Rumor: D4 specs

FearNothing321

Nikonrumors.com is "90%" sure these are gonna be the specs of the D4

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/11/nikon-d4-specs-16-2mp-11-fps-102400-native-iso-xqd-memory-card.aspx/

Nikon D4 specs:

16.2 MP
11 fps
100-102,400 native ISO range, expandable to 50 and 204,800
CF + XQD memory card slots! That's right, the Nikon D4 will have the new Compact Flash XQD memory card slot.
Compatible with the new Nikon WT-5 wireless transmitter
Integrated Ethernet in the camera
Face detection/recognition function that will be working in the viewfinder (maybe some type of a hybrid viewfinder? Nikon had several related patents)
Improved video, I have no other details on that but my guess is 1080p/30/25/24 and 720p/60/30/25/24 similar to the Nikon D800
Uncompressed video out through the HDMI port
Ability to assign the two buttons on the front of the camera to smooth aperture control during video recording
Improved 51 AF points
AF detection range will go down to EV-2.0 (the D3s went to EV -1)
Autofocus system: 9 cross-type sensors that are operational up to f/8


Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/11/nikon-d4-specs-16-2mp-11-fps-102400-native-iso-xqd-memory-card.aspx/#ixzz1gGeCA3yQ

Matthew Saville

Well, I'd say that the rumor is 90% "normal, average progression of the lineup" so yeah, 90% true sounds right. I've been guessing specs like this for about a year now. The exciting part is that the rumors aren't saying something ELSE, actually. I'm just glad this is going to be the RIGHT camera! I'm also interested to see the XQD memory format play out; sounds interesting and hopefully Nikon will adopt dual card slots in more cameras to accomodate such a new format. :-)

The MOST exciting part, however, isn't the D4 itself. It's the affordable version of the D4 that I can already smell on the horizon; we'll probably see a $2999 camera with the same sensor, within 12 months of the D4's availability. THAT is what I'm most excited about.

I've made this prediction a dozen times, and I'll be writing an article on SLR Lounge momentarily with more of my thoughts on the subject.


Take care,
=Matt=

FearNothing321

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Well, I'd say that the rumor is 90% "normal, average progression of the lineup" so yeah, 90% true sounds right. I've been guessing specs like this for about a year now. The exciting part is that the rumors aren't saying something ELSE, actually. I'm just glad this is going to be the RIGHT camera! I'm also interested to see the XQD memory format play out; sounds interesting and hopefully Nikon will adopt dual card slots in more cameras to accomodate such a new format. :-)

The MOST exciting part, however, isn't the D4 itself. It's the affordable version of the D4 that I can already smell on the horizon; we'll probably see a $2999 camera with the same sensor, within 12 months of the D4's availability. THAT is what I'm most excited about.

I've made this prediction a dozen times, and I'll be writing an article on SLR Lounge momentarily with more of my thoughts on the subject.


Take care,
=Matt=

I would love to see an affordable D4. I think offering more pro-level bodies would be a great move by Nikon (mainly because of the economy)

ian408

Everything benefits from the high end models

thegridrunner

wow, uncompressed HDMI output...me want...

jonh68

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Well, I'd say that the rumor is 90% "normal, average progression of the lineup" so yeah, 90% true sounds right. I've been guessing specs like this for about a year now. The exciting part is that the rumors aren't saying something ELSE, actually. I'm just glad this is going to be the RIGHT camera! I'm also interested to see the XQD memory format play out; sounds interesting and hopefully Nikon will adopt dual card slots in more cameras to accomodate such a new format. :-)

The MOST exciting part, however, isn't the D4 itself. It's the affordable version of the D4 that I can already smell on the horizon; we'll probably see a $2999 camera with the same sensor, within 12 months of the D4's availability. THAT is what I'm most excited about.

I've made this prediction a dozen times, and I'll be writing an article on SLR Lounge momentarily with more of my thoughts on the subject.


Take care,
=Matt=

I really doubt it. We didn't get a D700s with the D3s, and if the rumors are true about the D800, we are going to get separate sensors for the FX line of Nikon cameras. Nikon learned making a "d3 lite" with the D700 hurt the D3 sales. Now, Nikon will be going with more differentiation between the FX line, performance for the sports/pj with the D4, and detail for landscapes/studio/portrait work with the D800. I don't see Nikon making 3 different fx cameras.

