The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New D4 D800 rumour

ptomsu

Workshop Member
If you check different sites it seems that August 24th 2011 is most likely as release date. Any other thoughts / news ????
 

etrigan63

Active member
The release of the D4 AND D800 would be a change for Nikon. Historically, they release the Pro FX body with a pro/semi-pro DX body followed in 8-12 months with a pro/semi-pro FX body. It would be more logical to release the D4/D400 and the D800 later. Granted, the market for the D4 is much more rarified than the D800 so maybe this change in tactics will be a good thing. I, for one, am keenly interested.

Sony's upcoming Alpha offerings (the A77 and the rumored FF A99) are set to radically alter the playing field price-wise and performance-wise. The A77 should be able to keep up with the Nikon D3s and outgun it in most respects.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
So far, the only thing that is reasonably sure is that something will be released on 24 August, probably two DSLRs. A D4 seems likely, but a D800? What if it is an FX D8000 in a D7000 body? That way, Nikon won't have a head-on competitor for the D4 from day one, and they would open up a new market segment, compact full frame DSLR, that many have asked for, and they will do it before the mythical A99 is even close to the market.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
WRT D800 or D8000 or D4 - I think that a FF follow up is urgently needed from Nikon (as from Canon and Sony). The reason this takes so much time is obviously because this cannot just be a simple MP increase, but also better high ISO, better HD video, better DR etc etc. And mostly better AF as higher resolution requires more accurate AF.

I could not care less how Nikon names their FF bodies but I am almost sure there will be a follow up to the D700 as well as the D3s and D3x. The D700 follow up is actually urgently needed, as the main competitor - the Canon 5DMk2 is better in almost all features except AF. As Canon is about to release a 5DMk3 pretty soon (next 6 -10 months) I am very sure Nikon will not want to miss out this market segment, as it is the largest for FF DSLRs. And there will of course also be the high end D4xyz bodies, but agreed this segment is much smaller.

WRT Sony - sure their TM technology is nice, but I still cannot see that I would like to just look to an electronic image instead of a real image on a mirror. So I do actually hope that in their FF pro models they keep mirrors - at least this is my hope. And I think I am not the only one wanting this, as in all discussions with serious photographers and pros I found that the majority votes for a real mirror in a pro DSLR! At least there is hope that Canon and Nikon keep that path ;)

WRT resolution - all the rumors say that the next step in FF DSLRs will be between 28-40MP depending on which manufacturer and which model. I would think that the D800 (D700 successor) would have 24MP, while a D4x would get the same as the A99 - something around 36MP. This would also allow Nikon to clearly distinguish between the prosumer D800 and the pro D4x. The D4s would have same 24MP as the D800 but with more features, faster and better high ISO (which I personally would not need).

Canon is rumored to come with a 5D3 and 28MP and their next 1DsMkIV with around 36MP (some even talk about 40MP).

There is another main issue I see with Sony - their lens lineup. Canon and Nikon have meanwhile a perfect lineup from widest wide to longest tele and all updated with latest technology. Compared to that Sony does not really offer to many choices. So even if Sony can brake the ice with pricing, I am not sure if i would go Sony just because of lower price, because I could not get the lenses I would like which I can get from both - Nikon and Canon. And BTW - if Sony will stay in the FF DSLR business is still questionable, as they obviously concentrate much more on APSC cameras - DSLRs and NEX, so at least lot of their development and engineering power goes into non FF!

Just my 5c predictions looking into the 10c crystal ball :cool:
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
There is another main issue I see with Sony - their lens lineup.
I hear this time after time after time. It's utter BS. One reason that Nikon/Canon have so many lenses is that basically that have 2 versions of each lens. 1 IS/VR and 1 non-IS/VR.

A Sony DSLR/SLT camera will fit every sony-minolta autofocus lens made since the early 1980's...





The list is plenty long and this doesn't include 3rd party lens makers...

