You certainly have heard about the new Nikon D4 fullframe camera (Click here ot read the press release at BH). It has a new 16.2 effective megapixel, full-frame sensor (16.6MP total) and a super 50 – 204,800 ISO range. While there is no info about who made the sensor it’s easy to guess that it has made by Sony (using a tweaked Nikon design). Some of our readers asked me if such a sensor is going to be used inside a future Sony FF SLT camera and my answer is No!!! It will be more interesting to see the sensor that Nikon will put inside the D800. That 36 Megapixel Sony sensor is almost certainly going to be used by Sony in one of his future SLT cameras.
I will give you some important Sony FF update next week when I am back from my busy family trip. Meanwhile let me know what kind of feature you like from the new Nikon. I will check with my sources if Sony is going to “copy” some of them 🙂
115 Responses
Hehe, both Nikon and Canon come out with 200k ISO machines, and the 36Mpix Sony SLT will manage 1600, at best, without creating a nice watercolor effect 🙂
Somebody will fail hard here …
ISO is not the only measurement on which to base camera performance.
High ISO isn’t everything. People are obsessed with it even when they are daylight shooters, it has replaced megapixels as the marketing hype race.
Guess what; on my camera I always wish I had more sensitivity. I never, and underline never, had the need of more megapixels. But that maybe just me. On the other hand, there must be a reason why high sensitivity cameras cost way more than the others..Don’t you think?
The reason is because somebody is buying them. It hardly reflects their production costs nowadays, but companies just keep their prices up.
Yop, I also never ever need more megapixel than 10 – 12. Even If I will buy the A77, I will shoot in the 12Mpx mode. But many many many times, I would like to use higher ISO, because I can not use flash in these situations. Unfortunatelly, with my older Sony DSLR, I can shoot max. ISO 400 (out of 1600) to have usable pictures. And as I see, the A77s picture-processing algorithm is not the best in comparation with it’s RAW output.
I do allot of fast moving, low light photography. (yeah,..those two don’t go together well..lol) So yeah, a sensor with huge photosites and very clean high ISO values would help me out allot.
As far as high megapixels, I have never had a need for more than 16MP. I don’t print billboards form my pictures and I have never needed to crop that much either.
Hell,…I don’t even own a lens that costs over $1,500. I doubt I’d get a “true” 24 or 36MP image anyway.
Sony A77 just said that high ISO isn’t anything and that it has replaced the MP race and everyone jumps on the defensive. Why is that? I am sure there are plenty of users who need low light performance, same as there are users like me who would go for the higher resolution.
For myself I am not too worried about the super high iso thing. I will shoot between 100-400 99.99 percent of the time, with an occasional gimmick shot at 1600 or higher every now and then. Just my opinion on this, we all have different uses and needs.
Quit threatening us and just put out a great professional ff camera already!!!! throw some video in it, make it strong and reliable and I don’t really care if it has an optical vf or this oled thing, just do it already, and if it has really good high iso, great, i’ll never use it but great. Just release one!
@SonyA77
Agree. It’s a hype, much like super large MP once was.
@emopunk
My camera is capable of going to 25k ISO but I rarely push it past 6400 ISO. On the other hand, I’m using it’s max resolution (16mp) all the time.
Sports vs landscape, high iso vs resolution. You can’t apparently have both. So thats why Canon and Nikon have both had lower resolution sports cams and higher resolution cams. Sony have just had high res ones.
Comparing those two will always be like comparing a supercar with an extreme offroader. Not the same thing by far.
Well actually i wrote a paper to solve the problem. And there are possibilities to have both. Most of them are already in patent or already in use (see PhaseOne, or foveon, or organic sensors)
Thomas, can be your paper seen?
+1
Yes, Thomas share it with us
You have to wait for the alcohol effects to pass by, before he can share the X papers.
More megapixels sensor is always better. More megapixels does not mean worse ISO. It is just difficult to explain to people without technical background in physics, electrical and software engineering.
