Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Theodoros on February 25, 2014, 05:00:30 am
-
The D4 was fully capable to deliver clean images for large prints up to 6400 Iso… D4S goes a step further… Is there need for that much?
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/02/24/nikon-d4s-officially-announced.aspx/
-
Need and need, of course the better and cleaner, the better! Is there an ethical reason why high ISOs have to stay low quality? It would be ideal if the quality stayed the same from 1 ISO to Zillion ISO. One less thing to worry about, always just use the optimum aperture and shutter speed.
-
Yup. I want it.
Not having to shoot people at 1/3 sec/wide open and handheld is a good thing in my books.
-
Yup. I want it.
Not having to shoot people at 1/3 sec/wide open and handheld is a good thing in my books.
Grays of Westminster sent me the circular today; I don't need it but if I did, I'd buy it.
Trouble is, as long as digital remains my only viable photographic option for so many logistical and regional reasons, if anything, I feel more drawn to leaving Nikon in favour of Canon and those 17mm and 24mm tilter/shifters! I feel they would lend themelves to new directions for commercial photography with which Nikon doesn't - so far - seems able to compete.
But I pretty much accept that my commercial life has now passed, so I feel no compulsion to do anything photographic with my pennies. Enough junk is enough junk. I look at what I do and I could probably do it with most anything, never mind my D700 which, really, is already overkill. It probably is for all of the non-pros on LuLa, but then admitting that would kill the acquisitive fun, wouldn't it?
;-)
Rob C
-
For most current D4 users, it is likely not worth the expense to upgrade to the D4s, but perhaps a good time for any one who was considering their first D4. They can either get the latest or have more pre owned options to pick from.
Regards
-
BFD! I can see in the dark! ;D The D4s may "see in the dark", but I daresay that there are dedicated low-light cameras out there that can do better - but aren't hooked up to a Nikon interface.
-
BFD! I can see in the dark! ;D The D4s may "see in the dark", but I daresay that there are dedicated low-light cameras out there that can do better - but aren't hooked up to a Nikon interface.
Really, any that come with high quality full spectrum, full frame [35mm] imaging? And that can also take a huge variety of photographic lenses?
-
> D4S ….can see in the dark!
I doubt that it can... Canon 6D has one primitive central AF point that can focus @ -3EV w/o focus assist lamp, Panasonic GH4 (or any latest gen of m43 cameras) can focus @ -4EV in any point of the frame w/o a focus assist lamp and w/o any BF/FF with AF lenses... can D4s focus @ -5EV ? now where D4s can focus it will focus fast - but not in the dark, do not mix high ISO capability w/ AF system ability to do it in the real dark situation... Nikon official spec state that it can only focus @ -1 to +19 EV.... that is 3 EV lighter illumination than some m43 camera that costs $500...
Canon 6D :
Center AF Point: EV -3 to 18
Other AF points: EV +0.5 to 18
Metering Range EV 1-20
Nikon D4s
AF : -1 to +19 EV (points not specified)
Spot metering: 2 to 20 EV
Matrix or center-weighted metering: -1 to 20 EV
Panasonic GX1
http://www.panasonic.com/us/consumer/cameras-camcorders/compact-system-cameras-ilc/dmc-gx7sbody.specs.html
AF detective range EV -4 - 18
Metering range EV 0 - 18
dSLRs PDAF tracking speed is the last bastion... but focusing in the dark ? not anymore and it is for a long time already
-
Current Nikon Live View (D4 and D800e) in low light is pretty much worthless to me. Way too much noise is not being buffered out. Where as if you are attempting to focus on the moon at night, it's great. Unless Nikon added a totally new AF engine to the D4s, I doubt it will handle low light AF any better than the D800 or D4, which is pretty hit and miss. I only mention Live view here, as I feel that a future design may find a way to incorporate the Live view to assist with AF even more. Point is fact is how well the Live View that the IQ250 has at night, i.e. total darkness.
One of the more impressive feats of the IQ250 CMOS is that it can be used in total darkness and the live view basically does become a night vision device. Not how this is done, but the Alpa review of it was pretty impressive. You can also assume that if Sony ever took this type of design to a 35mm camera the AF may be able to focus in total dark as the Live seems to be able to display the image as in daylight. (at least on the IQ250).
As for the iso 400K, well, I will wait to see just how it looks, I am not expecting too much.
Paul C.
