Nikon's update to its flagship D4 DSLR will be on view today through Friday at the International Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. A new image processing engine and better autofocus highlight the improvements to come from the full frame HD-DSLR. There are scant details beyond yesterday's press release.
A prototype of the camera was spotted in Hong Kong and published by Engadget. Details regarding availability, pricing and shipment will be announced at a later date. Stay tuned to Fstoppers for the latest.
Hardly seems worth an update. Hope I'm wrong.
Ditto, my D4 is about 100k shutters into its first year. Can't find a darn thing to complain about!
http://www.michaelkormos.com
There have been no details/specifications released, yet you've already determined that it doesn't seem "worth an update". Do you realize how silly that is?
Based on "new image processor and better auto-focus". Hence why I said "Hope I'm wrong". Sounds like the D610 update to the D600, but everyone knows that was just a ruse to coverup the D600 issues. Just my opinion. Clearly left room to change my mind. Take it easy.
No, the D610-D600 update is more like the SB910-SB900 update. They screwed up, they didn't admit it, people weren't fooled so an uproar was started, Nikon looked dishonorable but would be more dishonored if they admitted fault (I'm told it's a cultural thing but I think they were just jerks), and the fix of the issue became the next camera or flash.
This one is a more substantial update.
True. There is that difference. Never heard it was cultural...interesting.
Well I have a D600 in Nikon service and the team will admit there is some issues with some of the line of the cameras. I assume the 610 is a BS method of replacing a camera. The D4s was sitting in a locked case in the nikon booth. I would guess they don't even know what they are going to put in there. I would love a d600 with the buffer and speed of a d300
I really hope the upgrades are on the video side. Not everyone uses video and I understand people will be upset but I think there are HUGE gains to be made in resolution, video compression, RAW video, maybe 4k if that's possible out of the D4, and maybe some in camera gimmick processing like instant stabilization. I keep meaning to write an article about how the modern DSLR is pretty much dead; there isn't much to really improve in terms of the still photograph from an Image Quality stand point. The next improvements are going to be video, stabilization, and niche features like faster sync speed, wireless flash triggering, wifi upload, etc etc.
Some believe the D4 will have improvements in video. I still don't really get the video hype of DSLRs. If I want great video, I'll buy a video camera. All this does in jack up the price of the DSLRs, which will never be as good at video as a video camera. But, there is still plenty to improve on the photography side - most notably AF accuracy and sensors (light sensitivity, DR, and color depth). Still loads away from human eye. Look at this http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/graphene-camera-sensor/. Also, some may want to add Lytro-like technology. But I think you are right to a degree. The advancements have come so far so fast, and slowed...which is why Nikon and Canon have cut their sales projections drastically. People see less and less reasons to trade up so quickly.
I'm not sure having video has jacked up the price of any DSLR. Obviously the D4 costs slightly more than the D3 when it was the first FX camera to be released but all the intro level cameras have HD video as well and the prices on them seems to be decreasing. The D70 was what, like $1000 when it was released and a D3300 now offers so much more at a lesser price point. If the D7100 is the true replacement for the D300s cameras then that too is cheaper with better video. The D610 ($1999) is also cheaper than the D700 ($2600) when it came out.
As for buying a video camera vs buying a DSLR, which video camera are you referring to? Most of the comparable video cameras are WAY more expensive to get the same large sensor and fast lens combo that DSLR's offer. If it wasn't for the poor compression and lack of follow focus Sine lenses, I think more videographers would completely embrace the DSLR movement. They are merging though for sure regardless if you find value in it or not.
They always have mini-updates which after 2 years are welcomed by most photographers. It also helps those on the fence about getting a new camera.
Yeah...D3s, D3x, etc. Like I said, I hope it is better than it first seemed. What I meant about D610 was the added 0.5 frames/sec. and "better" white balance. Vague and virtually unnoticeable. D4s shows "better AF" and "new image processing" which sound vague and minor. But would love to really be able to see the difference. Love the D4. Can't wait for D5. :)
So you already know the specs? Maybe you want to share them with us?
Dammit. Still no D400.
I think hopes for a D400 are in vain at this point. I'd love to see one since I'm still using a D300, but I think the reality is that we'll never see one. I think the D7x00 series is the only thing that's going to be placed between the entry-level D3x00/D5x00 series and full-frame cameras.
Just get a D610 and move on. The dynamic range will blow you away. Or D7300 (whatever the latest one in that lineup is) if you actually like DX.
I agree with @Mansgame:disqus.. there really is no point for hoping for d400 because there are so many other crop cameras like the d7000 and the d7100 that have great image quality. I got out of crop so much of a difference in image quality and lovely dof the d700 howerever if upgraded would be a very good upgrade because it still holds it's own despite it's age and if made cheaper would possibly be a better midpoint between the enthusiast d600 and pro d800.
I'm curious. I know there are a lot of D300 lovers...DX version of the beloved D700, but what is it about the crop sensor cameras? Is it just the reach using FX lenses? Are there any other benefits besides that...and I suppose cost?
I think the appeal is 1) cheaper lenses, 2) smaller lenses, and 3) Ergonomics.
1) All the DX 2.8 lenses are significantly cheaper than the FX 2.8 equivalents
2) Also because the projection on DX is much smaller than FX, you can have a significantly smaller lens. The 17-55 is a bit smaller than the 24-70 and the ultra wide angles are much smaller. This is important for those who want to travel, pack light, and have a less cumbersome system.
3) There hasn't been a DX camera since the D300s with the same pro body as the D800. I personally shoot with a few D600s and D800s and I do prefer the D300s/700/800 body style.
All that being said, now that I made the full jump to FX (I only have 1 DX lens now), there is no way I would want to mix DX cameras and lenses into my bag. Everything works flawlessly now although it comes with a much larger price tag. That being said, I don't think I'm the norm when it comes to photographers. 90% of the photographers regardless of their skill level still probably only owns 1 camera and therefore can invest in any set of lenses they want.
The so called "reach" is nothing more than a crop,FF if affordable now and far better then FX..
I hear negative comments to the possibility of an upgrade, why? Cars are introduced every year, but that doesn't mean you need to re-buy. Computers are (or where in the past) introduced yearly, now that's been replaced by the ios/android cycle, but again my ipad 3 is still kicking even though it's not the newest... why not cameras? Why shouldn't the industry pack in the latest and greatest every year. Especially if it's for example evolutionary changes. Chips increase in speed every year, over time they become more sensitive to light, etc. If you just bought last years model, no doubt someone else has not, why bemoan the improvements.
Does it actually affect you?