Correction: Nikon D4 ISO range will be 100-12800

I have to make a correction to the Nikon D4 specs: the ISO sensitivity range of the D4 will be 100-12,800 and not 100-102,400 as initially reported. Sorry about that, it got lost in the translation! The ISO range will still be expandable to 50 and 204,800.

For comparison, the Nikon D3s has ISO range of 200 - 12,800, expandable to ISO 102,400.

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

    Interesting. I wonder how this plays into the D4 as the “photo journalist” camera and the D800 as the “studio” plays now.

    • Pseudo Nikonian

      correction: “studio camera”

    • another lost in translation is 16Mpixels because i know it will be 18 as D700s or more (not likely)

      • You seem so sure. What drives this certainty?

        • because only possibility that it is not happening would have to have this scenario:

          D800 & D700s delivered to major retailer for NPS lease interest estimation. Name of D700s is not sure as box was not standard.
          Then pulled out of production?
          D700s crop have little over 16Mpix, so it is not 16Mpix. D4 will have same sensor (as it makes no sense to have 3 different sensors in newgen).

          i am nobody but there is only in germany at least 3 guys running around with newgen cameras. ask them. offer bounty. whatever. you will get the info.

          • Nicolás

            I am going to screen cap this so I can laugh at you when Nikon launches those new cameras.

          • Where are you getting all this? Your imagination? Sounds like a wild one.

            • you will see.

              i dont care what you think. makes me no moneys whenever you believe or not.

              when i said in summer that i seen crop from D?00 which had over 24Mpix everybody loled too.

            • Indeed.

  • Damn. Gonna have to cancel my order now.

  • MB

    Currently have base 200 ISO, so being able to drop to 100 would be awesome

    • Firmus

      It isn’t film. Lower base iso just gives you lower light gathering ability, not higher resolution.

      • Brandon

        Exactly! Which allows for wider apertures when synching to flash. Much more usefull for many than ISO 25,600

        • Xavier

          huumm… I think ND filter makes more sense for this situations than new camera body 😛

      • MJr

        Even ISO200 has noise, maybe the new ISO100 doesn’t.

        • Xavier

          hummm… correctly exposed, good light and quality lens… well, I’ve never seen a trace of noise in the output I get from my D3s at iso 200…

  • Switch

    That is it. I am switching to Sony.

    • Up $#!t’s creek

      + nex 1

    • dgs

      yep, for use on sonny days 😉

    • Allan M

      Dont’t let the door hit you on your way out, and thx.

      • Trolol

        U mad bro?

  • Matt

    This doesn’t sound like the “big bang” of the D3/D3s. Are we on the flat part of the curve?

    • nobody

      Even for the universe, there was one big bang only 🙂

  • thanks for clearing that up admin. D4 still awesome if we can afford it ;p

  • broxibear

    I thought Nikon’s dust reduction testing might be a tad more sophisticated than this, but hey, as long as it works ?

    • dgs

      wow, that’s cruel (and a waste of a good camera as well)

  • JB

    I have to say….this makes it seem like a very small incremental change….kinds what the D3s should have been. I’ll have to wait and see but I can’t see dumping the D3s for this knowing the price will probably bump up as well. Ahhhh….the joys of rampant speculation.

    • Andrew

      What? There was a time when everyone was excited with the D700’s ISO of 6,400. Now we get 12,800 and it is not good enough. It is possible that Nikon is being conservative with its ISO rating in order to exceed our expectations, even though 12,800 is impressive.

      • Calibrator

        You will get spoiled brats even if regular ISO is in the high 100.000s.
        Depending on the situation these folks will claim in the neighbor forum that an iPhone is all they need to make a good picture. It’s all about thrashing products and dissing people for them.
        Most of what is being written here is nothing more than static noise, IMHO.

  • Splendor

    I really hope the predictions are right about shipping in January. I have been waiting a year to finally upgrade from DX (D7000) to FX. My kids events from basketball to ballet are hopefully going to be captured soon in 2012 by the D4. Being able to shoot these lowlight events at iso 6400 all day long is going to be amazing. I figure on getting at least 4 stops of improvement over D7000. Any FX owners out there agree that this will be the right tool for the trade? I am not happy shooting D7000 above iso 1600 even though everyone else thinks the pictures look great at iso 3200. Can’t wait!!!