-
I don't think that Nikon ever intended to compete with any of the cameras described above with their D4… Clearly with D4S Nikon is trying to achieve two goals:
1. To get a clear advantage over 1DX for the action professional market… like they did with D3S …and
2. To expand the use of their superb 16mp sensor (but with previous D4 sensor abilities) on lower level bodies, without a risk of D4 being cannibalised, (a kind of D3S/D700 relationship) thus filling the gap that D700's discontinuation left "orphan" in their line.
I believe that a D800s (or H, or whatever) is at large… wise move, it will add many sales to their FF line and put direct competition under pressure. ;)
-
I don't think that Nikon ever intended to compete with any of the cameras described above with the D4…
that was about the line "can see in the dark", not about the competition of course... no, it is not, it was a misguiding statement... clearly the AF system that has spec 3 stops from what the current state of art in the consumer level camera has can't be called like that... that's it... otherwise it is a fine camera to shoot moving targets under a good light, that what it is.
-
1. To get a clear advantage over 1DX for the action professional market… like they did with D3S …and
I did not hear that D4 had any advantage over 1Dx and D4s being an inremental camera - what is that "clear" advantage and where exactly ?
-
I did not hear that D4 had any advantage over 1Dx and D4s being an inremental camera - what is that "clear" advantage and where exactly ?
About a stop (or more?) advantage in low light? …that's a huge advantage for a pro. One can use a 300mmf4 handheld instead of a 300 f2.8, or shoot the same exposure having less noise, or shoot at higher speed, or use TC-14Eii and TC-20Eiii along with the 300f2.8 and forget about extra focal lengths, extra weight, extra space …and extra money. A stop better high Iso, is for action and wild life photographers a world apart… (current) 1DX, doesn't stand a chance to compete with D4S… Canon has to react soon and it should be a better reaction than when D3s appeared (and Nikon got the lead from their hands). :)
In 2004 Olympics it was all white lenses…, in 2008 it was majority white lenses, in 2012 it was slight advantage to black… in 2016, if things stand on the previous analogy, it will be a good black majority. ;)
-
The ISO talk is nonsense. The sample images are if anything worse than the D4, just with heavier noise reductions. Marketing hyperbole.
Gigabit, 1Dx had already.
11fps? 1Dx does 14.
And why do they insist on those stupid XQD cards forcing owners to buy into an expensive new memory card format along side CF.
Nikon welcome to 2012. :D
I'm sure its a decent camera but no huge shake on the D4.
-
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1375310&p=8784844&viewfull=1#post8784844
-
I've seen some posts in fora from people complaining that now the MP race is over (?), manufacturers got involved on this new nonsense called the hi-iso race. I particulary find this new way of competition for the patrons favors, one of the best things that digital photography has brought us. That is the possibility of photographing what our eyes can see in penumbra. And why not go beyond?
Thank you all manufacturers! Eduardo
-
The ISO talk is nonsense. The sample images are if anything worse than the D4, just with heavier noise reductions. Marketing hyperbole.
I am not sure how we can comment on the image quality at this stage.
I have not seen any sample that was captured in proper conditions to enable an accurate assessment of the gains.
It would be pretty foolish for Nikon to claim the D4s has a new sensor with improved high ISO image quality if it were not true. Besides, their past claims in terms of image quality have always proven accurate.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The ISO talk is nonsense. The sample images are if anything worse than the D4, just with heavier noise reductions. Marketing hyperbole.
Gigabit, 1Dx had already.
11fps? 1Dx does 14.
And why do they insist on those stupid XQD cards forcing owners to buy into an expensive new memory card format along side CF.
Nikon welcome to 2012. :D
I'm sure its a decent camera but no huge shake on the D4.
The "Iso talk is nonsense" talk, …is nonsense!!! ??? How one can judge from web sample images that D4s ones are worst than D4? :P …a fanatic perhaps who thinks that the pros who will get this camera to make a better living are lunatics and ignorants as to buy worst than what was available to them till now? :P :o ???
-
The basic physics of photon shot noise puts an upper limit on SNR's and thus on image quality at these extremely high exposure index levels, as Bill Janes has computed in the other D4s thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87570.msg713630#msg713630
Cynically, any camera can give exposure index of one million, just by massively underexposing and adjusting later in post-processing, so the mere addition of one higher notch on the EI scale does not prove anything about improved image quality; certainly it does not guarantee a full stop improvement. It could for example be that Nikon sees an increased interest from photojournalists in quickly delivering low-resolution web-quality JPEGs from extreme lighting situations and the highest IE settings are just to facilitate that.
