< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Surprise: Nikon D4s is not the best low light camera according to DxOMark

Nikon-D4s-DxOMark-test-2DxOMark published their results for the Nikon D4s camera. The surprise (at least for me) is that the Nikon Df still has a better overall low light performance (3279 vs. 3074 for the D4s). For now the Nikon Df is still the "Lord of Darkness".

Here are few more D4s comparisons with various Nikon and Canon cameras:

Nikon D4s vs. D610 vs. D3s:
Nikon-D4s-DxOMark-test-3
Nikon D4s vs. D800 vs. D700:
Nikon-D4s-D800-D700-DxOMark-comparison
Nikon D4s vs. Canon 5D MkIII vs. 1Dx:
Nikon-D4s-DxOMark-test

 

DxOMark conclusion:

"Although Nikon has improved a number a features, and added several video-oriented functions most of these have been achievable by upgrading the processor. Although some slight gains have been made minimizing shadow noise and expanding the dynamic range, sensor performance is largely unchanged.  That’s not to say the D4s isn’t compelling in anyway, as it is, but anyone that expected significant gains in performance are going to have to wait for the Nikon D5."

This entry was posted in Nikon D4s and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

    Let it begin…

    • broxibear

      Indeed, although one interesting thing is Nikon say the D4s is a new sensor while DxO are saying it’s the same sensor as the D4 ?
      “Although the sensor is the same 16.2-Mpix type CMOS device as the D4s
      perhaps the most significant change is the upgrading of the
      imaging-processing engine from Expeed 3 to Expeed 4.”

      • Spy Black

        We’ll have to wait until the D4s is torn down by that site (iFixIt?) to see whether or not there is a new sensor.

    • Spy Black

      This is too funny…

  • itcrashed

    Doh!

  • itcrashed

    It’s ok. People only believe DxOMark when the camera they own is listed as “the best”. LMAO

    • neonspark

      and that is different from any other review because….?

      • itcrashed

        Haha.! Exactly! :)

    • Guido

      The Dilemma with DXO Sensor tests is that they rate the naked sensor performance: (taken from About DXO) “All measurements are performed on the RAW image file BEFORE demosaicing or other
      processing prior to final image delivery.” This is fine when you are interested in the Quality of an electronic part of your camera, but does not say much about the image quality. In this particular case the new processor is decisive for excellent IQ. Same as 5D MKIII, which was or is still the queen of lowlight but has a lower score re. sensor Performance… who cares..

      • Anthony

        maybe if you shoot your low light in JPG…

      • El Aura

        And people who don’t like the results of DxO pretend that it is a problem that a website that rates the naked sensor performance is rating the naked sensor performance. They probably also think that it is a problem that a dentist is only looking at teeth and not at heart rate and kneecaps.

        They also tend to get their panties into a bunch if their camera registers by an imperceptible 5 to 10% lower in one measurement than another camera and take that as proof that all measurements have no relation with actual image quality.

        Their qualities include the ability to judge anything based on a single datapoint, give equal treatment to small and large differences. And despite pretending they don’t care, they still feel compelled to explain the world that they don’t care at every opportunity.

  • steve3911

    It’s interesting that there’s more difference between and Df and the D4s than there is between the D4 and D4s.

    • El Aura

      Or maybe what is interesting is that people find that interesting.

      • Groosome

        Interesting.

        • Harry

          This is my favourite conversation ever.

  • Rory

    and now for Nikon to release a D4 firmware with new auto white balance algorithm and other software related improvements after initial D4S sales. http://www.badum-tish.com/

    • Eric Calabros

      never happen. Next

  • Mansgame

    lol we all know the D4s is just Nikon’s way to squeeze another $500 from working pros who feel they have to trade in every generation. It’s like with cars- some people hold on to their car for 10 years, others trade in every year before the car loses its value. Both have merit.