    • Math, math, math,… simple math.
      How much better performance it will have is proportional to the number of photons individual pixel site captures. Both D7000 and hinted D4 have about 16Mpix. Hence, math is trivial: performance improvement will be about factor 2.3 (the same factor as the area of the pixel site of D7000 to the area of the pixel site of D4. Overall sensor size is irrelevant.). How much is that in “stops”? – One “stop” is defined as doubling (or halving if you are decreasing it) of amount of light collected. Hence, with factor 2.3 more photons collected you’ll get a bit more than one stop advantage in performance of D4 vs. D7000. That’s it. If Nikon truly improved its sensor material technology since D7000 you can hope for one more “stop” (but this is hard – new technology must be equivalent of doubling of photons detected per pixel site vs. the D7000, not trivial).

      • Rome

        How would your math explain the 1.5-2 stop difference between D3(D700) and D3s with both having the exact same pixel pitch?

        It’s not as simple as that.

        How would you explain the better ISO and DR performance of D7000 versus the D90? Or, for that matter, versus even D40, which has a close pixel pitch to the D700?

        It’s, again, not as simple as that. Technology moves forward. I expect the D800 will be similar to 5DII with it’s ISO, which isn’t bad at all, despite the increased resolution. D4 should be as good or better (more likely) than D3s. It’s not speculating, it’s common sense.

        • JED

          The D3/D700 had quantum efficiency of around 37%. The D3S is around %57. That jump explains most of the visual difference in performance.
          Another similar jump in quantum efficiency would be very welcome but it is rather unlikely. Any further gains are likely to be small.
          The D4 will probably offer similar performance to the D3S but with 18MP.

      • DigVis

        @dusanmal Thank you. I am glad someone gets this. The only thing a FX sensor gives compared to a DX is the option the use of a wider absolute aperture size at the same angle of view. You are able to get up to 2.3 times more light, but only at the cost of a shallower depth of field.

        Apart from this, it is silly believing new sensors are able to give huge leaps in high ISO performance (such as usable ISO 102,400). As you say, the main part of the limitation lies in the number of photons hitting the sensor, and the only thing a new sensor technology can do to improve that is to improve the quantum efficiency. Considering that the D3s has a quantum efficiency of 57 %, there is not much more to gain: There is, in fact, less than one ISO step to the theoretical limit. The D7000 is at 48 % also only one step away from the theoretical limit. Read noise could be improved slightly to give possibly one more step of usable dynamic range at the low end, but that’s it. The physics set the limit.

        The interesting thing is that the advances in new sensors are leading to the ISO setting becoming obsolete. I bet we will see high end cameras without any analogue gain control soon. In fact, the D7000 is almost there: With 14 bit raw, there is no need to ever go beyond ISO 200; there is no difference in noise from underexposing compared to increasing the ISO.

    • Kyle

      I shot with a D7000 alongside my D3 Friday/Saturday night high school football games . . sold the D7000 two weeks after I picked it up because I didn’t find the images comparable to what the D3 was creating.

      • Peter Lai


    • From the pictures & tests i’ve seen it seems to me usable ISO ranges are:

      d90 = ISO ~1600
      d7000 = ISO 2400~3200
      d700 = ISO ~6400
      d3s = ISO ~12800

      jumping from d7k to d4 will probably give you a good 2 or maybe even 3 stops

      • KnightPhoto

        At the highest ISOs my feeling is that my D700 still maintains a 1.5 stop advantage over the D7000 (I know people say “1 stop” but it sure doesn’t feel like it to me). And I’ve always considered the D3S have a further 1.5 stop, again at the highest ISOs, over the D700. So yes it should be a ballpark 3 stop advantage D4 over D7K.

        I agree, I don’t love my D7K over ISO 1600 in the real world of low light indoor.

  • Richard

    This ISO range same like D3S is like a scuare egg , with the D800 i cover everything , there is not advantage in this D4 , i will cancel, keep the order in the D800 and wait for the D400 .

  • why?

    A D3s with 16mpx but more expensive and 2 years later.

  • So, 1D X will have the edge?