It is failure of SONY marketing department. They push for release of new camera (A77) but do not push hard on RAW to JPG quality conversion which for high Mpx camera is much more important than for low Mpx camera. SONY should also provide best in market downsizing algorithms for people who prefer lower res pictures.
Correct Marek. Apples to apples (same sensor tech), overall sensor size matters 10x more than individual pixels in the final image’s “noise.” (When you’re looking at the image, not pixel-peeping.) i.e., it’s not directly high pixel count that takes away low-light performance. Wait and see how an A99 compares…
Somebody/something will definately fall hard. Im guessing it will be the Full Frame market in general, because professional (i.e. paid) photography is down the pan. Sad, but true.
ITs going the same way as professional DJing… three years ago you could ask for 1000 a gig, but the kids with ripped mp3s and a laptop will do it for 200, and they’re pulling the going rate down in their direction.
Bman, great analysis! Sony will come up with a maximum 3000US camera and it will somehow fail because there are cameras which cost twice as more, but have very good low light performance? Am I understanding this correctly?
Less than 2 stops difference. I’m sure of that. Worth 3k or so extra? For some yes, some no.
I’m not so sure that Sony won’t use that sensor… lol
there’s still the D800 that’s speculated to have a 36MP sensor… but that might be wrong now too
nothing innovative here……
What to say Andrea, this Nikon is gorgeous; at least on paper it seems even better than Canon 1Dx. At the moment in Sony line-up there’s obviously nothing not even able to come close to such a working horse.
If Sony made a FF camera that cost $6000…..NOBODY would buy it
😉
IF they had just a few more CZ lenses, then I would buy one.
Yes, the D4 is awesome.
Likes:
– OVF!!!!
– high ISO performance and apparently very low noise
– only 16MPx, I personally have no desire to work with 100+MB RAW files
– 91K-pixel RGB sensor
– improved AF sensor for lower light and slower lenses
– improved the already awesome ergonomics
Dislikes:
– size
– weight
– OVF has only 0.7 x magnification (1Dx has 0.76)
– no exchangeable focusing screens (1Dx has a long list of excellent ones)
Dislikes: Size and weight? It’s a full size full frame camera with SIGNIFICANTLY reduced weight. It’s like criticizing a Porsche for being too small.
You are saying they can’t make it smaller?
+1
Let’s see smaller FF cameras.
You forgot a con…$6,000 which in Canada will be $7,000 plus 12% in taxes. If your not a pro getting lots of use from your camera who can afford it never mind the cost of the FF lenses?
The Leica M9, Nikon FM, and Olympus OM etc. were all “full frame” cameras – and way way smaller. The Nikon D3 bodies are heavier than a medium format Leica S2.
None of the cameras you listed has even a fraction the battery size as the Nikon D4. Nikon has 2 FF lineups. The D4 is the large version with extra huge battery and battery grip for a no compromise shooting. If you want smaller, they have the D700 (or upcoming D800), which is almost as small as you can make a FF DSLR. I.e., if you take the sensor, the flange distance, the screen, and the electronics and just put it all together, you can’t really go much smaller). The Leica M9, Olympus OM, etc… are smaller because they are much simpler cameras (a fraction of the electronics) with much smaller batteries. The Nikon D4 has a 12 times bigger battery than the M9, so of course it’s going to be bigger.
The Leica S2 is lighter because it has a small battery. It can only shoot 300-400 shots like a normal consumer camera. The Nikon D3/D4 can shoot up to 3,000 shots or so. The battery is the heaviest component on a camera body outside of lenses. If you go with a smaller battery (i.e. D700), then it’s much lighter and smaller than the Leica S2.
what i like the most are these two:
91K-pixel RGB sensor
wireless functions via wt-5a – copy images or even control whole camera wirelessly
The silent shutter mode sounds nice.
The rest just sounds like what one would expect from a new Nikon single-digit series body, which I guess is the point. They’re designed to be safe and dependable, not futuristic and revolutionary.
