So it appears the early consensus is that the D4 has same iso performance as D3s

Qarik

with slightly better resolution due to the added 4Megapixels. I was hoping for slighltly better ISO performance but the D3s was so good anyway i am not complaining. More importantly the AF can focus better at lower light so that ISO advantage can actually be more useful in the field.

My goodness the forums in DPreview have some really smart folk who do some incredible sensor analysis..but also the the worst trolls and fanbois ever! haha

jmphotocraft

Cool. Somewhat OT, is the reception in the Nikon forum at dpreview mostly positive or negative on the D800? Because the Canon forum is full of people hating on the 5D3. To me it looks like the perfect camera, but what do I know.

ziggy53

Qarik wrote: »

with slightly better resolution due to the added 4Megapixels. I was hoping for slighltly better ISO performance but the D3s was so good anyway i am not complaining. More importantly the AF can focus better at lower light so that ISO advantage can actually be more useful in the field.

My goodness the forums in DPreview have some really smart folk who do some incredible sensor analysis..but also the the worst trolls and fanbois ever! haha

What I see is a similar amount of color noise at high ISOs, but with finer granularity. That would seem to imply that if the D4 image was downressed to the same size as the D3s, it would have less visible noise. That in turn suggests that prints would show less noise and/or the D4 images have more crop-ability.

I also see slightly improved reds, which should produce slightly better flesh/skin tones.

Pretty much good stuff.

Matthew Saville

Say what? It seemed to me that the DPReview tests were putting it at about 1 stop better, once you get up to 25,600. Even though it does look pretty identical at lower ISO's, indeed.

It is strange that I cannot for the life of me find ANY high ISO samples from the 1DX, though. Is Canon holding out? I'm expecting Canon to come back with a vengeance, and trounce Nikon since they kinda got spanked by the last generation of Nikon bodies at ISO noise. The 5D mk3 in sRAW1 looks like it almost matches the D4, if not beats it. Hmm...

Only time will tell, once we can get solid reviews from all four of the new full-frame cameras...

=Matt=

Qarik

The D800 is getting mixed reviews. Some are drooling, some hate the 36M. No real consensus.

T. Bombadil

Qarik wrote: »

My goodness the forums in DPreview have some really smart folk who do some incredible sensor analysis..but also the the worst trolls and fanbois ever! haha

Wow, is that ever true. Angry posts, with scores of angry replies. And sprinkled throughout are some posts by very knowledgable photogs.

Matthew Saville

T. Bombadil wrote: »

Wow, is that ever true. Angry posts, with scores of angry replies. And sprinkled throughout are some posts by very knowledgable photogs.

I just stopped looking at the DPR forums altogether because of that. It was like finding a needle in a haystack to to hunt down real wisdom in that place. And if you ever have something level-headed, logical and un-provocative to say, don't even bother because people hardly ever respond to such sensibility there. I just gave up. I trust DPReview's tests and look forward to them for sure, but the forums? I haven't visited them in about two years I think...

=Matt=

T. Bombadil

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I just stopped looking at the DPR forums altogether because of that.

That is the right answer. The time commitment to ferret out solid info over there is just too high.

As you said, the site itself is worthwhile. I like their reviews, and the camera comparison tool is great.

zoomer

DP is like every other site. Lots of people acting like they are experts and very few who actually are....and....the people who actually know their stuff are usually shouted down by the people who don't.

Just keeping it real...this site seems to be strangely free of that for the most part at least.

If you really want to see the blind leading the blind look at The Photo Forum.

All the info I have read says the d4 noise is roughly equivalent to the D3s, which is a good place to be.
The d800 is a specialty camera...not for the masses...ideal for special applications but not for everyday, everything use.
Not a camera for people still learning, really there are very few people that will be better served with the d800 than they would be with the d700.

Light_prod

you can download some high iso NEF files from a D4 here: http://bit.ly/wP4bWZ (you'll need Lightroom 4 to open them.
they look the same as the D3s files to me.

That said I think the benefits of the D4 over the D3s will lie in actually using it. Better focusing metering etc. If that stuff in in fact better then you'll have better images in the end right?

rookieshooter

Matthew Saville wrote: »

It is strange that I cannot for the life of me find ANY high ISO samples from the 1DX, though. Is Canon holding out? I'm expecting Canon to come back with a vengeance, and trounce Nikon since they kinda got spanked by the last generation of Nikon bodies at ISO noise. The 5D mk3 in sRAW1 looks like it almost matches the D4, if not beats it. Hmm...

=Matt=

Those files are here http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dx/

Matthew Saville

rookieshooter wrote: »

Those files are here http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dx/

THANKS! Looks good, but still roughly the same as all the current new cameras. (Except the D800) I still can't determine if the D4, 1DX, or even the 5D mk3 are going to be noticably better than the others. Hmm...