    • broxibear

      Hi Slow Gin,
      There’s no edge, different cameras for different people.
      You won’t see swarms of people switching from one brand to another. It happened before Nikon brought out the D3, I know beacause many of my friends who are also professional photographers did switch over to Canon, but since then unless you were doing it for video there was no reason to. Yes the Nikon D3/D3s are better in certain situations than their Canon rivals, but it’s never stopped my friends from creating amazing images from warzones to F1 races.
      From my experience photographers don’t like change, they want the familiarity of buttons being where they like, the feel of the grip, the colour reproduction etc etc.
      I’m a portrait/music photographer, one of my friends is a war photographer, I know I can take better portraits than he can using my phone than he can with his Mark II. But equally he can take better reportage shots with a Holga than I can with my D3…our talents lie in different places.
      What I’m trying to say is that the “edge” is with the photographer not the camera, and the cameras are all so good now that only crazy 100% crops of corners might show up miniscule differences.
      You just have to find the right camera for you, whether that’s a D4 or D40 isn’t important.

      • You may not believe, but my favorite camera ever was tiny film Canon EOS 300. I had two of them and was happy to shoot every time.

        • broxibear

          It’s funny how you grow attached to certain cameras, one of my favourites was ths (had to sell it for upgrades unfortunately)
          But I think my D3 has now passed it in my affections lol.

          • John C Picking Jr

            I gave my FM2 to my little sister some years ago. She loves it and film. It was my favorite camera in the day. It just plain worked. Had a great feel. I now have a D700 and love it even more. I can still put manual focus lenses on and the low light is just spectacular.

            • broxibear

              Hi John C Picking Jr,
              “It just plain worked. Had a great feel.” I know exactly what you mean.
              I think a lot of photographers would love to see a stripped down body from Nikon, a bit like the Leica M9, without all the extra features you see on a dslr. I don’t think they’ll do it though, it seems to be all about cramming in as much as possible.
              I’ve avoided testing out a Leica M9 incase I totally fall for it…my credit card can’t handle all those beautiful lenses lol.

  • Up $#!t’s creek

    whats a decimal place between friends….

  • daniel

    This will be crazy:

    1. Less resolution than the canon. (not significant by itself)

    2. No improvement agains the D3s in terms of ISO. ISO is 4 times lower than Canon (see one)

    3. Performance in terms of fps is inferior to the Canon.

    4. Seems like it will match Canon’s ability to focus lenses bellow f8

    So it looks that we Nikon people are at the lower part of the iso again as we did before the D3.

    I am mesmerized by the fact that they did not improve the high iso performance, nor resolution (16 and 12.1 is almost the same). At least not in nominal terms.

    I hope there is more to this camera than what we can see now.

    • enesunkie

      Yes, but it will have face detection!

      • RR

        LoL!! You made me spit my drink , so funny!

        Face detection on a pro DSLR, wtf

        • RumpelHund

          LOL!! You made me spit my drink!

          Mirror in a camera!
          AF in a SLR!
          Chip in a camera!
          Video in a camera!

          Huhuahua, everything is laughed about in the first place it seems. An AF that gets and keeps a face in focus and exposure to it on pro grade speed will be embraced I’m sure!

          • RR

            As if a pro photographer needed its camera to do that for him self, these “new wave” features just plain suck

            As a fashion photographer my self, I dont simply put a “face” in focus, I decide weather the left eye or right eye or maybe the lips should be in focus, this is an artistic desition not a desition I would let the camera take when I’m using a lens with very shallow depht of field like the 85mm f1.4

            So why dont you go troll some where else noob?

            • Apollo

              I can agree with you. D4 and face detection…seriously Nikon? What’s next? Mode dial back to the D4, same dial as in the D3100. I think if you need face detection in D4, I think you have wrong camera.

              By this info of D4, I think I’m going to buy D3s used after this lands to the stores. Nothing special in this camera…honestly, big disappointment.

            • Daniel

              Why? Dose face detection hurts you? It is like you can use MF lense very well which proves you are professional, but it does not means using AF lense is not professional.

        • enesunkie

          Sorry, I’d buy you another drink if I could!
          Yea, it does seem like an odd feature to put in any pro body, but I guess it’s easy to just leave it buried in some menu and forget about it.

    • How do you know that high ISO performance won’t be improved? Just because the upper range is 12,800 doesn’t mean that the performance at that ISO won’t be better. I’d imagine it would be at least a stop better, if not more.

      • OsoSolitario

        I agree.
        12,800 ISO would be better in a camera than 102,400 in another one!!
        I don’t mean that next D4 will be better than 1Dx… but nice specs (on paper) not always mean better performance on the real world!!

