CaryTheLabelGuy said:
If the D4 slightly back-slides in the SnR dept, the image quality might be about even between the two, just with more resolution - which would also be welcome, yet slightly disappointing. This would still likely give the D4 a perceived advantage when down-sampling to 12.1mp and at least a sharper image from the added detail.

Yes, and I think that alone may be the "clincher" for many. Good observations, Cary!

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
Man....I'm on the fence with regards to the high-ISO images taken with the D4 in comparison to the D3s. It's very hard to compare them currently, as I don't have both cameras in possession - YET (should have one of the first batch D4s in 2 weeks).

It will be interesting to see what you find. The images I have been poring though as well look that the noise is about the same but the "Punch" of the high iso images are equiv to what the D3s shot at 2 stops lower.

I'm starting to think a wall has been hit on the high ISOs. Now weather companies are choosing to hit that wall and improve the IQ, (Dynamic range, color saturation, contrast, etc) of if it or if it is technical in nature will be interesting to see.

I'm thinking what "trade-offs" people will have to decide to accept will become quite difficult between the D800 & D4.

Great! Looking forward to it.

And then later add a D800 and D400 direct comparison using all the same settings (as much as possible) so we have a direct comparison between all three new pro bodies (I am assuming the D400 will continue to be marked as a pro body). Then we will see what you lose when you go DX rather than FX.

Later add a D7100 direct comparison so we can see what is lost when you go amateur DX rather than pro DX body.

Man....I'm on the fence with regards to the high-ISO images taken with the D4 in comparison to the D3s. It's very hard to compare them currently, as I don't have both cameras in possession - YET (should have one of the first batch D4s in 2 weeks). I'm very impressed with the D4's sample images, even @ 25k and 52k ISO, but my question remains, does it oust the D3s @ high-ISOs?

Here is my prediction, based on my in-depth studying of the D4 images as well as my own D3s images.

1. I agree that the D4 has a 1-1.5 stop advantage in DR, over the D3s, especially @ base-ISO
2. I think the D4 has better saturation @ high-ISOs than the D3s
3. I think the D4 will just barely beat the D3s in SnR, but will handily beat it in DR and Saturation, so the IQ will appear more pleasing in the D4 images. The extra detail from the bump in resolution will also help retain more detail after DeNoising, which will also help the D4's images to look more pleasing, when compared to the D3s - all else equal.
4. The D4's video output will be much more appealing @ high-ISOs as well. I think this is where the D4 will really shine, over the D3s' very limited video (720/24p).

in summary: The D4 will be the new king, even if it's by-way of the perception of a better image. As long as the D4 sits squarely with the D3s in the SnR dept, the advancements in DR, saturation and resolution will give the D4 the absolute advantage at native resolution, but especially if you down-sample the image to 12.1mp and compare with the D3s. If the D4 slightly back-slides in the SnR dept, the image quality might be about even between the two, just with more resolution - which would also be welcome, yet slightly disappointing. This would still likely give the D4 a perceived advantage when down-sampling to 12.1mp and at least a sharper image from the added detail. I think the latter is less likely, though; this is Nikon we're talking about.

As long as Nikon is on schedule, I should get a copy of the D4 in about 2 weeks. I will immediately post some comparison images of the D4 vs. D3s, on the main blog. They will include some low-ISO comparisons, but mostly high-ISO comparisons because this area of IQ is the most talked about and the most unknown. I will go more in-depth in the full review article that will be published a few weeks after. It's going to be interesting, indeed!

ericbowles said:
His conclusion is that at lower ISO levels the dynamic range of the D4 is about a stop better than the D3s.

That's pretty much what I was expecting, if this holds true for the production-release D4 body/firmware (which I expect it will). I also expect the D4's high-ISO performance to be just on-par with the D3s, or slightly below.

Although I would love a new D4 for its other advancements, I may be looking at a used D3s as a second body instead. In fact, a used D3s and a new D800, if they could be had for about the same sum total as a new D4, would be an even better deal for me. Two D3s bodies would serve me well for fast-paced, high-FPS, low-light event shooting. The D800, I would love for personal, "fine art" work of static subjects (e.g., night-exterior tripod stuff). However, I could also press the D800's high-MP count into service for paid gigs, and use it for interiors, studio work, product shots, portraiture, etc.

