Nikon D800 and D4 rumors

The Nikon D800 book triggered a series of new tips and leads. Those are the most reliable rumors I received so far (please note that because a potential announcement is months away, some of the specs and/or release dates may change):

  • The Nikon D700 replacement will be called D800, it will come with a new 24 MP sensor, new AF system, full HD, same noise (ISO) performance like the D700. The announcement should be in Summer of 2011 (which is later then what the D800 book suggested). This camera is aimed to be a direct competitor of the Canon 5D MarkII.
  • The successor of the D3s will be called D4 and it will have 16 MP, 11 fps, full HD, new AF system and the same noise (ISO) performance like the D3s. The Nikon D4 should be announced in Spring of 2011. The D4x will follow with a 34MP sensor.

If true, this line up will indicate that Nikon will move away from the D3/mini D3 (D700) DSLR lines and create two more distinguished camera products. The D700 probably did cannibalize some of the D3 sales which (I guess) triggered that decision (otherwise they could continue to use the D3s/4 sensor in a D700 body).

No word on a D300s replacement yet.

This entry was posted in Nikon D4, Nikon D800. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Hamuga

    I hope they are not positioning the D800 to compete with a camera that will be about 3 years old when it comes out.

    Will Canon sit on the 5D Markii thingy forever?

    • lolcatmaster FTW

      well look at the original 5D

      • Hamuga

        I am sorry, I don’t know much about the original 5D.
        So I looked it up.
        The Nikon D700 was made to compete with the Canon 5D? Interesting.

        So how did that work out for Nikon when the 5D Mark II came out?
        Ahead in some areas behind in others?

        • A couple of my friends who are 5Dmk2 owners constantly bicker about how amazing the D700 is in comparison to the 5Dmk2. The mk3’s due to come soon though…

          • gt

            Here’s a question for all you Camera owners out there:

            Let’s assume image quality is made up of two things: 1) Your lens and 2) your camera body.

            (note: We’re talking about the quality of the raw image itself here — not the composition, subject matter, etc.)

            What percentage of the quality of your image would you attribute to your camera body


            what percentage of the quality of the image would you attribute to the lens?

            Would you say:
            Body: 50%, Lens: 50%?

            Would you say?
            Body: 20%, Lens: 80%?

            Let’s take a poll here

            • Phil

              As long as the lighting ratio is ideal, film was always the limiting factor in the film days (a low contrast scene won’t show any detail even in fine grain film). So the question is whether modern sensors have exceeded film resolution. Have they? It’s a possibility to me.

              In all honesty today most lenses are crap. I know most are zooms, but look at the embarrassment that is the new 85mm F1.4. Some of the new fixed-focal length optics are pretty lousy.

              So off the top of my head I say the optics are the limiting factor today, regardless of whether sensors have exceeded film res or not.

            • Big Eater

              60 percent creativity, 30 percent technique, 5 percent lens, 5 percent camera

            • jk

              I am doing things with my D3 that were just not possible with my D70.

              I hate to say it but 60-70% body 30-40% lens. I also would take a poorer quality faster lens over a higher quality slower lens and would take a body with better noise handling over a faster lens.

              From a technical standpoint I don’t think creativity matters.

            • Jabs

              A great question and several variable answers depending on the camera USER’S skill or even perspective.

              My take on this:
              1. The body is very important, as things such as repeatability are paramount to me.
              a. 100% viewfinder plus proper diopter adjustments mean that I will know for sure what I am shooting as well as what I have framed is exactly what I wanted.
              b. The PRO bodies have better viewfinders (clarity-contrast) and metering systems than the semi-pro or amateur bodies. PRO in Nikon = D3X, D3S, D3, D700 in FX format and maybe D300, D300S in DX format.
              c. The ruggedness of the body is paramount to me, as I basically abuse a body as in trying to get the shot and NOT look pretty or even concerned about how I treat it. Of course, since I bought the camera, then I am not about to destroy my camera purposely, but I also do NOT want the lack of durability or an inability to accept abuse, as a LIMIT to how and what I photograph plus in what location.

              2. The lens:
              Nikon has been slow in releasing newer prime glass (fixed focal length lenses) and that has not deterred me but others complain about it. They have an arsenal of older lenses that can be used on the newer bodies, so MOOT point to me as they have just about every lens imaginable to ME. There are a few lenses missing, BUT so does each and every manufacturer. BUY/rent what you need to do a job and stop complaining is MY MOTTO.
              Nikon’s newer lenses are even more spectacular than the older stuff but there are still lenses I would like to see replicated today or these introduced.
              a. 20mm F2.0 or F2.8 AF-G
              b. 24mm F2.8 AF-G
              c. 28mm F2.8 AF-G
              d. 35mm F2.0 AF-G (we just got a superb 35 F1.4AF)
              e. 45 F2.8 AF-G (pancake lens)
              f. 50mm F1.2 AF-G
              g. 50mm F1.2 NOCT (Nocturnal – optimized for wide open night shooting) AF-G
              h. 85mm F1.8 or F2.0 AF-G (we just got a superb 85 F1.4AF)
              i. 105mm F1.4 or 1.8 AF-DC-G
              j. 105mm F2.5 AF-G (bring back my favorite lens but updated with AF and nano-coating)
              k. 135mm F1.8 or F2.0 AF-DC-G
              l. 180mm F2.8 AF-G
              m. 300mm F4.0 AF-G
              n. 400mm F4.0 AF-G
              o. Updated Fisheyes and PC lenses

              3. My perspective on photography:
              MOST people do NOT know how to properly photograph much, as they are too impatient or too uninformed and thus they believe that the body/lens combination will guarantee results. A BETTER body plus BETTER lens plus a BETTER technique and natural LIGHT or lighting will give better results.
              BODY+LENS+TRIPOD/Monopod+Proper Filters+Photographic experience/Knowledge+Proper framing and composition+ PROPER Post Production+PATIENCE+TIMING+Knowing WHAT to photograph and HOW TO photograph THAT = success often (all factors being equal).
              I have done photography from the slide days and ONLY used Fujichrome Velvia Pro 50D, Pro64T and occasionally Pro400D or in a real pinch Pro1600D + Kodachrome 25Pro, 64 Pro and Ektachrome 100 Pro in slide film. In color PRINT film, I used Fuji Reala, Kodak 25 Pro film (forgot name – maybe Ektar) and Ilford B+W film that used C41 color process to develop, allowing me to just drop film off at a 1-Hour Lab and then get quick B+W previews or even usable prints.
              Digital is now better than SLIDE film and slide film was WAY better than PRINT film to me as I used a 6X or greater Loupe on a MacBeth table with color corrected lights to check all of my images, so ‘perfectionists’ (LOL)! I know what color quality looks like as I still have all of my SLIDE film with some shot 20+ years ago in my Studio and can look at them any time. Therefore I can compare them to digital any time, as I shot them over the years and I always shot them with the proper technique (limited by ability of course -lol) and therefore I have my OWN references that I can scan or even look at and compare. I love the files from these three cameras BEST and nothing else compares to them from ANY other manufacturer in 35mm DSLR’s – to me that is.
              a. Nikon D3 (the start of the revolution)
              b. Nikon D3X (unreal quality so far above anything else)
              c. Nikon D3S (best DSLR on the market for fast shooters)
              In film bodies, I prefer these above all others. F3HP, F3T, F3AF, F4S, F5 (have not looked at F6, but a lack of removable heads limits me).

            • You don’t need a poll. There’s actually a formula:

              1/resolution = 1/lens_resolution + 1/sensor_resolution + 1/AA_resolution + (plus any other “resolution factors” that might come into play)

              If we simplify that to just lens and sensor you have your answer.

            • Jabs

              A correction.
              g. 50mm F1.2 NOCT (Nocturnal – optimized for wide open night shooting) AF-G

              Should have been –
              g. 58mm F1.2 NOCT (Nocturnal – optimized for wide open night shooting) AF-G

            • It’s a little scary to consider some of the frequenters of this blog might not be camera owners 😉

              I’d say that IQ doesn’t break down into lens vs. camera. If the lens resolving power is greater than the body, then significantly increasing body resolution can have a dramatic effect. If the body has crappy noise characteristics or poor dynamic range then the lens can’t fix those things.

              Of course if you’re producing ridiculously blurry images with a lensbaby then wtf do you care?

              But if we’re choosing between a bunch of bodies (e.g. Nikon and Canon 2nd gen DSLRs) with solid noise and dynamic range quality then lens is almost all that matters.

            • Depends. In ideal light really then I’d say it would be 80-20 in favour of the lens but in poor light which I shoot than the noise characteristics of the body really come into play massively and probably swing it 80-20 in favour of the body.

              I do say overall image quality here and not necessarily how worthy an image is as a photograph which is far more dependant on the skill

            • big eater

              With the higher resolution sensors, it’s my experience that camera movement and mirror vibration are playing an ever-bigger part in image quality even at 1/2000 or 1/4000 of a sec. AFAIK, the camera makers have not come up with a technological alternative (gyroscopes?) to give me the same image quality handheld I get with the camera locked down on one of Thom Hogan’s suggested tripod-head combos. My revised formula is 30 percent lens, 30 percent body, 40 percent split between lighting and shot discipline.

            • Easy answer: it depends on what you are shooting.

              And you forgot: shooting skills, subject/lighting choice, pp’ing.

