So, now that the D4 is officially announced...

[flosseR]

is anyone going to get that? There is no way i can afford that camera.. EVER but the 85mm lens looks mighty nice as well, and that i can consider.

here is my question though. Every Camera iteration is better than the last. Yet we have proof that you can take awesome and stunning images with a few year old equipment (Doylem you are still the king there). But then everyone seems to want more and more. Are people even learning to use the equipment anymore? Do we really need all that technology? Don't get me wrong, I am drooling over that camera as well but when i think rationally about it, the only thing that would help me in any way over what i shoot now, is the ultra high ISO.. otherwise personally i don't see shelling out that much cash. I know professionals have certain needs but I am targeting my question towards "amateurs (=do not make money off their shooting) and enthusiasts.

 

[Chundles]

I'm disappointed - was expecting a teardrop design with a bigger screen. Nikon owes us an explanation.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

the ultra high ISO.. otherwise personally i don't see shelling out that much cash.

Personally I won't buy one, simply because:

1. The D800 better suits most of my needs.

2. Where the D4 would have an advantage over the D800, I'd prefer a RED Scarlet-X.

But I agree: that high ISO capability is wonderful stuff and not just a vanity feature.

 

[Keleko]

I'm with Trey Ratcliff on this one. DSLR is a dead end technology. The 3rd generation of digital cameras, like the Sony NEX and Olympus PEN series, are the future. And don't call them mirrorless because you don't define a product by what it doesn't have (when did you last call a car a horseless carriage?). The 3rd generation cameras may not yet be able to replace DSLR (no fast, long lenses yet for action photography, no full frame sensors yet), but it's really only a matter of time.

 

[PantalonesSucia]

Depends on what you're using it for. If you get paid to take photos, then you'll buy it (whatever it is...Nikon D4, D800, Canon 1D-X, etc...).

Invest in the lenses. Buy the new camera body when you're limited by your current set-up.

That being said, we shot the other week with the PhaseOne 645DF with the IQ180 back on it. Holy. ****. Amazing.

But it's also a nut-shrinking 250MB file PER IMAGE...but damn it's gorgeous. *ISO performance still blows.

 

[rebby]

Invest in the lenses. Buy the new camera body when you're limited by your current set-up.

Exactly. My problem is that I get hooked on the new features/functionality so when I upgrade one body, I find my other bodies lacking and have a strong desire to upgrade them as well. I'm working on consolidating things down to 2 bodies (one crop, one FF) so once I have that taken care of, this should be less of a "problem".

 

[telecomm]

I'm with Trey Ratcliff on this one. DSLR is a dead end technology. The 3rd generation of digital cameras, like the Sony NEX and Olympus PEN series, are the future.

Sure, but what are you going to use for, say, the next 5 years?

Stick with your current gear if you're happy with what you have (in which case it doesn't really matter what comes next, and you could happily be shooting film on a great film camera, or using a point-and-shoot, etc.). But, if you want the best available now (and what's likely to be the best option for some years to come), waiting has no appeal.

The value of good gear is in the images you're able to produce with it, not its resale value.

The 3rd generation cameras may not yet be able to replace DSLR (no fast, long lenses yet for action photography, no full frame sensors yet), but it's really only a matter of time.

Yeah, exactly. And as we're all living in the present, what about now?

 

[Keleko]

Obviously if you don't have gear you like now, you can't wait for the next generation. But I would recommend you not heavily invest in it because the DSLR is going to be replaced in the future. It won't go away completely, just like VHS hasn't been fully replaced. DVDs are old tech compared to blueray, but they haven't gone away completely, either.

 

[bunit]

Well...if your "targeting your question towards amateurs", and don't have the money to spend, then you def. don't need the D4. There's no reason why you can't use 3-4 year old technology.

 

[mrdinh]

same here wished they announced the D800...the rumors say feb will be the announcement...but CES is not over yet...there is still hope

 

[avro707]

I'm with Trey Ratcliff on this one. DSLR is a dead end technology. The 3rd generation of digital cameras, like the Sony NEX and Olympus PEN series, are the future.

