Nikon D4S Hands-On Extreme Low Light Test
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- The Nikon D4 was an amazing camera, but we were underwhelmed by the video performance. With the new D4S arriving, could Nikon have the most well rounded DSLR in the world? To find out, we brought in the mighty Nathan Elson, to shoot studio portraits with a 3 candle lighting kit!
Special Thanks to Nathan Elson and Adita Video
Shop online at: www.thecameras...
Music Provided By BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Filmed and Edited by Jordan Drake
Shot on the Sony FS700
Drinking a beer should be the industry standard to measure how good a camera's buffer speed is.
You two work well together. Very enjoyable.
Hello.
I would sugest to do the video 400% crop resolution test again but this time with the next settings.
Go to the Shooting Menu>Movie settings>Frame size/frame rate> and choose 1920x1080;30fps;crop / /
Then compare the D4s to the 1DX at the same equivalent focal length, because that crop setting is going to multiply by 2.7 times the focal length of the lens, so you have to move the camera from the subjet acodingly.
You can also make the same adjustment to the multiplier by 1.5 times if you change the shoting mode to DX.
So in video mode on the D4 and D4s you can have with the same lens, lets say for example a 24mm 1.4G, a 24mm, 36mm and 65mm without having to change the lens. And the sharpest image you can get is with the 2.7 times crop mode.
Thanks for the review.
that first portrait is unreal!
Now it goes to ELEVEN. Nikon is so f*ing funny.
finally!!! great review as always :)
Terrible review as always. The S releases are always low light beasts with high ISO performance. Which this was.
Now I want to go home and try lighting a photo-shoot with candlelight.
Hahaha...seriously loved this episode. I'm a Pentax/Fuji guy who has recently come to love your videos, especially after you guys got hammered in the best/worst of 2013!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really like these after dark episodes, could you do one with the GH4 when its released? I mean Low ISO, high and low frame rates, 4k, and so on.
also high ISO, grading pictures too.
Man, you guys crank out some great videos!
6.06 lost right chanel audio for 10 seconds
great videos guys! thanks for sharing.
great review as usual!
Jordan looked so different back then.
Great video!
i get that the video is softer than on the D3300 but for TH-cam or TV quality it's good enough, so i don't see that softness as a problem in those areas, lack of zebras and peaking yes, shame there isn't a Magic Lantern hackware for it.
Also it maybe just here on TH-cam but the Nikon D3300 seemed sharper then the Canon 1DX as well
They're being overly whiny which is common for photography channels as they wouldn't have anything else to talk about. It's more than good enough and on par with a lot of cameras.
excellent test.
Great review & nice people too
Really creative review.
Great video.
In your Video @ 10:08 you say "as far as low light Cameras go, nothing can touch this ...".
It is tough to _exactly_ compare the Videos on my Channel for the a7s to your D4S Video but I think my Channel shows that IF the a7s does not beat the D4S then at least it is close to touching it (for (maybe) less than a third the price).
Sony a7s with Zeiss ZF2 25mm lens set to f2 -- Extreme Low Light Tests
Sony A7s: Low Light Demonstration (ISO 1600 to 409600)
One of those Videos on the Playlist is actually yours for the GH4. It is nowhere near as good as the a7s or the D4S for extreme low light but perhaps somewhat greater for it's low cost vs performance. I was really hoping for Nikon to leave everyone in the dust (Canon is coming and JVC has announced at NAB).
Thanks for your Channel and all the Videos you do.
PS: I have a few Thermal and Night Vision Videos. You might want a peek at if ever you test a Recording Digital Night Vision Camera someday (JVC is releasing one on their new Sensor in Sept.).
Unless I should win the lottery, I don't see myself ever shopping for a $6,000 camera, or I would probably go Pentax medium format, but this After Dark episode sure rocks! And, for all the D4s's high-ISO capability, it is kind of grounding to see how Nikon's own entry model beats it in basic video shooting ...
This is and was a camera for the pros, like if your shoot for natgeo, or magnum etc . Or professional sports etc
If I ever make it up to Canada, specifically Calgary, I'm definitely shopping at your store. I have two good camera places close to me, but aren't nearly as cool or make videos like you guys do.