Seriously…
Canon using 18mp on their 1Dx… Nikon using 16.6 or whatever on the D4…. Sony using 36???? Either Sony have something RIDICULOUS up their sleeves or we, as Sony users are gonna be left behind… big time!
I think Sony should release the 24mpx FF and 36mpx FF at the same time and give people the option for their style of shooting… Dont milk the sales… Plus… I do a lot of low light photography as well as studio… so I would probably buy both! 🙂
Also I like the sound of the extra large buffer on the D4 and the new memory card format… sounds incredibly fast…
Nikon… FAIL at 720p on 60p… The Sony NEX 5N does that at 1080p.. haha
I am really really hoping and praying that sony use there very serious power to come out with a camera that professionals and amateurs alike will cry with happiness when it is announced/released! hahaha I still have faith!
“Sony using 36???? Either Sony have something RIDICULOUS up their sleeves” or they are targeting a different audience.
Great low light performance, but 16mpix!? At nearly 6k dollars I’d like to be able to crop my pictures too…
Yup. I doubt it would’ve been much worse if they upped it to say 24MP.
Well I hope Sony can still maintain 12 fps or more while having full control over settings. The time lapse function is quite interesting though. One thing I hope Sony would never copy is the price tag!
+ 1 on timelapse! nice touch
+1 on the price tag!!
I have tested the Canon 1DX and I have usable images at 51200 ISO! That for me was almost dream worthy! Not ISO hunting but for night photography that I do… and for Video… thats incredible… I really hope to see some MAJOR improvements on the new FF Sony cams..
sorry to compare… just excited really! 2012 is make or break time! haha
What Sony should copy? Well obviously the RJ45 connector, low noise and the 8cm screen
Oh and by the way, If there is to be an electronic viewfinder, does it directly show the exposurecompensation before releasing instead of only showing howing howmuch was selected?
of course, manual settings too and white-balance, picture styles and effects as well.
It is rather unlikely that the sensor is made by Sony. The previous 12pm FF sensor (as used in the D3s) was not by made by Sony either.
For sure + Sony would not put all that time and money into developing such a sensor and not use it on one their own cameras.
🙂
I’ve no idea whether this is a Sony sensor or not, but I do not expect to see Sony produce an FF camera with fewer pixels than it’s existing flagship APS-C and FF models. I suspect 24MP is on the cards at a high frame rate. After all, if Sony can do 12FPS at 24MP on APS-C they ought to be able to process the same amount of data on FF.
Andrea, we really need full frame information soon from Sony
We are already tolerate of a confusing, muddling Sony system.
But Nikon are going to release the d4 but also the d700, d7000 and d3s replacements this year.
And Sony tells us nothing at all. I want them to do well, I really do, but I’m losing faith. They’re just so SLOW getting anything done. And the choices they make are bizzare. Why have we had so many entry level cameras and replacements? And bear in mind that both Sony full frames are discontinued now, so Sony currently has no full frame models. And we have no solid information about any replacements either..
Sony really should copy the HDMI-Output without control information. The best would be with parallel monitoring on the internal monitor. (And I hope also the FullFrame Sony will do 50p/60p, hoping without PAL/NTSC model differences)
+1, the A77 loses way too much detail through compression and processing compared to the GH2 and 5D
This would also be my NUMBER ONE CONCERN. The video should be mind blowing… but it always looks a tad too soft even with a Zeiss lens used for the capture.
and i really hope they make that damn video record button programmable soon, not everyone wants to shoot video all the time accidentally.. its a photo camera primarily still.
Agreed, get…..it…..going!
its funny how every camera released nowadays is a game changer….
What I like is the low pixel count and the obviously great ISO performance. It is good that Sony offers a high pixel density model (A77) but a high ISO model is needed too. I need both and a low noise camera would be someting that I would surely add to my two current Sony cameras.
