Page 5 of 5

D4 color setup

There is no denying that a D800/D810 is more suited for landscape photography, but for those – like me – who use also a D4 for landscapes, the factory defaults regarding white balance and tonality are not very well suited. D4 color setup in “Standard” picture control configuration (I never liked or used the “Landscape” setup) tends to be to cool and too bright.

In brightly lit situations like during the day in summer, I found the pictures washed out and overall too bright without being overexposed. Especially mid-tones and highlights quickly bleed. In addition to this, the white balance in “A” setting is tilting towards the blue side of the spectrum.

This setting might be beneficial for press and event shooting, but for landscapes it does not suit my shooting stile, which is more met by the D2x/D3x tonality.

After several attempts I found a combination of settings, which make me perfectly happy. Initially I worried, if the standard tonal curve would be the issue overall, but this is fortunately not the case. In SD picture control, I set the brightness to -1 (the one step that you can go to the left in this setting). This tones down mid-tones and increases the saturation in those areas. Overall the picture will get a bit darker than with a D2x or D3x in default, but not to a degree that it really creates a problem.

To cure the blue tint, I have set the “A” white balance to a deviation value of +A3. This brings the overall tonality into the warmer spectrum and is a good match to create similar pictures to D2x and D3x.

The D4 does not turn into a D2x color wise, but it is a very close match.

Production figures of pro-body D-series DSLRs

Production volume of the single digit D-series
UPDATED 03.2017 with new highest serial number for D1h, D2hs

Many speculations and theories float around in the internet about sales volumes of the different D-series models. Derived from that theories about portfolio decisions on Nikon’s part become common wisdom. Unfortunately, some of those theories are way off base.

The most popular theory is, that the success of the D700 impacted D3 sales so much, that we now have a slow, high resolution body in the position of the D700 (D800/D810) instead of a mini-D4. In my opinion this theory is complete nonsense and can be dis-proofed by looking at the sales numbers.

Since Nikon does not publish sales of individual models, those numbers can only be derived from the serial numbers of camera bodies. Fortunately, this is a rather simple task for the single digit D-series. Nikon does not use regional serial numbers like on the lower positioned cameras. If a serial starts with 2000001, the numbering scheme is the same for the entire production run. It is safe to assume that the numbering is sequentially, as it is with the lenses.

Looking at the highest serial numbers, that I could find for each camera body, the situation looks quite interesting (sources are internet auctions, sales offers and own purchases):

D1: 5038*** > 38.000

D1h: 5222*** > 22.000

D1x: 5165*** > 65.000

D2h: 2036*** > 36.000

D2hs: 30082** > 8.200

D2x: 5073*** > 73.000

D2xs: 6024*** > 24.000

D3: 2095*** > 95.000

D3s: 2061*** > 61.000

D3x: 5036*** > 36.000

D4: 2069*** > 69.000

D4s: 2039*** > 39.000

Looking at the figures, the D1 generation begins at 115.000 bodies. The D2 styled body achieved at least 143.000 units, D2hs not included as I could not find much data and the few serials are rather low. The D3/s/x sold an astonishing 192.000 units and the D4/s will reach a bit more than 110.000.

Calculating it on a sales per year basis, D1 series sold a bit more than 25.000 bodies yearly, the D2 series comes to approx. 30.000-40.000 units a year, the D3 series on almost 50.000 units and the D4 drops back to approx. 30.000 units.

Given the fact that the D3 sold much better than D2 or D4, it is simply impossible to argue about D700 taking away D3 sales. Also, comparing D2 series to D4 series it is safe to assume, that we are today back on a regular sales level for such expensive cameras – with a slight downward trend.

During the next few years the DSLR market will move into a replacement market. People are more and more satisfied with what they have and fewer upgrades will happen. Nikon will compensate this with higher prices while forecasting lower sales volumes.

The first signs of it can already be seen with the price hikes happening from D800E to D810, D4 to D4s. Also it is very interesting to see what corners are cut to lower production costs. Dropping some dedicated controls in the D4 is a first indicator.

UPDATE 01.2016: The D5 is announced and the price hiking continues: 7.000 € compared to 6500 € introductory price for the D4s. At least this will hold the D4/s used prices stable for a while.

The big color discussion

There have been more and more talks about older generation Nikon DSLRs on the web recently. Main cause for those discussions seems to be a certain unhappiness regarding the color rendition of newer cameras. Whereas “newer cameras” is quite relative – complaints go back to the D300.

Overall the dividing line for good vs. not-so-optimal colors is drawn between the D2-generation of cameras (D2h/x and D200) against the D3-generation (D3 including D700, D300) and everything that came after that in the entire Nikon lineup.

Especially the D200 gets a lot of love for having a very nice color rendition, that is then often associated with the CCD chip that was used at the time.