            • Jabs

              You know what is really weird.
              The answers will depend on your experience or even what you shoot or started shooting with – digital or film.
              Currently, I find that too many people look at camera and lens as the deciding factor BECAUSE they really do not know how to SHOOT properly.
              The DEFAULT settings on current cameras ALLOW almost any person to make a decent photograph BUT not a spectacular one.
              Digital has raised the roof on the default performance, as the camera is way better BUT it has also led to more basically idiots calling themselves photographers WHO are mere menu chasers without the prerequisite skills to take almost ANY type of a photograph.
              I have an old 2.3 meg digital camera that shoots at ISO 100 and I do shots with it that amaze people UNTIL they ask me what I used and then show the old camera to them – lol!
              SKILL is paramount and equipment NEXT and don’t ask me to show my photographs online, as I don’t do that. I retain my copyright and thus use my own images as I feel fit. I can use an old digital or even film camera and blow away most of what I see online all over the place, so TECHNIQUE is paramount though newer equipment has raised the bar so high, that it is almost difficult to make a bad photograph now, BUT the content or quality of the photograph is a timeless discipline now relegated to WHO has the best gear or the most megapixels WHILE clearly forgetting that photography is an ART and not computer imagery.
              LOST on most, so we are losing a craft to an overuse of technology.
              Cameras DO NOT think – humans do.
              Better cameras often mean LESS thinking on your part, so we now have GENERIC photographs replacing real innovative and distinct photographs.
              Newer photographers are about this or that technology while older photographers are about displayed RESULTS and since I am both technologically astute and photographically astute, I consider myself to have the BEST of both disciplines as I use and understand Technology and Photography/Videography better than the majority of people out there.
              Been doing this for over 30 years and have always been at the leading edge if not above that.
              There is a false belief driven by Marketers – that you need the latest and greatest to do everything and thus PEOPLE do not develop their craft but instead blame the camera and lens – fool.
              I can take almost any camera and beat most photographers, as I concentrate on perfecting my photographic skills BUT naturally lousy equipment with hamper you and conversely better equipment will NOT make you a world class photographer. Get REAL!!!
              It’s the final IMAGE – stupid!

            • Jabs

              Last Comment:
              Your question is foolish as you are polling EQUIPMENT and not photographers.
              Photography is 90% inspiration and 10% equipment while you are asking about bodies and lenses (the 10%).
              Body and lenses are a combination PLUS we need tripods/monopods, flashes, monolights, metering, lighting, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION and thus a dumb question designed to bring out the people obsessed with equipment and have NO or little technique.
              Cameras and lenses DO NOT take pictures, so dumb poll.
              PEOPLE take pictures with cameras and lenses.
              BOTH cameras and lenses are a UNIT and thus you cannot separate them and then poll for results or you are insulting the intelligence of real photographers who use too many varied items to even think about that mess.
              I have seen better IMAGES done with an old D2H -vs- images done by the same photographer on a D3 and conversely have seen the opposite.
              Better equipment helps but photography is an ART and not Science, so perhaps your poll points to people who are clueless.
              Why would I choose an engine over tires and airbags/seats when my life depends on ALL of them working as a cohesive unit – that is what your poll implies.
              Now, YOU answer your own poll and let us get a peek into YOUR thinking or opinion – LOL!
              Let’s turn the tables on YOU.

              WE USE the equipment that GETS the job done – that is what REAL photographers do and then they smile all the way to the BANK or the Museum when they GET paid thousands of dollars for making a CUSTOMER happy or completing an ASSIGNMENT.

            • gt


              obviously creativity, subject matter, composition, lighting, and concept play a role in the photograph.

              I explicitly excluded those qualities from this poll because I’m interested in image quality. and, yes, image quality is a real characteristic – and when one is considering an upgrade image quality should be considered. Afterall, why spend money if you aren’t rewarded with an increase in the quality of the files you’re working with (everything from sharpness to dynamic range)

              You assume that I think wonderful images can’t be made with older gear. You assumed wrong. I know they can. I have made them myself. This poll has a purpose and it satisfies my curiosity.

              Your “its not about the gear” rant, on the other hand, is 1) obvious 2) condescending 3) boring

            • gt

              also, my personal opinion is that lenses matter more.

              I’d choose fantastic glass on an older body any day of the week. Body wise, I favor larger sensors for the control over depth of field they offer. If I could, I would shoot medium format.

            • Jabs

              You should have asked us here WHAT gear do we love and WHY?
              Short answer.
              F3 series – any
              D3 series – any!
              35 F1.4 – new or old
              58 F1.2 Noct
              55 F2.8 Micro Nikkor
              60 F2.8 Micro Nikkor
              85 F1.4 – ANY version
              105 F2.5
              105 F1.8
              105 VR-AF Micro Nikkor – any version
              135 F2.0 AF-DC or older AIS manual version
              180 F2.8 ED-IF AF
              200 F2.0 ED-IF AF VR
              300 F4.0 ED-IF
              400 F2.8 ED-IF
              500 F4.0 ED-IF
              600 F4.0 ED-IF
              35-70 F2.8 AF
              50-300 F4.5 ED-IF
              75-150 F3.5 Series E zoom
              80-200 F2.8 ED-IF zoom (newer ones)
              70-200 F2.8 ED-IF AF VR1 or 2
              200-400 F4ED-IF AF
              The answer to your poll is too varied and since you are POLLING about technology, then it becomes even more pointless. EVERYONE already knows that a better body and lens will make a better IMAGE or even cleaner files but there are so many other factors, that is becomes silly.
              The Leica S2 has higher resolution than the D3X and yet I prefer the files from the D3X by far as Nikon has better glass and more importantly COLOR reproduction and clarity than Leica – my perspective.
              The equipment a photographer uses is important to THEM mainly, so I don’t argue that nor try and explain the OBVIOUS, as I am not dense. Your poll states or tries to bring out the obvious and thus only fools or braggarts would see a merit in that – duh!!!
              WHAT percentage does a part of the chain in photography COUNT to you is what you are asking and I AM telling you that – THAT IS a stupid question.
              The answer is too obvious and thus a brainless exercise.
              You are asking the obvious – TEST charts, REVIEWS and DX0 results = ANSWERS to your poll.
              Thus a clueless exercise to me, anyway as the answers are TOO obvious. It is like asking which race car would you like to be in at a race track – the 1000 hp one or the 500 hp one if all other things were equal on both? You DID not ask what driver you would like to have the SKILLS of or on what fabled track WOULD you like to drive a car on.

            • Jabs

              You make the classic mistake of an Internet ‘gearhead’.
              You FORGOT the most important characteristic – COLOR quality and color purity.
              The Nikon D3 series wins that one easily and beats the OBVIOUS Red channel problem of Canon’s newer PRO bodies that gave us obvious problematic results in the recent Vancouver Olympics and which TESTS and DX0 tests/results have shown to be a fact.
              BODY choice as in BRAND and lens choice as in SUBJECT matter being photographed DOES not come down to – GIVE me any body with a good enough response and then slap a lens on it and then the results are such and such nor can you use FORMULAS.
              THAT is the ignorance of non-professional ‘gearheads’ or ‘specheads’.
              THERE is no substitute for a brain or eyes that see photographically regardless as to what equipment you use, BUT equipment CHOICE is also a SKILL and you obviously do not know that.
              There is a DISTINCT difference between a file from a Nikon than say a Canon or Sony and there has always been a difference!
              Have you ever shot YOURSELF with multiple brand cameras at the SAME time in the exact same circumstances on the same day?
              Probably NOT!
              I have and even done this with several Nikon bodies vs Canon and Leica. The Nikon PRO bodies blew them all away in speed and color clarity-quality as I AM a photographer and WHAT they pay me for is MY critical EYE and not my gear (which they don’t give a crap about, as they are about RESULTS). My photographic EYE allows me to earn money to BUY the gear that I CRAVE and not talk about it.
              I love equipment BUT the bottom line is MY IMAGES – if I am to make ANY money to buy and NOT talk about gear that I LUST after, therefore REALIST and not dreamer.

            • trevor

              I am a professional wedding photographer for over 30 years and I must say the debate/poll over which gear is more important is a subjective one.

              For starters, I have always been a firm believer in QUALITY GLASS as being the very first priority, then camera body and of course your ability.

              If you don’t get sharp images first up you are behind the eight ball straight away.

              Now the original poster re the poll specifically asked for which equipment, not about composition, ability, etc. but purely equipment.

              I have been a Canon shooter for over 30 years, owning all the Pro bodies, etc. and when I completely switched to digital about 6 years back, thought Canon, sure.

              Not only have I been shooting weddings, etc. but I also worked in an environment of photo digitally manipulation long before I even bought a digital camera as in my opinion digital was not as good as film until around 5-7 years back.

              So once I converted buying 5D as first camera, then 1D Mk IIIs etc. I started to see something worrying, soft images. Huh! I struggled for a bit and bought new lenses, and as any wedding photog out there knows, being Canon or Nikon or whatever, the main bread and butter lens for weddings is a good 24-70mm, f2.8, plus a good 70-200 f.8 IS.

              I own the original 70-200 f2.8 and it’s a ‘good’ lens, not a ‘great’ one. But the 24-70 is “always” soft at the edges and sharp in centre, so shooting a family group of wedding party is a pain when I have to zoom fully out to 24mm as I know I have to do work on those images for sure.

              Well, over the last few months I am fast becoming a Nikon convert [crosses oneself] as my mate, also a wedding photog has D3s and Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 VRs II f2.8 lenses and they as so far ahead of Canon in speed and SHARP it’s not funny.

              The only lenses in my arsenal of Canon I consider great is the new 70-200 f2.8 IS II, which is sharp and fast plus I own a cheap 50mm 1.8 and cheap 85mm 1.8 which are pin sharp but don’t focus anywhere near as fast as I would like.