        • Paul

          102,400 was just too goo to be true.

      • daniel


        That’s the reason I use “nominal”

        It could be. In fact I hope it will.

    • Spooky

      As I understand it the Canon 1Dx will have ISO 100-51200 Native vs 12800 from the D4…. and Canons 5DIII is said to be NOT on high MP-Count, more likely between 18-25. It may be to early to say, but it may be that this round goes to Canon, seems like they make everything right this time (1Dx/5DIII) while Nikon does it wrong (D4/D800).

    • I shoot Nikon

      Another opinion of an obvious measurebator vs photographer…

      If the D4 will have a nearly noise-free ISO12800 it could mean usable ISO102400. Do you know of another camera that can do this?
      Don’t be a Canon puppet and fall for their marketing ploys. Their ISO numbers are a lie and anyone who actually took the time to look at Canon’s high ISO samples instead of taking their word for it would have noticed that the highest 2-3 stops of ISO across all of their cameras are always just a meaningless number not meant for anything other than to look good on paper.

      • Something I’ve been saying for years. Canon’s clean high ISOs came for years with a very high price: less detail and sharpness in ALL ISOs, especially the higher ones.

        Nikon is conservative, and is focused on the market of discerning photographers who can understand the difference between what the paper says and what actually makes great IQ.

        Canon photogs historically are just as you claim: spec freaks.

        • Simon

          Actually you are wrong and it is totally opposite. Nikon’s high ISO comes with less detail and aggressive NR compare to Canon.
          Canon has a reputation for not interfering with RAW output compare to other manufacturers.

          • I shoot Nikon

            See, you are obviously quoting something you’ve heard but haven’t actually checked for yourself. “Canon has a reputation for so and so”. They also have a reputation for jacking up their high ISO numbers. Except I’m not quoting some web myth and this can easily be proven in about 5 minutes of looking at the readily available data on the web.

            In any case, I’ll take aggressive noise reduction and slightly less detail over the red and purple blobs that plague Canon’s images at the exact same ISO. Do you know how to remove those?

          • Siimon, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

            There are two main forms of noise reduction which are commonly employed: Luminance NR and Chrominance NR.

            The first does what it’s name suggests, it attacks the luminance of the image. In essence, it smooths out all the little irregularities in the image. Canon calls these irregularities “noise”. One could just as easily call them “detail”. When you are heavy-handed on the luminance NR (as Canon is), you cannot take away the first without sacrificing the other. Fine detail is replaced with what looks like smudging, or smearing.

            The second also seems clear from the name: it removes major color inconsistencies by managing the excessive saturation, leaving behind a (mostly) monochromatic noise. There is typically more noise than when luminance NR is used, but there is significantly more detail, as well as more of an organic, filmic (i.e. less digital) look to the images.

            Canon has a reputation for a lot of things, many of which might be ungentlemanly for me to mention here.

            But nice try.

    • nikhtwey

      wide Dynamic range in all the ISO spectrum. Perhaps this is what would make the difference.

    • nobody

      1. Resolution numbers are not yet known. Others insist on 18 for the D4. And if it’s really 16 vs 18, do you think you would ever detect that gap in a printed image? You would never!

      2. By now, we have no idea how the D4 noise levels compare to the D3s, let alone the 1Dx, at any given ISO. ISO values themselves mean nothing. Wait and see!

      3. Right. 11fps vs 12 fps. How much does that matter in reality?

      4. You may have missed it, but the 1Dx lost the f8 AF capability. Canon folks are not that much amused.

      In reality the 1Dx and the D4 will be so close to each other, it doesn’t really matter any more which of them you use. Provided the Canon AF system works as well as it should 🙂

  • The D4 seems on specs rumoured not to be as “wow wee!” as the D800 which really begs to question what is Nikon thinking or the accuracy of the rumours…

    • KnightPhoto

      @ Graeme “The D4 seems on specs rumoured not to be as “wow wee!” as the D800 which really begs to question what is Nikon thinking or the accuracy of the rumours”

      I agree. [NR] specs for D4 seem strangely understated:
      – “only” 16mp. What happened to Nikon president’s statement about better balance going forward? Plus for years now we have been hearing about 18mp mules out being tested. Till now, no one ever ever mentioned 16mp in conjunction with a D4.
      – So that was one thing, but then to come back a few days later and state native ISO remains same as D3S. So +4mp and no increase in ISO after 4 years?
      – the two stats above don’t add up (one would think). Mind you admin has a great track record, so I REALLY don’t know what to think now. Other than to say it “just doesn’t feel right” to me.