A bit surprising. Here I am, chomping at the bit for months in anticipation of the D4, completely uninterested in a high-MP body like the D800, and now, I've done a complete '180.' Now, I'm getting even more excited about the potential applications for a high-MP D800! I didn't realize how much I could actually use/want a 36MP D800 until I started typing out this post!

Bill Claff has posted a technical analysis on Nikonians of the D4 dynamic range at high ISO levels. The analysis is based on the sample images already provided. His conclusion is that at lower ISO levels the dynamic range of the D4 is about a stop better than the D3s. One of the interesting findings is that at high ISO levels the difference between the D4 and D3s is smaller but it still is a dramatic difference from other cameras.

What that appears to show is the D4 is not for shooting in the dark, but for faster shutter speeds and better dynamic range in normal situations. Like the D3s, it does perform well at high ISO levels, but that isn't the only value. This feature set makes the D4 a terrific camera for sports, wedding and event photographers.

So my theory at the moment about the D4's image quality is that it will have the same "amount" of improvement over the D3s than the D7000 had over the D90.

Let me explain:

- D7000 and D4 came out 2 years after D3s and D90 respectively
- D7000 and D4 go from 12 to 16mp compared to their predecessor
- D7000 and D4 add base iso 100 instead of 200
- The D7000 is better than the D90 mainly at low ISOs
- The D7000, with 2 years newer technology, manages with smaller pixels to only get slightly worse than the D90 at pixel level. And it's slightly better than the D90 when normalized for print.

So as we know, the D7000 is a great improvement over the D90. Better dynamic range (mainly thanks to 100iso as base) and slightly better at high iso (if you look at DXOmark comparison between the D90 and the D7000, there is only marginal improvement, but in real life, you see an improvement).

The D7000 is better than the D90, but it didn't improve high iso by 1 stop. The D4 will be better than the D3s, but not by 1 stop (that's my guess).

Conclusion, if you have enough light, you will get excellent 16mp with the D4 instead of excellent 12mp with the D3s, and a little more DR.

If you don't have enough light, it won't be worse than the D3s, but it won't be much better either.

studio460 said:
Good post, Cary! Yes, I welcome the increased resolution as well. Good to know about your D3s/D7000 up-sampling experience. How did you up-rez? I was planning on using Alien Skin's BlowUp2 for large print-size output for some of my selected D3s images. The pre-release D4 images did appear a bit noisier to me than those from my D3s, but they also appear somehow different. I think the D4 will, however, outshine the D3s in subtle ways, as you mentioned (e.g., low-ISO shooting, detail, resolution, etc.). I'm certainly anxious to give it a good test-run myself, as soon as I can get my hands on one.

I used Photoshop to up-sample. I know there are some third party plugins and standalone programs that will do it well, but I wanted to try using the most simplest and innocent way, using PS.

I've even been thinking about having the AA filter on my D3s removed to increase effective resolution even more. It seems the D3s has a decent AA filter, though. Not sure if it's worth having it removed, but I welcome any increase in effective resolution I can get. I will deal with any instances of moire in Capture NX2 and Photoshop. That's if I don't fall in love with the D4. :P

On a side-note, the D7000 seems it has a pretty strong AA filter.

Good post, Cary! Yes, I welcome the increased resolution as well. Good to know about your D3s/D7000 up-sampling experience. How did you up-rez? I was planning on using Alien Skin's BlowUp2 for large print-size output for some of my selected D3s images. The pre-release D4 images did appear a bit noisier to me than those from my D3s, but they also appear somehow different. I think the D4 will, however, outshine the D3s in subtle ways, as you mentioned (e.g., low-ISO shooting, detail, resolution, etc.). I'm certainly anxious to give it a good test-run myself, as soon as I can get my hands on one.