    • MG

      Could it be, that the sensor si the same in all (D4, D4s, Df) but only the Image processing has changed.
      This could explain, why the df ist better than the D4 (same Expeed 3 processing, but slightly improved for the Df while the New processing for the D4s reduces noise at the cost of colour depth)

      • http://atphoto.bg Anastas Stas Tarpanov

        Nikon already told that the sensor is completely new and is different from the Df also.

        • Mansgame

          I guess technically, “new” could mean worse.

          • http://ztj.io/ Zachery Jensen

            You can’t judge better or worse without context. And as the measurements show, it is not worse in any way that DxO measures. The difference shown here are completely lost in statistical insignificance. It is impossible to visually discern between the image quality related to a DxO ISO score of 3200 vs 3000. You need something closer to a half stop or more before you can even see the difference.

            The way this sensor may be better is readout speed. The camera is able to shoot at 1 FPS with autofocus faster than before. While the mirror being faster is likely critical here, it’s also entirely plausible that the sensor was introducing delay before as well. Readout speed is actually the biggest bottleneck for progress in many areas of digital photography right now. Sadly, this metric is not easily quantified separately from the whole camera as a system today.

            • El Aura

              The sensor could be read out at 11 fps with the D4 already, it was just that the AF couldn’t keep up.

        • broxibear

          I was under the impression that Nikon said somewhere the D4s had a new sensor, but DxO are saying it’s the same sensor as the D4 and therefore the Df ?
          I don’t know ?

    • neonspark

      realistically it really arrives there as a refinement of a fine camera and if you’re in the market for one you can choose between the discounted d4 or if money is no object, why not the 4s?

    • Chris

      Don’t forget about photographers who were waiting to upgrade anyhow. It’s not always about getting people who already own last years cam to upgrade when it’s just a physical need to upgrade lightly, save cost on parts since it’s the same body and internals besides a few things. If they wanted to take your money then they would make huge leaps and bounds every year and basically take your money without a struggle. Imagine a world where every single year you have to have the next camera because it’s two times better… would suck wouldn’t it?

  • wonderingpi

    Love it, d3s for the win STILL KING

    Sorry df ergonomics are shit

    • Mansgame

      Agree with you about the Df being shit, but I’d still pick a D610 over a D3s every time. Look at the Dynamic Range difference. Look at the color depth difference. Best part is it beats the D3s in those categories while having double the resolution.

      • silmasan

        Not double.

        • http://ztj.io/ Zachery Jensen

          12 * 2 = 24

          • silmasan

            Double the pixel count does not equal “double the resolution”.

            To make it simpler, you’d have to double both dimensions, i.e. quadruple the pixel count to 48MP just to make it _possible_ to have “double the resolution”.

      • Sean Walsh

        Disagree. Shot a wedding with my new Df this past weekend, using a 17-35 and an 85, while my D700 (w/vertical grip) languished in the bag the whole day. Never once had any fatigue from it’s ergonomics.

        • AM

          Yeah, right. Let’s compare apples with watermelons. A Df with no grip vs a D700 with grip.
          Also, Mansgame is talking about the D610. Do you know that the difference in weight between a D610 and a Df is only 50 grams? The D610 is hands down a better bang for the buck.

          • Sean Walsh

            Comparing a Df to a D700 with a grip is not like comparing apples to watermelons. It’s more like comparing a gala and a fuji. Comparing a DSLR to 4×5 view camera is more like apples to watermelons. Analogies are effective if you know how to use them correctly.

            But more to the point, I wasn’t comparing anything. You missed that. I was merely stating my frame of reference, of what I’m used to handling, and how the Df’s ergonomics, given my frame of reference, aren’t shit. I can’t speak to the D610, nor was I attempting to. I don’t care if the D610 has a better bang-for-buck ratio; I wasn’t drawn to that model any more than I was the D800. That, and the Df feels very nice in MY hands. A 5D Mk III, to me, has the ergonomic joy of a brick, but there are more than enough photographers out there that will disagree with me.

