Nikon D4 samples with 100% ISO 12800 crops

Really its 2 stops better no? Cos now the base iso is 100 before it was 200... same as always with Nikon... They say their 3200 is as Canon 1600 when the already started 200 ... jumbo mumbo .... The D4 seems like a MKIV with full frame and the 1Dx seems like a compromise between 1ds3 and 1mkiv... nothing worth upgrading for many....

TweakMDS wrote in post #13672650
The latter could be the case, especially and most obvious with things like long exposure noise reduction (= dark frame substraction), but technically speaking, the camera should not do any processing to the raw file, that's what DPP/lightroom/capture one/bibble etc are for).

I also suspect that the same difference that's so apparent between my 5D and 40D also exists in a certain degree between different full frame bodies. That could mean an older or newer body has more potential for cleaner files.

Looks like KR has come to a similar conclusion...

"The Canon 5D is clearly superior to anything else here because it doesn't get blurry at the highest ISOs. It has The Full-Frame Advantage. Look at the fur: the D300 wipes off all the fur and turns it into smooth skin at ISO 6,400! The D300 blurs everything to smithereens at ISO 6,400 to hide the noise, but it's like looking at the image though a veil. It's even more pronounced when I look at the full images on my 30" screen compared to these small clips. The D300 is a blur-o-rama at high ISOs. It's cheating! See Fallacies of Noise Measurements."

http://www.kenrockwell​.com …ons/2007-11/index.htm#200

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13672691
Looks like KR has come to a similar conclusion...

"The Canon 5D is clearly superior to anything else here because it doesn't get blurry at the highest ISOs. It has The Full-Frame Advantage. Look at the fur: the D300 wipes off all the fur and turns it into smooth skin at ISO 6,400! The D300 blurs everything to smithereens at ISO 6,400 to hide the noise, but it's like looking at the image though a veil. It's even more pronounced when I look at the full images on my 30" screen compared to these small clips. The D300 is a blur-o-rama at high ISOs. It's cheating! See Fallacies of Noise Measurements."

http://www.kenrockwell​.com …ons/2007-11/index.htm#200

Mr Rockwell has come to many conclusions, sometimes opposite of earlier ones. Still, I wouldn't credit him for this one initially. It's a well known effect from noise reduction blur images. The trick is to blur so selectively that details remain.

What you should really look at is how the files look before noise reduction (even the very capable high ISO cameras will look FUGLY). Then, apply an optimized noise reduction, or shoot raw + jpeg to let the camera do it, and see what you end up with.

Eitherway, I'm much more practical in my photography lately. I don't care too much about sharpness or noise, since what I shoot with now is more than good enough for me.

The big letdown with the D4 is the apparent removal of the hardware switches for metering and AF selection. What gives with that? That's a step backward, IMO.

jase1125 wrote in post #13672521
That is not the typical wording used when a manufacturer improves high ISO performance by one stop. Hence, my question on what Nikon is really stating.

No such thing as typical when it comes to marketing but the way I put it is the way I've read it in numerous places. Not sure how much simpler it can be.

So this claim of "to ISO 204800 equivalent" is nothing more than a worthless claim? Seeing the results at 12800 I seriously doubt any image would be useable at 204k. The image at 12800 is not bad but not what I thought it would be from the latest Nikon has to offer. I see a lot of color noise in those pics. I figured with all the hype that 12800 would look like ISO 200 now and that is why they run up to 204k ISO. Seems like it will be nothing more than a feature that is tossed in to pump up the stats. I am sure it will be a good camera, but I am not sure why everyone is so quick to dump their D3s for this. I was at Samy's today and they had 2 people come in that day to trade in thier D3s for the D4. Not sure why they would do that seeing they could get more money selling it online, but whatever. I asked how much the D3s were going for and they said it doesnt matter since they are already spoken for. Looks like the D3s will get cheaper inthe used market now. I am waiting for all the early birds to jump on the 5D3 so I can grab their 5D2's at lower price.

No Angle wrote in post #13678196
So this claim of "to ISO 204800 equivalent" is nothing more than a worthless claim? Seeing the results at 12800 I seriously doubt any image would be useable at 204k. The image at 12800 is not bad but not what I thought it would be from the latest Nikon has to offer. I see a lot of color noise in those pics. I figured with all the hype that 12800 would look like ISO 200 now and that is why they run up to 204k ISO. Seems like it will be nothing more than a feature that is tossed in to pump up the stats. I am sure it will be a good camera, but I am not sure why everyone is so quick to dump their D3s for this. I was at Samy's today and they had 2 people come in that day to trade in thier D3s for the D4. Not sure why they would do that seeing they could get more money selling it online, but whatever. I asked how much the D3s were going for and they said it doesnt matter since they are already spoken for. Looks like the D3s will get cheaper inthe used market now. I am waiting for all the early birds to jump on the 5D3 so I can grab their 5D2's at lower price.

It's not a worthless claim, they're just saying it goes that high. Whether you choose to use the photos from that range is up to you. I agree though, while it looks good, I will be pouncing on some D3s's when they start dropping.

elrey2375 wrote in post #13674894
No such thing as typical when it comes to marketing but the way I put it is the way I've read it in numerous places. Not sure how much simpler it can be.

Obviously you are missing the point of my question with respect to Nikon's choice of wording.

RhysPhotograph.Me wrote in post #13659821
You'd have to listen to the Fro knows photo guy (if you can bare it as he personally drives me nut's)

http://www.youtube.com …U&feature=playe​r_embedded

I used to like the guy but his shticks got really annoying (Darth Vader, sniff and smell test, etc) Finally, I unsubscribed completely and the air around here is much fresher.

Joe McNally talks at some length about the low light abilities of the D4. I suspect that will be marketing push. That, and the video abilities. Joe doesn't mention the video much, I'm not sure that's really his area of interest. Nikon can find other folks to uptalk the video.

I, too, will be looking at real world high ISO images with great interest, the march of technology is fascinating.

Rainyday wrote in post #13688542
I used to like the guy but his shticks got really annoying (Darth Vader, sniff and smell test, etc) Finally, I unsubscribed completely and the air around here is much fresher.

Yep that's what get's on my nerves. He's basically saying "hey look at me and press the subscribe button, look how silly and immature I can be about things you don't even care about, man I'm cool, next week I'll be laughing at my farts"

TweakMDS wrote in post #13673054
Mr Rockwell has come to many conclusions, sometimes opposite of earlier ones.

He has to appeal to his current sponsorship! Send him $50 thru paypal and tell him what he needs to say to keep your dough flowing. I bet the almighty $$$ wins, as he shamelessly begs for cash on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of his site.

AngryCorgi wrote in post #13699198
He has to appeal to his current sponsorship! Send him $50 thru paypal and tell him what he needs to say to keep your dough flowing. I bet the almighty $$$ wins, as he shamelessly begs for cash on EVERY SINGLE PAGE of his site.

Right? I'm confused, so that page wasn't showing how the 5D dominated the Nikon crops then?

Rainyday wrote in post #13688677
Joe McNally talks at some length about the low light abilities of the D4. I suspect that will be marketing push. That, and the video abilities. Joe doesn't mention the video much, I'm not sure that's really his area of interest. Nikon can find other folks to uptalk the video.

I, too, will be looking at real world high ISO images with great interest, the march of technology is fascinating.

I respect the hell outta Joe McNally, but he's Nikon's most famous endorser, and he likely takes home a good deal of money (and gear) from Nikon. I would expect him to sing the praises of the D4.

The images posted here suggest that ISO 12800 are just ok, no matter what Joe says.