Nikon D4s

macgregor said:
:banned:
Click to expand...


hehe, I actually take my statement back because I have no idea :)

If its indeed like the D4, Nikon should really consider UNDERSTANDING where modern photojournalism is going and why they could sell their cameras this expensive to people who would otherwise buy two cameras for half the price each.
 
macgregor said:
Yep, D4s is as bad as D4. Damn it. Our hopes are gone now...

On the artistic side, however, that video is really really good.
Click to expand...

Can you explain? I've never seen footage look this good out of any Nikon (or Canon) DSLR before. I think it looks fantastic. That said, it must have been shot in crop mode.
 
I think everyone needs to give up on this hope that an amazing stills camera will also shoot amazeballs video as well. I have come to terms with that. Although I still want to pickup a GH4 for the occasional pickup video shots at 4k in a small body I can carry around everywhere but I would rarely use that for stills. Obviously Nikon's goal in this camera is to make it their flagship stills camera.
 
OK, I've watched it now.

I wouldn't say it's as bad as the D4. It could be a lot better, but it's not as bad as the D4. This was the D4.

The wide shots on that D4s video may be soft and muddy, but at least I don't see any aliasing artifacts, which I see in the D4 video.

Not compelling, that's for sure.

In any case, I'm not into sharpness anymore. I've recently got compliments on how sharp my last 720p vimeo clip is. I don't need sharper. I want better DR and stronger codecs. It seems the D4s only ticks one of those.
 
I sent a mail to Nikon Italy asking if the D4s HDMI output is 10 bit or 8 bit. Expected time of reply - according to their site - 24 hours, that was 3 days ago. I think they don't have a clue of what I am talking about, despite the fact that Nikon gear in Italy is at least 20% more expensive than in the US. If the clean HDMI were 10 bit, it would be interesting to see the results with an external recorder.
 
Samuel H said:
OK, I've watched it now.

I wouldn't say it's as bad as the D4. It could be a lot better, but it's not as bad as the D4. This was the D4.

The wide shots on that D4s video may be soft and muddy, but at least I don't see any aliasing artifacts, which I see in the D4 video.

Not compelling, that's for sure.

In any case, I'm not into sharpness anymore. I've recently got compliments on how sharp my last 720p vimeo clip is. I don't need sharper. I want better DR and stronger codecs. It seems the D4s only ticks one of those.
Click to expand...

I think the wide shots are full frame. And the more narrow FOV stuff was shot in crop mode. And that stuff, IMHO, looks gorgeous.
 
Samir Patel said:
I think everyone needs to give up on this hope that an amazing stills camera will also shoot amazeballs video as well.
Click to expand...

Sports photographers want high FPS.

It would seem to me that in a couple of gens that frame rate could (in a 6-8mp crop mode and with a locked or semi transparent mirror) hit 30FPS, arri beating raw Nefs

To me a stills camera will be a proper 'amazeballs' video cam when this happens. (it would probably need a data box that could provide XLR too)

S
 
Samuel H said:
well, if that's the case, I'm not sure who will buy this for video instead of a D5300
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm really lost with what you, mac and others have been saying about the image. Some of that footage looks heads and shoulders above anything I've seen from a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Am I losing it? Seriously, LOL! My guess is that that footage was shot in crop mode. (The other stuff out of the camera does look rather pedestrian by comparison.) But the 5300 does not have a crop mode, so how could it possibly get the same IQ?
 
I think that if you are prepared to give up the shallow depth of field and to put together a set of lenses more similar to what people use on 16mm cameras, which means that a 14mm is not really wide and a 50mm is a tele, the sharpness of the crop size might be really tempting. That is if there is no noise (banding, FP or random) and the DR is above 12 stops.
 
Reality check - this body's intended for guys on the sidelines at the superbowl, shooting for national geographic and major-brand ad agencies. I don't think the market for this body cares very much about the video quality. About $6k for the body I'm thinking? If you're a video shooter, there's likely better ways to spend that kind of cash.