            Also, if one person is allowed to make a statement for no other reason than just to say it, I’m perfectly within my right to disagree based on my experiences and the products I’ve used, just for the sake of saying it.

          • Larry L

            Perhaps, if you can live without a dedcated focus button & 3 frame bracketing.

        • Rafa R

          The Nikon Df is such a good camera, great sensor and IQ, but people have their minds stuck talking shit about this little camera, Im pretty sure time will prove a lot of people wrong about the Df, after all is all about the images it produces, and I have seen great work done with the Df. Dynamic range and low light performance on the Df is outstanding

          • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

            I think people are just butt-hurt that the Df costs $3K. Compared to the D800, which is the same price, the DF is a joke.

            Had they set the price at $2500, I think the reaction would be entirely different.

            Plus, regardless of what neck-beards type on the internet, the Df has been sold out, so regardless of what we think, they must have done something right with that camera.

      • mikeswitz

        Again, everyone defending the camera they already own. In the real world (beyond DXO, charts and graphs), looking at your work on any given medium (print or screen) no one would be able to tell the difference between the 3 cameras.

        • Albert Lim

          I love my S2 Pro. It is still THE BEST! THE BEST!!! It kicks the D4s and Df’s behinds! yea!!

      • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

        The D3s is built a hell of a lot tougher than a D610, with a faster burst mode, so depending on what you are shooting, the D3s could still be the better choice.

        I wouldn’t take my D600 spelunking without a pelicase; I know people who do take a D3 on a strap without hesitation.

  • EcoR1

    Basically all those low-light differences between D4, D4s and Df are within 0.1 stops, and possibly within measurement tolerances. And why would somebody be surprised by these results? Isn’t it the same sensor with all these cameras? That high ISO-rating with new D4s is only marketing-BS.

    • dgr

      Not sure if the sensor is the same, some claim they are not but the processor is clearly different.

    • itznfb

      Um.. no. The change in native ISO means that there is a physical difference between the sensors.

      • EcoR1

        Um.. no. Native ISO is the same.

        • itznfb

          No. The native ISO range is larger with the D4s. 100-25,600 vs 100-12,800.

      • El Aura

        The only ‘native’ ISO a sensor has, is the base ISO and that is the same between all three sensors. The highest ISO is just how high you crank up the analogue amplifier (but that is in principle just something like a higher voltage signal fed into the amplifier), and we don’t even know whether that has changed, or just a change in software.

        • itznfb

          Wrong. There is native ISO, base ISO and expanded ISO. The base ISO being 100. The native ISO being 100-25,600 and expanded ISO being 50 and several values up to 409,600.

    • Vadim Calinici

      The sensor is not the same…

    • Albert Lim

      The sensor is not the same. The micro lenses are made much bigger. You cannot do that without producing a brand new sensor.

  • JonB

    Doesn’t surprise me. The D4S noise improvements occur at high ISOs. Those improvements don’t even kick in at the DxOMark “Low Light ISO” levels. Plus, the difference between the two results is about 1/10 stop, which is negligible.

    • Joseph Li

      If so, that explains it….the sample images comparisons we’ve seen so far between d4 and d4s is about 1 stop improvement in high iso noise…it is noticeable. Cant believe they are the same performance, maybe in low ISO

    • umeshrw

      Just like with canon’s 5D3 where low iso are not that good but high iso results are much better than nikon counterparts.

  • neonspark

    it could be worse. it could be a canon lol.

  • Broxiboar

    Im doing the cha cha dance! finally all these suckers upgrading can feel the bite of marketing… sorta like what Apple does now with the massive improvements on each re-iteration of the iphones/ipads and so on…
    DF=king of lowlight but not a fan of ergonomics, the look or the FPS.
    D3s=perfect size files, great FPS, QUEEN of Lowlight if you will, SAME DUAL CARD SLOTS, battery that goes to 4500 oh and if I need video ill use a XA10 with real autofocus.

    • broxibear

      I didn’t post above incase anyone thought it was me making a typo with my name. Same thing happened a few weeks before the D4s leaks…what can you do, lol ?