              Even my original 24-105mm f2.8 lens is ‘good’ not great, but it’s not fast to focus and lock in dim reception halls, same as the 24-70mm f2.8 takes it’s time to hunt in low light.

              The Nikon 24-70 f2.8, the Nikon 85 f1.4 new version and the new version of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 are simply stunning in fast and SHARP ACROSS THE BOARD.

              Having had enough work to do ‘fixing’ my images in PS, I now find I have the unenviable position of having to completely re-gear my outfits, new bodies, lenses and of course flashes, at least $25K outlay, but I want quality images sharp.

              I have even often said to my friend that if I could get a Canon Body with Nikon Glass on the front I would be a verrrry happy camper.


            • Jabs

              Your post is the best response here as you USE equipment in your profession.
              I have come to the very same conclusions though NOT like you. I use Nikon gear and now own one old Canon film body also.
              Nikon since the D3 has raised the bar so high, that everyone is like light years behind them and have to depend on Internet MYTHS or ‘fud’, to try and equalize things but the fact still remains that Nikon is moving away from everyone else at a ridiculous rate that is ‘frightening’.
              Have you looked at the new bodies and lenses released this year – simply ‘scary good’!
              Thus, I don’t pay attention to people here as many have their OWN agenda and I have none – just plain advanced photographer with great visual acuity and a long time user of Nikons.
              I call them as I see them, pal.

          • I always tell friends looking for a camera, I can take better pictures than you with a cell phone camera than you can with a $10k system. It’s all about composition, lighting and subject

            – that being said for me it has been 70% body as the resolution has maximized the ability of the lenses. I have been waiting for a 16MP+ camera as I see this as the sweet-spot in Nikon DSLR resolution. Now I think it will be more balanced and begin to move toward lens sharpness. Higher ISO will make speed less relative as well.

            • Roger

              Forget about your friends for a second, instead compare your own images taken with a DSLR and a cell phone – which are better? 😉

              Camera and lenses matter, and they matter a lot.
              I now take images at ISO 25,600, and they look great. My ISO 100-200 images have never looked this good, never. They are much better than when I was shooting 35mm film, and much better than my previous digital cameras, and much much much much better than any cell phone. 😉

              P.S. 16mp is not any kind of sweet spot.

        • Jabs

          I don’t think that the D700 was aimed at the Canon 5D.
          Canon had a body that shot fast and was smaller and it preceded the current 1D MK4, so that is what I think Nikon may have aimed at as Canon did not have a PRO body with removable motor drive that I KNOW of. I don’t even think that Canon has ANY bodies with removable drives in the Pro body ranks??? – Please correct me.
          The 5D was a great camera and the newer 5DMK2 is lousy compared to it, though it has a higher resolution. The 5D MK2 WAS perhaps aimed at the D3 plus D90 and also as a counter to the revolutionary D3/D300 double whammy release that basically buried the Canon Pro bodies except in their 21megapixel resolution which was buried by the later 24megapixel D3X.
          The D700 = an updated NIKON body to replace a need for a lighter body without a motor drive as the D3 has a non-removable one and it is thus better sealed (no motor drive to remove or expose seams to the elements).
          My opinions, then!

          • Jabs

            An additional comment about D700 and what it compared to in the Canon lineup:
            When Nikon went from the F3 series to the F4 series, people including me – complained about the lack of flexibility of the F4 compared to the F3 series as I had BOTH and used them side by side. Nikon attempted to replicate the F3’s flexibility in the F5 and then left that alone in the F6.
            The D700 then reminds me of an F3 or even the traditional Nikon FA, FM-2n, FE-2 with MD-12 and Md-15 motor drives, while the D3 reminds me of an F4 though the F4’s drive was removable and you had to install another smaller unit, hence F4 and F4S.
            The F3 series was the most flexible camera series that I have EVER used, as I had every focusing screen (maybe 1 missing) and head they made (except the F3P head) and I would configure several bodies in a mix and match style for each assignment.
            F3T-HP head on F3HP or DE-2 head on any body plus DW-6 (believe that was the name for the fantastic High Mag head that allowed me to look from afar and see everything while shooting, plus the wait level finders.
            F3AF head on F3TC (you lose AF but get focus confirmation)
            F3TC or F3HP head on F3AF (works like an F3 non-AF body)
            Any head on any body is what I miss plus the vast array of focusing screens besides the “B” or “E” Brite-View as I loved “Tv”, “R”, P, M and such screens better for certain work.
            My perspective, then.

    • LGO

      So D4 will have Nikon sensor, while the D800 and the D4x will use the new Seony FF sensor?

    • From what I’ve heard the D4 won’t come with a sensor at all. It will feature a weather-sealed slot at the bottom of the body for sensor modules (sensor + A/D converter + interlink electronics).

      • Discontinued

        Now that would really be surprising the market.

      • D(l)eight

        Yup, you either slot in a X, S or the new V module which is optimized for video.

        And ricoh bought nikon.

        • Jabs



    • iamlucky13

      Don’t think of it as competing with a singular camera. Think of it as competing with a class of camera: High resolution, moderate size, moderate price.

      The specs all sound interesting if true, but unfortunately, I can’t imagine cameras with these specs being quite within my price range.

      However, I think they leave a nicely sized gap for either a very high end DX or a consumer-level FX camera. Dare I hope for the opportunity to choose between the two?

    • panfruit

      Considering the d700 crapped all over the 5dII in everything except megapixels… 😛

      • 10thNikon

        and video….. The canons slay nikon for video, and unfortunately the D7000 is not changing that (low data-rate, limited control, no 60fps)

      • inteliboy

        What? No it didn’t.

        In video alone the d700 is laughable. Working in the film industry, 5d’s and 7d’s are all over the place, entire productions use these babies, plus all the canon glass, camera rigs and third-party products. Nikon are years behind here, irrelevant in fact. The damage is done.

    • dlfghdklhf

      D800 with 24MP and D4 with 16MP ?!
      no way

  • CK

    IF the D4 comes out with those specs it is exactly as i would want it. I am for sure going to buy one.

    • no

      No way. Why would D4 have same noise (ISO) performance like the D3s?
      Backlit CMOS is going thru everyone’s lines, giving another 1.5 stops.
      I’d be shocked the D4 would last another 5yrs with old tech.

      • CK

        Im more hoping they focus on image quality, color and dynamic range first and foremost. Not that they are bad, but it would be stronger selling point than higher iso performance above a d3s.

        • +100
          that´s it!

        • john

          I hope that they focus on better high ISO and higher dynamic range,MP is pretty enough this days

        • Nascar Geoff

          I totally agree. The high ISO in a D3s is amazing already. Let’s see some improvements in base iso image quality now.

      • 1.5 stops?? no way . its just a mirror reflecting light back to the sensor after it has gone through the silicon sensor the first time. may be at most 0.5 stops more I would guess.

        • It is not a mirror. Backlit (or BSI as it is usually referred to) refers to flipping the sensor over so that light doesn’t have to penetrate as deep into the silicon. This makes for more dramatic differences in small photosite sensors than it does for large.

          • iamlucky13

            PDF showing example of front-illuminated and back-illuminated sensors:


            It may seem obvious, but as I understand the technology, it takes a different chip-making process that is more complicated, and therefore, expensive. Hence why we currently see it in extremely small sensors such as on the iPhone…that’s also where they’re most needed.

            • alvix

              would it be possible to design a lens with a sensor directly attached to the rear element? ..

            • Jabs

              I don’t understand your question. If the sensor is attached to the back of the lens, then how do you expect to see through the lens? There is a distance between the lens rear and the sensor in cameras, so perhaps you don’t know that – also in cameras, we look through the lens and so does the sensor.
              Perhaps you meant, can they make a lens and sensor combination as a UNIT – Ricoh already does that.
              I also think Hasselblad did that a while back but not sure or even remember the camera, as it was a single fixed lens camera optimized for wide angle shooting – I think it was a ‘SW something’ camera and possibly digital.

              Are you also perhaps asking IF they make a lens/sensor combination that is fixed for that combination? Then Ricoh already makes that as I stated above.

    • dkat

      Yeah, I would buy the D4, not the d3s.

  • If the D800 comes out with 60fps at 720p, it’s gonna really bother me. Do you think maybe the ISO would perform a tiny tad better then the D700 though?

  • lolcatmaster FTW

    It looks cool but are we sure about the D4? Japanese manufacturers really don´t want to use the number four at all(40, 400 ok! but 4… nop) the number 4 is widely and acceptedly considered as bad luck (superstition) because of its similarity in pronunciation with the japanese pronunciation of the word that means death, if you notice there´s no product in Canon´s, Nikon´s, Sony´s, etc. Lineup of products with the number 4 alone on them.

    • there was a Nikon F4

      • touche

        • Dan

          Nope…he’s right. 4 is bad luck and sounds like the word death, at least in Chinese. That is why you see a lot of residential buildings that don’t have a 4th, 14 or 24th floor. Also you’ll never find an apartment x4C, since that sounds alot like dead person in Chinese (pronounced say-si).

          Now, I’m thinking of getting a D7000 while I hold out for the D8xx next spring/summer but if the D8xx is gonna be in the $5k price range then I’d rather go straight to a D700 and take advantage of the rebates. I’m not a professional photog and would find it difficult to convince myself to fork out $5k for a body. Any opinions on how much the D700’s successor will cost? Ballpark?