Otherwise the new full frame cameras would be not interesting for me. I hope that the SLT-mirror in the rumored 24MP camera does not eat all of the progress made in sensor performance compared to A900.
What I do not like at the D4 and as well on the D1x is the bulky body with the integrated vertical grip. Unsuitable for travelling. So if Sony doesn’t come with a camere with improved ISO performance, I hope that Canon or Nikon will come with a fullframe model like the current D700 but with the up to date 16 or 18 MP sensor, which performance is not reduced by 0.5 stops due to light loss in a SLT mirror.
Pixel count is not related to ISO performance. Just check it yourself at dxomark.com.
I think Sony should improve the AUTO ISO system(or just copy that form Nikon). Let us be able to set the minimum shutter speed. 😉
For sport and wildlife photography, I really think it is an important feature.
and of course, more buffer!!!
+1000! I feel like they design cameras for forum-chatter, and not for working professionals. A nikon-style Auto-ISO would be amazing!
A 16MP with 10K+ ISO usable image, vs a 36MP with…maybe 3200 ISO usable image. Well, the choice is obvious. Please Sony listen to the Pros!
You just do not know what ISO is. You mistake it with signal to noise ratio at individual pixel.
why you want it sounds complicated? The fact is Noise/ISO for a 36MP is definitely inferior comparing with a 16MP, even if you RESIZE it. And tell me, how many shooter will need 36MP? I can tell you most of them either shoot in smaller size JPEG, or RAW then re-size tremendously, or for cropping purpose.
MP is just a marketing gimmick. Cant deny that first thing most layman concern is “How many MP”. But Pro cam just shouldn’t fall into such gimmick as the target segment are the Pros.
The usual nonsense. Nikon themselves showed they can get the SAME efficiency as the D3S with pixels smaller than those found in the 24MP Sony APS-C sensor. 57% quantum efficiency for both the D3S and Nikon V1. That means they could build a 175MP FF camera with the noise performance at IMAGE level of the D3S. Major problems would be file size and processing and thus price.
Sensor surface is the major driver for noise performance.
These specs don’t impress me for six grand. Nikon is milking the fanboys for all they are worth.
Really? They could have charged at least $1000 more, but they didn’t. I’m proud of them for not charging $8000, like the D3x debacle.
There’s bound to be a D4X sooner or later, so that may still come to pass.
Are you idiot? Have u seen high ISO examples from nikon d3s and v1? ISO 12800 on d3s looks like iSO 1600 on V1!!!
Well? Nikon is CLEARLY going after the “high ISO performance” crowd. With all the low light photography that I do, I’m certainly in that marketing group.
I really not interested in 36 megapixel images. However, I am VERY interested in super clean high ISO images at a 16MP resolution! Now that’s exciting!
On paper those numbers should translate into a low light performing, see in the dark, super hero!
Sweet! Sony, please look at what Canon and Nikon are doing in this area and don’t just allow them to have that space unchallenged! Release a FF this year with your best 16 or 24 MP sensor! (preferably 16MP)
I’ll drop $3000 on a kick-ass low light, monster Sony FF, 16MP body…with no problem.
I really like the Nikon D4. Hope Sony comes with something more interesting as well. But I’m afraid that even with 24mp, they’re not going to put some features in order to reduce the MSRP and keep price below the 3000USD mark.
If SLT has taught us anything, it is that Sony prefer to forge it’s own path than go head to head with existing models. The D4 and 1Dx are in the same catergory, I don’t trust Sony to step into this battle without a big pair of aces (higher res, higher fps and equal high iso won’t be enough)
A great camera for sure.
But it has nothing to do with Sony. So far Sony is not playing this game and doesn’t offer a camera for this market. So all the comparisons are pointless (unless Sony is going to surprise us…), just as you wouldn’t compare the A900 with Nikon D3000.
Let’s wait for the D800 and 5DmkIII and compare them to the new Sony FF.
A great camera but 16mp doesn’t surpass the resolution of 35mm film. That to me was a big reason to get the A850 and zeiss, for once I am convinced that my images are approaching MF digital and surpassing film.