  • stoooopid

    Wow. There are varying opinions on the styling of the Df, but no one can argue that the Df has a sweet Sensor/Processor combo. And it seems Nikon is leaving Canon in the dust with high ISO.

  • http://atphoto.bg Anastas Stas Tarpanov

    I prefer to believe on my eyes, not on the DxO.
    50x70cm print 25600 ISO from JPEG directly was amazing.
    True that the shot was without heavy shadows, but it was with great quality.

    • wonderingPI

      From my eyes d3s/d4/d4s all look the same….

      • csmith

        fix your eyes

  • dgr

    I would have guessed the new processor would have put it over the top…at least with these synthetic tests.

    • jmj3

      DxO mark measures RAW performance. How a new processor would help in that?

      • dgr

        Without a processor you wouldn’t get any output.

        • jmj3

          Well yes, but raw files should contain raw data from the sensor without image processing. Of course the camera could do some hidden processing such as denoising, but it’s kind of cheating and files are not so raw anymore.

          • Naval Gunfire

            A RAW file is not the unprocessed data straight from the sensor, they have all had some form of processing applied to them. I don’t know why this misconception still exists.

            • jmj3

              Well, technically speaking, RAW files means minimally processed data. So if files are heavily processed, those are not actual raw files but something else. Yes, there is probable some image processing also in nef, but not just sure how much heavy processing you could even do before Bayer filtering so that faster Expeed 4 could help? After all, camera makes only knows how much processing there actually is.

            • Naval Gunfire

              We take an analogue signal from the sensor and turn it into a digital file. You’ve manipulated and processed what has come off the sensor straight away. A new chip can allow the camera to have a better algorithm for converting the analogue signal from the sensor to a digital output which is why the processor matters even when shooting RAW.

            • jmj3

              So Expeed 4 has also A/D converter integrated? I would have guessed that the conversion is carried out somewhere more close to the sensor to avoid interference with EM. But ok, if Expeed 4 actually has A/D converters, then it’s possible.

            • Naval Gunfire

              That isn’t what I said at all but there you go. Think of it in anyway you want, a RAW file isn’t the “pure” data straight off the sensor.

            • jmj3

              Ok, I guess I don’t know what you are saying, because it kind of sounded like that you were talking about converting analogue signal to a digital output (which is what A/D converters do). But I guess you don’t know what I’m saying either. I haven’t said that it’s “pure” data straight off the sensor either. I said raw files should include minimally processed data without significant and heavy image processing (what is done for jpeg files in the camera).

          • dgr

            There is no raw file without the processor. Think of it as the brains of the operation.

            • jmj3

              Yes, there is of course header and maybe compression. But I was talking about _image_ processing meaning manipulating image data.

            • dgr

              How does the raw file get put together in the first place? An image sensor cannot compile the data without the processor.

        • Mansgame

          Do alligators alligate?

        • 2cents

          001100
          010010
          011110
          100001
          101101
          110011

          • dgr

            Exactly. ;)

  • George Kalogeris

    is DxO metering the sensor alone
    without the help of the processor ?

    • jmj3

      Yes. Measurements are based on raw images

      • George Kalogeris

        I mean, sensor results before the use of the processor.
        In many cameras the processor plays its role even in raw
        Like in a7, I have vignette removal and even compression even in default raw

        • jmj3

          I think they just use raw files produced by the camera. Probable hard to say that how much hidden processing is there in Nikon’s cameras.

        • Joseph Li

          Hmmm you might want to revisit your Sony spec. It’s not true raw, it’s very lossy compression and u are already losing a lot of data when you get the raw. With that said i dont think DxO are able to separate the sensor and processor performance in testing

  • cm71td

    Did they take the results off line? I don’t see any D4s scores on their site.

    • George Kalogeris

      yeah, perhaps an unknown voice called them
      to raise the price
      and put some better results in there

  • jmj3

    Just wondering that what is the margin of error in DxO’s low-light measurement?