Thanks for the vid.
Very interested to see how this compares to the new Sony A7s. A little disappointed that the A7s won't come close in FPS and focusing but
Very interested in Jordan's take on Sony A7s. Not only 4K but a regular 1080p results I see in first videos is phenomenal. Is it going to be a cam to shoot all the videos from now on?
To be honest I've found that the performance of the Fuji XT-1 is surprisingly good at 12800 and even 25600. Is the Nikon better? Yes. But is it $5000 better. Absolutely not. understandably they are two different cameras with different targeted demographics. But if we are to look at the low light metric alone, I'd have to say that overall improvements in sensor technology among competitors is closing that gap.
fuji isos are are not real, documented by several reviews, so when you see 12 800 its really a lot less.
The candle shots seemed oddly noisy to me especially seeing that all the scenes that were "filmed" by the candles seemed even less noisy. Im also not sure why they used that high of an iso and shutter for the shots. They probably could have got away with 1/20 or even 1/10 and half the iso.
I filmed the video on a Sony FS700 with a Canon 50mm F1.2 lens on a speed booster, effectively giving me an F0.95 lens. That's why the video image looks quite clean.
Jordan @ TCSTV
After the dark it becomes light! So you guys need to shoot this early in the morning before work or change the title to; after the light.
i am really interested to see how the D4S compares to Sony's upcoming A7s in a low-light test (just don't compare the AF/fps!) :)
1DX Vs. D4s Vs. A7R Vs. 5D3(as reference)
PLEASE!!!
I Do have problem with sitting in D4s in low light
please can you guid me to set .
Great video, but you are placing too much emphasis on the video aspect. Quite frankly the bulk of buyers don't care that much. It is primarily a still camera and that's why they buy it.
The one area the D4 was really lacking was video capture, so we spent a lot of time looking at the video 'improvements' as that was the headline feature of the new camera. Also, Chris let me talk, and when he does, I'm going to talk video.
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
You certainly did and did it well :) I think though the D4S headline was the improved AF, slight ISO improvement and 1 extra fps. Speaking to Nikon users and reps they have very little to say about the video. Keep up the good work.
I have questions for you guys about the nikon d4s. while you video taping someone can you take a picture??
what lens is that ?
Made me want to do a shoot using only candles :)
It was great though they kinda made the image noisier than would actually be by over postprocessing which has been an annoying trend the past 10 years. Other than that though the soft light gives the image a dramatic oil painting type look.
hmmm the audio went to my left channel only at 6:06
they saved the improved video function for the d5. i assume it will be out in the spring of 2016. is it worth the upgrade? only if you owned a d4 and traded it in before the d4s hit the shops.
D4s ftw. Screw d5.
Still don't understand how companies like Canon & Nikon can skimp out on things like video on flagship cameras. Sure these are workhorse cameras and I love my 1Dx but I always feel cheated when midrange cameras out do them in areas like this. All their best technologies should be going into flagship bodies like this not low end bodies.
Yes I am sure people will say its not designed for that bla bla and you should have another camera but who wants to carry 2 camera bodies around all the time. When I get my GH4, I may actually downgrade my DSLR.
Can't speak for Canon, but with Nikon going up in price is more often than not a side-way move rather than a straight up move, meaning you're exchanging features rather than gaining features. Examples? Going from a D7000 to a D610, spending over 1k extra in the doing, and you loose one stop in max shutter speed and get a lower flash sync for the sake of a bigger sensor and mirror box.
What equipment are you using to shoot this?
So buy the d3300? Good because I did :)
What is the lens they are using?
Canon announces the new EOS 1-D W some day I want to see a review about this camera but it is expensive more than Nikon d4s.
It's an April Fools joke.
What's the point of designating the extended ISO ranges "high" and "lo"? Why not just call them by their number?
Digital sensors capture light all the time with same sensitivity, sensor translates the photons it has collected in pixels to electrons, each pixel is read as electronic current until whole row is read. The ADC (Analog-Digital Conversion) is processed where the analog signal (electronic current) is metered and digitalized by giving it a digital value.