          • safeg

            4 is no ploblem in japan.
            4 is pronunciation “si” or “yon” in japanese.
            “si” has mean death.
            But noting Care.
            I live in 4th floors japanese apartment house.

            • Hamuga

              Yeah I live in apartment A4 in Japan.
              Just a bit bigger than a A4 size sheet of paper too.

            • Dan

              One thing I’d like to try is those “coffin” type acommodations you can rent at the airport.

            • jdsl

              “There are several unlucky numbers in Japanese. Traditionally, 4 and 9 are unlucky. Four is sometimes pronounced shi, which is also the word for death.[3] Nine is also sometimes pronounced ku, which can mean suffering. 13 is also occasionally thought of as unlucky, although this is imported from Western culture. Because of these unlucky numbers, sometimes levels or rooms with 4 or 9 in them don’t exist in hospitals or hotels, and particularly in the maternity section of a hospital, the room number 43 is avoided because it can literally mean “still birth.” Therefore, when giving gifts such as sets of plates, they are normally sets of three or five, never four.”

          • Funny, 5,000 is an unlucky number for me.

      • Jabs

        Yes, an F4 plus an N4000, N4004, F401 etc. – all this talk about superstitions – OK!
        Great information and thanks.

        • Victor Hassleblood

          I agree,

          that (un-) lucky number talking just sucks.

          Hope Nikon leaves that shit to others. I quite liked my two F4s and still have them.

    • no

      Sorry, not true at all. That is only for Chinese Cantonese. Japanese and Mandarin speakers have no such connotations with ‘4’.

      • Cache

        Don’t konw about Japanese, but in Mandarin, the pronunciation of “4” is almost the same as “death”.

      • JamesC

        I can confirm that 4 is also considered unlucky in Japan. It is sometimes pronounced “shi” which is exactly the same as the pronunciation of death in Japanese.

        In fact, especially when referring to people, the word, “yon” is preferred for the number 4.

      • Jeff

        There are two pronunciations for 4 in Japanese, and し (shi) is pronounced the same way with the exact intonation as the word for “death” (死), so it makes sense if they wish to stay away from it. For superstitious reasons, they also generally stay away from the number 9 as far as I know.

        • This might have changed with the younger generation. I hear young people say し(shi) all the time when counting :p

          • Jeff

            Well, clearly the superstition doesn’t extend to the point where they must stay away from any use of し in their language, but I can understand if companies tend to refrain from using it so as not to unnecessarily risk their image rather than just pick another number entirely instead.

      • jdsl

        Maybe Nikon is superstitious by Panasonic is.

        Lumix LX1 -> LX2 -> LX3 -> LX5

        • jdsl

          that should be “Nikon is not superstitious” 🙂

        • jdsl

          and “but Panasonic is” 🙂

          • dkat

            If the D4 is also black and made of a Carbon fibre body, it would be the Black Death made from the Black Gold. That alone would be a reason for me to buy it 🙂

    • HJKO

      The pronunciation of number “4” in Chinese is also similar to death.
      Here in Taiwan, people even do not buy the 4th floor of an apartment.
      Many hospitals cancel the 4th floor and re-number it as the 5th floor.
      Moreover, people do not like the phone number with “4” ending.
      The most amusingly, our goverment doesn’t provide the license plate with number 4 ending for avoiding some protests.
      So I guess that Nikon maynot apply “D4” to the successor of D3s, due to the the responses of Chinese and Japanese markets

    • Suprchunk

      I believe you already spewed that out before. We get it. YOU don’t think it will happen. Doesn’t mean it won’t.

  • I wonder whether the D300s really needs a replacement in view of the D7000?

    • Ben

      Clearly you’ve never touched a D300s.

      • alfredo

        I use to have a D200 and now its broken and have bought a D300s (it will be here on monday) and i wanted to know how much better than my d200 is it, in therms of autofocus, sharpness, color rendition and ISOs??
        thank you very MUCh
        have an awesome day

        • Dreuben

          on monday, your life will be better… and so will your photographs, well, hopefully… The D300s is WAY better than the D200, WAY!

        • By about 8 times better. iso will be far better, autofocus is faster, sharpness is more about the glass you use. and you also get video which is sweet. its fps are faster as is its buffer. you will be a happy man soon

      • I have a D300 but have not touched a D300s nor the D7000. I use mainly my D700 but I grab my D300 for the long-reach shots when I am shooting wildlife or when I am underwater using my UW housing (cropped sensors are better for UW photography for reasons too long to elaborate here). But what I would like to know (beyond a smug remark) is for the extra weight of a D300s (or the replacement), why is that a better choice than the D7000. Thanks.

  • NikonFF&DxUser

    This type of rumors really get’s me excited.

  • The Man from Mandrem

    Since the rumor mill is a-running can you figure out if there will be a <$2000 FX model next year be it D800 or something different. I know alot of guys waiting for that price point. If the D800 competes with 5D Mk2 one would hope it's priced closer to $2k.

    Also, is the 34MP trying to take away Medium Format's mojo? If Nikon has implemented their latest technology into the 16MP D7000, I assume they will use similar technology at a minimum for the next generation of sensors. How would a double-size D7000 sensor compete with medium format by the way?

    • Hochzeitsfotograf

      look, 34MP in 135 format is just plain not enough to compete with MF. There is more into MF then megapixels.
      almost all canon lenses and most nikon lenses are unsharp already at 20+Mp. Hell even new 24G, 85G is much less sharp with D3X then D3.
      Beside other factors (like low iso performance, DOF, etc etc)

    • Dreuben

      After the D800 comes out, the D700 will probably be around 2k, which is a great price for that camera… No video though… That’s why I was hoping for a D700s at $2300, but that’s not going to happen…

    • <US$2000 FX model? Not likely from Nikon. Currently, the implied retail price difference between an identical body with a DX or FX sensor is US$1250. Thus, if you took a D90 and put an FX sensor in it the price would still be over US$2000 given Nikon's current profit margins. Sony decided to try lower profit margins and failed at that (A850). No one else is likely to take a stab at it.

      Yes, FX sensors have come down a bit in price (the implied retail difference used to be on the order of US$2000), but it's not likely that they will come down very much from where they are, as yields are pretty efficient and the variable costs very difficult to bring down much more. Thus, it won't be until the camera makers are desperate for sales that FX prices will come down more, as it would mean giving up profit.

      • PHB

        The price difference at the street level is now $900. So it is just about possible that a $2000 Nikon FX based on the D7000 chassis could appear. But it wouldn’t be that price at the start, it would only fall to that level over time.

        I agree that it seems a bit unlikely though since the big cost in an FX camera is worthy lenses which start in the $1200 bracket and go up. Even if someone already has FX telephoto lenses, FX is hardly an advantage unless you are going to go for the wide angles starting with the $1500 14-24mm zoom and going up.

        Most you could reasonably hope for would be a package deal with an FX body and 14-24 lens for maybe about $3300 or so.

        What a lot of people seem to want is something they can claim is pro gear at consumer prices.

        • I’m aware that the street price difference is US$900. But that also indicates that demand has fallen for the D700, not that the parts costs have changed. As far as I can calculate, the implied difference still stands at US$1250 on current sensor costs. And remember, that’s for the current D3 sensor. The minute we start talking about a new sensor, we have R&D costs to spread in.

        • Jabs

          Exactly – they want something for NOTHING.
          They have Rolls-Royce tastes and VW money – LOL!

      • If Sony can sell a ~$2000 FX body as of a year or two back then the economics surely must work for Nikon and Canon as well.

        It seems pretty far-fetched that, with the inevitable price erosion in all digital gear (computers, cameras, etc.) Nikon can maintain a $500 premium for a D300 replacement based on slightly faster continuous shooting, better autofocus, and a bit more metal in the body, so assuming the D7000 falls to $900-1000 by mid-2011, trying to sell a $1500 D400 and a $2500 D800 seems like a bad idea. (Not that Nikon won’t try it.) I suspect Canon will come in with a sub $2k FX if Nikon doesn’t, especially since Nikon has just devastated its DX product line.

        • That hasn’t exactly worked well for Sony. To the point that Sony’s upper management apparently wants to see the FX sensors and bodies canceled completely. That says something about profit margin.

          But within Nikon’s own line, a US$2000 FX body would have great implications on all their pricing. It would tend to render a high-end DX body (D400) pointless, for instance. And given the fact that the yen has appreciated another 10% against the dollar lately, pricing pressures are actually going the other way. No, I think Nikon will try to hold the US$2999 price for FX entry as best they can. Indeed, a 24mp D800 in the next 12 months could probably go as high as US$3499 and be well received. Nikon’s not stupid enough to leave money on the table like Sony did.

        • Joe J

          fat chance; Canon obviously doesn’t see value in making a good all-around affordable FF sensor containing body, otherwise they would have done it by now. They even made the 1D MKIV with and 1.3 APS-H sensor. Nikon will continue to have much better FF senor body options for a long time to come

        • Roger

          Sony are selling ~$2000 FX body, there’s only one problem – no one is buying.

  • Anubis

    Theres seems to be so much emphasis on Megapixels these day. I would have to blame Canon for raising the stakes in this area. The plain fact is that the average D700 user is a serious amateur who probably never needs anything beyond 12-16MP. Anything with 24MP and above is good enough for large format printing to A1 size at 1440dpi and even to 10 ft x 40 ft advertisement billboard at 90-180dpi. Is everybody going insane and succumbing to the High Megapixel mass hysteria? I would be really surprised if Nikon is able to suppress noise in a purported 24MP sensor to the level of the current 12MP D700 sensor. Think of the nightmare in handling of the files that will probably be in the region of 7-9MB per jpeg image.

