(Usual Disclaimer: No, I still haven't got hands-on with one. This further ramble is based on what I read from sensible pro-users and commentators around the 'net. I think I'd still like one, but...)
A bit more information has come to light since I wrote my first pondering on the new Nikon D4, though the actual launch date has been pushed back into March since I wrote the post. Nikon have possibly discovered something they want to correct when the pre-production samples were getting their work-out here, and here, for example. Or maybe they wish to build up launch stock availability. Either way, I don't think this is any big deal.
However, what seems to be clear (or becoming clearer) is that the overall image quality is a "D3s but with more pixels". I did ponder this and decided that it was a possibility (though I bottled it and plumped for "more like D3"...!!!!), though Nikon still don't say this outright. But various commentators who have seen images side by side from the D3s and D4 say they couldn't be more similar.
Which strongly suggests two things: one; that Nikon have managed to increase the resolution without increasing noise and other issues with their flagship sensor, and two; just how extraordinary the D3s sensor was at launch in 2009, and how good it remains.
 |
| Nikon D3s. I've not much use for Nik Color Efex Pro 3; I have it because it was cheaper to buy the complete set of products than pick the ones I do use (Dfine, Sharpener and Silver Efex) but here I've had a play around to be a little creative with what is, really, a dull image to illustrate the page. Shot on my D3 with 60mm Micro, the raw is processed with the Polaroid Transfer preset, then the Pro Contrast preset, in Color Efex 3. There's a small levels adjustment to lift the whites slightly. |
More after the break...
There may be some minor details that differ. Thom Hogan alludes to seeing a slight per-channel response difference in the two sensors - i.e. the R,G and B sensitivities are not exactly the same. Again, Nikon are reported to have worked on skin tone rendering, so no real issue here. But broadly, this is good news for D3s users (yes, that's right!). Apart from a slightly higher pixel count - which, as usual, doesn't make as much difference as the 12mp to 16mp jump might look - the D4 sensor hasn't overturned the quality stakes. Your D3s still produces comparable images.
Of course, there are improvements to the new body - 10fps frame rate with AF and AE, 11fps full-frame with AF and AE locked from frame 1, better AF and AE promised through upgraded units within the body, new controllers, better video (meh... :) ) but these are all "nice to have", rather than "must have" features unless you are constantly pushing the technical limits of your image-making. And yes, there will be pros who will have seen the new spec and put their names down immediately for that reason. Fine and dandy.
But for most of us jobbing workers, there's a few bumps in the road to consider: sheer price as always, availability in the short term, plus the possible mental confusion of a mixed D3/D4 set, and that the double-slots don't take the same media.
There's one other issue that I missed off first time around - a new battery. As I understand it, Japanese law no longer allows batteries with the capacity of the EN-EL4a to be made for new products (here, we hope that the law still allows them to be made to service older equipment, of course!). The new EN-EL18 needs a new charger and is not compatible with the older battery. So if you are a traveller with a mixed set of D3/D4, both chargers and both sets of batteries need to go with you. Another little wrinkle.
And with that, I've decided that I'm going to hold off for the moment, at least until after London 2012, before I look again. Hopefully the street price will have moderated the cost of changing somewhat. But it's nice to know that as a D3s user, the core image quality - small resolution bump aside - appears to be pretty much unchanged. As I said back in January, the D3s sensor was extraordinary in 2009. It still is.
My game plan, for now, is shaping up to acquiring another used D3s, so here's hoping that enough early-adopters do swap for me to get a nice, low-mileage one.
And now for something completely different...
In the meantime, the D800 was announced! This too, matched the rumours closely with a smaller (D700-like) body fitted with a 36mp sensor. And there is a D800E version, with modified anti-aliasing, which claims to remove the slight blurring of the standard version to give "greater resolving power". The new body has some improved or upgraded body features but also has a lower framing rate, even with the new battery grip, than its predecessor.
Now, all the pixel-peepers have gone mad for the D800E. Phrases like "medium-format" get bandied around. But it's all cobblers. True medium-format brings perspective and depth of field differences that a 35mm-sized sensor won't match. And don't get me started on one UK weekly magazine's continued claim that "you need 24mp+ to equal 35mm film"! Seriously, I thought this one had been put to bed some time ago, but they keep trotting it out. It's only the grain structure making it look like there's more detail, folks, but there ain't! And co-incidentally, that's what the D800E will probably make most people think - the removal of the anti-aliasing might make things look even more detailed, but with the potential for moire like you won't believe. The D800 and 800E will also sort out your weakest lenses if you insist on pixel-peeping and clog up your hard-drives (and cards) with huge, huge files.
Again, don't get me wrong, there will be users who need this sort of resolution, and who have the skill to make use of it. Important distinction, here. You will need to stick rigidly to good shot discipline, otherwise you needn't have bought 36mp... But too many buyers, I suspect, simply want to pixel-peep, or say "I can crop more" or "I want to print big!". Erm, I have a Canon A3 printer - it's huge! Just how often do these "big-print"-ers produce anything above that? And the crop argument, beyond a certain point, means you haven't put the right glass on the front. This doesn't seem to me to be a spontaneous, press-snapping camera where you don't get a chance to change lenses when the biggie happens. Shot discipline, again. Buy it, by all means - it looks another great Nikon - but don't kid yourself that 36mp will solve your problems, because it's just gonna create more....
As you might have guessed, I won't be getting one! The body improvements over the D700 (some match D4, such as AF/AE) are all nice, but I really, really don't need files that big. Again, a UK weekly magazine reckoned you will see the difference even in "normal-sized prints". Don't know what they've been looking at because at industry standard 300dpi, you won't. It has already been rumoured that the D4 sensor may creep into this body (D800s?), and if the frame rate goes up to the old D700 + MB-D10 combination of 8fps then I might be interested.
And intriguingly, for all the pixel-peeper and marketing department hype about "more megapixels" being essential, another bit of news has come from Nikon.
After initial reports that the D700 had ceased production, this week a Nikon engineer has been reported as stating that the D700 will continue being built, so long as there are buyers, for the foreseeable future. The D700, one of Nikon's most popular DSLRs, has the original D3 sensor and so "only" 12mp. But it seems Nikon reckon there will still be people willing to buy it.
What does that say about the pixel race?
No comments:
Post a Comment