  • waterengineer

    While DxO is one source for comparative data, I found a second source, Techradar.com. Interesting graphs on page three. http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-d4s-1212962/review/3#articleContent

  • guest

    NR: Any news on the D4 Firmware Update?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      No, nothing – maybe it got delayed.

      • guest

        Ok Thanks, will keep an eye out for it.

  • d3slover

    Just a satisfied d3s user here wondering why the d3s isn’t in that first row of comparisons… when it has a better score…

    • Michiel953

      That omission, shameful as it is, will not affect your photography. Your ego does seem hurt badly though.

    • Chris

      Once it beats all the new cams in dynamic range and color depth let’s chat a bit ;)

  • Vadimka
    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I published my post prematurely… the results will be online in 20 minutes (noon EST)

      • cm71td

        How do you get the results early?

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          That’s my job, right? :)

          • Ray Justice

            And the fox says…

  • Thom Hogan

    Well, at least we know that Nikon’s not gaming DxO ;~)

    • Eric Calabros

      and tries to convince us Df is a bargain!

  • Horshack

    We’ll need to see the SNR and DR graphs because the ISO score is based on a specific numerical cutoff of noise, DR, and color depth. That cutoff usually occurs well below the ISO level that the D4s samples have exhibited improvement on.

    • Horshack

      DxO data is up and it’s very interesting. The D4s shows a significant drop in DR for ISO 800 and 1600 vs the Df, then inverts starting at ISO 6400, peaking at ISO 12,800 where the D4s shows a 1/2 stop advantage. For SNR, the D4s is identical to the Df up to around ISO 51,200 and then takes a noticeable lead starting at ISO 102,400. This explains why the D4s scores lower for the composite score.

      • cm71td

        Agreed. It seems the DXO “low light” score is weighted towards the lower ISO values that most people today would not consider “low-light”.

  • Chris

    Makes me even happier about my D610 and D600 duo for some low-light wedding photography.

    • T-bow

      Too bad the Df/600/10 don’t have the D4s/4/800 amazing autofocus. I find my Df autofocus almost useless for faces in even moderate shade.

      • Chris

        I had a D800 and the focus wasn’t consistent. I’m finding the D600/610 to be more accurate in most situations. Haven’t used the D4/4s since they aren’t the camera I need but I should ask NPS for a try out… hmmm.

        • wonderingPI

          d3s has amazing AF.
          D600 d610 is entry level FX which is why they gimped AF

          • Chris

            By gimped you mean works great in 99% of situations then I got ya. I rocked a D3 before the D800 I bought and loved that but man this dynamic range right here is amazing. I really wish there was a D800 at 24mp and a D800x at 36mp cause the D800 is an overkill wedding cam but far more suited for landscape, stock and portrait work. One day a camera company will make the perfect camera. One day.

  • John

    DxO conclusion in part states – “anyone that expected significant gains in performance are going to have to wait for the Nikon D5″. I understand that the slight gains are in image processing and hi-iso shooting, but it looks like there’s a sacrifice on the low end of the iso range. What if you’re a sports shooter that isn’t really interested in over 6400 iso, but you want a camera capable of shooting the 10+ frame rate. Guess you need to look for a D4 instead?

  • broxibear

    Moose Peterson got his D4s…
    “The two new things I tried this morning were the higher ISO and the
    Group AAF. The ISO3200 performed very impressively. Understand, there
    sun has not come up yet, I’m shooting in no light. Yes, there is a
    little noise in the images above but those images are straight out of
    the camera. With my normal setting in ACR, you see no noise and that’s
    impressive! But Dave Black was right, I freakin love the new Group AAF!
    OMG, does that thing rock in speed and accuracy.”

    http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2014/03/08/d4s-1st-field-shoot/

    • Jorge

      Another Paid Shill. I’m sure it just “rocks”

      • broxibear

        Hi Jorge,
        Yeah well he is a Nikon Ambassador so he’s not going to say “It’s a bit better than my D4″. What Nikon Ambassadors get paid in terms of cash, equipment or anything else I have no idea.
        It is odd that the D4s is in people’s hands already but there hasn’t been any promotion or advertising. No brochures shot by their favourite sons, the Corey Rich film isn’t out…strange launch since it appeared under glass at CES until now.