-
The "Iso talk is nonsense" talk, …is nonsense!!! ??? How one can judge from web sample images that D4s ones are worst than D4? :P …a fanatic perhaps who thinks that the pros who will get this camera to make a better living are lunatics and ignorants as to buy worst than what was available to them till now? :P :o ???
I am saying this before we see samples. Doesnt matter what Nikon claim , if they are using current bayer sensor tech they cannot increase the raw ability of this sensor by 1 stop. We are past that, there is no room for that any more. Like canon these claims of huge increases deal in manipulation of the raw data into more processed jpg. This never interests me because whatever the camera can do here a PC with software can do better later.
-
This never interests me because whatever the camera can do here a PC with software can do better later.
Tell all that to the pros that buy these cameras…. :o …...they'll laugh till next model appears. ;D Never the less, sensors can be improved if they where not up to their optimum performance in the first place. ;)
-
Why would the pro's care what interests me?
Sure sensors can improve, but we cannot get another doubling of improvement without a major change in tech.
As for the in camera jpg this could easily be done with a firmware patch to a D4 yes?
-
that was about the line "can see in the dark", not about the competition of course... no, it is not, it was a misguiding statement... clearly the AF system that has spec 3 stops from what the current state of art in the consumer level camera has can't be called like that... that's it... otherwise it is a fine camera to shoot moving targets under a good light, that what it is.
you clearly have never used a D4 but you keep speaking as though you know. you do not if this is what you have to say. I have used a D4 and it is superb under LOW light. I have pictures that reflect this. As I stated elsewhere, you quote from a spec sheet, not experience. Your Oly OM-D 1 is a very good camera. But it cannot deliver what a D4 can, much less a D4s
-
you clearly have never used a D4 but you keep speaking as though you know. you do not if this is what you have to say. I have used a D4 and it is superb under LOW light. I have pictures that reflect this. As I stated elsewhere, you quote from a spec sheet, not experience. Your Oly OM-D 1 is a very good camera. But it cannot deliver what a D4 can, much less a D4s
IMO… (I own a D4) the superb thing with it, is not that it is the best LL camera around (which it is), but rather that (unlike the D3S) it's fantastic with good light! ….clearly better than D3X without lacking anything (even) in detail at equal size prints although sensor resolution is lower… fan-ta-stic camera!
-
> D4S ….can see in the dark!
I doubt that it can... Canon 6D has one primitive central AF point that can focus @ -3EV w/o focus assist lamp, Panasonic GH4 (or any latest gen of m43 cameras) can focus @ -4EV in any point of the frame w/o a focus assist lamp and w/o any BF/FF with AF lenses... can D4s focus @ -5EV ? now where D4s can focus it will focus fast - but not in the dark, do not mix high ISO capability w/ AF system ability to do it in the real dark situation... Nikon official spec state that it can only focus @ -1 to +19 EV.... that is 3 EV lighter illumination than some m43 camera that costs $500...
Canon 6D :
Center AF Point: EV -3 to 18
Other AF points: EV +0.5 to 18
Metering Range EV 1-20
Nikon D4s
AF : -1 to +19 EV (points not specified)
Spot metering: 2 to 20 EV
Matrix or center-weighted metering: -1 to 20 EV
Panasonic GX1
http://www.panasonic.com/us/consumer/cameras-camcorders/compact-system-cameras-ilc/dmc-gx7sbody.specs.html
AF detective range EV -4 - 18
Metering range EV 0 - 18
dSLRs PDAF tracking speed is the last bastion... but focusing in the dark ? not anymore and it is for a long time already
Your numbers for the D4s are proper, in the sense that they are taken from Nikon's page, but they imply that the D4s is two times less sensitive than the D4:
Detection range
-2 to +19 EV (ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)
Vesus D4s :
Detection range -1 to +19 EV (ISO 100, 20°C/68°F)
I will not be surprised if that is so taking into account the thinks that Nikon have been doing.
It's also clear that they did not truly invest in the autofocus system (is the same sensor), but that been say I will expected that the detection range will be the same.
Maybe they down the light sensibility to make it faster in good light or something?