    • You can scale down files…

    • Dan

      You hit the nail on the head! To me 12Mp is plenty (maybe 16), since most of my pics are views on a LCD anyway. The only advantage I can see is when cropping. I’m sure the hard drive manufacturers are happy with the increase MPs though. The more I think abt it the more I’m inclined to just bite the bullet and get a D700 kit. I was on the phone with Adorama this afternoon and was THIS close to buying it. Arrrrgggghhh!!! And they only had 2 kits (D700 + 70-200VRII) left (or so he said :P) . This is dumb question but will I really see a huge diff between my D200 and a D700 if I’m not constantly shooting in low light? I guess I’m trying to convince myself to buy the darn thing.

      • BornOptimist

        Short answere: YES
        The latitude for postprosessing on pictures from D700 is several leagues above the images from the D200. If you can afford it, buy it. You will never regret it. Personally I found a big difference between D200 and D300, and also big difference between D300 and D700. I am so happy with D700 that I will skip the next version (well, no rumor so far has triggered my interrest anyway).

    • Rafael

      agree.. 34 MP D4x… I dont need it, Im just fine (and my clients too) with my D3x, I thought the race was going to become video now, wasnt it?

    • F64photo

      I prefer 24 MP not because I want to make HUGE prints, but because I want my 13×19 prints to be very sharp. I am a landscape photographer, and 14 MP just doesn’t cut it, the sand in the foreground looks mushy, the granite doesn’t show the grain, and the ends of tree branches disappear. The Canon D5II comes very close to eliminating these problems, but I have all Nikon lenses and don’t want to change, so the Nikon D800 will be a welcome addition to my cameras!!!

      • Jabs

        Your problem is NOT resolution but lens CHOICE on your part.

        Get a PC or perspective control Nikon lens and then YOU control the focus plane as fas as foreground to background sharpness is concerned.
        Also TRY a Micro-Nikkor from the 105 to the 200 mm versions.

        I have used a 55 F2.8 Micro-Nikkor to solve the same exact problem that you are describing.

        LEARN about lens choices!

      • Jabs

        Second comment:
        Use a graduated neutral density FILTER and employ circular polarizers to bring your CONTRAST up and minimize reflections WHICH cause more ‘unsharpness’ than people realize.
        I also use UV filters and use a sturdy Gitzo tripod always plus I look for wind movement which plays havoc on landscape shots. Get a wind meter and check the wind speed at the DISTANT point where you are shooting and not where you are standing, if you can.

    • Bryan

      Actually, 24 MP would be a pretty good sweet spot for Nikon Full Frame. It would have the high resolution for most of your shots, but allow you to still take advantage of the DX crop on telephoto lenses and still get 10-12 MP shots.

    • Imagine the sizes for RAW files…in the range of 30~40MB

  • Foobar

    I jizzed in my pants.

    • those are just rumors 🙂

      • ONEant

        No, I think it true…

        Foobar did Jizz in his pants

        • gt

          this comment wins

        • Dreuben


        • Lol!

        • Possibly the first time a NR comment has actually made me LOL 😀

  • Ken Elliott

    D800 – you had me at “same noise (ISO) performance like the D700.”

    24MP? No question – I’ll have a pair. Period.

    But if you could move the focus indicator from the bottom onto the center of the screen (for heads-up manual focus) I’d really appreciate it.

    • I know what you mean man. I only got a D700 in May this year and I was kind of hoping for a minor upgrade in MP and then I wouldn’t have to absolutely buy the upgrade. But if it comes out with a sensor that packs 24MP with the same ISO then I guarantee that I will be an early adopter – it will be perfect for my landscape work.

      Having said all of this, I carried out a resolution test recently on my D700 with some slightly unexpected results:

      I interpolated a native 12.1MP image to 25.1MP using Adobe Camera Raw 6 in Photoshop CS5 and I thought it looked pretty good from where I was sitting, pretty much proving that you probably don’t ‘need’ much more than 12MP to print massive output with a dpi to match… something of course many people have been saying forever.

      • Nikonier

        Hello RussB,
        i watched your pictures on flickr and i wanted to say that i am very impressed of your great work. Absolutely beatiful images. It is a
        great pleasure to watch them.


        • Thanks Semih 😉

      • Steve

        I tried that same test with my D3 when I got my D3x – and I can promise you 12 MP uprezzed is really not anywhere near the same as 24Mp native.

        • I’m sure it isn’t Steve – I’m not trying to claim otherwise. All I’m saying is that on the rare occasion most photographers will actually need to print at A1, an interpolation will probably suffice, at least based on my own limited tests.

      • lightsaver

        Beautiful photos on your flicker site. Very impressive. Which TS lens(es) do you use?

        • Thanks Mike. I use both the Nikon 24mm f/3.5 and Nikon 45mm f/2.8 PC-E. They are wonderful pieces of glass in my view…

    • Roger

      Anything less than D3s low light performance isnt good enough anymore.

  • viTRifY

    This would be a giant leap if they’re able to take what the D3X has (24 MP) and remove the noise levels down to the current D700 level. That would be an “OMG WTF BBQ” leap

    • Roger

      D3x already has excellent noise level, as you call it. I take it you have never compared high ISO shots D3x with D700 at equal size prints, you’d be surprised at the results.

      Goalposts have moved, D3s is the low light daddy, anything less than that, is a mistake from Nikon.

  • nau

    I call it BS,
    -‘same noise performance as d700’ – even now we see ‘new DX sensors’ pretty much matching the d700
    -‘competition to 5dmk2′ – u cant consider Nikon’s new HOT baby to be competitor of something that (as some one mentioned before) for 3 years old camera
    -’24 sensor’ mmmm maybe but thn D4 is a bit low if we are talking about sensor competition, u cant talk about flagman ship camera (d4) and armatures alternative that got that much of a difference in a mega pixel count – lets say unlikely
    -‘summer 2011’ – damn thats far away I hope not, but if it is what are hell are we gone get for the next half a year? d400 nowhere to be seen \ we have all the low end we want

    • SA

      Absolutely agree with every point. I thought the same.

    • Roger

      No DX sensor today comes even close to the D700.

      • nau

        Roger, see d7000/d300 samples vs D700
        till 3200 is very impressive and still good especially if you consider that its half price camera

  • spidercrown

    I’m a bit worry about such huge jump of high resolution, not about noise performance, but the ability of pixel absorb the detail..

    This is what i mean…

    Just hope nikon’s coming offering will not have such problem..

    • hornagain

      That link is downright depresssing. I hope the D7K does not dissapoint similarly becaue of the increased pixel count.

    • Roger

      Dont be, more resolution is generally a good thing. Canon 7D small pixels can actually resolve more than the larger pixels of other Canon cameras.

      Btw, this test you linked? It’s flawed.

      • Jabs

        That is another stupid Internet MYTH.
        Megapixels is MEGAPIXELS.
        It is a measurement and nothing else.
        The problem stems from fools not knowing that DX magnifies the image via a smaller sensor and hence they claim this now stresses the lens more.
        Actually, the IMAGE circle is SMALLER on DX format though the FINAL image is magnified, so FX stresses the lens MORE and not the other way around, as the SENSOR itself is larger in FX or full frame.
        It is about the SIZE of the sensor and NOT the megapixel rating or ALL higher megapixel smaller sensors would be used instead of larger sensors.
        It is a myth perpetrated by idiots who don’t know jack or are obsessed with DX versus FX.
        The sensor resolution is a measurement based upon a RATIO.
        Smaller sensor = higher magnification to OBTAIN the same exact resolution RATING.
        You have been fooled, it seems.
        It is like this:
        2 x 3 = 6 megapixels for DX, where 2 = sensor SIZE and 3 = the magnification
        3 x 2 = 6 megapixels for FX, where 3 = sensor size and 2 = the magnification.

        BIGGER sensors always stress the lens sub-system way more than anything else – look at Medium format sensors for a CLUE.
        Smaller sensors like P/S and Micro 4/3rds DO NOT stress their lenses like FX and above sensors = REALITY as opposed to idiots trying to calculate or juxtapose foolishness in some GAME of equivalence.
        Not happening as Canon NEEDS to quit stalling and introduce a MODERN full frame camera to replace their OLD and ancient stuff released way before the D3 as we are in the second generation of the D3 with the D3S and people complain about Nikon being SLOW. Maybe in the amateur or semi-pro ranks, that complaint is justified, BUT in the Pro ranks – nobody is EVEN close.
        Thus, get real.

      • spidercrown

        prove with data, everyone can say everything they like. At this point of time, i can only believe what the link tells, untill someone prove him wrong..

  • DX2FX

    Strange that the D4 will have a 16MP sensor while the D800 gets a ‘new’ 24MP.. I’d have preferred the 16MP on the D800.

    • JamesC

      I agree. If it were actually true, it’s almost as if they’re attempting to placate the gearhead enthusiasts with more megapixels, while saving spectacular high ISO performance for the real pros.

    • Roger

      It’s even more strange that people believe these rumors. Rumors tend to be correct when they come few days before the announcement, but months before? It’s complete BS.

  • brian

    Wow, summer 2011? Lame.

    “This camera is aimed to be a direct competitor of the Canon 5D MarkII” brought the lols. Would expect the mkdiii before that…

    • Richard

      Therein lies Nikon’s challenge. If Canon get the MK III to market before the D800 and finally gets the MK II’s issues sorted out Nikon could lose potential sales.

  • safeg

    Summer of 2011.????

    toooooo slowwwwww!!

    hurry up NIKON!!