I agree with this assessment from the Nikon Rumors Link:

"With the next round of pro DSLR cameras I think Nikon will make a clear separation of the D800 and D4. This is why they will probably announce both cameras around the same time in 2012. The D4 will have low MP count, high fps, high ISO. The D800 will have high MP count, low fps, lower ISO. This is a clear differentiation from the previous D3/D700 offering that shared the same sensor/technology.

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/11/nikon-d4-specs-16-2mp-11-fps-102400-native-iso-xqd-memory-card.aspx/#ixzz1gL3JHh6C"

Matthew Saville

jonh68 wrote: »

...Nikon learned making a "d3 lite" with the D700 hurt the D3 sales....I don't see Nikon making 3 different fx cameras....

Okay, we're making some HUGE assumptions about sales figures and profit margins here. Do you have any data to prove that selling a TON of D700's is less profitable than selling a few D3's? I won't claim to know any statistics on how many D700 owners could afford a D3, but I know that personally if Nikon's D800 doesn't have an sRAW mode, and if it costs much more than $3K, I will be looking for a used D3s and will not buy another Nikon until they rectify those issues. I understand that the profit margins are indeed much higher on the flagships. I just have no idea what the exact numbers are, and I had always just assumed that Nikon was making a killing on the D700 sales compared to the loss of D3 sales.

jonh68 wrote: »

"With the next round of pro DSLR cameras I think Nikon will make a clear separation of the D800 and D4. This is why they will probably announce both cameras around the same time in 2012. The D4 will have low MP count, high fps, high ISO. The D800 will have high MP count, low fps, lower ISO. This is a clear differentiation from the previous D3/D700 offering that shared the same sensor/technology.

There is nothing about that that I disagree with, except for the notion that the D700 was "bad" in some way. The D4 will be Nikon's sports flagship, and the D800 will be Nikon's studio / landscape flagship. There will still be an affordable version of the D4, though, eventually.

If things go the way you're saying they will, then the only difference in what I'm predicting is that the "affordable D4" will be in more of an FF D7000 than a D700 replacement. I could ALMOST live with that, but I'd probably end up just going with a used D3s like I said before.

The bottom line is that, to me, mistake or not the D700 is DOMINATING the market for wedding photographers and similar areas, where nobody cares about megapixels or video, but MUST have AF performance, low-light capability, and overall reliability. Without a D700 replacement, all Canon has to do is make a "5DX" type camera with Canon's new 1DX sensor and pro-grade AF, and the smack-down is complete.

Sorry for the extreme dramatization,

=Matt=

jonh68

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Okay, we're making some HUGE assumptions about sales figures and profit margins here. Do you have any data to prove that selling a TON of D700's is less profitable than selling a few D3's? I won't claim to know any statistics on how many D700 owners could afford a D3, but I know that personally if Nikon's D800 doesn't have an sRAW mode, and if it costs much more than $3K, I will be looking for a used D3s and will not buy another Nikon until they rectify those issues. I understand that the profit margins are indeed much higher on the flagships. I just have no idea what the exact numbers are, and I had always just assumed that Nikon was making a killing on the D700 sales compared to the loss of D3 sales.



There is nothing about that that I disagree with, except for the notion that the D700 was "bad" in some way. The D4 will be Nikon's sports flagship, and the D800 will be Nikon's studio / landscape flagship. There will still be an affordable version of the D4, though, eventually.

If things go the way you're saying they will, then the only difference in what I'm predicting is that the "affordable D4" will be in more of an FF D7000 than a D700 replacement. I could ALMOST live with that, but I'd probably end up just going with a used D3s like I said before.

The bottom line is that, to me, mistake or not the D700 is DOMINATING the market for wedding photographers and similar areas, where nobody cares about megapixels or video, but MUST have AF performance, low-light capability, and overall reliability. Without a D700 replacement, all Canon has to do is make a "5DX" type camera with Canon's new 1DX sensor and pro-grade AF, and the smack-down is complete.

Sorry for the extreme dramatization,

=Matt=

I don't have numbers and nowhere did I say or think the the D700 is "bad". It has been a great selling camera, and I think Nikon could probably keep it going for more years.

I base my assumption on Nikon not coming out with a D700s and my own choices when it came down to buying a camera. I was all set for buying a D3 until the specs for the D700 were released. I waited for the D700 and bought it.

