photo via Gizmodo
Here’s some highlighted specs:
_16.2 effective megapixel, full-frame sensor (16.6MP total)
_10fps shooting with AF and AE, 11fps with focus and exposure locked, 24fps 2.5MP grabs
_1080p30 HD video at up to 24Mbps with uncompressed video output
_91,000 pixel sensor for metering, white balance, flash exposure, face detection and active d-lighting
_ISO Range 100-12,800 (extendable from 50 – 204,800)
_MultiCAM 3500FX Autofocus sensor works in lower light and with smaller apertures
_Two sub-selector joystick/buttons for shooting orientation
_New EN-EL18 battery (21.6Wh capacity, CIPA-rated at 2600 shots)
_Twin card slots – one Compact Flash and one XQD
Please note I HAVE NOT touched one of these cameras, and NO I didn’t shoot the campaign. and I haven’t yet spent the appropriate time with the camera to tell you any gory details. I’m assuming I’ll be able to chat more soon.
So.. I (we) knew this was coming, but rather than me spouting off about having played with the system (I can’t), or telling you what your feelings about this system should be (I won’t), I’m turning the tables on you.
What’s your take? Love, hate, indifferent? Insights?
[Reminder that Nikon plays close attention to this blog, so your comments on this post – glowing or otherwise – might help inform Nikon about what your thinking.]Link to all the Nikon D4 details and/or purchase here via B&H.
I’m excited and excited about the D700 replacement
I’m curious about the “24fps 2.5MP grabs” that can shot as bursts. Does anyone have anymore info on this?
I am a complete and utter gear whore. I’ve got the D3x and the D3s along with some Phase One gear and each camera has it’s own duty. When I saw the announcement this morning I will admit to some drooling. Then I read the specs. It is a beautiful piece of gear. However it is extremely unlikely I’ll be getting one anytime soon. There is simply far too much overlap in what I am completely happy with in my current Nikon arsenal.
I was actually much more excited about the new 85mm. Did I just say that?
If Nikon wants to blow the doors off Canon, they would make the D4x a 20-25megapixel 16bit (stills), 120fps HD camera that can shoot 8 frames a second with a usable ISO up to 4000. THAT is the perfect camera. I’d buy 3 of those.
+1 on the D4x, oh man…
I’m not really impressed. The D3 was wow. The D3s, was even more wow,. The D4, in may ways it feels more the like D3ss than a D4, and reeks of having marketing pushing for sellable numbers.
On the up side:
* AF is better. Finally there’s a Nikon body that will AF at f/8 guaranteed. Better yet, they out did Canon’s old F/8 AF system and actually gave you more than one point.
* There’s a second AF point selection stick, the lack of one on the predecessors is utterly brain dead, and makes for horrible portrait usability.
On the down side:
* The base ISO range is not really wider than it was in the D3s, sure there’s ISO 100 now, but ISO 12,800 is the last real ISO; given than ISO 204K is H4 how useable is it really going to be. Never mind, H4 means you’re giving up 4 stops of DR due the expanded ISO manipulations, how good is the DR at ISO 12800 going to be that 4 stops less is acceptable photographically and not just a bullet point for the box.
* The new battery is baffling. Why? The EN-EL4a is only slightly smaller, and since we’re really talking about battery packs here, there’s no reason that they cant upgrade the Li-Ion cells and charge controller while still presenting the same 11.1V interface to the camera, thus retaining backwards compatibility (at least with the cameras). Change the guts, keep the interface, save the photographers from having to have 2 kinds of chargers, and carry 2 kinds of virtually identical looking batteries.
* The price of this stuff is driving me nuts. I’m not made out of gold, maybe Chase is, but they (Canon, Nikon, etc.) keep ramping up the costs of the cameras generation over generation now. Possibly what’s even more galling is the apparent attitude that giving us more for the money is impossible or something—I’ve seen way to many comments defending the lack of real innovation as something that would make the camera too expensive.
If you shoot high ISO with better quality than it’s predecessor… than that is improvement, and no reason go higher. The number still the same but the quality improved much, that’s more important. I think nikon gives you reality than just marketing hype about the ISO range.
Price is always high when new technology comes out. Improvement and their effort to produce better and better camera is a long story R&D and of course ultimately very costly. Don’t think even hardware that inside also need software known as firmware to work.
That’s why they create different classes on the camera market, so if someone just can’t afford the latest tech, just go lower.. that’s easy. Battle between brands is always good for customers :D…
Great looking spec for me. As many have said evolution rather than evolution but i think thats all you can expect when current cameras are so good. Biggest features for my work are lower noise (supposedly) and love the ethernet socket and in camera IPTC capabilities. What I hate though is the prices are getting just ridiculous. Its launching at several hundred £ more than the D3s did. Nikon and Canon seem to adapt an attitude that better camera = charge more, whereas other electronics manufactures accept technology moves on and as it does the top line products stay at a similar price level. Its gross!
I guess for a high end commercial photographer £4800 in UK (=7500$ at todays conversion) is nothing (and for the rich amateurs who convince themselves they need a pro body) but lets face it, this cameras primary market should be news and sports shooters and other than your massive agencies, we can’t afford a 5 grand (UK) camera….. especially when most have at least two bodies. I fear we’re being asked to pay a lot for video capabilities none of us use. I can’t shoot video at most the events i cover. Im not allowed. They should offer a stills only version for at least a grand less.