Since the conclusion is drawn rather quickly, the color debate suddenly becomes a CCD vs. CMOS debate, which is entirely misleading. D200 and D2x are both put forward for excellent examples in color performance, but the D200 is CCD and the D2x is CMOS.

So it can’t be the underlying sensor technology. What is it, then?

Differences CCD vs. CMOS

As already said, it can’t be the basic sensor technology. A CCD sensor is as “color blind” as a CMOS, they are just devices to capture light levels in form of a charge. The key differences come down how the data is read from the sensors and where the conversion from analogue charge to digital signal is happening.

CMOS allows converting the analogue information directly on the cell-level into a digital signal, whereas the CCD sensor has to do it externally. With CCD sensors the readout does not happen on cell-, but rather on parallelized level.

A key advantage of CMOS is therefore the high read-out speed due to the individual cells directly delivering a digital signal.

If we now are talking about colors, the differences can only be related to the signal processing and the optimization that the designers of the cameras had in mind. And I think that most of the dilemma is related to those design choices.

Design choices and tradeoffs

Looking at the group of cameras on either side of the division line, one thing is very easy to notice: different noise performance.

Older generations of Nikon cameras had the stigma of being noisy at higher ISO values. Back at the time the question of sensor technology was already discussed, since Canon mostly used CMOS sensors and already achieved low noise levels, while Nikon continued with CCD for a very long time and always got in trouble from ISO 800 onwards.

Maybe this difference in the period between 2001 and 2007 still sticks to people’s minds and is a key factor for the misleading color/CCD discussion.

Let’s turn to the D2x for a moment. As I already mentioned above, this camera is often adored for the color reproduction at lower ISO settings – despite being a CMOS design. Differently to today’s CMOS design, this sensor has an unusual way of converting the signal from charge to a digital signal – it is also done externally. While this might have an impact on the color reproduction, I don’t think that this little design anomaly leads to the better color reproduction.

Looking at the difference in noise performance compared to Canon’s CMOS sensors at the time, it must be a design decision. The sensor is optimized for color reproduction and not for high ISO shooting – the D2x already maxes out at an official ISO value of 800.

If you flip the coin and take a look at the D300, there is suddenly a dramatic increase in ISO capabilities, while people start complaining about colors.

Besides the tradeoff between noise performance and color accuracy, there simply might have been a decision of Nikon to overall change color reproduction across all DSLRs.

Putting it in a nutshell: It’s not a technological difference, it is a design decision. Nikon was always criticized for having a poor high-ISO performance. With the introduction of the FX D3 and DX D300 the game changed fundamental, even putting Nikon in the lead in this category. The decision to optimize for higher ISOs seems therefore rational.

ISO differenes D200 vs D2x

Reading the above you might have noticed that I don’t question the superior color of the D2-series of cameras at all. Keeping in mind that something like color and it’s representation is always something that also comes down to personal preference, I generally agree with the perception that the older cameras have a more pleasing color rendition.

What I absolutely don’t agree on, is the general consensus of which of the D2-cameras has the better high ISO behavior: D2x or D200. I neglect the D2h for this, as it has a third type of sensor unique to this camera (LBCAST) and the resolution of just 4 MP does not seem to be sufficient for today’s use.

Most describe the D200 as being better in the high ISO department – it is one year younger, has 2 MP less resolution and goes officially up to ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800. Therefore it is one stop better than a D2x – really?

I have shot thousands of frames with a D200 and I am playing around with a D2x since last December. What I can say is that I prefer the ISO 800 output of the D2x over the D200 at any time. In general terms, for me ISO 800 on the D2x is perfectly usable with correct exposure, while I try to avoid anything above ISO 400 on the D200. The latter holds colors a bit better at ISO 800, but the noise pattern is much more “blotchy” and more colored that that of the D2x.

If you are interested to try one of those cameras, go for a used D2x or D2xs. It is double or triple the price of a D200 right now, but the autofocus improvement is worth alone the difference.

Color mode emulation

In case that you have a D3, D3x, D300 or D700, you can also try a close mimic of the D2x color reproduction by using the D2x color mode files. Those are available for download at Nikon’s website. Once installed on your camera, you have the options to choose from the D2x color modes I (recommended), II or III. While this gives a good impression of the color profile, it however does not match the D2x completely.

To avoid any misunderstanding: I am completely satisfied with the colors from the D700 and D800, but I can see that the D2-series is very special and pleasing in this regard.

The D300s gap

E D I T O R I A L – 01-2013

The D300s gap

Currently Nikon has a huge gap in its lineup: The pro DX camera.

For years people were told that the DX format was the way to go and all you ever need. For sure, this had to do with limitations on sensor production which first had to be overcome before a somewhat affordable 35mm format camera could be offered. Nikon was late to the 35mm sensor arena, but when they decided to enter it in 2007 with the D3 the game changed considerably. Nikon was the underdog when it came to noise performance. The used sensors were excellent at lower ISOs up to 400 and the colors where awesome. With the D3 – and the D700 that followed – Nikon was suddenly the high-ISO king at moderate 12 MP resolution.

