doesn't need weather sealing, or to have the ability to track a football player on a dark field and take a clean photo of him at iso 6400, or the ability to double as a hammer if you happen to need to pound a nail in. When you're shooting in studio at your base iso, don't NEED the pro body. Is it nice to have? You betcha. Is it worth the extra $5,000 to choose a D3x over a 5d mkII... not to most people.

Ok, and so your scathing point here is ... what? That a studio might not need a D4? Compelling and ground-shaking argument you have there. I'm... finding myself unsure why this is significant and why you're barking about it. Did Nikon come into your studio recently and demand that you purchase one? I'm confused.

But that isn't even really my point here.

Ah, ok... so you're barking about something that you're not even meaning to bark about. Excellent. At least that clears that nonsense up.

My point here is that Nikon realized they had a gap in their line.. they were lacking a proper high resolution FX body for portrait/studio photographers that was affordable. Which explains their decision to put 36mp in the new D800. I'm not saying I like it, or that I agree with their decision, but from a business point of view, it makes sense for them to do it. They need something to compete against the 5d mk3 when it comes out, or else canon would steal even more of the studio photography market from them than they already have.

Ok, so excellent. You have successfully concluded that which Nikon had already determined, adjusted their course on, implemented a product line around... and then every photography-related analyst keyed into and reported on... for months... some time ago.

Well, I guess your overall point is that you don't agree with Nikon's choices, and yet you understand them. Which is definitely an odd and interesting position to take up, but I suppose everyone has to have something fun to bang around in their brain.

Might I suggest that you next consider taking up points like you don't agree with physics but understand why rocks roll down mountains, or perhaps that you don't agree with the principles of chemistry but accept that vinegar and water make fizzy stuff, and if you want to be really and particularly edgy, you can stand in the town square in a down pour and shout at the rain.