  • csmith

    just more evidence that DxO is completely useless. look with your eyes and you can clearly see that the d4s has better color and contrast at iso equal to the d4 with less visible noise. it’s as simple as that. assigning some ridiculous number to that is pointless and serves merely to make their tests seem scientific.

    • wonderingpi

      My.own eyes show d3.to d4s looks the same.

      D2 d3 was a huge change in my eyes.

  • Aldo

    Df owners got so much money to spare that they paid dxO to keep their camera on top :P

  • Ernesto Quintero

    That Df is a nice camera but I’m lusting for the D800(can afford only one)

  • Norman S.

    Sold my D3, got a D4s two day ago. My D3s ist now second body. For me, the advantages are 2 more FPS, 4 more megapixels, Video recording @ 1080p((30fps) = 20 minutes) and I feel like the AF-System is a bit faster than my D3s has got. I feel like having made a very good deal even if the price is very high (6149 Euros in Germany).
    But I think the jump from D4 to D4s is not a very good idea. I love my new D4s and it’s sound and fastness! And, even if DxOMark shows that D3s has a better low light, I feel like D4s is better.

  • jp

    Looks like difference between 1/100s and 1/95s :) I could live with it if I could afford it :)

  • http://www.davidkasman.com/ David Kasman

    There is more to low light performance than a single “sensitivity” number.

    • CSIROC

      Hmmmm…is that what all of those graphs are for under “measurements”?

    • broxibear

      Hey David,
      “There is more to low light performance than a single sensor “sensitivity” number.”…and more to photography than low light performance.
      “I’m a bit better than the D4″ would be a good way to describe it, but that won’t sell cameras…instead they’ll get people to post on blogs like this to argue how much better the new camera is, then you won’t see them posting anymore. Don’t you just love marketing, lol ?

  • rhlpetrus

    Actually the D4s has better high ISO performance than Df or D4, only one needs to move slightly up from the 3200 range where the DxO Mark cut point lies. Check the full DR curves for the 3 cameras, the difference is more than 1/2 a stop at 12800.

  • Michael Brinkerhoff Photo

    It’s a little shocking, but I realize that those figures don’t show the entire story. For now I am happy to know that my D3s cameras will be good to go for another few more years of weddings and dance photography.
    - Michael Brinkerhoff Photography

  • Alex

    Dxomark is useless blablabla … One only need to know what the numbers stand for. It means that Df at 3279iso is supposed to have same quality (regarding the noise) as the D4s at 3074iso. With a margin error of 5% this means barely no difference. ie: D600/D610/D800e/D4/D4s/D3s/Df all are performing quite similarly at 3200iso in term of details. However, in term of colour reproduction and dynamic range the less pixels the better. D800 dies at 6400iso, D600 a bit further far etc …

    But what those two numbers dont say is how the sensors perform at 12800 or 25600 and beyond, and this is where the D4s does a better job than the others.

    If you have never felt the need to reach past 12800isos and you shoot raw: D3s,D4,D4s are about the same. Now if you shoot JPG, the later the better.

    • catinhat

      at ISO 12800, 25600 and beyond, all cameras deliver poor picture if you shoot in real life environment, not testing on a brightly lit subject at f/32 and 1/8000.

      • Alex

        I disagree with you. 12800iso raw are still usable with D600. 25600iso raw are still ok with D3s/D4. I find the main advantage of D4s is usable JPG at those sensibilities.

        Then I agree with you, beyond those values, in real low light condition, files are unusable but it all come to the size of the output.