Also the D300 – introduced together with the D3 in the summer of 2007 – improved the high ISO capabilities and offers very good performance at least up to ISO 800 and in most cases also at ISO 1600. The refresh to the D300s model in 2009 with the addition of video and a second card slot left the sensor itself untouched.

But the success of the 2008-2011 dream team of the 12 megapixel D300(s), D700 and D3 is also based on speed. All of these cameras offered 8 pictures per second (D300 and D700 with the help of the same (!) battery grip and the EN-EL4 battery) and the same, professional autofocus system. The fact that the focus system of the D3 is also used in the D300 almost seems as a miracle from today’s perspective. All of this puts the D300 in a sweet spot. For a midrange price buyers get one of the best autofocus systems available, the option of 8 frames per second continuous shooting and with the D300s refresh also video in a professional, sturdy body.

But what happened during the last five years? On the top of the range the D3 got a refresh to the D3s and was then replaced by the D4. Both – the D3s and the D4 – are using sensors that did not appear in another body (yet). For the improved 12 MP sensor of the D3s it seems rather unlikely that we will see it again in a Nikon product. For the 16 MP D4 sensor there is still hope, but rumors indicate that Nikon does not want to harm the D4 sales.

The upper midrange saw the replacement of the D700 by the D800. 12 MP versus 36 MP. It still offers the superb 3500FX autofocus module with 51 focus points. Some sample variation in the early batches caused for quite some discussions about the focus reliability, but in general the D800 still offers top of the line focus performance. What is lost now is speed. Only 4 pictures per seconds at full and 6 pictures at DX resolution put it below the D700. Because of the increase of resolution from 12 MP to 36 MP and the speed loss it can be argued, that the D800 is not a direct replacement for the D700. In regard to high ISO the D800 is better in my opinion since a down-sampled picture of the D800 will always beat the D700 for noise. The dynamic range is also a vast improvement.

And the midrange DX camera? D300s. Since 2009 with a direct heritage of a 2007 camera. This camera design turns six years old in August. Newer sensors offer a big improvement in resolution, high ISO noise and – almost more important – dynamic range. The sub-400€ entry level camera is 24 MP now and offers 2 stops more of dynamic range with cleaner ISO 1600. Even the two year old D7000 offers a better 16 MP sensor, but has other significant shortcomings (body / AF).

Summing it all up we have right now three professional camera bodies: D4, D800 and D300s. The new, smaller body design introduced with the D7000 – and slightly improved with the D600 – simply does not apply as such: crippled AF system, no AF-ON button, no direct metering mode switch and too small for some people. If you really want a pro-grade DX body the venerable D300s is your only choice right now. If you want an up-to date speed oriented camera with superb ISO performance the D4 is the only choice (ouch). Nikon right now urgently needs two things:

– a smaller D4 at reduced cost – like the D700 was to the D3. Not everybody needs 36 MP.

– The D300s replacement. Let’s hope that Nikon does not top out the DX range with a D7000 style body. I repeat it: The D7000 is no pro-level body. If they drop the D300 style body in the DX range, many people will leave the Nikon system.

The smaller D4 will most likely not happen. In the FX range the D600 has complicated things a bit. I do not see a D800 style body fitting between the D600 and D800. Pricing it higher than the D800 might seems to be the only option, but this would narrow the market pretty much.

I have a slight hope that we might see a D300s replacement in a D800 style body. We would almost be back in the position of the years 2008-2011: A battery shared among three different cameras, a battery grip (MB-D12) for two compatible cameras and the same level of autofocus performance. A key factor would be the sensor. It would be ideal to use the 24 MP sensor from the D3200 as a starting point and to improve it. If they can bring the data processing up to a speed that allows for 8 frames per second (with the grip) they have a winner.

The gap that is currently present in the lineup can be seen from two perspectives:
Nikon had – starting with the D300 and D700 – two pro bodies without integrated grip in their portfolio. Right now they still have, but the sub-2000€ option is now essentially five years old. If they drop the pro body in the DX range, only the D800 is left. I cannot imagine that this will happen.

The second way to look at it starts with the question: Where does DX end? If they make a D7000 style body the top of the line, the message is clear. DX is for consumers only and if you want a pro body with pro buttons, specs and autofocus you need to spend more than 2000 €. Canon will be happy to sell appropriate bodies to the confused customers.

In my opinion we might come to the conclusion that the setup of D300(s), D700 and D3 was the most balanced that Nikon had to offer in recent years. Right now they seem a bit clueless and lost – especially regarding the pro DX model.

© 2024 Dennis Saßmannshausen Photography

Based on an theme by Anders NorenUp ↑