I hope is a mistake (Nikon's)
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
IMO… (I own a D4) the superb thing with it, is not that it is the best LL camera around (which it is), but rather that (unlike the D3S) it's fantastic with good light! ….clearly better than D3X without lacking anything (even) in detail at equal size prints although sensor resolution is lower… fan-ta-stic camera!
Very true. "Only" 16 MP or so, but oh what MP's they are!
Caught a bit of ribbing from the D800 crowd and indeed at low ISO with enough pixel peeping the D800 will look better. But at any reasonable size, the D4 will hold it's own with anything on the Market. It well surpasses cameras with more MP's in terms of clarity and brilliance. Just a winner of a camera.
A true brick to carry however…!
-
Very true. "Only" 16 MP or so, but oh what MP's they are!
Caught a bit of ribbing from the D800 crowd and indeed at low ISO with enough pixel peeping the D800 will look better. But at any reasonable size, the D4 will hold it's own with anything on the Market. It well surpasses cameras with more MP's in terms of clarity and brilliance. Just a winner of a camera.
A true brick to carry however…!
Despite the resolution difference between D4 & D800E (I have both cameras), I also find that D4 has better colour and it has more usable DR even at base Iso... If I was to explain that, I would say that D800 may appear with a (slight) advantage in DR (up to 200 Iso) when one opens the Raw files, but unless he wants a dull and worthless look on a print, there is no way that he can "keep" the printable DR extension of D4… as for higher ISO than 400, the difference exaggerates the more the Iso… IMO (since it depends on how much one values resolution as such), D4's sensor delivers the best Dslr IQ out of DSLRs ever with D800 being close at lower Iso, but no quite up there….
As for the bulk (with 1DX also)…., I guess that it wouldn't be able to deliver the advantages it has to action pros if it wouldn't be what it is… There is always the DF alternative for amateurs…. For my use, I do find the current design of D4 an overkill, but OTOH, I find DF not sufficient, I think (current) D4's in D800 body sensor would be the perfect camera for me, ….but again, I know too many that think of the same…. It may well be that D4's sensor in D800 body is the most wanted Dslr currently.
Lets just hope that now that the D4s will appeal even more to action pros and there is less reason for one camera cannibalising the other, Nikon will come up with such a product (a d880s), which I think they will…. :)
-
... It may well be that D4's sensor in D800 body is the most wanted Dslr currently....
Nikon Df?
-
Nikon Df?
Most people that have tried and consider Nikon's 16.2mp sensor as being a perfect balance for IQ, file size & resolution, find D4's functions to be a (pricey) overkill and DF to be a (again pricey) "underkill"… ideally, what they want is a modern D700 replacement which means a modern (up today) sensor, with modest file size but great performance, robust build, fast enough, reliable, with modern ergonomics and "manageable" size…. In other words a "scale down" version of the D4, the way that D700 was a scale down version of the D3… Obviously DF doesn't fulfil these criteria other than the sensor, if it had dual and better specified cards, better AF, better build, power pack ability and video like D800 body has, it could provide an alternative despite the different ergonomics, as it is, DF aims to different (body) users than D800, despite the similar price and having the 16mp sensor… A possible D800S wouldn't affect DF sales IMO… just my 2 Cs…. :)
-
you clearly have never used a D4 but you keep speaking as though you know. you do not if this is what you have to say. I have used a D4 and it is superb under LOW light. I have pictures that reflect this. As I stated elsewhere, you quote from a spec sheet, not experience. Your Oly OM-D 1 is a very good camera. But it cannot deliver what a D4 can, much less a D4s
Can you show us this proof?
-
There seems to be a confusion in this thread, between
(a) the ability to take decent photos with very little light (low noise at high exposure index)
and
(b) the ability to autofocus on low light (minimum EV at which AF works).
-
Indeed there is. But then not properly reading posts before commenting is sadly the norm online
-
There seems to be a confusion in this thread, between
(a) the ability to take decent photos with very little light (low noise at high exposure index)
and
(b) the ability to autofocus on low light (minimum EV at which AF works).
yes. "a" is my point. This is easily proven
that "b" may be optimistic is secondary, but very possible. However, not my point
the thread is about the D4s, a very fine camera no doubt. not about Olympus' offerings
-
the thread is about the D4s, a very fine camera no doubt. not about Olympus' offerings
absolutetely, so it is a good idea to refrain from incorrect statements about seeing in the dark... ever try to use OVF @ -4EV vs EVF with brighness boost ? using LV @ LCD ? good luck focusing PDAF lenses w/ that.
