D4 Ponderings...

Talking myself out of one (or not..?)

(Disclaimer 1: yes, I do want one. There are the usual Internet freaks chipping into forums with their usual stupid comments about price-point, resolution, touch-screen and other such nonsense. Ignore them. They aren't photographers.)

(Disclaimer 2: This is based on specs and rational articles published on the web, plus familiarity with the D3 series, but not hands-on experience - as yet*)

*I've used Nikon for over 30 years, but I was first introduced to a modern Pro body by my local camera shop when I was part-time snapping. This was the very excellent F5 and my retailer knew his man. I'd popped in to see about some used lenses and he just put one into my hands. Two weeks later I had one...

That was '98; I added another in 2000, and it was the experience gained making good and full use of them - plus the fact that F5's were far more capable than the typical local press snappers issue - that helped get me the full-time job.  Since then, Digital has matured, and I've had D1, D2 (H, X and XS) and now D3 and 3s. Sadly, the issue kit didn't keep up. After D1, D2X/XS it dried up; although the two D300 I had were nice cameras the D7000 I also have now, as I have mentioned elsewhere, isn't in the same league. Image-wise it's fine. But then, so were the pics out of my F90X back in '98...  The body can make a difference.

More after the break


With digital, the image quality is in the body. Want more res? Buy a new body. What I mean is that, where The F5 launched in '96, I could buy one in '98 and still get another new one in 2000. Digital means that Nikon's pro bodies are refreshed or renewed every 18 - 24 months. The physical capabilities of the bodies  - other than the new sensor - don't shift so much. The D2h hit 8fps back in 2003. The D2X, 12 million pixels in 2005. Until the collapse of Sterling, a pro digital Nikon was usually £3000'ish street-price. It did creep lower (The D3 was retailing at £2800'ish for a while) Now it's back towards £3600. And that's street, not list. Two F5's were the price of one typical digital D2X (but, obviously, factor in the lack of film costs. There's no point in looking at the unit cost in isolation...).

Yet probably the biggest shift, however, was the D3 - speed, resolution and image quality appeared in one body. A game-changer. And I believe worth every penny - I outed a D300 to get my second one.

Right, enough reminiscing. Let's look at some of what's been announced, and back-to-back it with the D3s.

The D4 is a pro-spec, full-frame (i.e.  = 35mm) DSLR. It replaces the D3S (and the 24mp D3X? That's not fully clear yet) and is basically the News and Sports photographers weapon of choice, if you don't shoot Canon. (Disclaimer 3: Nope, not interested in the fanboys "mine's better than yours" Canon vs Nikon war. Both are excellent systems and we snappers should be grateful that the companies compete to offer the kit they do. Canon users are no doubt waiting patiently for the superb-looking 1D X... Though as a footnote to a footnote, Canon announced the 1D X in October, but won't have it until March. Nikon announces the D4 on 6th January, and it will be in snappers' hands from 16th February. Hmmm)

• 10fps (11 with focus and exposure locked after frame 1) vs 9fps (the D3/s WILL run to 11 - same restriction on AF/AE - but only in DX crop mode. It's getting the data off the full sensor rapidly that's key.) Useful to have, but not a "must-swap".
• Video - Now full 1080p plus numerous tweaks and a headphone socket, vs 720p. Supposedly all good. But, ... Meh. Really. Meh. It no doubt will be used by some, but HQ have been talking about us doing video for years, yet we've still got no way of sending it about (huge files!), no software and no formalised way of building it into an "8 jobs a day" without doing both, badly. (The multi-media flaw. Suits love it, but that's because they don't understand - very, very few people are gifted enough to do words, stills, audio and video together adequately, let alone properly.)
• Button tweaks. Some new controllers, which look useful, some more customisation, ditto, but hmmm, possibly enough difference to make a D3/D4 pairing a bit of a brain teaser in a hurry?
• New/revised AF system. D4 can see to -2EV, and focus with F8 len combinations - D3 is -1EV and F5.6. Might not sound much, but D4 can see in half as much light and use 600 + 2x converter. That also promises even faster, more accurate AF performance in better light, which is always useful.
• Ambient and flash compensation can be split, if required, for the first time. D3s can't do this. This is the Canon standard, where Nikon have always made any body +/- exposure compensation affect flash also. Again, useful, if not mega-important.
• 16.1 megapixels, vs 12.1 megapixels. Not as much change as it sounds, as ever, but that's enough of a boost to be perceivable upon examination. Useful - it allows some more cropping options, but it isn't as useful as the jump was from 6 to 12, say. And lets remember, 12mp is only just short of A3 at 300dpi magazine quality. I shoot for newspapers, too - call it 150dpi - so how big do my images need to be?? Add a clean file and onOne's Perfect Resize 7, say, and high quality doubling of that A3 at 300dpi is simple. It is very easy to get carried away with "more res!" but, for the cost of a D4 or less, a used 500mm F4 AFS would solve the "need to crop because I'm short on the glass"? 
• A new card type. Oh dear. Still a double-slotter - very useful - but now we have CF plus a new XQD slot. And there's no XQD cards to speak of yet. Oh dear. With the latest fast CF cards about, I think most people would have been happier retaining double CF or, if you must, Nikon, two SD cards, hmmm? That adds to the upgrade costs, having to acquire new cards AND a new reader.
• ISO range; the regular ratings expand to 100 - 12800, with Lo-1 (50 ISO) and up to Hi-4 (204800). The D3s is 200 - 12800, with Lo-1 at 100 ISO and up to Hi-3, 102400 ISO. And to me, here's the first hint of a pause in the specs and time for some serious thought...

The D3s sensor is extraordinary. Adding pixels must reduce the pixel pitch, and so limit light gathering without a major rethink and re-engineering. And it's true that Nikon have not been so forthcoming about high ISO quality as they might be, if this new sensor was a stunner. Certainly the engineering is mentioned in the launch material and the (thin) PDF brochure that's available, but.. Is it worse, the same, or better? Hmm. There aren't enough images yet released to study. When it gets to the first users then we might start to see some useful data. But if we speculate, based on specs and history... If it was better, I believe they'd say. The same? Again, "matches the D3s but with more resolution" is a good ad line. And this makes me wonder if it's worse. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we are not talking about D2X days, but  perhaps a little drop back to the D3 level, with some better in-camera processing, thanks to another few years of research. And that may even things out, as if the image is higher-res, then you don't need to enlarge so much. But again, as a press snapper, my standard settings are 400 - 800 ISO most of the time, usually going up, not down. For weekend sports, at this time of year I need high ISOs, not 100. I hit 11400 ISO on Saturday under (rubbish) lights, even on a clear afternoon.

I'm wondering about this now. Launch price is £4800 in the UK - the D3s was £4200, so there's the inevitable march of inflation and taxation plus currency moves. The D3s, like all such kit, shed some price on the street after a few months (£3400'ish), so maybe £800 - £1000 off of List for the D4 by Autumn? 

But both my D3 bodies were bought used (and with silly-low frame counts). My D3s is a used one (low frame-count). That equals a real saving again over new list AND I get an 18mth guarantee from my usual supplier, Grays, so if there's a problem...

Well. Now I need to start seeing hands-on, in-use reports from the first buyers. That will start to answer some of the questions. But equally, as they get into the hands of their first owners, that should hopefully mean that good quality, used D3s bodies begin to appear in numbers. And, at the moment, I can't help thinking that's the road to travel.

A case of separating "want" from "need"?

REFERENCES include: the very useful Rob Galbraith DPI, Thom Hogan's latest essay about the D4, and Nikon UK, here, where the specs and a PDF brochure can be found.