Sorry I have not been on the forum lately, been busy working on our next review articles. Regarding the new D4, we will have a complete hands-on review of the D4 as well as comparison shots with the D3s as soon as we get our copy of the D4 next month. As always, stay tuned!!! :)

I've spent a lot of time analyzing test images from the D4 and they look pretty good to me, even for a pre-production model (expect the production D4 to be more refined). They don't look like they beat my D3s in high-ISO noise (maybe just slightly), but they do look better overall in the saturation, DR and detail areas. To me, the only thing that will make me buy the D4 over my already amazing D3s is the extra resolution. Even if SnR remains identical to the D3s, the decent increase in resolution is totally welcome. Although, I've never really felt held-back by the D3s' resolution, because it's effective resolution is actually much higher than 12.1MP. I've been able to up-sample my D3s to 18MP without any loss of IQ. I shot the same scene with both the D7000 and the D3s with the same equivalent focal and up-sampled the D3s to 16.2MP and the D3s shot actually had a slight bit more detail with no loss of IQ (I used two holy trinity zooms). Anymore than a 18MP up-sample and the image can start to get pixelated, but not as bad as one would expect.

Regarding video, the D3s and my 2 D7000s are great. The D7000 is used for most scenes with the D3s used for scenes that i need the extra shallow DoF and for super low-light shots. With that said, I shoot the D7ks in 1080/24p and up-sample the D3s to 1080/24p with no issues. I'm not a professional videographer, so this covers me really well. I am very interested in the D4's video, as this will probably be the best video one can get from a DSLR. The footage I've seen from the D4 was jaw-dropping.

XQD is here to stay and it will go way beyond cameras. 3 companies and the non-profit organization that writes standards, have been working on this tech for 3 years and has backed it. Sandisk and org are really all you need. Throw maga tech corp like Sony behind it and bam! we have a new card. CF cards are used in tons of industrial applications and rugged computers as well and they have been the real driving force for a new card. We just don't see that side of is as consumers.

Sony and Olympus are the only two I know of that "created" a separate type of storage cards. Oly's format died within a year or two. Sony's micro stick hung around for quite some time but is now being phased out of almost everything.

Maybe XQD will be in the D800 and D400 and new Sony cameras and if it seems to give competitors a write speed advantage new Canon bodies will adopt it also. The more cameras which use it the greater the market and the greater the market the more likely memory card companies are to produce a product to meet that market demand. So we just have to wait until 2012 is over to see if the D4 is the only camera body suing an XQD card and Sony the only supplier or if lots of cameras use it and lots of memory card manufacturers produce it. If it truly offers advantages it should be a natural evolution like all other "better" things.

Ladies and gents, I find the new XQD technology a necessary step, specially when it comes to a camera bodies (like the D4) that are going to be shooting at such high frames-per-second. One of the key targeted user, the sport photographer, will need the ability to have a memory card that can keep up with the type of action he or she will be shooting or filming (ie NFL, NASCAR, up coming Olympic's), and not hindering their job: getting that "one shot" that will endup on the cover of a magazine or billboard for us all to look upon. I welcome its form factor (physical size), it's larger storage capacity, and of course speed (potential ability to write at 600MB/sec)

Of all the good things my D7000 does, when it comes to taking consecutive shots, I become very disappointed when I find that I have filled the buffer (shooting RAW files), thus having to wait for the camera to finish writing to the card (using SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC, UHS-1). And yes, I do know that if I change it to JPEG this would not be as much of an issue, but I did not buy the D7000 to shoot JEPG.

Lastly, I was never a fan of the CompactFlash due to it's pin architecture and the cards physical size.

Jyri said:
True, but there are as fast CF's available and it is not sure that XQD will ever become any more popular than MemorySticks did, so I have my concerns.

I have the same concern. We have seen this often in the past where a technically superior product loses the battle against others having more market penetration. If the XQD remain limited to low-volume markets, the incentive will not be there for other mass-market-oriented manufacturer to jump in which will keep the price high, further jeopardizing its adoption. Instead, these manufacturers may cash-in the compatibility and improve the speed of existing format. Even Sony may find the XQD unbearable on the long run. Lets hope we are wrong.

I think it would be smart for those D4 buyers to stack a good reserve of cards in case they become obsolete.

JY said:
The XQD will fail only if D4 failed. People always wish they want few extra shots from their camera in Continous Shooting Mode. XQD give you exactly that with faster speed and few other extra, i.e better build and around the same price as CF card.

As long as it is more reliable than cf it should be good...