AF zoom lenses
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16–35 mm f/2.8 ZA(Sony SSM motor)
AF 17–35 mm f/2.8-4 (D)
AF 17–35 mm f/3.5 G
AF 20–35 mm f/3.5-4.5
AF 24–50 mm f/4 (Original, RS)
AF 24–70 mm f/2.8
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24–70 mm f/2.8 ZA(Sony SSM motor)
AF 24–85 mm f/3.5-4.5 (RS, II)
AF 24–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (D, Minolta)
AF 24–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (D, Sony)
AF 28–70 mm f/2.8 G
AF 28–75 mm f/2.8 (D)
AF 28–75 mm f/2.8 (D Sony ASM motor)
AF 28–80 mm f/3.5-5.6 (RS, D)
AF 28–80 mm f/4-5.6 (xi, RS)
AF 28–85 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, RS)
AF 28–100 mm f/3.5-5.6 (D)
AF 28–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (RS, II)
AF 28–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 xi
AF 28–135 mm f/4-4.5
AF 35–70 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, II)
AF 35–70 mm f/4 (Original, RS, II)
AF 35–80 mm f/4-5.6 (RS, xi, II)
AF 35–105 mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original, RS)
AF 35–200 mm f/4.5-5.6 xi
AF 80–200 mm f/2.8 Apo G (Original, HS)
AF 80–200 mm f/4.5-5.6 xi
AF 70–200 mm f/2.8 APO SSM (G, Sony G)
AF 70–210 mm f/3.5-4.5
AF 70-210mm f/4 (nickname: beercan)
AF 70–210 mm f/4.5-5.6 (RS, II)
AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM (Sony G lens SSM motor)
AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 (Sony G)
AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 100–200 mm f/4.5
AF 100–300 mm f/4.5-5.6 (RS, APO, APO D)
AF 100–400 mm f/4.5-6.7 APO

DT Zoom Lenses (crop sensor)
AF DT 11–18 mm f/4.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 16–105 mm f/3.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (Sony SAM)
AF DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18–200 mm f/3.5-6.3 (D, Sony)
AF DT 18–250 mm f/3.5-6.3 (Sony)
AF DT 55–200 mm f/4-5.6 (D, Sony, Sony SAM)
Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 ZA

Standard Primes
AF 50mm f/1.4 (Original, RS, Sony)
AF 50mm f/1.7 (Original, RS)
AF DT 50mm f/1.8 (Sony SAM)


Wide-angle Primes
AF 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye (Original, Sony)
AF 20 mm f/2.8 (Original, RS, Sony)
AF 24mm f/2.8 (Original, RS)
AF 28 mm f/2 (Original, RS)
AF 28 mm f/2.8 (Original, Sony)
AF 35 mm f/2.0 (Original, RS)
AF 35 mm f/1.4 (Original, G, Sony)


Telephoto Primes
AF 85 mm f/1.4 (Original, G, G D, G D Limited)
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA
AF 100 mm f/2.0
AF 100 mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (SF)
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA
AF 135 mm f/2.8
STF 135mm f/2.8 [T4.5]* (RS, Sony)
AF 200 mm f/2.8 APO G (Original, HS)
AF 300 mm f/2.8 APO G (Original, HS)
AF 300mm f/2.8 APO SSM G (Original, Sony)
AF 300 mm f/4 APO G HS
AF 400 mm f/4.5 APO G HS
AF 500mm Reflex (RS, Sony)
AF 600 mm f/4 APO G (Original, HS)

Macro Primes
AF DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro (Sony SAM)
AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 50 mm f/3.5 Macro
AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (Original, RS, D, Sony)
AF 200 mm f/4 Macro Apo G
AF Macro Zoom 1x-3x f/1.7-2.8


AF tele converters
AF 1.4X Tele Converter (APO, APO II, (D), Sony)
AF 2X Tele Converter (APO, APO II, (D), Sony)
AF 2x M/A Converter-S (For use of manual lenses shorter than 300 mm on AF bodies)
AF 2x M/A Converter-L (For use of manual lenses longer than 300 mm on AF bodies)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Well, if you are ok to use decade old lenses then there is a good lineup. But not anybody does.

