D4 FW A1.05, B1.03

obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
edited April 2013 in D3/D4/D5
I made the title "broad" but here's what I want to know, who's testing this "Images are sharper and appear more three dimensional." with A1.04 compared to A1.05? My D4 is at home and I am at work. :( I am very curious about this one, though.
D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II

Comments

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited April 2013
    Just update my D4 to the latest firmware and here are some unedited files for you to evaluate.

    ARN_6699.jpg
    D4 24 1.4G 1/4000 ISO 100 @ f/2.0

    ARN_6697.jpg
    D4 24 1.4G 1/5000 ISO 100 @ f/2.0

    ARN_6696.jpg
    D4 24 1.4G 1/5000 ISO 100 @ f/2.0

    ARN_6695.jpg
    D4 24 1.4G 1/5000 ISO 100 @ f/2.0
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
    Holy bajeebus! That 24/1.4 is awesome. The images definitely have depth, I wonder what "changes" they made to net these results...
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @obajoba: Yes the 24 1.4G is worth every penny. However, here are some pictures taken with the other great lenses as well.

    ARN_6956.jpg
    D4 14-24 2.8G 1/1600 ISO 100 @ f/2.8

    ARN_6948.jpg
    D4 105 2.8 1/1000 ISO 100 @ f/3.0

    ARN_6949.jpg
    D4 105 2.8 1/1000 ISO 100 @ f/3.0

    ARN_6952.jpg
    D4 24-70 2.8 1/1600 ISO 100 @ f/2.8

    ARN_6953.jpg
    D4 85 1.8 1/1600 ISO 100 @ f/2.8

    ARN_6957.jpg
    D4 50 1.4 1/2000 ISO 100 @ f/2.8

    ARN_6959.jpg
    D4 70-200 1.8 1/1250 ISO 100 @ f/2.8 -- 70mm

    ARN_6960.jpg
    D4 70-200 1.8 1/1250 ISO 100 @ f/2.8 -- 200mm
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
    edited April 2013
    Okay, I took 2 shots before the update and 2 shots after. These were taken handheld in my tv room, are high ISO (10000), 24-70 2.8, with an SB-700. I'm not sure that I can discern anything significantly different but that *could* be my shoddy test setup... :|

    1.04A, 1.02B
    image
    1.05A, 1.03B
    image
    1.04A, 1.02B
    image
    1.05A, 1.03B
    image
    Post edited by obajoba on
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Well, mine is updated...so off to the flower area....

    But, I cannot see how the image quality can be so different....I was under the impression the file management and mechanics of the camera could be updated, but the image quality is rather fixed....?
    Msmoto, mod
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    My guess is only the JPG image quality was improved -- perhaps by recovering contrast that was somehow being lost during processing.
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
    edited April 2013
    Theoretically they could change the algorithms and formulas for what is captured by the sensor. And to that end, they could actually change quite a bit. So, I won't say that it doesn't have an impact on RAW, but it is certainly possible. (though far more likely to be jpeg processing.
    Post edited by obajoba on
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • TriShooterTriShooter Posts: 219Member
    I like what I am seeing here. There is more detail in the shadow area. It is like the black was reduced ever so slightly. I like it, and the blacks can always be turned up a notch if you want more snap, and less detail.
  • cholsoncholson Posts: 17Member
    i've also read that some are reporting better quality FX video... my quick test does look better... but that's so subjective since i don't have a before/after shot to compare. after review, i still think the CX (2.7 crop) is the better option for the D4 if resolution is your primary concern (but CX mode has less contrast and is noisier for higher ISO video compared to FX)
  • Benji2505Benji2505 Posts: 517Member
    I have a feeling that the box shots above were not done with the same settings. I would be surprised if an OS system upgrade would result in such a difference in the exposure (shadows, color sat., etc,)
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
    I have a feeling that the box shots above were not done with the same settings. I would be surprised if an OS system upgrade would result in such a difference in the exposure (shadows, color sat., etc,)
    The exif data is there, they should all be 1/50, f/8, ISO10000.
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • Benji2505Benji2505 Posts: 517Member
    I have a feeling that the box shots above were not done with the same settings. I would be surprised if an OS system upgrade would result in such a difference in the exposure (shadows, color sat., etc,)
    The exif data is there, they should all be 1/50, f/8, ISO10000.
    White balance might have changed. I still doubt this change is from the OS upgrade.
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member

    White balance might have changed. I still doubt this change is from the OS upgrade.
    Shot in RAW, always manual exposure and WB was the same. The files were imported to LR, settings "Reset" and zeroed out, exported to Picasa (directly) as jpeg. They're the same.
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • Benji2505Benji2505 Posts: 517Member
    ok, hey - 'seems the OS update makes a big difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.