=Matt=

Moogle Pepper

Matthew Saville wrote: »

THANKS! Looks good, but still roughly the same as all the current new cameras. (Except the D800) I still can't determine if the D4, 1DX, or even the 5D mk3 are going to be noticably better than the others. Hmm...


=Matt=

These days? It's all relative, Matt.

Matthew Saville

Moogle Pepper wrote: »

These days? It's all relative, Matt.

I think this is indeed the generation in which there will simply NOT be much of a difference. It all comes down to the more obscure controls, functions and features in my opinion. The camera performances are relatively similar. The lens lineups are relatively identical. The most different thing is the actual functionality and control...

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think this is indeed the generation in which there will simply NOT be much of a difference. It all comes down to the more obscure controls, functions and features in my opinion. The camera performances are relatively similar. The lens lineups are relatively identical. The most different thing is the actual functionality and control...

The differences between the D800 and 5D3 will only be visible by printing 20x30" or larger. And by pixel peeping, for those who think that means something.

I have to say that if I was not making some money from photography, Canon would win based on one single fact - Nikon has no 70-200 f/4 lens. Because 70-200mm is basically a required lens IMO, and the concept of $2400 for an f/2.8 version would be simply out of the question for me.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

The differences between the D800 and 5D3 will only be visible by printing 20x30" or larger. And by pixel peeping, for those who think that means something.

I have to say that if I was not making some money from photography, Canon would win based on one single fact - Nikon has no 70-200 f/4 lens. Because 70-200mm is basically a required lens IMO, and the concept of $2400 for an f/2.8 version would be simply out of the question for me.

If weight is not a problem, just price, the mk1 offers stabilization for cheaper, and the 80-200 is INSANELY sharp too. Of course, for me at least, weight is indeed the deciding factor, and I'm very excited that Nikon recently filed a patent for a 70-200 f/4 VR... The Canon is the #1 lens I am still jealous of...

:-)

=Matt=

NikonsandVstroms

Qarik wrote: »

The D800 is getting mixed reviews. Some are drooling, some hate the 36M. No real consensus.

From what I have seen at 100% it's noisier than the D700 but downressed it actually surpasses it, which is perfect for a forum. Those who like the camera post downressed comparisons, those who hate it for some reason post 100% crops, and both can yell at each other endlessly since they have "proof" to back up their position.

Personally I can skip the D4.....the D800 will be mine!

thegridrunner

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Do a comparison test between the new flagship canon and the new flagship Nikon
It appears that the Nikon D4 outperforms the Canon 1D4 in high ISO image tests.
They haven't tested the d800 yet but the canon 5dm3 is up

Honestly, both cameras are great...still waiting for the Nikon D$$$$. (I'm going to miss my arm and leg)

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

If weight is not a problem, just price, the mk1 offers stabilization for cheaper, and the 80-200 is INSANELY sharp too. Of course, for me at least, weight is indeed the deciding factor, and I'm very excited that Nikon recently filed a patent for a 70-200 f/4 VR... The Canon is the #1 lens I am still jealous of...

Weight would be a factor for me for travel I think, but for now I have a 70-200/2.8II. At least it has paid for itself. But even if weight was not a factor, if I was not making some money off photography, a brand new $675 70-200 f/4L would simply make way too much sense.

That is good news about a Nikkor version.

jmphotocraft

thegridrunner wrote: »

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Do a comparison test between the new flagship canon and the new flagship Nikon
It appears that the Nikon D4 outperforms the Canon 1D4 in high ISO image tests.

D4 vs 1DX would be the more direct comparison. But until they test the 1DX, umm.... check out the 5DIII vs D4.

divamum

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Weight would be a factor for me for travel I think, but for now I have a 70-200/2.8II. At least it has paid for itself. But even if weight was not a factor, if I was not making some money off photography, a brand new $675 70-200 f/4L would simply make way too much sense.

That is good news about a Nikkor version.

I just bought a used 70-200 f4 - with extras - for $550. Despite my lust for fast lenses, this thing is rocking my world even on a crop, and even with a maximum aperture of only f4. It is almost (almost) as sharp as my 135L wide open, and that is a MAJOR statement given how amazing the 135L is! It's a beeeyoootiful lens. I know I'd love 2.8, but the weight of those behemoths (not to mention the prices!) would kill me; for now, this is a wonderful piece of glass for me when shooting outdoors and, even with the smaller aperture, with the right positioning and subject:background distance you can still melt things away with buttery bokeh. I'm very impressed by it so far!

Sorry, this is feeding OT discussion. I'll slink back into Canonland now....

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

I just bought a used 70-200 f4... I'm very impressed by it so far!

I had the 70-200/4LIS. I wish I could have kept it, but I had to sell it to finance the f/2.8II. The f/4 is all that you say. Don't worry about the f/2.8 version, it is really just for sports and lowish light, and you have low light covered by the 135L. The DOF difference is pretty minimal. The f/4 is half the weight. This is huge. Enjoy your new lens!