I for myself do not like this approach! Simply because then AF speed and number of other advantages like digitally optimized lenses would not be available!
 

etrigan63

Active member
That approach worked for Leica for decades. Granted, their lenses are not autofocus and have zero electronics.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
That approach worked for Leica for decades. Granted, their lenses are not autofocus and have zero electronics.
Leica was never in the real pro business nor have their products been mainstream, albeit their lens design was always superior to others, so while transitioning into the digital age their "old" designs still can hold up somehow. But even there we see big improvements lately - M lenses, S lenses.

Nikon and Canon were always mainstream - over the past 4 - 5 decades at least. Minolta BTW was also never up to Canon or Nikon in terms of number of sold cameras.

Point is - for a new high end digital system there is the need for a broad lens lineup which can stand up to the requirements of modern high resolution sensors. I would say that only the latest designs of lenses of Nikon and Canon really do justice to that need.
 

Dustbak

Member
BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.

I wonder why people always insist on the D700 (or its successor) needing to be a lesser camera, less professional, less features than the D3s (or its successor) or in any other way less (or even pro-sumer instead of a pro-body, even though NPS clearly has it in the Pro category).

Personally I prefer the small form factor of the D700 over the D3. I do want the same functionality (I could do without the flash, especially if it makes for a sturdier body). Actually if the D700 would have been more expensive than the D3 I would still have favored it over the D3. If there will be a D700 replacement I will buy it but if there isn't I am still perfectly happy with the D700.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.

I wonder why people always insist on the D700 (or its successor) needing to be a lesser camera, less professional, less features than the D3s (or its successor) or in any other way less (or even pro-sumer instead of a pro-body, even though NPS clearly has it in the Pro category).

Personally I prefer the small form factor of the D700 over the D3. I do want the same functionality (I could do without the flash, especially if it makes for a sturdier body). Actually if the D700 would have been more expensive than the D3 I would still have favored it over the D3. If there will be a D700 replacement I will buy it but if there isn't I am still perfectly happy with the D700.
+1 !!!

BTW I owned both - D3 and later D700 and I would always prefer the D700 after that experience - smaller body, same functionality and less weight!
 

Lonnie Utah

New member
BTW, Nikon does NOT have 2 versions of each lens, VR & non-VR.
Yes, of course, my original statement was hyperbole. But it is true to an extent.

The point is that in reality there is no "lack of lenses" for Sony. It's marketing hype from the other side. It's true that they don't have as many lenses as the competition, but at what point do the other manufactures have redundancy and overlap in their own lens lineups? (Does we really need versions of nikon's 50 f/1.8 or 3 versions of Canon's 100 f/2.8?)

Personally, I've got the Zeiss 16-35, the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, a siggy 70-200 f/2.8 and a handful of legacy minolta glass. The ONLY thing I could see myself wanting to round out my personal collection is a a tilt/shift lens and really long lens if I ever decided to do wildlife stuff (which I don't really do). I think the 70-400 G would cover that range, if the 500 f/4 is never released.
 

Lars

Active member
Latest posts on NikonRumors says only Nikon's new EVIL system will be presented on the 24th, no DSLRs. That's interesting too, of course, just not the main topic of this thread.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Another sort of pointless argument of this brand verses that brand.

All these systems are now so good now, that it comes down to real world need and preferences, not collecting every single thing a system offers whether one needs it or not.

Trust me, I've had and used all of the systems being discussed. Every Canon since the 3.3 meg EOS D30 all the way to the 1DsMKIII, and Nikons from the D1 through the D700/D3/D3X ... and my current Sony A900s ... plus some exotic detours like the 6 meg FF Contax ND and Leica DMR/9. Sometimes having more than one system and selecting the strengths of each.

Every one of the systems either fit the specific "true need" very well, or was lacking in some way or another, for one shooter or another. It is all very "personal".

I selected to zero in on Sony because the files were better than any of the other right out of the camera (less post work), for the Zeiss optical designs which is a look I prefer over the Nikon/Canon approach, and all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ... assuming that one buys a 35 meg camera to make larger prints or enable more severe cropping ... otherwise what's the point of 35+ meg?

I do not do T/S or Macro professional work with a 35mm DSLR, overwhelmingly preferring MFD for these tasks ... which if I didn't own, I would rent.