I’m more than satisfied with my A850, I get usable images up to iso 3200, which quite honestly is plenty for me. Where did you guys who need iso 10,000 learn photography? Learn to hold a camera still, learn how to pan and track subjects, discover f/2.8, and stop your bitching. You’ll be amazed how much better your pictures will look!
You must not shoot sports or wedding receptions.
Oh please.
The a850/900 are supposedly poor, but I think 3200 image quality is great. And with 25mp, you can print huge and not see noise at all.
My 850 with 1.4 or 2.8 lenses just fine in dark receptions, churches and candle lit restaurants.
I wonder how many people ever had a client complain about noise/grain? I bet almost none. It’s a photographer measurebation issue. Nobody else cares, seriously.
Oh please.
The a850/900 are supposedly poor, but I think 3200 image quality is great. And with 25mp, you can print huge and not see noise at all.
My 850 with 1.4 or 2.8 lenses just fine in dark receptions, churches and candle lit restaurants.
I wonder how many people ever had a client complain about noise/grain? I bet almost none. It’s a photographer measurebation issue. Nobody else cares, seriously.
Even for badly lit concert venues.. most pictures go into low quality print magazines, websites, band promo material or newspapers. None of those have super print quality anyway.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for good high ISO performance. But its such a huge issue for photographers, but it just doeant matter for most other purposes.
Oh please.
The a850/900 are supposedly poor, but I think 3200 image quality is great. And with 25mp, you can print huge and not see noise at all.
My 850 with 1.4 or 2.8 lenses is just fine in dark receptions, churches and candle lit restaurants.
I wonder how many people ever had a client complai n about noise/grain? I bet almost none. It’s a photographer measurebation issue. Nobody else cares, seriously. If you’re doing stock photography or the sort of thing where quality is so important, you’ll likely be using a tripod and/or lighting anyway.
Even for badly lit concert venues.. most pictures go into low quality print magazines, websites/blogs, band promo material or newspapers. None of those have super print quality anyway.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a place for good high ISO performance. But its such a huge issue for photographers, but it just doeant matter for most other purposes.
Wonder what all those sports and wedding photogs did before these low light/high ISO options were available?
You may realize that wedding photography has changed in better during last years. Before, there were a lot of posed/flash shots. Now there’s more and more informal/candid shots.
This is a good post. Maybe the best post itt
I suggest you try some photography of a gig in an ill-lit venue with huge lighting contrast before making patronising remarks about holding cameras steady, panning and using f2.8. Sometimes even f1.4 at 1/30th and 3200 isn’t enough, and it certainly doesn’t stop subject motion blur from musicians. Then there’s the little issue that just occasionally you want more than a 30cm DoF.
+1 You got that right. Sometimes you need every single photon you can collect and it’s still not enough.
Try shooting a wildly jumping rock bass player in a dim section of the stage while the lead guitar player has the spotlight. I had to slow down to keep it clean and that sucked! The higher ISO performance the better for me! Gives me the chance to speed back up again. (even with an F1.4 prime)
To me,..THAT is impressive. Not 36MP images.
+1 for both Steve Jones and Cliff
I’m often amazed by many of the posts; to me, they read like ex-cellphone “photographers” photographic experience is only taking pictures of the grandchildren and the family pets and not experienced professionals in the trade.
Sometimes the stage lighting is strong and I can capture at ISO 800 to 1600 on my a850 but when I need to push the ISO up to 6400 I do get more noise than I want even after post work. My partner that shoots Nikon ds3 doesn’t have the problems I do above ISO 3200 so I often need him to take the lead capture position.
I hope my next Sony FF can equal the ISO performance of the now 4 year old Nikons and keep the high MP benefits I do enjoy
It’s funny, there are actually people here that say; “you suck if you like super clean, high ISO performing cameras”.