-
absolutetely, so it is a good idea to refrain from incorrect statements about seeing in the dark... ever try to use OVF @ -4EV vs EVF with brighness boost ? using LV @ LCD ? good luck focusing PDAF lenses w/ that.
Yes, you told us before! Yet pros (either if they use D4 or 1DX) know how to use a lens with MF and don't buy Olympus or other… Now if one focuses his camera and presses the shutter, …I guess that the D4s will see in the dark, …won't it? ???
-
Yes, you told us before! Yet pros (either if they use D4 or 1DX) know how to use a lens with MF and don't buy Olympus or other…
So pros do not buy Olympus cameras!! I better not buy one then if it then invalidates my standing amongst proper photographers. ::)
-
Can you show us this proof?
sure
just go to dpreview and compare the D4 at high ISO to pretty much anything they have tested… RAW.
Pretty amazing.
What is it that you question? Where do you think, as an image sampling device it falls short?
-
So pros do not buy Olympus cameras!! I better not buy one then if it then invalidates my standing amongst proper photographers. ::)
you know… this is a curious response, clearly not what is being said.
anyway, we are talking about the D4s. If you think an Oly is just as good (or better), that's fine but not what the thread is about.
why are you being so defensive about Oly?
-
you know… this is a curious response, clearly not what is being said.
anyway, we are talking about the D4s. If you think an Oly is just as good (or better), that's fine but not what the thread is about.
why are you being so defensive about Oly?
It's obvious that Nikon's aim is to gain a clear advantage from D4's only competitor… which of course is the 1DX only! …The question is what will follow now that internal cannibalisation seems less possible, will they move D4's sensor to lower models? (with its "previous" performance of course)
-
you know… this is a curious response, clearly not what is being said.
Except that is how it reads.
anyway, we are talking about the D4s. If you think an Oly is just as good (or better), that's fine but not what the thread is about.
why are you being so defensive about Oly?
Not being defensive at all. I simply thought your put down of Olympus not being pro kit was ridiculous. People are professional, not their equipment.
-
Except that is how it reads.
Not being defensive at all. I simply thought your put down of Olympus not being pro kit was ridiculous. People are professional, not their equipment.
Sorry, I do not recall saying anything of the sort.
Can you point that out to me where that appears?
-
sure
just go to dpreview and compare the D4 at high ISO to pretty much anything they have tested… RAW.
Pretty amazing.
What is it that you question? Where do you think, as an image sampling device it falls short?
No I, asked you to show your photos because you wrote this.
you clearly have never used a D4 but you keep speaking as though you know. you do not if this is what you have to say. I have used a D4 and it is superb under LOW light. I have pictures that reflect this. As I stated elsewhere, you quote from a spec sheet, not experience.
You claim direct experience, doubt someone else's and say you have photos to prove it, but do not show them. Now you tell me to go to another website to check D4 images out. A bit odd that.
-
Sorry, I do not recall saying anything of the sort.
Can you point that out to me where that appears?
It was the part of your post that I quoted in my reply to said comment.
That is what the quote function is for.
-
No I, asked you to show your photos because you wrote this.You claim direct experience, doubt someone else's and say you have photos to prove it, but do not show them. Now you tell me to go to another website to check D4 images out. A bit odd that.
the reason I suggested dpreview is that it offers a very real way to compare the OM-1 and the D4 apple to apple as far as exposure values. My shots don't do that
is that sensible? or are you simply questioning that I have used a D4? Actually I have a few thousand… maybe 5000. Are you asking for EXIF data or what?
-
It was the part of your post that I quoted in my reply to said comment.
That is what the quote function is for.
so, you actually have no quote that says what you said I did?
what is it that you are actually getting to? So far you keep missing the "sensibility" mark so let's get to the point….
-
so, you actually have no quote that says what you said I did?
what is it that you are actually getting to? So far you keep missing the "sensibility" mark so let's get to the point….
Are you being deliberately obtuse. My reply specifically quoted your post regarding pros not using Olympus.
But as you seem to be struggling with this, I'll requote you.
Yet pros (either if they use D4 or 1DX) know how to use a lens with MF and don't buy Olympus or other…
Not to mention that as a pro I struggle to manually focus a fast lens with my Canon kit. The reason - the focusing screen makes the DoF equivalent to f2.8 even if you are at say f1.4, so it's impossible for anyone to manually focus accurately wide open unless you use live view. So that part of your post is also inaccurate.