  • Just because it only has what may seem like a small incremental change on paper doesn’t mean it won’t be better in the real world. I’d rather have a camera perform better at ISO 1600 or 3200 than just have it reach some arbitrary number on paper. The proof will be in the pudding, so I don’t really know why some people are getting worked up over specs when you don’t know a thing about how the camera will actually perform in real life.

  • If the noise between D3s and D4 is the same then this will be good; what will not be good if the price between the D3s and D4 is excessive. £5k rrp will be reasonable falling to £4.k online.

  • Abo

    this is called strategy and it is very simple: you first release a product that doesnt beats the competition while the competition is smashing you… then, you release one that beasts the competition… get all the line between nikon x cannon and it has always been like that… strategy… just strategy… the other monster is in the pipeline already, trust me on this one.

  • DaveyJ

    Completely agree with Thomas Fitzgerald here. The D800 and D400 are more awaited though than the D4. The D800 and D400 will be where the sales are.

  • Zeke

    Maybe we haven’t seen any spy photos of the D4 because what Nikon’s actually about to release is a D3s-II.

  • Rumors should be realistic otherwise it’s just fantasies…
    16Mpix & 4fps?! hehe…
    The D700 has 12+ Mpix and why would anyone want to switch just because a slight increase of resolution and the (same) fps as a lower model?
    If it was about the D4x I would agree that a low framerate is a must due to ~40Mpix or what they are aiming at.

    • I think you’re confused. 4fps? You mean 11fps, right?

    • daniel

      My take will be :

      High fps are most useful when:

      1) The owner is shooting high speed sports. You could take the moment most of the time by anticipating, as good photographers use to do. But its a nice to have that can improve the success rate.

      2) The user is trying to do stop motion or similar

      3) The owner is a very bad photographer, unable to capture the moment and is hopping the equipment will do the work for him or her.

      As I say is nice to have but companies have to take into account who buy the products they sale.

      So in most cases for a sports machine 8+ fps will do.
      For a studio machine like the rumored D800 much lower will do. Sometimes even Hasselblad slower.

  • Alex

    @ Admin,
    would it be interesting to do a poll to estimate how many people are using expandable iso on their dslrs ?
    I do not. Not even when the pictures are for web use only and 800pix width …

  • Jacky

    So, the question is : What makes the D4 superior than D3s?

    • Jeff

      The D3s in my bag will be better than a D4 on a shelf that wants $6k out of my wallet.

    • 80k RGB sensor will improve AF tracking and greatly changes AF behaviour.
      Same sensivity with 1,5x pixels itself will get you entire new features when portraiting with ISO 6400: hair details with half-body portrait and eyes details with 20+ peoples group portrait.
      So even same sensitivity as in D3s will get you much more room for ad-hoc photo. You’ll can sell reportage photo as portraits if you lucky enough.

    • Anon

      face detection?

  • Thomas

    Hmm, getting the same per-pixel SNR as with the fabulous D3s requires an improvement by about 1/3 stop (16/12) already. Thinking that Nikon managed to squeeze another +1 stop out of the sensor/processing is stretching.
    That the base ISO is lowered to 100 is a good indicator that they finally managed to get the same incredible dynamic range as with the D7000.
    So don’t be too disappointed: the proof lies in the real world performance, not in technical specs.

    • Well said. The actual performance will be gauged by real photographers when real results can be evaluated, not specs (or rumors of specs).

  • Mark

    I thought it was too good to be true. So the only advance is to increase the low end down to 100? Add a few MPs. This would make the D4 and evolutionary camera rather than a revolutionary camera. What am I missing – seems not much of an advance on the D3s after all this time. Hope I am wrong.


  • Deepak

    With the revised high ISO of 12,800, D4 offering does not compare well with Canon D1X’s native high ISO of 51,200. And no improvement over D3S. Hopefully, d800 and d4 will have a nice surprise in the specs and a pleasant (low/resonable) price

  • Jake

    Massively, massively underwhelming. I’ll admit that I was never going to buy the camera, but spending two years to add four megapixels to a camera is a bad marketing decision on Nikon’s part. The 1DX beats the rumored D4 on paper in every known way, except for autofocus. If the D4 really was one or two stops better at high ISO than the D3s, then why only market it with a max of 12,800?