  • decisivemoment

    squares with the channel readout of the two cameras. Df has a single channel, D4/D4s has dual, and it’s probably easier to control interference on the single channel.

    Which begs the question of what Nikon is doing to squeeze extra performance out of 6400-25600 ISO. Is it JPEG only? Or RAW as well? And just what does DXO measure? On D-Range they only do 100 ISO for the summaries; you have to dig in deeper to find the rest of the ISO settings.

  • SiliconVoid

    I prefer to see the images and determine the level of noise DxO finds ‘preferable’ myself..
    DxO is apparently like every other review site that likes the noise desaturated and redistributed as ‘grain’ – as opposed to the occasional microscopic detail loss with no noise or grain – I prefer that latter..

  • Robert

    what matters is: what is the most beautiful picture?

    The D4 (s and 1Dx are unbeatable

    • Noobear

      d3 d4 1dx 5d2 5d3 all the same

    • Michiel953

      If you mean “What is the most beautiful camera body”, then I fully agree. All these test results don’t mean anything to me; I just want a camera that looks good. Incidentally, that’s also how I choose my lenses. Zooms look ridiculous on my D800, Zeiss glass was even worse. Lens hoods get chosen by looks too, regardless of lighting conditions. Then there’s the worn looking Gordy’s wrist strap to finish it all off. You should see me!

      • T-bow

        I’m half-buying the D4s for the looks alone. I think it’s the sexiest camera body on the market.

        • Robert

          The images of the D3s and D4 are true works of art. The D800′s image definition (dry)

  • dave

    DXOmark ratings appeal to people who want everything dumbed down to one number and don’t understand the meaning of errors.

  • broxibear

    Dom Bower’s take on DxO marks Nikon D4s vs D700

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63y_dY_Sar8

    • lord eels

      I hate that punk

    • Ernesto Quintero

      Well that was very informative. Thanks for the link, makes me happy that the D700 meets or exceeds the D4s at up to 800ISO on Dx0 screen 18% chart.

    • KnightPhoto

      Exactly… he (and you) never shoot over ISO 3200 ;-)

  • Bob L

    The Phobographer said,”While DxOMark’s sensor test reveals a lot about the camera’s performance in theory, one shouldn’t base a buying decision on it alone.” You should determine what you are going to use the camera for. The D4s is the camera for action (sports and wildlife) and the D800 for landscapes, scenery and architecture. After I get my D4s I will still use my D300 for when I really need that “effective focal length”. I learned long ago when assessing HiFi equipment you can not base your selection on numbers … a speaker or amplifier may have great numbers but not deliver the most realistic sound quality. Same with camera equipment – look at the photographs it produces, don’t get hung up on numbers!

  • D700guy

    This camera is beginning to look more and more like a total flop.
    I’m keeping my D4

    • lord eels

      yeah me too. not happy about it at all really. I’m worried about nikon.

    • T-bow

      C’mon. Let’s not be dramatic. D4s is a logical “S” progression.

  • Georghe

    People might not realize that that is a difference of about only 0.09 stops and it’s probably close to DxO’s measurement error.

    Also, the samples we’ve seen were out-of-camera JPEGs. Those do not reflect what may be achieved by processing the raw data on a computer. The JPEG processor probably improved much more than the sensor performance.

  • bt1138

    At a certain point, people should consider that natural variation among the samples of the products could explain minor variances in the ‘scores’ like these. When scores are at variance by a few percent, they should be considered equivalent.

  • Lee

    The problem with this is that you’re posting the DXO “score” numbers, which are completely meaningless and which I am convinced they simply make up.

    You have to ignore that page completely and look at the CHARTS, which are great. They tell us that the D4, Df, and D4s are indistinguishable but that the D4s is the best at high ISO by a tiny margin (though the opposite is true at base ISO for some reason).

  • Guest

    According to pop photo chart tests, nikon d4s beats out the df and d4 . Nikon d4s at ISO 12800 has very low noise which is 3 stops better than d4 and definitely better than df.

  • Back to top