Dissapointed at Nikon D4 High ISO...

ISO 204k is a marketing feature - just because canon does. I would really suggest taking a common sense approach interpreting these samples, as few people will ever use it past 3200-6400 ISO, where both D3s and D4 still have good performance. Bare in mind that D4 is 16mp, and that is dead useful shooting at lower ISOs, while you could definitely improve the noise by resizing back to 12mp. Oh, and I wouldn't realistically expect everyone suddenly sell their D3s's - but instead when they are worn out, or upgrading from the older models. That should be the sensible approach to camera market, as it used to be before.

P.S. Try printing these - you will be surprised.
 
Seriously? The d4 looks alot cleaner at higher Isos, and the d3s is no slouch
 
daugirdas said:
Oh, and I wouldn't realistically expect everyone suddenly sell their D3s's - but instead when they are worn out, or upgrading from the older models. .
Click to expand...

Worn out?!? Short of hanging around in a war zone and using your camera as body armour that's pretty much an impossibility for the average user :lol: :bonk:
 
flossie said:
Worn out?!? Short of hanging around in a war zone and using your camera as body armour that's pretty much an impossibility for the average user :lol: :bonk:
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I wanted to say. Maybe gunning football matches every day at 10k shots / event can do the trick.
 
flossie said:
Worn out?!? Short of hanging around in a war zone and using your camera as body armour that's pretty much an impossibility for the average user :lol: :bonk:
Click to expand...

1 of mine has lost a chip of paint in the last 18 months, does that count?
 
Phil Young said:
It doesn't retain as much detail and I would need to look REALLY hard to see a difference in noise...
Click to expand...

At what iso? I'd suggest you don't understand the tests if you think that no matter how many capital letterS you use
 
Up res the D3S or down res the D4 and there is an obvious difference, not enough to warrant me forking out my hard earned though.
 
I remember when the D3s came out. Lots of people saying that the upgrade wasn't worth it over the D3.
I've had both. It was. I've also looked at a lot of the details of the D4. For me, it looks like a good upgrade. Time will tell.
Gary, one thing that may assist you, could be the ability to bolt the 2 x converter on a 300mm/400mm and still have all 51 focus points active at f8? (I don't shoot sports, so forgive me if that is too much reach)
That for me would save me investing £7k on a 600mm f4.
After listening to the seminars on the Nikon stand about the D4, (my head is still spinning) there does indeed seem to be a lot of improvements. Not just video, as I had thought.
I'll decide now for myself when it arrives.

Kev.
 
204K is crazy high ISO and you could forgive any camera for not being great at that ISO - not so long ago we daren't dream of 25,600 ISO!!!

I'd say that going by these screen shots (1600 and 12800) that there's no massive jump between the Nikon models but there is a gap between them and the Canons (the 5D2 especially) and it'll be very interesting when the 5D Mk3 and 1DX shots are figured in. I'd say the D4 continues what the D3 and D3s started. TBH though, the D3s looks absolutely bang-on for me...

ISO 1600
ISO-1600.jpg


ISO 12,800
ISO-12_800.jpg
 
I always wondered what happened with Black Silicon which was supposed to make sensors 100 times more sensitive to light. That would pretty much erase the ISO war!

I believe the majority of advantages with black silicon are in the IR range so SiOnyx (who hold the licenses for the patents from Harvard) are focusing on the military. Would be good for standard cameras though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top