What is the benefit of a D4 against a D800

Minispud

Can somebody recommend it the purchase of a D4 is a worthwhile investment over the D800 I currently use. What are the pros and cons of having a D4 against the D800.

Juergen

It really depends on what you do.

I had the D4 about 1 1/2 years before I purchased the D800E. To me they are complementing each other nicely.
The main difference is low light performance and speed. in those categories the D4 plays in its own league.
When I bought the D800 I thought I also would also use it for wildlife, but after a couple of tries the D4 remains to be my wildlife camera. The frame rate really makes a difference, plus the good high ISO performance which is needed especially with long lenses.

The D800 really shines in landscape photography, any long exposures and portraits.

An advantage in dynamic range of the D800 is to me in real life shooting not visible. Maybe it comes into bigger effect in good light and low ISO applications.

So, if you do indoor sports, sports under low light conditions and wildlife, I can clearly recommend the D4 over the D800. If you are now happy with your D800 and you do not miss anything, stay with it. It is a great camera. The reason why I got the D800 in addition to the D4 was, because I wanted a second FX body.

Jürgen

Msmoto

Totally dependent upon what one wants to shoot. As above.

The biggest difference is the $3,000. The advantage of the extra 20 MP of the D800 may not be obvious until one gets into very large prints or finds they crop down to a 4/3 rds sensor size from the full frame. For dynamic shooting, action spots, the advantage of more frames per second and larger buffer to handle a couple hundred continuos shots is a D4 strong point, and low ISO may be as well. I am guessing, however, I could shoot everything I shoot now with a D4 substitute a D800 and not miss a beat. Just my opinion

Golf007sd

@Minispud: 1) What type of photography do you do? 2) How long have you been shooting with your D800? What has made you think the D4 is something you would want to purchase?

Minispud

I mainly shoot wildlife and landscape. I find D800 a great bit of kit for landscape photography, I find it a bit slow when capturing action shots when on safaris. Also in low light it does struggle.

I can't afford to have two bodies and think trading in my D800 to purchase a D4 would give me a better arsenal for all the type of photography I do.

Appreciate your comments as it's a big decision to make as it means I'm having to dig deep in my pockets of up to £2500 to switch to a D4.

Juergen

Maybe you can rent a D4 for a couple of days. Get a feeling for it, see how it focusses and performs in the type of shooting your do. Then decide if it is for you worth the 2500 pounds.
Did you consider a D3s as a second body?
Jürgen

Postman

Considering the outlay you'll have to spend over and above, what about keep the D800 and get a 2nd hand D3S for your speed and high ISO needs?

Golf007sd

@Minispud: Thanks for the info. It will help me and others, in guiding you to your next step...hopefully :P

Well over a year ago, I found myself very much in your shoes...do I go D800 or D4. I went with the D4 for few reasons and to this day I'm trilled with its performance and my decision. Yet, I still hunger for the D800....I can buy it right now, but I have a big lens in mind that the funds are going to go towards. Your D800, as PitchBlack has so eloquently stated, can produce amazing result...it is all about technique. Note: I'm not saying you lack the skills to do so.

The fast FPS on D4 is a dream...if FPS is what you are after and funding is an issue, then Juergen & Postman recommendation are worth consideration. I just cannot, in good faith, tell you to sell the D800. That step, IMHO, would be a mistake.

Once thing you may want to consider in order to improve your D800 performance for fast action shots: shoot in JPG and get the fastest SD card you can get your hands on. Your post processing will be limited in editing the image but then again, I (we) do not know what your intended use of the image is (ie. web, hard print, etc..etc)

Question: What lenses do you own and which do you use for your actions photography?


@PitchBlack: Nice shot. But I like this spread a bit better :P

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: I humbly disagree....you saved more :P

Golf007sd

If you paid over $5,000 USA for the D800 body and the original Nikon grip, then you and I need to talk about your purchasing strategies.

As for the addition FPS /w the grip...not sure if those knockoff Asian ones do that.

Ade

It's virtually certain we'll see a D4X or a D4S (or both) in 2014, so I don't see a big rush for a D800 owner to buy a D4 now.