Okay, your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to use a Sony NEX (any current model) to photograph a bullet piercing a beer can, in a dark environment (black background), using flashes to illuminate it. The idea is to capture the moment on photo in high detail when the bullet hits the beer can, with beer coming out of it.

But it's also a nut-shrinking 250MB file PER IMAGE...but damn it's gorgeous. *ISO performance still blows.

And what kind of computers are you using to process those? Certainly not many images at a time I guess.

I'm personally not compelled to upgrade to the D4 right away. If I were doing video, then I'd be more interested.

What I do like is illuminated buttons on the D4 - that's useful at night when it's not always possible to see the buttons, although the purist will say that if you are a great photographer, you don't need to see the buttons, you can feel them and know what each one is.

 

[sapporobaby]

To answer flosser,

I'm getting one. I may sell my D3S and have two different bodies or I may give the D3S to my daughter and sell her D700. Either way, as soon as I can get one I will have one.

 

[avro707]

I'd trade the D700 to a D4 and pay the difference, but I don't see the need to rush and be the early adopter this time around. The major improvements are not as huge as they were from D3 to D3S or the D2 to D3.

I still use my D700 with good results. I even yesterday used it with the cheap kit lens 70-300 F/4-5.6G, the really cheap one. I had no other suitable lens available or able to get one in the time needed. Stopped it down and there was no problem, quality was good enough.

 

[wrinkster22]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I'm disappointed - was expecting a teardrop design with a bigger screen. Nikon owes us an explanation.

I laughed at this

 

[cube]

I want a good interchangeable lens 3D camera not bigger than a D700.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

Yet we have proof that you can take awesome and stunning images with a few year old equipment ... I know professionals have certain needs but I am targeting my question towards "amateurs (=do not make money off their shooting) and enthusiasts.

You are right; me as enthusiast don't get each two year the next fresh body. I still use my "old" Canon 1DM3. Skipped the M4 and now saw the announcement for the 1DX. Man, I would like to have that one too, but the price tag is in conflict with the need to get a piano for my son.

Plus and more important: the technical limits of my current M3 are not yet reached by my own limits of skills in term of composition and using of flash light. I shoot always in RAW mode, use M, Tv or A mode for exposure, understand post processing etc. But the basics of composition and lightning still have lots room of improvement. So I rather spend some money on books in this area and practice. But which the choice of tools (body and L-lenses) I made sure that I don't reach the limits of the tools anytime soon. Did that mistake in the past: try to save money on cheaper/slower lenses; that makes you reach the limits too fast.

That part of technology I really want is high ISO for indoor shooting without flash and high exposure frequency for air shows.

 

[sapporobaby]

That part of technology I really want is high ISO for indoor shooting without flash and high exposure frequency for air shows.

This is what made me buy the D3S. I like to shoot without flash, and I shoot action events.

 

[El Cabong]

No D4 for me, but very likely to get a D800 when it's available, as its specs are closer to my needs and the price will be slightly more affordable (hopefully). Looking forward to seeing some high-ISO and video samples from the D4.

With regard to the mirrorless discussion, I also shoot Micro 4/3s, a system I find promising, but lacking certain (fast) lenses, a true flagship body, and overall cohesion. The upcoming system from Fuji is exciting, particularly if the rumored $800 body-only price point holds true. Sony's NEX-7 looks great, but the lens choices aren't. As autofocus and electronic viewfinder technology improve along with lens quality and selection, I'll be more likely to ditch DSLRs, but no mirrorless system is that compelling at the moment.

 

[Keleko]

Okay, your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to use a Sony NEX (any current model) to photograph a bullet piercing a beer can, in a dark environment (black background), using flashes to illuminate it. The idea is to capture the moment on photo in high detail when the bullet hits the beer can, with beer coming out of it.

I don't have any of the items listed to try it, but I bet you can do it. The important part is the flash sync speed, not the shutter speed. This is similar to splash photography, and the flash sync is what matters there, not the shutter speed. You still have to set everything up to go off at the right moment, and I don't have any of the equipment to do that, so I can't accept the challenge. I couldn't do it with my Canon 60D for the same reason.

