Nikon D4: a video camera with a dSLR bolted on?

Nikon's D4 has been officially announced. Headline specs, in case you missed them, include the following:

- 16mp FX sensor with EXPEED 3 processor

- 10fps with full AF and AE; 11fps without

- tweaked 51 point AF system with more sensitivity

- ISO100 - 12800 native; expandable to ISO50 - 204800

- 91,000 pixel RGB sensor to replace the previous 1005 pixel version

- lots of ergonomic tweaks including illuminated buttons and two extra joystick controllers

So far, so evolutionary. The D3/s have a devoted (and deservedly so) following. They're accurate, reliable and capable of turning out incredibly clean files in all sorts of challenging situations. Nikon would've messed with that succesful formula at its peril. Still, taken on their own, there's not really enough here to persuade a happy 3-series owner to upgrade. A few extra pixels, a tiny bit more speed... at the price Nikon's asking ($6000 or £4800) those incremental extras are looking expensive.

Oh, and inevitably the forums are already full of doom and gloom about the fact that Canon's forthcoming competitor is, apparently, better (summary: 'OMG the Nikon D4 is 2 smaller and 2 slower. WTF?'). Can I be the first to point out that this isn't remotely like the D2H vs the 1DII? (in case you weren't there, Nikon's 8fps 4mp D2D was launched weeks ahead of Canon's markedly superior 8fps 8mp 1DII, although it wasn't the pixel count that killed the D2H. But that's another story).

The real story is away from the internet sideshow and the D4's basic specs. The real story is video. Because Nikon has been working hard to build as much video goodness into the D4 as it possibly can:

- a full set of 1080p and 720p output options inluding 30, 25 and 24fps (60fps only at 720p, though)

- reduced rolling shutter effect thanks to faster data processing

- B-frame compression to improve H.264 output

- uncompressed video output available via HDMI port

- stereo headphone jack

- stereo mic jack with manually adjustable level

- video-specific controls 

- full manual exposure via shutter speed, aperture and ISO

- full-time AF with face detection

- full HD integration with crop modes (1.5x and 2.7x)

It's an impressive feature set, for a stills camera at least. If you need to produce video as well as stills, it's possibly worth a look. But (unfashionably) I'm still not convinced by video in dSLRs. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that dSLR ergonomics are just plain wrong for video shooting. The D4, as a stills camera, is designed for fast, portable operation. Decades of design experience have gone into the user interface (I can trace the basic design of many of the D4's controls back to my 1989 F801). It's a camera that'll work very well indeed on the fly, off a tripod, with a photographer who's not afraid to follow the action. I can say that with confidence because, in all important aspects of design, it's barely different from my D3.

Switch to video and it's a different story. A video-enabled dSLR really needs to be tethered to a tripod - and a solid one, at that. While you can certainly make the case that that's good practice for any video shooting, dedicated video cameras are at least useable handheld. A dSLR? Not so much. The ergonomics for video are just plain terrible, and that's not really surprising. I'm as impressed with video in a dSLR as I would be with a stills function built into a video camera.

Much of the original impetus for incorporating video into a dSLR came from big news organisations, who were clamouring a few years ago for multimedia content. But the revolution never really happened, partly because (surprise, surprise) the budget wasn't there. It may sound attractive to a commissioning editor to ask for video and stills from a single photographer, but have you ever tried shooting both at a single event? It's not easy. And, contrary to popular belief, simply having a video mode on your stills camera doesn't actually make it any easier.

So I'm left with the feeling that video is an extra that relatively few photographers need, let alone know how to make effective use of. If you strip away the big sensor / shallow depth of field thing (which has become so over-used in the past few years that it's now a visual cliche), the only remaining 'benefit' of incorporating video into dSLRs is the 'two into one' argument. And, as I've just argued, I'm not sure that's compelling either commercially or in ergonomic terms.

None of which would matter much, if it weren't for the fact that video is clearly eating up more R&D resources and almost certainly adding to production costs.

Will I buy a D4? No. Would I buy a D700 with the D4's sensor (and no video) in it? Probably.

Comments

[Jsparkphoto]

You're so right about video.
I suspect the serious video shooters will all be migrating to mirrorless cameras in the next year or two. Maybe we all will, but maybe not that fast, and for the next few years I would really cheer for a new DSLR that didn't have video at all – or, more likely, was 100% designed for stills shooting so all the compromises were in video.
Count me in on the D700 with D4 sensor and no video. Are you listening Nikon?

[Mike O]

Good points about video on DSLR's although I can see DSLR's as a stepping stone for photographers to get more into video, especially if photographers want to branch out. But as you say, it's a stills camera first, and should be treated as such, and so never try to compete as a video camera. Hopefully we shall see a few more cameras along the lines of the C300, maybe around the same price as current mid/top end DSLRs. I.e a video camera being designed as a video camera, not as a bolt on onto a DSLR. That would remove the need for 'competitive' video on DSLRs.

As for the D700 with D4 sensor (and no video)? That's what I'm still hoping the D800 will be (it will have video though), although from the current rumours, the chances are slim. (Although they are still rumours). A s/h D700 may be on the cards...

Mike

[Seb Rogers]

I wonder if Nikon has actually put any serious market research into how many D3s users actually use video (and how many D3 users want it)? I'll put money on it being a relatively small proportion of the user base.

My issue is with the cost and design compromises necessary to build in a feature set that I suspect the majority of D4 owners don't need and won't use.

Anyone who thinks there's a pot of untapped gold at the end of the video rainbow is in for a nasty surprise, too. Videographers have suffered in the same way that photographers have over the past decade: falling budgets, static or falling fees, increasing client expectations. Stills photographers who own a video-enabled dSLR might be able to use video as a value-added enticement for clients, for sure. But good video production remains time-intensive - and therefore expensive.

Let's not forget that nearly £5k for a dSLR is a lot of money. 15 years ago an F5 was 1/3 of that, would probably last longer... and fees haven't gone up in the meantime. You do the math.

[Alan]

As a person who likes to take my DSLR out on outdoor adventures, I would appreciate a D4 sensor in a D700 like body too. For me the gopro hero2 is working out great and video built into my DSLR really is not necessary for me out during adventures. Recently Canon seems to recognize adventure photographers need smaller and lighter weight equipment shown by their latest lenses. I hope Nikon does not forget this segment of the market.

[Seb Rogers]

The ace up Canon's sleeve in the 'small, light but good quality' arena is the company's f/4 L lenses: pro quality but in a size and weight that's sane for carrying out and about. Nikon has no equivalent.

What Nikon does have, though, and has had for some time, is reasonably small, light and tough dSLR bodies. The D200, D300 and D700 in particular are plenty rugged enough for adventure sports. But the DX bodies throw up another problem: Nikon hasn't invested enough in really high quality DX lenses. Pro DX users have needed a 50-135mm f/2.8 for, ooh, the past 5 years. Where is it, Nikon?

I suspect the issue is limited resources and allocating them in a way that makes sense. Canon is a much, much bigger company than Nikon. In dSLR sales, Nikon punches way about its weight.

[Kevn Storr]

Have you looked at the spec of the new D800 just announced?

It s not what I was hoping for. I wanted more the D4 resolution and ISO in a smaller body.

However perhaps 36 pixels will have its place for my wall-art.