I’d reply with; “you suck if you need phase detect auto focus THAT damn bad”
I’m not putting down PD AF. It’s cool, no doubt. But jeez, it shouldn’t be the center of your photography world. LOL…switch to manual focus and your precious pelicle mirror becomes worthless.
Bright and fast is impressive to me. ANY camera can shoot well in 800 ISO. (Even cheap cams today can)
Sony has to make a High ISO camera someday. They can’t stick there head in the sand.
Neither should high ISO if it’s not something you need. That ship sails both ways.
Auto-ISO in manual mode would be nice.
Poor light is no excuse. I bought a few light modifiers, gells and transmitters, learned to use them and Sony performs very well to ISo 3200 with beautiful color and light, just like Nikon and canon. No shitty light will ever magically become beautiful with high iso, but some advances are very welcome indeed. Relying on ISO only is depriving your clients of better results.
No, it is not “easy to guess it is made by Sony.” It’s actually easy to guess that it’s NOT made by Sony. The introduction had a lot of material in it, and a few comments made by the executives privately also provide a few clues.
The sensel does not appear to be Sony. The ADC does not appear to be Sony. The direct pixel read-out for 2.7x crop movies (hey, does that number sound familiar? ;~) is not Sony.
We’ll know soon enough who manufactured the D4 sensor. But I’ll bet it wasn’t Sony.
SONY may produce it for NIKON because they own production lines but at the same time SONY most probably did not design the chip.
agree with Tom Hogan
D3x has a Sony sensor, but D3, D3S, D700 has not…
Maybe for the future D4x, but the D4 ? hardly a chance…
D4 sensor image:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d4/img/img_01.png
D3x (which is made and designed by sony)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/ZD3XSENSOR.JPG
D3s (Unknown provider, mostly guessed as renesa)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/ZSENSOR.JPG
You can see, the D4 sensor packaging is more like D3s, instead of D3x.
We can assume now that D4 and D3s has same manufacture.
However, we don’t know who design/develop the D4 sensor.
For D3s, nikon clearly states that nikon design/developed the sensor.
But for D4, nikon didn’t tell, which indicates the sensor is designed outside nikon.
will the new a77 FF follow the Nikon D4 and the Canon 1DX in terms of features such as MP size? it seems that the Canikon are on par with each other that has both advantages and disadvantages apart.
Wow….looking at the specs. Sweet camera. I wonder if they could make that thing in “a” mount?
😉
I’m intrigued to learn more about the RJ45 network interface.
I started with my dad’s Minolta SR1 used Nikon F2 and F3 till my kit was stolen from my college apartment and my insurance paid-out only enough to by a new Minolta 9000. Nikon’s have always had the best build of all and it looks like the new D4 lives up to this quality.
I wish Nikon flashes had the cool side-bend like Sony’s. 😀 All flashes really should incorporate that.
note to Sony: I don’t need 36 MP, but definitely want better high ISO performance !!!!!!
please give us a 16-24 MP full-frame camera, not 36 MP.
OK Sony,…if you REALLY don’t want to make a model to complete with Canon and Nikon in the dreaded “high ISO performance” market, (millions of photogs) than just licenses the Alpha mount to Nikon.
Charge them a fee and let Nikon sell these cameras for you.
Cliff 😉
lol
It is Nikon sensor, designed by Nikon engineers… but there is rumor that manufacturing done by Sony factory. Anyway, it will be cheaper for Nikon to ask Sony to manufacture their sensor and it will be also profitable for Sony.
D4 sensor is probably non-Sony like the d3/s.
Sony, make a 36 mpx A99 FF Alpha with 16 FPS, and useable ISO up to 12000, (not 100.000’s) maybe even less, + PDAF Video, with good control over it’s settings with all the features that make Sony different from CANIKON, like the panoramic stitch, HDR+, etc (even if it’s just JPG), and keep it below 3000$, and I’m pretty sure it’ll sell like hotcakes.
Fabbed by Aptina, just like the one in the D3S, V1 etc.