-Marc
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I agree with some of that, not all:

1) IBIS in Alpha cameras - well what about shooting then an S2 with 37MP without IBIS? How could that work? Or shoot even a IQ180 which has even higher resolution without IBIS?

My conclusion: IBIS is nice but not a must.

2) Lens lineup: still not arguable that Nikon and Canon are leading here with latest developments. Need all of that? Everybody has to do their own conclusion ....

3) Sony colors: this discussion is well known and there are many who obviously see the better colors and file quality coming out of a FF Sony. I never did, actually was the other way around - maybe I am blind.

4) For me still questionable how Sony will follow the FF DSLR path. First would like to see their next generation FF camera and then also launch of all the missing lenses which are available from Nikon an/or Canon. Today Sony rather seems to concentrate on NEX and APSC - best case on APSC Pro bodies.

5) EVF still VERY questionable for me! I like it in small high quality cameras like M43, but I do not accept it (want to accept it) in a pro body FF DSLR.
 

lowep

Member
"I selected to zero in on Sony because ... all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ..."

So :wtf: why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs (starting with an adapter for my Contax 645 would be great) or even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs. Surely this is a marketing no-brainer even though it may be a technical nightmare given the many whiners (including myself) who are concerned about how to hand hold MFDBs with large sensors that show up camera shake more than smaller sensor cameras?

If I am fortunate I am making a dumb mistake by saying this since what I suggest has already been done long ago in which case please point me in the right direction.

hope this is not too :OT:
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
So :wtf: why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs ...even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs.

please point me in the right direction.

hope this is not too :OT:
I am a bit confused...have had all of the above camera and lens combinations listed above and loved the limited list of Sony lenses.

In body stabilization refers not to the lens but to the body with electronic data concerning focal length transmitted from a chip in the lens mount. The body does the stabilizing so putting these lenses on a MF camera or any other camera would not afford any stabilization. Also the image circle on these lenses is not adequate even for 645 as their design was for 35FF sensor or film.

Faster clean chips that image like CCDs would help those who want lower light capabilities in a MF camera....do not think that will occur unless there is a technological shift to a new sensor design.

Bob
 

fotografz

Well-known member
"I selected to zero in on Sony because ... all lenses are in-body stabilized including my ZA16-35, ZA24/2, ZA24-70, S50/1.4, ZA85/1.4 and ZA135/1.8 NONE of which are available from Canon or Nikon. I always found this lack of stabilization kind of odd since these fast aperture primes are designed for low light work. This anti-shake technology will become more apparent as the meg count jumps beyond 30 meg and camera movement becomes more critical ..."

So :wtf: why does not somebody design an adapter so that these lenses with in-body stabilising can be used on cameras with MFDB backs (starting with an adapter for my Contax 645 would be great) or even develop new lenses for those who have big bucks to spare with in-body stabilising for MFDB rigs. Surely this is a marketing no-brainer even though it may be a technical nightmare given the many whiners (including myself) who are concerned about how to hand hold MFDBs with large sensors that show up camera shake more than smaller sensor cameras?

If I am fortunate I am making a dumb mistake by saying this since what I suggest has already been done long ago in which case please point me in the right direction.

hope this is not too :OT:
The Zeiss ZA lenses for the Sony DSLRs are not stabilized, the Camera body has the stabilization ... so all lenses, even legacy Minolta optics are, in effect, stabilized.

Some claim that in-camera stabilization is inferior to in-lens stabilization but that hasn't proven to be so in actual use ... IMO. Even if slightly true, I wouldn't really care, since I'd rather have all lenses stabilized to some degree or another. For example, while the Sony 50/1.4 is arguably the optical equal to Canon and Nikon's 50/1.4, it has the advantage of being stabilized where they are not. In low light, this in effect makes the Sony the superior optic IMO.

The question is how hard would it be to stabilize a MFD camera? If that could be accomplished along with Jack's suggestion to eliminate the shutter, and if all MFD/DSLRs had the mirror delay option like the H camera has, it would make for a very nice hand-held machine that would extend the versatility of ones MFD kit even more.

-Marc
 
Top