-
Except that is how it reads.
Not being defensive at all. I simply thought your put down of Olympus not being pro kit was ridiculous. People are professional, not their equipment.
It depends on the kind of profession… Still D4 is a professional product only, while Oly has amateur marketing behind it… You are not going to argue with that now… are you?
-
It depends on the kind of profession… Still D4 is a professional product only, while Oly has amateur marketing behind it… You are not going to argue with that now… are you?
I was arguing against a childish and inaccurate comment. Which was different to what you just said, but even that comes across as a bit sneery and snobbish. And what has marketing got to do with a product's value/ability? Also of note is that many 'professional' products are only viable to make because they are purchased in large numbers by amateurs. Not only that, a lot of pros joke about the fact that amateurs can afford better cameras than themselves, because they have jobs that play a proper wage. High end Nikons and Canons sometimes get referred to as dentist's cameras because of that.
I would also mention that despite the D4's main market being the sports photographer, I would buy an OMD1 over a D4 for the sports photography that I would tend to do. Because size and weight matters more than fps, if one is biking into the back of beyond. A tool's 'professionalism' is measured by how useful it is for a job and different cameras are better at some jobs that others.
-
jjj.
have given you several chances to rehab your errant testimony. I have been nothing but positive on Oly. It's just out of context to what we are talking about and I never have said anything even approximating what you attribute to me.
I'm going to go now, this is getting ridiculous.
-
I was arguing against a childish and inaccurate comment. Which was different to what you just said, but even that comes across as a bit sneery and snobbish. And what has marketing got to do with a product's value/ability? Also of note is that many 'professional' products are only viable to make because they are purchased in large numbers by amateurs. Not only that, a lot of pros joke about the fact that amateurs can afford better cameras than themselves, because they have jobs that play a proper wage. High end Nikons and Canons sometimes get referred to as dentist's cameras because of that.
I would also mention that despite the D4's main market being the sports photographer, I would buy an OMD1 over a D4 for the sports photography that I would tend to do. Because size and weight matters more than fps, if one is biking into the back of beyond. A tool's 'professionalism' is measured by how useful it is for a job and different cameras are better at some jobs that others.
I guess you'll argue on anything that has to do with a Nikon product ahead of competition… Please, when you'll do your sports photography with the Oly… don't forget to post those files shot with your 400mm f2.8! (or is it 267mm f2.8 equivalent?)
-
I guess you'll argue on anything that has to do with a Nikon product ahead of competition… Please, when you'll do your sports photography with the Oly… don't forget to post those files shot with your 400mm f2.8! (or is it 267mm f2.8 equivalent?)
Is it simply too much trouble for people to bother reading posts before responding with completely irrelevant and snarky answers?
I'm brand agnostic. I do not give a rat's buttock about what cameras others use and find tedious brand sneering like yours a bit sad. And what a surprise, there's no evidence or link to any photographic work you may have done.
BTW to be absolutely clear for the hard of reading, I don't use actually Olympus cameras. But would have no qualms about buying one and using it for professional work as they would suit some jobs I do better than a big hulk of a camera, like a D4s or 1Dx. And when I do sports photography I prefer to use wideangles, not big telephotos.
-
Talking about Dpreview -...
they have the d4s samples online- it seems the D4s wins about a stop over the D4...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d4s/5
-
Talking about Dpreview -...
they have the d4s samples online- it seems the D4s wins about a stop over the D4...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d4s/5
At a quick look, I see no significant difference in the raw comparisons but more difference in the JPEG's -- though with a great difference in color balance that might get in the way of fair comparison.
So so far, no sign of much beyond a change in the way the D4s handles conversion from raw to JPEG. (Which as I have said before is a perfectly legitimate improvement in a camera where sometimes the photos are needed quickly, so that in-cameras JPEGs must be used.)
-
Yes, for me and the way I work jpg are irrelevant, but for sports shooters or people who need fast turnaround to media better jpg is always welcome.
-
In addition, I don't see the relevance of improving high ISO raws more than the great they already are with the D4 and DF… Such a move, would possibly harm the (superb) sensor performance at near base ISO (like it did with D3S with respect to D3 and D700) which would be a bit meaningless since D4 already is the best camera around for LL performance when shot in Raws...