The true ISO is done with electrons. It happens in the read out by amplifying the electronic current with a given multiplier before the analog signal is transmitted to ADC.
This is the reason why you get higher noise (noise is Red, Green and Blue color castings randomly on pixels) when you raise ISO, because added electrons to real captured photons, translated to real electrons cause a random color if the true electron and added electron ratio is larger (less true electrons and more added electrons is more noise, meaning Signal to Noise ratio is higher) like in low light area (less photons = more noise).
Now the "High" and "Low" is a totally new kind ISO. It is not electronic ISO change (remember, sensor is always continually having a same sensitivity) but a software based, a digital ISO.
That is applied AFTER the ADC process where the digital signal is taken and then the digital values of each pixel is multiplied by the amount of the ISO. And the "Low" and "High" is the maximum digital ISO multiplier that is made. It is like in image editor changing the gamma, brightness and contrast values in full frame area.
So when you are checking camera details, you need to see what is the Real ISO and what is the Extended ISO. The extended ISO can be applied to low end as well. There it goes vice versa, the digital signal values are lowered.
So you want to use a native ISO, not extended ISO in most cases. It is easy to remember as well that latest cameras allows easily to pull and push details 4-5 stops from both ends. So while you might end having in camera a over/under exposed file, you can most often bring it back. And that is good thing when shooting fast moving subject as it is more important to freeze the motion, than get the perfect exposure, often giving better results than using a higher ISO or especially Extended ISO (High or Low in Canon/Nikon).
So the "High" and "Low" are there to inform the photographer that now ISO is in extended mode, instead using native ISO.
And many manufacturer adds this data to their camera specs, hiding the fact what is the native ISO and what is extended ISO.
paristo Great answer! Thank you very much.
When you say the video is "soft" I think it looks "film like".
Yeah is fine he just being a overly whiney pedant.
What lens is mounted on the D4s?
I still can not understand who would consider a DSLR for video, it's like buying a family car to race in formula 1. DSLR technology and advancement should be for still photography..
i kinda like it better when people used DSLR for photography... This is gay world today were we using Nikon D4s for video... F. that
Think about it. @10:03 1/50 f1.4 @20000 ISO . If it were a body with a ibis, that would be somewhere closer to 6400 ISO with slower shutter speeds. Could be m43 (which I use now), aps-c pentax or sony , or FF sony. The 20000 ISO would then be limited only for low light action shots, and but I think most of such shots work 6400 and 12800 ISO. Of course at such ISOs the D4s will be better than most cameras, but for stills I think cameras with IBIS benefit more from the lower ISOs.
Low light king? hmm... naah. Very good sports camera? Yes. Wildlife photography (bif or wild animals) camera? No.
IBIS sucks. You can just get the Tamrom 35 or 45 f1.8 with optical stabilization but you're argument is invalid as tripods are incredibly common for portrait shoots and would make an even bigger difference to 3200 ISO.
for the 1st time I am disappointed with your review, guys. The video part, that is. Not a word about the 2.7 crop mode, which is clearly better than the DX/FX options? I came here to find out how the 2.7 crop mode performs on the D4s compared with the D4. Or did I miss out on something. Jordan?!
Nikon had like two years to top out the Canon 1DX, and still didn't do it, the 1DX still has better video, higher frames per second, and more focus points, so the D4s has slightly better ISO performance, and I also find it odd and stupid, that this new sensor and focusing system wasn't put into the DF, but allot of things about the DF are stupid, like not having video, or focus peaking, personally I think there are enough APSC sensor cameras for people who don't want to spend full frame money, so every full frame camera should be made to it's highest possible level, the D610 and DF should have the same focusing system as the D4s, buts whats really stupid about what Nikon is doing, is in the Mirrorless market, they should be putting out a D7100, D610, D800e, D4s, DF, mirrorless cameras, wtf are they waiting for, every customer that invests in a Sony A7r and Glass, or a fuji or Olympus system, is a customer that Nikon might not ever get back, and Canon is just as stupid, at this point, everyone knows the future is mirrorless
I wouldn't say the 1Dx or D4s is good at video, 1Dx may be sharper but it only does 30fps and has no peaking or zebra either. I can honestly say my Sony RX100 does better video. With cameras like the GH4, X-T1 actually catching the high end bodies in burst rate, focus speed etc, these sorts of cameras are in big trouble.