  • Yeowch for long product cycles.

    • No way. I don’t want my pro model replaced every four seconds, that would damage brand loyalty. I liken this to a manufacturer like BMW – I don’t want my 5 Series replaced every year either. You have to think of Nikon’s Pro line like luxury cars – they only become mass produced over a longer period which reduces the unit cost of manufacturing, they cost more to make because they’re quality products, they’re refined almost crafted, R&D costs a lot more because when they finally decide to release a new model it’s pretty much cutting edge. Patience…….

      • another anonymous

        Very nice, but there are people that need low light FF body for wildlife without having 24mp big files and want video. D700 is great but lacks that video, D800 will have too big files and worse ISO as it can and D4 is bigger and much more expensive. There will never be satisfied all of us. 16MP D800 would be way better ;(

        • Anonymous

          No, 24mp is better. At least 20mp… 16mp vs 12mp is a slight change only

  • safeg

    D700 is aimed to be a direct competitor of the Canon 5D.
    and 5d2 blow away D700.
    D800 is aimed to be a direct competitor of the Canon 5D2.
    and 5d3 blow away D800.

    Nikon is alway behind of the 2years from the canon. 🙁

    • spidercrown

      This class of cam is more on pixel race (if D800 rumor is right). For mark 3, i don’t foresee any huge imporvement over the mark 2, besides the increase of resolution (28MP may be? or new focusing system? (no worry even if d800 uses the old 51-point af)).

      Increase of frame rate is very unlikely as it will cannibalize of the 1D series.

    • Anonymous

      Wake up, you are dreaming!

    • Porks Photo

      But all Nikon take sharp pictures, not so with the 5DmarkII.

    • Indeed, Canon needed 40D, 50D, 7D, 60D to beat the D300. Who’s late now? 😀

    • robert

      The D700 was released after the 5d so it makes sense..So what.. D3X came after 1DS mark 3 and it surpasses it and is the highest MP camera for 2 years with no what’s your point?

      • Canon 5D Mk3

        The Canon 5D Mark3 is due in 2011. There’s an each way bet about whether it will be Feb-April or August-Sep.

    • Let’s compare autofocus and exposure systems… or don’t they matter?

    • I wouldn’t describe a camera with about nine poorly positioned autofocus points stuck dead centre as blowing away the D700 😉

  • Joe D

    Lost me at “the same ISO performance as the D700”

    The D700 has excellent iso performance, but was anyone really clamoring for 24mp? I’d bet 20mp and better ISO performance would have killed.

    • Roger

      D700 isnt a state of the art ‘ISO performance’, Canon already matched with a smaller sensor. Goalposts have moved, D3s is state of the art now.

      • Jabs

        NAME one Canon body that matches or even exceeds a D700 in ISO noise performance!
        Acknowledged that the D3S is superior BUT so is the D3/D700 and the D3S just raised the bar higher and no ONE has even equaled the the D3 YET. No full frame or cropped sensor camera has!
        Look at a DX0 chart for a clue.
        NOTHING has exceeded the D3 series and that is a FACT.
        Number 1 – D3X
        Number 2 – D3
        Number 3 – D7000

        Nothing else close.

        • Roger

          Jabs, 1D Mark IV is very good… but obviously not as good as the D3s, nothing is. Have you looked at the files from the 1D IV? Upcoming 1Ds Mark IV will be even better than the 1D IV.

          Canon are still making good sensors (not as good as Nikon though), it’s just that they’ve handicapped themselves with the stupid 1.3x crop.

          D3s is where it’s at for shooting in low light, I have it, and in future I will not buy a camera that’s not as good as the D3s in low light. So if Nikon wants me to fork over $5000 again, they’ll have to improve it further…

          • Jabs

            In looking at the Canon IDMk4 body and files, I see some forward motion from Canon and some backwards motion from them.

            Better focusing screens
            Better focusing as in finally MODERN
            Faster response and start-up plus more responsive, finally
            Better flash integration, but still generations behind Nikon
            Video but still a weird emphasis on higher F-stops plus they have very few lenses to take advantage of all that megapixel goodness (though they ANNOUNCED a few unique lenses and we will see WHEN they deliver those to photographers as in able to BUY them). It is as though Canon fell asleep after their 16 and 21 megapixel bodies and then expected no one to equal or pass them. Nikon DID that with the D3/D300 combination and repeated that with the D3S and now the D3100/D7000 took us to new heights above Canon and others.

            Worse RED channel response than 1DMk3 and thus they need a firmware update
            Autofocus = weird or inconsistent, though they are trying to fix that finally.
            Canon NEEDS a new body design, as that one has been around TOO long and its’ film days emergence or heritage betrays it badly – maybe they are too afraid of change and angering their loyal users, so I don’t know – as NOT a Canon body user (they drive me crazy – lol).

            Compared to the original D3 – they have no answer yet as they are still stuck with their OLD full-frame 21 megapixel dinosaur which has BETTER image quality than the newer 1DMk4 but worse focusing and thus hoping for a new PRO full-frame camera from them soon (one that works right off the bat).

            Compared to the D3S – they are clueless!
            Great that you have a D3S – I want one NOW – LOL. Send me yours, please, please, and more please – YEAH RIGHT!!!

            That is my perspective.

        • Jabs

          Continuing about FX vs DX and how perhaps to figure things out yourself.

          Since FX and DX are ratios, then people on the Internet make a classic mistake in figuring equivalence between the two.
          They say that a 16 megapixel DX sensor = 16 X (multiplied by) its’ crop factor and then you get a higher megapixel equivalent.
          Since it is a RATIO, then you DIVIDE by the crop factor and not multiply by it.

          Say the Canon 1DMk4 = 16 megapixels in DX or a crop sensor and now, you want to figure out what its’ equivalent in megapixels in FX or full frame.
          You simply DIVIDE 16 by 1.3 and you get the RESULT.

          Since FX is the one compared TO, then its’ RATIO is 1 and thus it remains at its’ current level of FULL FRAME megapixel.
          This is why FX always (so far) beats DX as it has a bigger sensor and the RATIO = 12:1 (12 to 1) in 12 megapixels and 24:1 (24 to 1) in 24 megapixels.
          HENCE, you need to use that when comparing DX to FX.
          Conversely, you could estimate what it would take to give you a DX result from an FX or full frame sensor in megapixels by this – 24 megapixels divided by the new CROP factor = DX equivalency.

          24 divided by 1.3 or 24 divided by 1.52 (if that’s Nikon’s DX crop factor) and then you get the results, perhaps.
          Sorry, but too busy to do the Math now correctly, so will try later today, when I have some free time. Perhaps someone else will do that and post it here.

          Perhaps this bursts another Internet MYTH.


    nice, let me just say that I want the 24 megapixels. I know that it isn’t the MP that make an image, but when you have a customer who has a kid, that has a canon G10 at home, and they know that the G10 is 14.7 MP, and they see you walk up and they ask about the camera and you say 12 MP, they’re at a loss. It’s happened to me before, and yeah I do explain everything I can but they still don’t get it. Especially when their phone takes 8MP images like my HTC Evo. You may say this is BS but it happens, maybe more in Mexico where I have my customer base than in the US but it does. Plus, I do a lot of work that is to be printed large format, and the higher the MP count the more cropping one can do. There are very, and I do mean very few people in Mexico with Medium Format Digital Cameras, and you can’t rent them anywhere so it all ends up in the hands of people with DSLR’s for the most part. I’m really looking forward to this camera hopefully Feb is the date.

    • gt

      so to summarize:
      You want the 24MP because your customers are stupid?

      • Dreuben

        lol, the beauty of free market economies, if he doesn’t please the “stupids”, someone else will…

      • THURO

        or an easy way to sell your services to stupid customers. whatever makes you look better than your competition is a selling point. you could view it as your customers are stupid or the customer is always right. whichever you think fits the bill better, I don’t really care… but I know I can spin it to where I can get more customers just because of the fact that it has more MP’s. Of course there are always exceptions, like the fact that I would not go to Canon just for MP count. Nikon has better IQ. and so on.

        • Mike

          Ask your customer’s kid to take 10 14 bit RAW images in less than 2 minutes. Ask your customer’s kid to print a 16×20 image taken at ISO 2000 or 4000. Educate your customer.

        • IndyGeoff

          If you customer has to choose between a person with a 12MP camera and one with a 24MP camera many WILL choose the 24MP camera user.

          This is assuming that both have seemingly the same quality portfolio.

          Maybe it is not this way in other countries, but in the US more = better is the perception of many people.

          To make a sale you HAVE to satisfy the customers very subjective wants.

    • bijan2008

      I agree with Thuro 100%…for most of the people mega-pixel means quality….
      Another advantage will be an in-built 10 MP DX camera which will good enough for long reach…
      Only hope it will have 100% view-finder…personally do not care if there is no video…
      and please believe I know many others who wants a good professional(or Semi) camera for still shots….

    • Roger

      Just goes to show how messed up the world is, when you have to justify wanting more mp.

      People – more MP is a good thing! Dont be afraid of it, nothing bad will happen when you go with more than 12mp. 😉

  • andre guerra

    Peter, any info about pricing for this cameras?

  • safeg

    D4 16 MP FF +11 fps + full HD +new AF system+ISO12800, $6000. Spring of 2011.

    D400 16 MP FF +5fps + full HD +D7000 body +ISO12800,$2000. Spring of 2011.

    D4 & D400 combo is great.

    • nobody

      D400 will be DX, and 8fps minimum, and not in a D7000 body.