    I hate to do this, but I’m calling fake. It seems senseless that Nikon would release a camera like this now.

    • Thinking the same here, it doesn’t make sense for Nikon to make H1 25600 ISO, H2 51200 ISO, H3 102400 ISO, H4 204800 ISO. Has any camera before provided 4 stops of extension in the high side of ISO?

      It would make more sense if the mistranslation was 100-51200 (similar to the 1DX) to have H1 102400 and H2 204800.

      • Psycho McCrazy

        D3s nas native till 12800 and expanded till 102400!

  • ianw

    D3SS not D4

  • D3S Guy

    I don’t get it…this should have been the D800 then? And an improved version of rumored D800 could have been the D4?

  • Stavros222

    so, a D4 now and a D4s after a year ? with iso one stop above Canon?

  • JOhn

    I shoot a lot of night photography/low light stuff.

    Regarding the revised D4 specs…

    Bad news — only 1 stop of additional ISO over my D700
    Good news — I don’t feel compelled now to spend more $$ on a D4

    I don’t like to upgrade unless there is “significant” upside. My last upgrade was from D80 to D700. I felt THAT! I would definitely have “felt” the 4 extra stops of ISO, but spending a lot of $$ for 1 stop is not quite enough of an insentive for me (which is why I never upgraded to D3s).

    We’ll see. Ain’t rumors fun?

    • nobody

      I’m afraid you just have to face it: you will never again in your life feel a DSLR upgrade so significant as that from the D80 to the D700 🙂

      The D3s sensor has a quantum efficiency of 57%. Even just doubling isn’t possible any more. DSLRs are mature technology now. Further progress will be much less and slower than it has been in the last 10 years.

    • mooboy

      Ha ha, I also went from a D80 to D700… for DSLR, once you try FF there’s no going back.

      But, if you do lots of night shooting, you don’t have issues with banding with high contrast scenes? My understanding is this was only fixed on the D3s sensor. Even though it can be fixed in PS, I’d be tempted to get a D4/D3s for that alone if I was predominantly doing night shots.

  • It looks to me that Nikon finally decided to start to improve the worst aspect of today’s digital camera: *dynamic range*.

    Today’s camera have already very very good low light shooting capabilities (of course, better is always better but I think that most of us can live with performance we have in D3s). However, having only 11 or 12 stops of dynamic range is waaay too low compared to film and medium format cameras. That’s why we mostly need addressing this area.

    If D4/D800 would have improved dynamic range of say 15 or more stops, it would be the best improvement Nikon can give us now. Hopefully, I’m right in my predictions here.

    • Thomas


    • Firmus

      Ah, a thoughtful comment.

      Is that allowed, here?

  • Gotta save room for a D4s, guys!

  • Davix

    I am sure that once released D4 will be compared to D3S and Canon 1dx…deep tech graphes and pages of figures..not to say the field tests. So to burry this “not yet born” Nikon D4! We will see. I am sure Nikon has a good reason to release THAT model..they are as aware as you and i (if not much of course) of what other companies are releasing. They are not releasing cameras that are not replaced before the next 2 or 3 years to lose money.

  • canon-user

    don’t put too weight in what the highest claimed ISO of the 1dX. i’ve been shooting 5d2 bodies and don’t bring them past 3200 due to the overwhelmingly bad chroma noise. i honestly think the 5dII should have been marketed as a 100-2500 ISO camera, with 3200 and above being “high.” by comparison, the original 5d was marketed accurately, as 100-1600, with 3200 being “High” (and horrible).

    • Pixelhunter

      An honest comment. Thxs Canon-user!

  • Garni

    That does it, I am switching to 1dx. Damn slow nikon, I don’t like the attitude of ur developer and reseacher

  • Steve Starr

    With Canon sitting on the 21MP mark already with their EOS 1 Mark n series, what is Nikon doing with a D4 at <18MP? Canon will still command the photojournalists and sports photography market.

    D4 doesn't even sound like a smart marketing ploy against Canon to gain any share at all. With no more D3s being made, it sounds more like a replacement model should your D3s die.