I don't see Nikon making a "light" version of the D4 unless the D800 will be in the 4K range. We are also assuming the D4 will be full frame sensor. Nikon could throw us a curve ball and make the D4 a cropped senor, and the D800 could be the top of line FX camera. Notice the size of the sensor the D4 specs, if true, are the same as the D7000. IF Nikon can get ISO performance on the level of the current D3s, then this will be a dream camera for sports and nature photographers as it gives them more reach AND ISO performance.

Matthew Saville

jonh68 wrote: »

I don't have numbers and nowhere did I say or think the the D700 is "bad". It has been a great selling camera, and I think Nikon could probably keep it going for more years.

I base my assumption on Nikon not coming out with a D700s and my own choices when it came down to buying a camera. I was all set for buying a D3 until the specs for the D700 were released. I waited for the D700 and bought it.

I don't see Nikon making a "light" version of the D4 unless the D800 will be in the 4K range. We are also assuming the D4 will be full frame sensor. Nikon could throw us a curve ball and make the D4 a cropped senor, and the D800 could be the top of line FX camera. Notice the size of the sensor the D4 specs, if true, are the same as the D7000. IF Nikon can get ISO performance on the level of the current D3s, then this will be a dream camera for sports and nature photographers as it gives them more reach AND ISO performance.

All possible, indeed!

I just think that the most *likely* scenario is the one I described- $4K D800, $5-6K D4, (FX) ...and eventually another FX body with the D4 sensor at $2-3K.

I'm very sure this will be the case, my only worry is that the $2-3K D4 sensor body will be more amateurish, like the D7000, instead of the semi-pro control layout etc. like the D700. That is possible, especially considering that the competition, the Canon 5-series, is also like that- more in common with the advanced amateur body than the flagship body.

But I think Nikon knows that is their one major advantage in the D700 / 5D mk2 arena, and I don't think they're going to give up that advantage in the next generation. Yes, they'd sell more D4's. And yes, the D800 would suffice for some; I might even buy it if it's just $2999. But without an $8,000 D4X, I'm betting the D800 will indeed be $4000 at the very least.

=Matt=

Wayupthere

While the specs between the two cameras are things that we talk about and compare, from a manufactures standpoint..price is what separates them. And while this does not go on in a vacuum, it is a good gauge.

The D3s is almost double the D700. But the D3s is not twice as good..so the 700 is a "good" buy. Marketing 101. When company's muddy the waters with too many choices or overlapping choices that's when you throw out the rule book.

I don't know what the specs are going to be..but I will predict the same price separation. I am excited to see what the new year will bring with these new monsters bow

Now its light out and I see I need to shovel a foot or so of snow off the pad outside
Gary

Matthew Saville

Wayupthere wrote: »

While the specs between the two cameras are things that we talk about and compare, from a manufactures standpoint..price is what separates them. And while this does not go on in a vacuum, it is a good gauge.

The D3s is almost double the D700. But the D3s is not twice as good..so the 700 is a "good" buy. Marketing 101. When company's muddy the waters with too many choices or overlapping choices that's when you throw out the rule book.

I don't know what the specs are going to be..but I will predict the same price separation. I am excited to see what the new year will bring with these new monsters bow

Now its light out and I see I need to shovel a foot or so of snow off the pad outside
Gary

I totally agree. I just hope that Nikon doesn't decide that it's too much "overlap" to have a ~$6K D4, a $4.5K D800, and a $3K D4 lite.

borrowlenses.com

Very curious about the D4, but more curious about whatever cameras become its offspring. I wonder if they'll give us a D700x or D700x at some point.

Tinstafl

Nikon has a limit to the price. If they go too high then many will go to the MF which have been declining. In the old days of film many of the pros out there shot MF film. I know I shot MF and moved to nikon digital. I have been looking at the Pentax 645D weather sealed and 40mp and about 9k and legacy lens will work.... It has been calling my name for landscapes. Then you have the whole MF thing and the ability to upgrade the back and still get something for the old back and reuse the body and lens. I will say that I went D1 D200 D 700/ D3 and now I picked up a D7000 a few months ago. If I look at all the prices together then the cost of one body and trading up the back starts to look appealing. I am waiting to see what nikon comes out with and I am sure I will not be alone. For portraits and landscape it would work great and keep the D3/D700 for sports and wildlife and maybe look for a used D3x or D3s and finish off my Nikon stable. That should hold for a while and then I wold not have to upgrade my CS5 just to get the new camera raw.

FearNothing321

Bump

Nikon might be releasing their new cameras soon

ian408

Can't wait to hear the announcement!