      • safeg

        Flagship DX is D9xxx.
        D400 name is for affordable FX.

        • nobody

          D400 will be successor to D300, therefore DX.
          D9000 will be affordable FX. But that will still take some time.

  • Rob

    Yipee no video in the new Sigma SD1. Looks like they are trying to make a good camera instead of an overpriced whorehouse.

    • The cynical would read that interview as “we’re still trying to catch up with still camera body and sensor megapixels, so we didn’t have time to engineer in video. But we’ll do that in the next generation, where we’ll try again to catch up.” ;~)

      • preston

        I thought that was the clear implication – I guess I’m just cynical. .

        • LGO


    • Roger

      Shame no one will buy it, though.

      • LGO

        If an F-mount adapter is available, I just might try it out.

  • Tare

    If everything comes true, it seems that Nikon really believes that the new AF system is attractive enough for the new buyers.

    Base on the new D7000 with 39 AF points, can we expected that the new D4 and D800 have about 70-90 AF points and cover more area of the screen?

    But I don’t think the schedule is good enough.
    D4 –> Spring
    D800 -> Summer

    I think D800 will cut some market share on D4…..

    • Roger

      Cover more area of the screen? How are Nikon going to do that exactly? There’s a reason why AF points cover the small area they do now.

      • LGO

        Yes … but an improved AF would necessarily improve on what is existing, wouldn’t it?

  • G

    By golly I need the latest 458megapixel camera but because I don’t have much hard disk space but need to shoot RAW I’ll shoot at 12mp quality instead to keep file sizes small!

    If it’s just a mp update, I’ll pass. 🙂

  • jim bo

    24 megapixel D800 would be great. If it can match the low ISO noise on the D700, that’s all good. But seeing as canon already does it with the 5D MKII, I hope atleast nikon can bring some more to the table than just match the old tech in the 5D MKII. Atleast improve the dynamic range, because the 5D MKII already is better than the D700 (I’ve shot about 1000 pictures with the 5D MKII and 7000 with the D700, so this is my opinion from EXPERIENCE – not beeing a fanboy on the net just reading about the cameras)

    If all they’re doing for IQ is to increase megapixel size to 24, that’ll be REALLY dissapointing. I’ll still sell my current D700 and get the new one, but…Impressed? No. Not at all. I hope Nikon can do more than just immitate old tech from their competitor.

    Then again, I really don’t think these rumours have much trouth to them. The “omfg there’s a book!!!!” thing hasn’t exactly been a good source for facts before…..

    • I disagree – the 5DMKII can’t produce the same image quality as the D700. The D700 doesn’t suffer from low ISO banding and I could show you 100s of examples of this in 5DMKII shots. If Canon push it too far again with the MKIII I guarantee there will be just as many unhappy people. If Nikon can produce the D800 with the same ISO performance as the D700 with twice the MP I’m not sure Canon will hold onto their current fan club…

      • Roger

        Hate to tell you this, but Canon will soon come out with a new 1Ds with 30-40mp and better ISO performance than D700.

        There’s nothing magical about 24mp and D700 like noise. Nikon already has a camera that has 1.5 stops better noise than the D700. If they cant do even better than D3s noise and with more megapixels, I’d be disappointed.

        That’s money lost for Nikon, as it means, I wont be downgrading my D3s to buy a new lower performing camera.

        • Jabs

          The problem is Nikon HAS done it while Canon has TALKED about it – big difference.
          The D3/D700 is vastly superior as a PHOTO camera than the Canon 5DMK2 despite its’ higher resolution, as I look at the files myself and compared to a D3S, it is no contest.
          Canon has a lot of catching up to do, and here’s ‘wishing’ for them to come back into the game with a bang in a new full frame camera SOON.
          They are TWO generations behind already (D3 -1st, D3S – 2nd) and with a D4 probably already in testing and almost ready for release, so guess WHAT?
          Third generation of full frame camera about to ‘whomp’ them – lol!

  • nobody

    Whatever the details may look like, the basic concept makes sense:

    D4 for very best high ISO performance.
    D4x for very highest resolution.
    D800 as the best compromise of both, in a smaller body, and less costly.

    Such a D800 would be my main camera for many years.

  • HDZ

    Please, D800 sharp as D3X please…
    Better ISO performance please…

    • Better ISO performance? For shooting what exactly? The D700s ISO performance is already legendary…

      ISO 1600:

      • Andy

        You could try astrophoto, for example.
        The possibility to freeze star movement, but at the same time get a lot of nebulae detail with low noise high-ISO is priceless.
        Even D700 does not fulfill this wish, you need a star tracking motor.


        • Gimme D800 now!

          Haha! If you want to freeze star movement and are even slightly in to astrophotography, a tracking motor is simply necessary equipment. Not even necessarily that expensive. (can get cheapies for a few hundred bucks) You’ll never freeze star movement AND have nebulae at the same time using a camera lens. Not with sub-million ISO.

          Exposures for nebulae are usually going well in to the minutes anyway so unless you have about ISO 128,000,000 then there will be lots of star movement. But that much ISO would be tasty…

      • HDZ

        I love to shoot a night street and football. sometime I do a stockphoto too. ^^

        This shot with 35 1.4@f/2 ISO-2000 1/25 (Street light)

        This shot with 28-300VR@f/5.6 1/1000 ISO-1600 (Dog is running to me.)

        This shot with 28-300VR@f/8 1/15 ISO-2500 (Hand-held on pier)

        This shot with 70-200VR@f/2.8 1/1000 ISO-2000 (professional football)

        If i’m not do 1/1000 I can’t stop fast action and this stadium is the best of the best. some stadium I need ISO-25600 to get 1/1000 at f/2.8~!!

        That hurt me a lot.

      • Roger

        Havent used the D3s? It spanks the D700 in low light.

  • Kerni

    I don’t expect a 24MP D700 successor with highISO as good as D700. Why? Because D700 owners don’t upgrade just for more resolution. At least there has to be one f-stop better iso-quality, better two f-stops. so, if this is not possible, i think they will take a resolution about 16MP. That’s also more probably to keep D3x attractive as long there’s no D4x.
    5D2 is not the exact counterpart, it’s a studio-cam, has not that iso-performance and was no alternative for many who buy the D700 in the last two years. So D800 need not 24MP, too.

    • nobody

      Kerni wrote: “I don’t expect a 24MP D700 successor with highISO as good as D700. Why? Because D700 owners don’t upgrade just for more resolution.”

      Speak for yourself! I’m a D700 owner, and I want 24MP. Because i need them for my professional use.

      “At least there has to be one f-stop better iso-quality, better two f-stops. so, if this is not possible, i think they will take a resolution about 16MP.”

      Again, no! The D700 high ISO quality is great, I use it extensively, and I don’t need more. But I do need more pixels.

      I realize that your needs may be different from mine. And you are fully entitled to vocalize those. But you shouldn’t think you speak for all D700 users. Not at all!

      • tsnake


      • Roger

        You dont need better noise? Would having lower noise somehow make your camera worse ? No, it’d make it better.

        You ALWAYS need lower noise and better DR.

  • Nicola

    I tought that nikon already had a plenty of winnera with the 5DMKII?
    Do you know that working in low light(~1600/3200ISO),and low temp(-10/15°C),out of a thousand shots, the Nikon D60 with the 18-55 EDII nailed a focus shot *every single time* while the 5DMKII with the 24-120 struggled to get past the 50% mark?

    • Ooops…

      There is no 24-120 for Canon. If you don’t even know what the right lens is on the Canon, how can anything else you say be taken seriously?

  • ja

    as seems to be sounding the rumoured D800 spec fits in line with an update for the D3x lets hope its matches the style with a more pro style body and no ugly add on battery grip
    but we are all just guessing here as nikon aint mutered a word as of yet
    me things the nikon will actually release a d3xs just before the years out
    again guess work

  • Barbie RokWel

    Assuming the rumors turn out to be true:

    A “D800” that retains what is appreciated in a D700 and answers the call for video (D700s) and some more pixels (D700x) sounds like a winner.

    A D800 would be some sort of D4/D4x amalgamation BUT without beeing the obvious ‘light’ version of either D4 or D4x opposed to the D700 which is perceived as a D3light.

    As such it will take a more/better natural position in the lineup below the flagships then the D700 does currently. It will be much more a camera in it own right.

  • mrpassion

    The release date of a an unpublished unfinished book can not be taken as a source for a rumor in any possible way. Many times I have pre-ordered a book on amazon only to have the release date of the book postpone 5-6 times and later the books were cancelled all together. It happened with reputable authors like Scott Kelby. (His book Down & Dirty tricks for CS3 was never released but it was available for pre-order until the book for CS4 came out)

  • woble

    Quite happy with my D700.

  • Martin Busek

    I love my D700 and it’s performance… And I’m not looking for any major update yet as I purchased it about 2 months ago… But I would consider upgrade if the D700x or D800 would be basically same quality, with more megapixel (16 or 24) and 720p video… And that’s it… 🙂

  • Barbie RokWel

    If nikon sticks with the 2&4 year update:

    we might first see a D3Xs later this year, early 2011. That update probably will be along the same line as with D3-D3s refresh: adding video and improve on ISO/Noise performance to bring it up to D700 level.

    After the D3X update that very same sensor could also show up in a D800 somewere in Q3/2011.

    For some time the D800/D3xs will create the same situation as D3/D700 and D300/D7000 overlap of spec’s until the D4X arrives in Q4/2012.

    D800 will bring video to those D700 users that want it and it will bring pixels for those users that lust for a D3x light.