It will ne interesting to see if they improved DR by lowering the read noise with atleast a stop too. Because altough their efficiency is still slightly ahead of the rest, the former point is where Sony beats them. Less low ISO shadow noise and higher max DR as a consequence. If the recent Nikon V1J1 are a sign, then …not yet.
Can’t be “fabbed by Aptina” since Aptina don’t have their own fabrication facilities. They contract out the manufacturing to companies that do.
D4 sensor apparently has on-chip ADC.
I’ll be more specific, fabbed under license of Aptina, just like the other ones I mentioned.
I’m sure Chipworks will sooner or later show the Aptina “autograph”.
my voice is small: I love D4 dual card-slot: XQD+CF.
So i can learage my existing 16G CFx2.
Come on Admin do some real research and analysis. Though Nikon is Sony’s biggest customer for DSLR sensors, the sensor in the D4 has nothing to do with Sony, it follows the Nikon designed sensors in their D2H, D3, D700 and D3S and has similar layout.
The sensor in the the D800 is rumored to be based on a Sony design and to be fabricated by Sony – like the one in the D3X.
I think alot of people are expecting sony to produce cheaper versions of nikon and canon FF cameras.
It aint gonna happen, there is no point in sony trying to compete with canon and nikon in the pro photog market. Most pros are already too heavily invested in nikon or canon glass to switch over.
Nikon are able to provide uncompressed HMDI ouput, 51 AF points, ethernet port etc. because they are charging $6000 for the camera, dont expect sony to do the same and charge half the price. Habouring such expectations will only lead to disappointment.
The type of person going to buy a D4 is highly likely to already own a 3D or 3Ds. Personally I think 16.2 megaxpixels for $6000 camera is really not enough to jutisfy the upgrade. If I owned a 3Ds I wouldn’t buy a a 4D simply because the new features do not justify the price. The increase is resolution is not enough and the ISO performance likely to be similar.
A better bet would be to get a D800 as a companion to your 3Ds. It is rumored to have:
-a 36mp sensor
-60p at 1080p whilst 4Ds can only manages 30p at 1080p although it does have uncompressed HDMI output but at the price of $6000.
-Same AF as d700
Probably NOT made by Sony; or if so, then they will have been an entirely Nikon design that no-one else will get to use. Nikon fabricated it’s D3 and D3s sensors, as well as the D700. That’s its territory: low megapixel FX sensors. (thus their competitive advantage with high-iso).
They have started doing the same with DX cameras with the D3100.
Anyone interested in the thinking behind the D4 might want to have a look at pro wildlife photographer Andy Rouse’s blog.
http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/blog/182.php
Hopefully Sony do listen to what their pros need and want whilst developing future FF models. Perhaps Andrea could find out who they are talking to?
You Sony fanboys, this is Nikon sensor produced by Renesas just like D3/D700, D3s or D3100 sensors. Nikon sensor have ADC outside of sensor similar to Canons while Sony and Aptina sensor have ADC on sensor.
I highly doubt this is a Sony sensor. Nikon is not about the MP race – Sony is. Take the D3 and D3X for example. I really wish Nikon was more predominant in sensor production because they seem to get it right – without the unnecessary megapixels.
Lot of talk about ‘High ISO’. Not that big of a problem. Big problem: fast and accurate AF with good tracking. Canikon have it for 10+ years. Industry standard. Sony? Hmm . . .
Wishing the best for Sony in 2012. Hybrid mirrorless: good compromise for A-mount owners moving away from reflex cameras. Going head-on with Canikon, Sony need a ‘PRO’ level AF system. Everything else: pro customer support, etc. will follow. ‘If you make it, they will come’.
Dude I there is no way that the D4 uses a sony sensor, lets be realistic, sony sucks at hi iso, you can see it on the 2 FX models they have, the D3s was for many years the queen camera for hi ISO, and it was developed by nikon, for nikon to keep up with the work of the D3s, they developed the D4 sensor.