Harryb

Damn it! I'm just getting used to my D3s.

ian408

If Andy gets the 1dX, you'll need something better, right Harry?

David_S85

ian408 wrote: »

If Andy gets the 1dX, you'll need something better, right Harry?

"If" ?

Harryb

ian408 wrote: »

If Andy gets the 1dX, you'll need something better, right Harry?

I don't know Ian. The 1dX looks like a camera for action shots and Andy is really slowing down (he doesn't age as well as I do). He's more of a landscape shooter where he can keep up with the "action".

If he does buy it the big question will be who will he sell it to?

ThatCanonGuy

Harryb wrote: »

I don't know Ian. The 1dX looks like a camera for action shots and Andy is really slowing down (he doesn't age as well as I do). He's more of a landscape shooter where he can keep up with the "action".

The 1D X is the 1Ds3 replacement too

ian408

Harryb wrote: »

I don't know Ian. The 1dX looks like a camera for action shots and Andy is really slowing down (he doesn't age as well as I do). He's more of a landscape shooter where he can keep up with the "action".

If he does buy it the big question will be who will he sell it to?

I was surprised he said he wanted to get it. Lately, he's been downsizing. I expected him to wait for the 5d replacement

Wayupthere

He's more of a landscape shooter where he can keep up with the "action".

I just got that one I must be slowing down also
Gary

Matthew Saville

ian408 wrote: »

I was surprised he said he wanted to get it. Lately, he's been downsizing. I expected him to wait for the 5d replacement

It is all still speculation at this point, but it SOUNDS like both Canon and Nikon are changing their lineup quite significantly with the next generation.

Canon has finally come out with a camera that "merges the 1D and 1Ds"... And there's a 99% chance the 5D mk3 will have a 32-34 megapixel sensor. Same thing with Nikon- ~18 megapixel D4, and ~36 megapixel D800.

So, to me that kinda indicates that since both Nikon and Canon are "ending" their lineup of $8K high-res flagship bodies, ...they'll probably put a bit more effort into the 5D mk3 and D800. The Nikon D700 is already near-flagship quality of course, and really just needs dual card slots and 1080p video. But the 5D mk3 could have some pretty significant improvements, if we're lucky.

All in all, yeah the 1DX is definitely more of a photojournalism and action sports camera, and the 5D mk3 will be "it" for landscapes and anything where megapixels are more important than speed.

=Matt=

NeilL

Matthew Saville wrote: »

It is all still speculation at this point, but it SOUNDS like both Canon and Nikon are changing their lineup quite significantly with the next generation.

Canon has finally come out with a camera that "merges the 1D and 1Ds"... And there's a 99% chance the 5D mk3 will have a 32-34 megapixel sensor. Same thing with Nikon- ~18 megapixel D4, and ~36 megapixel D800.

So, to me that kinda indicates that since both Nikon and Canon are "ending" their lineup of $8K high-res flagship bodies, ...they'll probably put a bit more effort into the 5D mk3 and D800. The Nikon D700 is already near-flagship quality of course, and really just needs dual card slots and 1080p video. But the 5D mk3 could have some pretty significant improvements, if we're lucky.

All in all, yeah the 1DX is definitely more of a photojournalism and action sports camera, and the 5D mk3 will be "it" for landscapes and anything where megapixels are more important than speed.

=Matt=

I don't quite agree with some of your either/ors, Matthew. They are too reductionist. I have always preferred a pluralistic expectation, since the market can really only continue to make sense if it is pluralistic. The boundaries will become ones more of price than quality, and price will become more tied to specialisation, modularity and integration at the higher end.

I agree that the idea of "flagship" model is now totally outmoded. That is also a consequence of the same plurality I mention. What model we buy will be less and less a matter of compromise (more or less *quality*), as it has mainly been, and more a matter of fit, more a matter of choice between applications than absolutes.

For people like myself, price will always be the bottom line, but it no longer means a compromise on quality. No longer an issue of handicaps. This is the new age we are moving into, where we choose not between positives and negatives, but between more or less positives. For me, the differences between $6K bodies and $3K are irrelevant, except for the price. If I were operating in the stratosphere of photography, the price would be irrelevant, and fit to application critical. Quality is now out of the equation.

Neil

Matthew Saville

NeilL wrote: »

I don't quite agree with some of your either/ors, Matthew. They are too reductionist. I have always preferred a pluralistic expectation, since the market can really only continue to make sense if it is pluralistic. The boundaries will become ones more of price than quality, and price will become more tied to specialisation, modularity and integration at the higher end.