  • Anubis

    Somehow I am still skeptical that Nikon will release a high MP ‘compact’ FX body. For me, the D700 has always been positioned as ‘affordable’ and meant as a main body for semi-pros and as backup for the pros. Along the way of course, many serious amateurs jumped onto the FX bandwagon. Therefore, the ‘compact’ FX must be a product with ‘mass appeal’ and at a price point that is palatable to most users. If Nikon launches a high MP FX (24MP), it has to be priced below the D3x but above the D3s. If it is priced below the D3s, u can bet many D3x owners will be supremely pissed off. However, I’m betting not many will buy this camera if it indeed costs more than a D3s. Remember, this is the ‘supplementary’ FX body and as such must be as versatile as possible. I still believe that the D800 will be a lower MP (16MP) high ISO part. They must sell lots of this body to turn a decent profit.

    • Barbie RokWel

      Therefore, the ‘compact’ FX must be a product with ‘mass appeal’ and at a price point that is palatable to most users. If Nikon launches a high MP FX (24MP), it has to be priced below the D3x but above the D3s.”

      Not sure if that is true, canon basically did it with the 1D2m3 and D5m2, they priced the compact FX substantially below the 2 flagship models.

  • I think NR has it right. Put out the D4 out early in 2011 followed by the D800. It makes a lot of sense. The D3xs does not make sense as the D3 is nearing it cycle.

    • Gorji, one store in Europe does no longer sell the D3x. Maybe its time is over. I am hearing the same about the D5000. The potential DSLR line-up for 2011 could be: D700/D3/D5000 replacements. Now if we add the D300s replacement, we will end up with 4 cameras, 3 of them being pro models – too much for Nikon to release in one year.

      • Thank you for your work. It is invaluable to many of us here.
        I think the time table for a D4 is just right if Nikon follows history. My local Nikon dealer told me that the D3 was introduced the week of thanks giving with availability in the following Feb.

      • Admin, are you saying that there is a possibility the D400 may not be released next year? 😮

        • I don’t know, but 4 DSLR (3 of them pro) sounds too much. If they add the EVIL camera on top, it will be a busy year.

          • Anubis

            IMHO. They don’t need to release the D700 replacement just yet. First and foremost they need to release a darn good D4 and then a darn good D400. The technology sort of trickles down to the other lesser siblings in the FX and DX family respectively. The D700 was never a true competitor to the 5DM2 resolution wise. But guess what, the D700 still sold like hot cakes…even now. I believe the sales of the D700 exceeded the wildest expectations of the Nikon people and was considered a windfall in many ways. They will definitely look at ways to replicate its success. The D700 was always an ‘affordable’ D3 just like the D800 will be an affordable D4.

          • It’s a little unthinkable that Nikon will not release a D400 next year, unless they’re really contemplating removing it from the line up 😮

  • Sam

    Dang, I loved the D700 being a D3 sensor in a smaller body. Now the decision between D800 and D4x will become a tough one.

  • chunkee

    Dying to get it!

  • Gonads

    Ahh, it’s good to have some juicy rumors again after Photokina!

    Bring on the D800 🙂

  • photonut

    “This camera is aimed to be a direct competitor of the Canon 5D MarkII”

    To compete with a cam that ist likely to be replaced by then …

    At least it should have better than D700 noise.

  • Julian

    I really hope that in this iteration of cameras Nikon ditch the M-Jpeg codec. It just can’t compete with Canon’s H.264 which although flawed is much better. Canon has the advantage of having a much longer history of making video products and Nikon really needs to work hard to catch up and retain its user base.

    More and more of my friends who shoot on Nikon are jumping ship for the 5D Mk. II, for journalists and artists who use their cameras as a holistic storytelling device the Nikons are really falling behind in versatility.

    The only thing that keeps me with Nikon at this point is the fantastic strobes and lenses… and that my friends are jumping ship and selling me all their Nikon gear.

    • Adde

      We could hope for Apples “ProRes 4:2:2 HQ” or some sort of MotionRAW.

      • Julian

        From what I understand the Apple ProRes is a lossy codec isn’t it? I think motion raw would be amazing but I doubt it. Sadly I’m putting my money on another mjpeg codec.

        • 10thNikon

          “non-lossy” video codecs take incredible storage and processing and are only in the very expensive specialist digital cinema cameras. For acquisition, it really isn’t practical – even for most broadcast professionals. Apple Pro Res comes in 4 forms, and is a very attractive codec, although still very large and demanding for a camera, even at the standard form (145Mbs). H264 is a very efficient codec, and combined with a reasonable data stream (over 40mbs) like the canons still looks very good – although it will never perform well in an editing system withou conversion. Compression is our friend, especially for camera acquisition. 100Mbs for 1080p (even with a 60p option at this rate with reduced quality) and modern compression would be awesome. For post processing, renders would be to a less compressed form to preserve quality through to delivery formats. Note: Nikon moved to H264 .mov – BUT didn’t increase the data rate significantly with the 7000. Canon uses almost double the datarate, and many would like more than this. Unfortunately video is still compromised, and is less than the canon T2i because of this. Alas, if there was an option to set the data rate of the h264 from current 20, to 40 and 60Mps we’d have a contender, even without the audio level controls and other features in the canons.

          • Jabs

            @10thNikon and others.
            Good points BUT the problem is BIT structure vs BIT rate and how to best COMPRESS digital video without killing your camera or the buyers wallet.
            I have seen uncompressed video and the cameras that use it are so expensive, that a mere DSLR is cheaper than even the mere lens – LOL!
            Compression is a fact of life at the cheaper end BUT we need more like what Newtek does and NOT what Apple does, perhaps.
            NewTek has way more experience at video compression than almost anyone out there and the RESULTS show clearly.
            They use NewTek codecs from Broadcast HD (considered low-res in Video pro ranks) to full scale Cinema as in uncompressed digital video. HD is ONLY 1920 X 1080 and thus LOW RES compared to 4K or Cinema and such.
            RED has the better ideas but NOT the released products YET, to back up their great Engineering.
            Perhaps Nikon BUYS RED, the company.

    • Jabs

      Nikon ALREADY dropped the motion.jpeg codec which is easier on computers or requires LESS computing power to either view or edit your video files.
      They already have gone to H264 in the D3100 and D7000 – DONE deal.
      Now, you just have to BUY a quad (4) or hexa (6) core computer and install a few 7200 to 15,000 rpm terabyte SAS or SATA-2/3 (SSD also) hard drives (3 minimum – 2 for Operating System and 1 for content) and 16+ gigs of fast memory (DDR2 or DDR3), PLUS a RAID-0 fast hard drive system of two hard drives to install your Operating System on, plus get a fast Workstation Video card (AMD/ATI or NVidia and not the consumer gaming ones and if you can afford it – use Crossfire or SLI too).

      Expensive proposition, but people asked for it and now that it is here – YOU pay and pay – lol.

  • Broxibear

    “Those are the most reliable rumors I received so far (please note that because a potential announcement is months away, some of the specs and/or release dates may change)”

    As a percentage how reliable do you think this rumour about the D4 and D800 is [NR] admin ?
    As I said before I had no info on the D700 replacement but I was led to belive the D4 was early 2012 not 2011.
    I’m expecting the price of the D4 to be over £4000 ($6350) considering the D3s is £3600 and the D3x is £4700…save up your pennies as you’re going to need them ?

    • This is a tough one – as I said, it is coming from a good source, but it is too far out in the future, I would say 40% probability.

      • Banned

        I find it a little fishy that just as you post some rumor about the D800 you suddenly receive several tips about it. Seems like a rumor feeds rumor situation.

      • DX2FX

        But it seems that everyone is already expecting a D4 and a D700 replacement coming out mid next year anyway.. so what is new about this particular rumor ? The specs ?

  • Adnen

    Jean Baptiste Guges who is listed as the author of the forthcoming book is neither an author or a photographer… He is a publisher at Dunaud (frensh publishing house).

  • D90

    What about a D300s replacement?

  • W. Kuhlewind

    I’m fixated on the D400. But my patience is wearing thin.


    • Broxibear

      Might be a long wait W. Kuhlewind…I heard 4th quarter 2011 for the D400, but you might get a built in drive ?

  • Hog Toman

    I suspect the NR admin just tries to keep us busy by throwing a few yummy idea’s at us 🙂 🙂 🙂 in this post-photokina-lull 🙂 🙂

    D4 in spring is too early if nikon sticks with a 4 yr major update cycle. But D2 and D300 came faster so why not again…..

  • Kingyo

    Holy smokes! Finally some hot FX rumors! 🙂 The initial specs on the D800 don’t seem right to me.. 24mp? That seems like to high of a jump for Nikon, and it only worries me if that 24mp sensor will somehow mess with the IQ that they’ve achieved with the 12mp sensor. I agree that a 16-18mp one would probably give better results on the D800, unless Nikon really spent the last 2.5 years perfecting the hell out of this new 24mp sensor 😀 ..if that’s the case then we already know this D800 will match/surpass the quality of the upcoming 5D mark III. The reason I’m suspicious though, is that the D4 (aimed for pros) is staying conservative with 16mp. I’m sure the D4 will be amazing.

  • Don’t understand the reassioning of the D4 having a 16MP sensor when the D800 is suppose to have a 24MP sensor. Why have the “flagship” camera have a smaller sensor. If any thing the minimum the D4 should have is the 24MP sensor and the D4x the 34MP as stated. Then you would have some decent Cannon killers.

    • Mike

      Canon’s 1D mk IV has 16 mp APS-H and 5D II has 21 FF. Different markets.

  • Back to top