I would have already moved on to be honest if I had the lens choice for telephoto :(
The future is mirrorless? It is for pros who want toy sized cameras for their day off or to keep aspects of their photography experience fun, or amateurs who want dslr features in a compact camera. I don't know of any working pro photogs who rely on mirrorless. Only the knoobs who sell out on youtube for sponsor dollars. I shoot film, full frame dlsrs, mirrorless and Polaroid - and i can tell you if i turn up to work for a client with a mirrorless camera only i look like an idiot to them... especially at weddings/commercial shoots
LOL DSLR features in a compact body... You do realise that most high end mirrorless cameras have more features than DSLR's these days, what exactly are DSLR features anyway as opposed to normal camera features? The only reason PRO's wont use mirrorless is because they think it makes them look more professional or because someone else is picking up the bill.
Most mirrorless blow DSLRs out of the water when it comes to video these days and when it comes to stills, well Canons APS-C is pathetic in general, Full Frame is their only real edge at the moment.
If someone like Panasonic or Fuji brings all their tech to a full frame format we would be laughing.
its almost as stupid is saying the future is mirrorless - you just completely contradicted yourself and validated my comment.
I never said mirrorless was the future or the best, it is certainly developing the most though overall. Just because FF has the edge in IQ doesn't make it the best format out if companies don't continue to develop the technology. If a GH4 could get within 2 stops of my 1Dx in low light performance then I would jump ship in a heartbeat.
I want a FF that does everything a mirrorless can do so I don't have to bother with other camera bodies, you seem to think I am all for mirrorless. I will use anything that gets the job done for me. It peevs me off when a camera costing 1/3 the price can do 80-90% of what a workhorse camera can do in its best areas and kill it in every other area.
Wow, they are so intent on being cool that we don't see the whole point of the video until near the end.
What's the music at 8:35 ?
OK, I read the summary - thanks! :)
Gotta love the snooty comments at the intro. Say fellas, if you’re so picky, how about you design a better digital camera and market it. Not able to? Thought so.
Bah, a pro doesn't need maximum sharpness. If you notice unsharp video, probably the content is bad.
I'll stick with my GH4 !
You guys tested D4s on candle lights and it told us nothing at all. A fast car or agile animal in the dark will show this camera performance.
The only thing attracted me was the insane high iso performance which would only be used in a thousand times of shooting situation. No excitement at all. Canon 1dx still a much better camera at overall after being released for TWO YEARS! What is going on the Nikon team & engineering? ! Wake up.
All three of them have matching outfits. lol.
compare it (d4s) with df please... heheheheh
Its kinda funny, Ive recently come to a weird conclusion. Where Nikon video actually renders things like hair quite well, you can see more hair follicles seperated from each other. While on Canon videos, its more smudges together..
Yet everyone says Canon video is better, yet stuff ive seen before.
Though in here it shows it being softer.. odd
The Canon 5D MK III shoots quite soft video. The 1DX shoots much crisper video. We compared the D800 and 5D MK III video output in part 3 of our D800 vs 5D MK III shootout. Check it out!
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
TheCameraStoreTV
Cool, Ill check that out later.
THough the D800 is like the sharpest camera out right now for some reason.
Even DXOmark agrees, just something about that camera.
You guys skipped over how good cameras like this are for shooting weddings... coupled with fast primes, these cameras eat up low light - and if you really look into it there are probably just as many wedding and law enforcement/military applications for a stills based weapon like this than journalists. Personally I shoot about 150k frames on wedding alone per year and never shoot video, that's not what I am paid for. I see nothing other than benefits in a D4s - including all the features and changes that came with the D4 like backlit buttons, intuitive ergonomics, great weather sealing epic iso, perfect balance of res over lowlight ability, improved battery etc etc.... anyone that buys this camera knows exactly why they are buying it and how to use it.... other than the occasional cashed up twat with no clue.