I agree that the idea of "flagship" model is now totally outmoded. That is also a consequence of the same plurality I mention. What model we buy will be less and less a matter of compromise (more or less *quality*), as it has mainly been, and more a matter of fit, more a matter of choice between applications than absolutes.

For people like myself, price will always be the bottom line, but it no longer means a compromise on quality. No longer an issue of handicaps. This is the new age we are moving into, where we choose not between positives and negatives, but between more or less positives. For me, the differences between $6K bodies and $3K are irrelevant, except for the price. If I were operating in the stratosphere of photography, the price would be irrelevant, and fit to application critical. Quality is now out of the equation.

Neil

I'm not quite sure what anything in that first paragraph meant, Neil, you'll have to re-explain.

Also, I think it remains to be seen whether or not price will "no longer be strongly connected to a compromise" ...at least for Canon. There is no indication yet whether or not the "5D mk3" will have flagship-like improvements in performance or functionality, for all we know they could keep on using that 9-point piece of crap focus system.

I mean I'm hoping, and finally also expecting, that they'll consider putting the (now "outdated") 45-point AF module in the 5D mk3, along with some other flagship features, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Maybe for some / many, the current differences between the $3K and $6K models aren't really handicaps, but as a Nikon user who is totally accustomed to the performance and flexibility of a $2000 used D700, I'm hoping that the next generation from both Canon and Nikon is held to a higher standard. And I think you're right, this could be the generation where we get much more performance out of the more affordable models...

:-)

=Matt=

ian408

I believe what we'll end up with is a Audi with Porsche cousins. What that means to me in Canon Speak is the 1DX will be the flagship and most other bodies will share at least part of the sensor design with the goal of reducing overall design cost. Not sure what advanced features will end up in other bodies but I'm certain they'll carry some things over.

D3Sshooter

Do I tos away my D3S ? When is the D4 out ? It will be $$$$$ .

ian408

D3Sshooter wrote: »

Do I tos away my D3S ? When is the D4 out ? It will be $$$$$ .

nah. The beautiful thing is it still works great! On the other hand, if you were gonna sell it, the time would be now.

Matthew Saville

D3Sshooter wrote: »

Do I tos away my D3S ? When is the D4 out ? It will be $$$$$ .

If you "toss" it, let me know where!

(Unless the D800 costs $2999 and has a KILLER sRAW mode, I'll be buying a used D3s within the next year or so.)

=Matt=

NeilL

I'll have to say it again, because I think it's indicative of a new ball park we are entering - the notion of "flagship" model is passed. In the past, the flagship model represented the state-of-the-art, but that was when we were still clawing our way out of the pioneering crudities of digital imaging, trying to develop the new opportunities of digital technology, and balance cost, profit and market attractiveness of devices as they evolved through basic technological stages. Then, the best image possible was produced by the "flagship" models, and they ruled in terms of functionality and usability. That's all history now.

Digital dslr tech is now in a mature phase. Unlike, say, computing technology, or image display technology, or digital storage technology, which are still in an extended adolescence. While a short time ago a photographer *needed* to get flagship level in order just to have something acceptable in terms of image quality, functionality and usability, now those same and better benchmarks are standard across prosumer and above bodies. In other words, digital body tech has won the battles and to a large extent the war! The flagships have sailed off into the sunset, and what rule now are, as I said, choices along the lines of price and applicability - no longer choices involving basic image quality, functionality and usability.

The concept of "top-of-the-line" is dead, because what is top-of-the-line for any particular photographer now depends on what line they are in, not as before on what is on the top of the tech heap in general.

@ Matt, you have spent a lot of words trying to remove possible new cameras from likelihood of seeing production, based on what you consider to be tech/design overlap. But that is not how the market is now working, I think. With mature tech such as digital cameras, overlap is a given. Market choices in bodies are now not mainly about stuff like megapixels, resolution, noise, or even low light performance, all those basic parameters have been dealt with in most bodies now up to the point where differences don't matter because they can't normally be detected and are irrelevant to purpose. I repeat, market choices are now mainly about cost effectiveness for applicability. A different ball game. Before, there was sense to the question, why would anyone buy a flagship body over other models, because the answer was that is the way to get the best basic tech. It makes no sense now to simply say spending $6K on a body is better than spending $3K, or even $1K. They all can do most things to a standard which does not involve compromise or handicap.

Neil

Icebear

Why didn't you say so the first time.