I did state that the 3rd generation is not equivalent to DSLR YET, but it is going to be. Already, Scott Bourne, a well know pro photographer, has sold his Leica M9 and uses an Olympus PEN e-p3 with a 45mm lens for pro portrait work and is extremely happy with it. So, in some cases you already can use the 3rd generation for real work.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The only thing I really see as an advantage for a casual amateur like myself over my Rebel XT is the higher ISO and slight improvement in kit lens quality. Most of the other features are not fundamentally important to taking good photos - training and practice are more usefult to me than new gear.

It's the same with with golf - I have a pretty basic set of clubs but at this point lessons are more useful to me than better clubs.

 

[avro707]

I don't have any of the items listed to try it, but I bet you can do it. The important part is the flash sync speed, not the shutter speed. This is similar to splash photography, and the flash sync is what matters there, not the shutter speed. You still have to set everything up to go off at the right moment, and I don't have any of the equipment to do that, so I can't accept the challenge. I couldn't do it with my Canon 60D for the same reason.

I did state that the 3rd generation is not equivalent to DSLR YET, but it is going to be. Already, Scott Bourne, a well know pro photographer, has sold his Leica M9 and uses an Olympus PEN e-p3 with a 45mm lens for pro portrait work and is extremely happy with it. So, in some cases you already can use the 3rd generation for real work.

Yeah, I'm tempted to try it. I know who has the right weapons for the job - and I do have the gear to do it. I'd like to try it with a glass bottle instead.

I'm partial to smaller, less bulky cameras myself, provided functionality isn't compromised, and as long as everything isn't controlled through a touch screen.

 

[firestarter]

These new cameras push the limits for people who need extreme performance (frames per second, waterproofing, ultra low light etc.) but for regular photography there's been little need to upgrade in the last 3 or 4 years.

12 megapixels with OK low light performance is ample for most amateur photography, and we've had that for years. Peoples eyes aren't getting any sharper - and at normal viewing distances you should be able to get a great 10x8 or even a 20x16 out of a well taken shot. A lot of photography doesn't even need low light capability... hell, it used to be uncommon to shoot with film over ISO400 - and just think of all the great images captured in the past.

We're getting to a stage like with car releases, where every new model is a bit better - but you can still drive to work OK with pretty much anything.

Sure, I enjoy the 21 megapixels I have on my Canon 5DII, and I've had fun using video - but I certainly wouldn't be upset if I was 'stuck' with a D700 for life.

I think the mirrorless market is certainly something to watch, but the real thing that camera makers need to concentrate on now is increasing dynamic range.

Back to the original question and the D4... I actually really dislike the bulky and heavy pro camera formfactor and I'm perfectly happy shooting in portrait format without a second shutter release. I like a lighter camera that I can travel with, so D700/5DII are pretty much the maximum weight and size I'd consider. I'll probably keep my main Canon, but I think my next 'serious camera' purchase will be a mirrorless.

 

[Phrasikleia]

the real thing that camera makers need to concentrate on now is increasing dynamic range.

Yes, greater dynamic range would be one of two improvements that could make me want to upgrade anytime soon. The other would be a camera that can display histograms of raw data so I could stop using UniWB.

 

[firestarter]

Yes, greater dynamic range would be one of two improvements that could make me want to upgrade anytime soon. The other would be a camera that can display histograms of raw data so I could stop using UniWB.

I agree.

There's two things that still cameras need to borrow from movie cameras - peaking and zebras.

Peaking is here now on the Sony NEX... the camera senses high contrast areas in the picture and highlights on the screen... this shows where you're in focus and is a fantastic tool.

Good movie cameras have variable zebra marking, so you can choose lightness/darkness thresholds and have the camera mark them with colours or stripes. In RAW would be even better... judging exposure from a JPEG histogram is guesswork at best.

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

The only thing I really see as an advantage for a casual amateur like myself over my Rebel XT is the higher ISO ...

Yes, higher ISO. I am also interested in video that may allow to make
documentaries and the quality be as good as possible. At the moment,
considering a Nikon D5100 or Canon T3i/T2i, (550D/600D).

I would be more than happy to get a Canon 5DII or Nikon D700, if they
get a lower price. Perhaps that happens as they are about to bring out
a 5DIII and a D800. Perhaps the camera price drops to a range between
$1,400-$1,800. But perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

Kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!