Put another way, do you make much of an effort to test the flash video rigs you use for stills? No, because that would be stupid and a waste of time.
Peter Charlesworth The difference is that no one uses a video rig to take stills. A huge percentage of videographers are using DSLRs. The D4 was a near perfect camera, its only significant flaw was the video capture. That's why we chose to focus on that aspect extensively.
You may not have utilized the video mode, but many D4S users will. Complaining about a feature you don't plan to use is like a landscape photographer with a D800 complaining about it having too many focus points.
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
TheCameraStoreTV
You just agreed with me dude focussing on the D4s weakest component in low light video is just the same as reviewing a RED Epic on its high speed stills ability. This is a stills camera... first and foremost. The video reads to be about low light ability, not just video. Motion capture has always been a flaw with Nikon, but really the only reason it has been embraced so fervently by video heads (thanks to the Mkii & Mkiii) are that they are a ton cheaper than comparative dedicated setup vs equivalent or even better performance. But you know that. You also say its aimed at journos. Only NPS would know absolutely but I would argue there are more sports and wedding photogs using these than journalists. Most news agencies run canon gear - that is absolutely the case here in Australia with the 1Dx the go-to. Neither sports or wedding photogs have the time or client group to make them want to shoot movies on DSLR's (in my humble experience). Especially as you say when middle market rigs offer great quality as it is. I love your show by the way.
Peter Charlesworth Anyways, its still no excuse why the videos are softer on a $6800 camera, as compared to the D3300 which costs about ~10x less. The marketing team has specifically stressed on the video features claiming improvement over the D4, while in truth it offers not much over the D4, and also the D3300 & 5300 which are entry level cameras. They should have investigated this further till they arrived at a better solution than what they have come up with right now. Flaws are just flaws. You can't defend flaws on such a top tier product even though it may be better at everything else. Here's hoping that they don't mess it up with upcoming cameras.
All cameras have flaws & compromises... i just don't buy that the vast majority of customers are journos and that they all shoot video...that is an opinion, and the tone of the review suggests the product is crap, while it might have some good iso benefits. Its hardly a scientific review and soft video in this instance may be due to the operator?
I find that quite ridiculous that the video is not even as good as the d800, or even the d3300. So weird.
Check this. th-cam.com/video/XgbUgNiHfXM/w-d-xo.html
I think A7S outperforms!
Seriously, Nikon should try harder.
@ 6:45 - Something's not kosher about a guy's head popping out from between some other guy's crotch.
D800e is crap in low light lol... Heck even at sundown 800iso is gross. You can see noise when viewing at 25%... Nikon just disappoints me with every release. Sony is killing the competition and canon still has the name to stay in the game. But nikon, man I'm kinda disappointed I invested in them.
It does not work in super high iso! It is "fake news"!
It’s not a video camera guys. Get with the program.
We got dumb and dumber here testing a still camera as a video camera
still curious why there's still so many Canon fanboys, goes into a nikon camera to trashtalk it? most of you wont have the money to buy either one, get a grip.
if you have that much "better camera" wouldn't you be a shitty photographer if you preform worse than a nikon user?
Who in the whole world buys a D4s for video?!?!?! Redicilous.
i rather want the D750 ^_^
Im so angry with you . You do a big review on many cameras . But you did a very lame speedy pre nikon df review thats useless .
We hate to make you angry. By the time received a production Df, the image quality had already been widely reviewed. We didn't have anything to add to the conversation. The short version is that the image quality is outstanding, especially in low light, but it's a shame that the AF system isn't as capable in the dark as the sensor is.
Jordan @ The Camera Store TV
thanks for the reply and the informal reviews always except for the Nikon DF unacceptable
Not worth for the price and for low light 99% of people won't ever use.
Just,maybe the folk who buy it are the 1% who will use it lol
Yeah, but it gives an indication of what the d3400 or d3500 will be like.
True but its certainly not the camera for the 99%
Sony A7s beats it