I keep being stunned by the footage I'm getting with my D7100. Decided to use it for a really complex compositing shoot last week, and damn, it's nice not fighting with Keylight. It's not redcode or BMC Raw, but for no-rental-budget stuff... Nikon's come a long way. No idea if the D4s has similar IQ or if video's more of an afterthought. I'm sure there will be some tests before long.

Recent Gh4 owner's manual posts show the instructions for HDMI out - 8 bit to card and clean HDMI, or 10 bit to external only. I don't think many DSLRs output real 422 via HDMI - in fact, I wonder if any do. There must be some tests out there, but I've yet to find any.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
Okay, I'm really lost with what you, mac and others have been saying about the image. Some of that footage looks heads and shoulders above anything I've seen from a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Am I losing it? Seriously, LOL! My guess is that that footage was shot in crop mode. (The other stuff out of the camera does look rather pedestrian by comparison.) But the 5300 does not have a crop mode, so how could it possibly get the same IQ?
Click to expand...

To me, some shots look pretty good, but not clearly better than D7100/D5200/D5300 footage. Others look soft and muddy. If the former ones are from the crop modes, and the later from the FF mode, then this camera is basically an equal to the D7100/D5200/D5300, with an option to go soft-and-muddy-FF if you need it for a specific shot.

Then again, ISO!! But I don't shoot in the dark, ISO 1600 is fine for me most of the time (I needed ISO 3200 for a shot last year, because we had to use an f/5.6 lens; I don't think I've ever shot anything at ISO 6400, except for tests).

(edit: it's not easy to know exactly how good the good shots are, because they're usually shallow DoF shots, which are much easier to handle than wide, deep DoF shots)
 
Last edited:
If the camera had a DR of at least 13 stops and no noise I think it would be worth the money. So far, this is impossible to judge. What it looks pretty clear is that the FF recording mode is not impressive at all.
 
Samuel H said:
Then again, ISO!! But I don't shoot in the dark, ISO 1600 is fine for me most of the time (I needed ISO 3200 for a shot last year, because we had to use an f/5.6 lens; I don't think I've ever shot anything at ISO 6400, except for tests).
Click to expand...

I haven't had the cajones to go past 800 for real gigs, and have had almost zero testing time since I got the body. With my lights in location or studio settings, I tend to be at 400, 500, maybe a bit higher, since I really tru to be at F4 or so. I'm getting way more light to the sensor than my AC-130 on the same setup, and the 130 is a noise-fest compared to the 7100, even at lowest gain.

I'll still use the 130 for event-type stuff, I have some clients that do almost monthly public events (and I hate to turn down a booking). It's really a dynamite camera on a shoulder mount with the remote focus clamped by my finger. But for now, I'm doing D7100 with the Tascam when I want IQ. Killer, killer combination.
 
I watched some old stuff I shot with a D7000, and was very surprised how much I liked it. Definitely was a cut above the 60D. Though, I had learned the 60D well enough to feel familiar to that image. But would, at a glance prefer the D7000.

The D4s is still seemingly behind the 1DC in video quality. It is looking like the D4s is an improvement for Nikon, just as the D4/D7100 was. If only nikon could get a "I am Log" out there. The D800 is not far behind the dragon and Alexa in terms of a raw image.

Lately, I have been marveling at how good the 1DC has been, while initially the sicker shock made me very judgmental, after that has worn away, I am constantly pleased that I have so few limitations when shooting with it.

Was hoping the D4s was a solution for video, but looks rather ENG still. Beautiful ENG, no doubt. Glad Nikon is continually making steps towards the video end. Maybe we will meet again?
 
James0b57 said:
I watched some old stuff I shot with a D7000, and was very surprised how much I liked it. Definitely was a cut above the 60D. Though, I had learned the 60D well enough to feel familiar to that image. But would, at a glance prefer the D7000.
Click to expand...

Having shot a lot of footage with both, I'll say the D7100 is a pretty major leap. Sold my last Canon body after that purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top