    The D800 may get Canon's attention at 36MP – if that is true and not some typo like 13.6 MP. Canon must be breathing a sigh of relief with both a 1/10th claimed ISO rumor and a weak sensor both.

  • brett

    I wonder how much better a d4s/x would be. The d3 is a good if not better in low light than the d3x and there was almost a 2 year gap between the two. It seems to me that a full frame sensor with 16mp should be pushing the limits to what we see in specs so far (with some room for improvement). I can’t see it being much better than the 1dx. Both are going to be great cameras.

  • D3SV (better video and price).

    Well no regrets buying another D700 body.

    D700 + D7000 + 16-35 + 24-70 + 85mm 1.4 (D) + 70-200 + TCE 1.7 II + 35mm 1.8 Dx + 60mm micro (D), how many years i can shoot and satisfy my clients?

    Maybe buy a D800 for video feature if it is really superb on FF video.

  • brett

    Canon user- I was as curious when the 1dx was released if pics/video would hold up at the extreme iso rating. There are some samples that prove that it can perform well. (you have to watch the end of the video to see what they shot at)

    • canon-user

      brett, those 1dx those sample are super low res… is there anything bigger to look at?

      • brett

        I thought it wasn’t the size that counts. 😛

  • People are missing the point.

    1. This is all speculative. No announcement’s been made and the rumors aren’t solid yet.

    2. Nikon or Canon could claim ANY ISO rating it wanted to. It means nothing without a sense of the quality. In the film days you could buy ISO 3200 film but it was black and white and looked like hell. The proof of the advance will be the quality.

    3. I’m not into video (yet) but with a RAW video out the D4 will be an earth-shattering move into that space. Cinematographers have always loved Nikkor glass. RAW video out on a sub 10k camera will make this the pre-eminent capture device for TV and journalism. It’s what people are dying for and means quality leaps to levels even RED cams can’t match (their ‘RAW’ output isn’t).

    4. If the sensor has been optimized to make shooting video, in the dark, possible for long periods without overheating it may contain technology whose heat-dissapation reduces noise in stills by a significant margin.

    5. If Nikon sell the camera as the dynamic-range leader it would be logical not to promote ISO’s with ‘normal’ dynamic ranges as ‘base’. Thus it’s possible we’ll get 12+ stops of DR at ISO 12,800 and 10 at ISO 204k

    Finally, Nikon are smarter than we are and by nature a conservative company. They will not bring a camer to market that only imporves on the last gen with 4 megapixels. No one’s that stupid and, even if they were, it wouldn’t take this long to get out of the door.

  • Simon

    So what other “mistranslation” are there? Clean HDMI output for video? Last time I checked Nikon is not a video camera manufacturer and don’t of the patent to what Canon and Sony has. I bet it is fake clean HDMI output video clips that is interlaced, not progressive, and last for a few seconds.

  • Serious Shooter

    I cannot believe Nikon! I was already bragging about base 104,200 ISO and now they say it is only 12,800? My neighbor is probably laughing at me now. How can I show my Nikon gear if this is true? After 3 years, the ISO is the same? Are we living in 2009?

    I am switching to Canon 1Dx for sure, unless Nikon really comes with the 104,200 or higher. This is frustrating.

    • Tiger1050Rider

      Well more fool you ‘Serious Shooter’. All those figures are speculative at best. This is a rumours site is it not. any egg on your face is soley down to your ‘bragging’ about something that is a rumour.

      If you were a ‘Serious Shooter’ then you would know not to do this sort of thing without the proof to backup your statements.

      Egg on Face? Well deserved I’d say…

  • rkas

    Why do i always see so many STUPID comments here on NR?

    Just because the rumored D4 specs isnt any better than the D3s doesnt mean its not any better. The D4 could very well have one stop lower noise at 12800 iso, and if the read noise is as low (or maybe even lower) than the D7000 then it really doesnt matter what the native iso is.
    If you have a D7000 you can even try it yourself. Take a picture at 6400 iso, and then another one at 100 iso (but with the same shutter speed and aperture as the first one), take those two images into a raw converter and take the exposure of the 100 iso image up six stops and the compare the image. You probably wont notice much diffrence at all.
    So in other words, the native iso aint that important AT ALL as long as it starts as low as possible.

