D4 Reaction

I have briefly reviewed the specs for the new D4 and am wondering what market Nikon is attempting to meet (and why). I would certainly purchase a D3x over the D4 given the choice. My transition to hybrid cameras is apparently well behind the curve. I currently shoot with a D700 (primary) and am not feeling the urge to spend the money on a D4 where as I would, if I could afford it, move to the D3x in a heart beat. I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on the D4 DSLR/Video hybrid introduction.

Personally I don't like that DSLR's have video on them- if I wanted to shoot video, much rather with a dedicated camcorder than using my dslr. Leave the slr camera to what it is good for-photography. Just my humble opinion of course lol

I don't like the transition to video either. But the truth is, this is a pro level camera and a lot of working photographers also do video. It makes sense for the product, although most of us wouldn't bother with those features.

i had a feeling nikon with the d4 would transition to more video oriented, as more users and photographers are demanding for it. either way it doesn't bother me that they aimed for this, as long as the photo quality is not effected.
most of the people that will actually purchase this camera are going to professionals (hopefully) and probably would want to do some video work i imagine. so i dont see it hurting Nikon at all

I can live with the video...it's not that big a deal...but I was disappointed that the sensor hasn't got 24+mps
As an amateur and a beginner, it's well out of reach for me anyway ... But I can dream ;-)

I'll bet the additional production cost to add video is so low now that it makes sense to broaden the market appeal with negligible cost increase.

I do agree with Kayte.
I also don't like the video option on a DSRL camera, especially on a flagship camera.
I can understand this option on a point-and-shoot camera.
But, if I want video, I'll use a video camera.
That's my opinion.

I have been looking at this camera for a while now. All i can say is, "wow!". Anything else than that does not really matter - i don't have 6K lying around that i don't want and even if i did, at the level that i am at, i would have no use for it. This would be like me going to the corner store in an F1 car instead of walking the 50 yards or so. Overkill!! Not sure what the big hang up is about the video feature... It's just an extra feature and does not take anything away from the camera. If you guys want to carry two cameras around with you, go ahead. I will settle for just one. Video cameras can take still shots..... do you disagree with that? Anyhow, good for Nikon! Canon's new 5D is a bit of a dissapointment i heard...

DaveKoontz said:

I have briefly reviewed the specs for the new D4 and am wondering what market Nikon is attempting to meet (and why). I would certainly purchase a D3x over the D4 given the choice. My transition to hybrid cameras is apparently well behind the curve. I currently shoot with a D700 (primary) and am not feeling the urge to spend the money on a D4 where as I would, if I could afford it, move to the D3x in a heart beat. I'm interested in hearing other thoughts on the D4 DSLR/Video hybrid introduction.

Click to expand...

Nikon D4 vs D3X

kayte said:

Personally I don't like that DSLR's have video on them- if I wanted to shoot video, much rather with a dedicated camcorder than using my dslr. Leave the slr camera to what it is good for-photography. Just my humble opinion of course lol

Click to expand...

I believe significant movie and TV series are now shot with DSLRs (They are cheap compared to pro movie gear). Most notably Canon. I saw something recentlywhere a director purchased 50 Canon DSLRs - Why Aardman shot its latest movie on Canon DSLRs | News | TechRadar


And this sort of thing:

10 Examples of Stunning DSLR Cinematography - NoFilmSchool

Do you notice a common theme - Canon. I suspect that's why Nikon are keen to up their game with regards to movie mode.

Regards

Geoff

I would have one if I could afford it...I'm not "disappointed it doesn't have 24 MPs"...If you want 24+ MP that's the D3x...Plus they have the D800 series with 36MPs

I think megapixels might be beneficial to some, but the average person couldn't tell the difference between 12MPs or 24MPs....

pedroj said:

I think megapixels might be beneficial to some, but the average person couldn't tell the difference between 12MPs or 24MPs....

Click to expand...

I would generally agree, except where you need to crop heavily.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Geoffc said:

I believe significant movie and TV series are now shot with DSLRs (They are cheap compared to pro movie gear). Most notably Canon. I saw something recentlywhere a director purchased 50 Canon DSLRs - Why Aardman shot its latest movie on Canon DSLRs | News | TechRadar

Click to expand...

A couple shots in The Avengers were done with some Canon's: Canon U.S.A. : About Canon

I would buy the D4 is I had the money. I like the high ISO for drag racing purposes. Most tracks have shitty lighting so shooting motion at night becomes a pain in the ass. I hate the idea of video.

I think the D4 is without question the best camera in the world today.
I dont like or use the video either, but so what... just because its there you dont have to use it. ( and who knows... one of these days lol )
In fact the only thing I dont like, is the fact its full frame. I prefer DX format full stop.
Anyone thinking 16milion pixels is not enough... all I can say is wow ! you must have some great clients or summit lol.
To me, the D4 is a camera to tackle just about anything anywhere.
I would need clients wanting billboard pics or humungus size files before wanting more.
My fingers are crossed for the new D300 having a simlar spec. A bit like the D300 D700 and D3s was !
I will be happy indeed if they were to just shove the D7000 sensor in the D300

i am waiting for the to put a 24mp sensor into a d7000 equivalent body, even then i would wait a while for any bugs to be sorted out. the latest technology is not the be all and end all of the matter. its not what you have, but its the way that you use it that gets results.

What do you need a 24mp sensor for? You will not get 10-11 shots a sec with a 24mp sensor. Can you imagine the card speeds needed at that point?

its the potential ability to crop in that bit extra that appeals to me. i shoot wildlife and insect macros and do not want to use a longer focal length. frames per second and buffer speeds are of no interest to me.

evan said:

its the potential ability to crop in that bit extra that appeals to me. i shoot wildlife and insect macros and do not want to use a longer focal length. frames per second and buffer speeds are of no interest to me.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point and a one of the main reasons for owning a D800. In a very real way, a D800 w/ 300mm lens can crop the shot by 3x to equal what a D700 w/ a 900mm or a D300 w/ a 600mm lens would achieve. Most people equate MP's with printing potential and ask out how often will you be printing a very large poster but as you point out "cropability" and the ability to turn a 300mm lens into a 900mm lens is the real power of a large MP sensor.

Calin said:

I do agree with Kayte.
I also don't like the video option on a DSRL camera, especially on a flagship camera.
I can understand this option on a point-and-shoot camera.
But, if I want video, I'll use a video camera.
That's my opinion.

Click to expand...

When I got my d7000, I had a separate video camera. I never intended to use my dslr for videos. Lately, I was experimenting with the dslr's video mode and compared it with my camcorder. I had more flexibility with the dlsr because I could change the lenses. It gave me the options like a blurred background with selective focusing. It also had a better video in low light because I could adjust the ISO. Overall, quality is much better than my camcorder. Don't get me wrong, I'm not convincing anybody, just sharing.