JY said:
The XQD will fail only if D4 failed. People always wish they want few extra shots from their camera in Continous Shooting Mode. XQD give you exactly that with faster speed and few other extra, i.e better build and around the same price as CF card.

Don't think Nikon will do it, it is bit bigger than Nikon only.

The XQD will fail only if D4 failed. People always wish they want few extra shots from their camera in Continous Shooting Mode. XQD give you exactly that with faster speed and few other extra, i.e better build and around the same price as CF card.

donaldejose said:
Nikon has stated the reason to go to a mew memory card format is to obtain faster speed in writing to the card. If it really is a better format I am sure eventually everyone will switch to that format.

True, but there are as fast CF's available and it is not sure that XQD will ever become any more popular than MemorySticks did, so I have my concerns.

I love to post things I know nothing about.... but....
Once again the issues of performance with the new D4, which I have preordered, will be a quantum leap for me going from DX to FX. My experience is shooting professionally and making money in the 60's and early 70's, then another occupation, now back into professional work, but on almost a full-time pro-bono basis... charitable stuff. I am excited about the new D4, but doubt I will ever be capable of meeting its potential.
Probably the real issue for most photographers are the other aspects of the photo. Content and how it is presented with all the variables possible in a good photograph. There are some absolutely magnificent photos on the NR website. At the same time, many others can be easily improved upon by judicious editing. Mine included.
If one wants a fully capable body, the D3s will do everything a D4 will do in about 90+% of cases. It is for us OCD, have to have the latest, best, etc., the D4 is really good for and the one f/stop it may give can in some back alley a real break.
For example: ISO 6400 on a D90, f/1.4 50mm Nikkkor, 1/30 at f/2.0

But this can be improved with a D4, for sure... and it is only an 800 Kb image.

Nikon has stated the reason to go to a mew memory card format is to obtain faster speed in writing to the card. If it really is a better format I am sure eventually everyone will switch to that format.

I preordered the D4 as soon as it came available from three different shops, let's see if I get lucky.

I am excited to see how the D4 will perform, for me it was easy choice, since I've been long waiting to move to FX, at the moment I use two D7000's to shoot corporate events and concerts, funerals and weddings - If the 12800 is as good as 6400 or even 3200 on D7000 then it will be very nice in those situations.

There is only one thing worrying me, the memory cards, why two different, why couldn't they stick with CF, this will be especially annoying to me since I have to get two new card types.

By the way does anyone know how the user specified setting are called and used in D4, I really like the way they work in D7000, if I have to seek those via menus in D4 then it is really downgrading the usability from D7000.

+1 on upgrading. I need another camera body and the D4 would be perfect.

Some high ISO sample images

http://mirceabezergheanu.smugmug.com/gallery/20915871_LhHTdj#!i=1666529630&k=TXS6Zrf

Yes, I read the same transcript online. Very revealing. I do think the increased resolution will be beneficial. The interview also mentioned details which suggested that the D4's auto-focus is demonstrably improved over that of the D3s. That alone may cause some to upgrade. Higher resolution, with similar low-light performance to the D3s, coupled with noticeably improved (i.e., faster) auto-focus, still makes for a very attractive camera. I will probably want a D4.

From an interview with Toshiaki Akagi, an engineer and senior manager at Nikon in Japan, as well as a key figure in the development of the company's newest flagship digital SLR, the D4. In an hour-long chat at the 2012 International CES trade show in Las Vegas,

Q. How would you compare the high ISO image quality of the D4 to the D3S?

Overall, D4 high ISO noise levels are very similar to the D3S, though photos shot with the D4 will have reduced colour noise (thanks mainly to noise reduction improvements in the D4's EXPEED 3 processing hardware). The main difference you'll see in pictures from the two cameras at high sensitivities is in the fine detail: D4 photos are noticeably better in this way.

(Akagi then showed several 13 x 19-inch prints of the same scene, captured as NEFs with the D3S and D4 at ISO 12,800, in which the overall colour, tonality, visibility of noise and shadow rendering couldn't have been more similar. But, the D4 photos looked sharper and more detailed. The D4's crispness advantage in Nikon's comparisons was significant, suggesting that we were seeing the effect of more than just the new camera's higher pixel count.)