    Please NR admin. You really should have a guest post here explaining all these simple stuff so we dont get all this spam from people that dont know what theyre talking about.. :\

    • Anon

      No difference between ISO 100 and 6400? Wow, I wish that is the case. I own D7k, at 6400 noise is everywhere…

    • Daniel

      no offence, but not as stupid as the translation problem which translate roman number for 8 times large.

  • DMT

    Guys, first of all there is a *HUGE* difference between a D3/D700 and a D3S at ISO 2000+. I have no hesitation shooting at ISO 8000 all the time and only slight pause at 12, 800. That said, 12,800 on the D3S *SMOKES* the D3 at 6400 and not just in noise, but blacks (D-max), color balance, color rendition, dynamic range and overall IQ. Plus, the D3S has better AF.

    There is no question that the D4 will be a significant leap forward in high ISO image quality…AND will have higher resolution, AND *much* better AF (along with everything else). The question is by how much will IQ at ISO 2000+ improve (and *that* will be what determines whether I buy one or two). The increased resolution will make this the most versatile camera ever; from product shots for catalogs on location (pulling up low ambient background light), to low-light weddings/awards dinners to sports…an absolute killer camera providing the best of all worlds. I start cringing every time I nudge my D3X above ISO 400; this new camera will resolve that by providing more ISO image quality throughout the entire range and ALSO more than enough resolution for two-page spreads. Hopefully, if this pans out as I expect, a couple D4s will relegate my D3 bodies to spares/remotes/bodies for second shooters.

    I think this “correction” is in fact incorrect (deliberately stirring the pot maybe?) and we’ll all find out soon enough, anyway. But I have no doubt the D4 will blow away the D3S all the way to 102,400 and then (possibly) beyond no matter what the native ISO is listed as…by how much will be VERY interesting to see first-hand.

    Lastly, I could care less what Canon is doing. I know what the D3S does; that’s my benchmark. And Nikon’s, too. Your mileage may vary…

    • of course but still not enough for upgrade. i will eventually replace it when my D3s ages.
      what would sure make me pull any kind of moneys would be AF system spread into corners.

    • Couldn’t

      You mean you couldn’t care less. I refer you to John Cleese:

      Engaging in thought is so exhilarating, isn’t it? It makes basic logic so much easier!

      • DMT

        I actually could care less, because my level of caring is not, in fact, zero. But close.


  • This is poorly. I sure HOPE FOR GOD SAKE you are wrong. It must have at least the iso range of the 1Dx, i mean 51200 native. Otherwise it’s gonna be a huge disappointment. If it has the same range as D3s. But i am really confident that it will be a competitor for Canon 1Dx !!!

  • Ryan

    Sammy, did you forget to take your meds today? Nikon is in the business of making still image cameras and you think they plan on having better video than Red One? Do you really think that the leader in digital film making is that stupid? You are so biased on Nikon that you can’t see straight.

    • Sammy A

      I don’t own a Nikon body and work with a guy who shoots Canon stills and Red One MX and Epic video. I’m not biased in favor of Nikon at all.

      Truth is that Nikon were surprised (as were Canon) by the 5D Mk 2 which has been a smash primarily because of its video (the stills are great but there are equivalents we all know).

      Canon and Nikon have both moved to fill gaps in their offering. Canon have gone towards high ISO quality and bet – probably incorrectly – that Nikon wouldn’t do anything radical in video. Nikon have moved into video aggressively.

      I may be wrong but if I’m not it makes perfect sense. Nikon are just fighting the battle they expected.

      If the 5D Mk3 offers a compressed 4K it’ll be even more interesting.

  • Tetty Sooker

    Lmao at so much pathetic arguments over a rumour.

  • nex

    is this a joke, nex-5n will outperform this piece of shit.

    • Hank


  • Scott

    So, no rumors floating around about a D400?

    • Tetty Sooker

      No D400 coming this year. But rumour has it Nikon is working on a left handed D300s

      • Josh

        No offense, but I REALLY don’t see the point in making “left handed” bodies. Before I get yelled at, I’m left handed, and I think it would just be strange having everything flipped. Plus, I always feel a little better knowing it’s my dominant hand supporting the nice heavy 2.8 zooms haha

        • J

          you just got trololololled

        • Tetty Sooker

          No Offense taken, but I’m afraid it’s too late. Nikon is set to release it on April 1, 2012.

  • Back to top