Let's face it, the D4 was a disappointment for Nikon in terms of sales. Nikon also placed questionable bets on a couple technologies (XQD, which is proving to be a dog compared to CFast2, and an old wired Ethernet port that's actually slower than USB3).

So Nikon has incentive to come out with different or improved model(s) as soon as possible. Personally, I'd wait to see what comes out vs. buying a D4 now.

kyoshinikon

For me it is not only the Fps that makes the D4 much more attractive but the built in grip, voice recording, buffer, and lower mpx sensor...

the D4 probably didn't sell as well simply because,
A: It was not much better than the D3s
B: People holding out for a D700 replacement gave into the d800
C: It is overpriced for what it is. Why spend $6400 on a D$ when the D3s was only $5300

Golf007sd

A photographer should get the body he or she needs now, if the job calls for it or if the end use needs/wants it. Many of us were certain we would get a D400...but we did not this year.

The D4 is not for the public at large; nor is the Df, D800, D800E, D3x or D3s. These bodies are for Pro's or those few enthusiast that seek the best that Nikon has to offer. The same argument can be said for Canon shooters; how many Canon shooters are willing to spend the fund on a 1Dx or need its performance. Thus, I'm willing to argue that a small portion of the total sales for Nikons or Canon's come from their top of the line bodies..ie. D4 or D1x.

I find the XQD to be very useful, impressive, cutting edge tech. I'm pleased to see Nikon use it. The CF interface is not without its own flaws....just ask those that have had the pins broken off or bent while inserting or removing a CF card.

The Ethernet port has worked just fine for me when I have used it for tethering. True it is not the fastest, but it does the job. Its true benefit is when a user has the intent of use many D4's in order to take a shot of a setting. Will try to find the video that shows it in action.

kyoshinikon

I had hoped xqd would kill CF as the only thing going for CF is its speed. They are easier to corrupt than SD, easier to dent, more likely to damage all those pins, excessively large for this day and age, and more prone to glitchy reading.

PB_PM

I am surprised that XQD hasn't done better myself. I'd much rather have dual XQD slots than SD and CF slot (aka the D800).

Juergen

I actually make the majority of my money shooting sports, though I am a bit of a generalist and work in fashion, as well. That being said, I shoot sports not for newspapers, but for clients who want image quality. I've found that I MUCH prefer 4 fps at 36mp to nearly three times that at 16mp. />

Hi Pitchblack,
I really admire your work. I think it is outstanding and your success is very well deserved.
I just wanted to give you an idea what I mean by Low-light and high frame shooting.
In the situation below I did a continues burst when the guy was about to jumbo off. I released the shutter button only after he was standing again. I had about 7 frames to choose from, with this one being to me the most attractive.
The photo definitely does not qualify as a magazine cover. It is not in an well lit olympic sports palace, it was in a local gym in Brunei. Under these conditions I firmly believe that the D4 is outshining a lot of cameras on the market, including the D800.
And these conditions you will find in any municipal gym, where you have weekend family events. The photo is suitable for newsprint, or to sell to soccer-moms (karate moms I should say).



Jürgen

paulr

Hi Minispud, I think any Pro shooter as been in this situation, which one, Like most members have said, the type of photography really makes the decision for you. I sat on the fence for 2 years and bought the D4, I came from my beloved D3x, I could not believe how technology had moved on. In over 4 decades of pro photography I never had a camera which can get results like this one. {Low light with fast action} But like previous writers have said, you need pro glass if you want the very best results.

Msmoto

Another option might be a refurbished D3s. Or a used one that has been only used less than maybe 50,000 clicks… if this can be found.

Minispud

Appreciate everybody comments on this subject.

Currently I have 2 prime lenses which I use for Landscape, namely the AF-S Nikkor 50mm F/1.8G and 28mm F/1.8G and an old Nikon ED AF Nikkor 70-300mm F/4-5.6D for safari and action shots.

This leads me to my second decision/dilemma is do I purchase an AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8G ED VRII with a teleconvertor 1.4 or 1.7 OR to invest in an AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6G ED VR.

A Nikon representative at the annual Bird Fair in the UK would opt for the 70-200mm lens with teleconvertor as you get the better glass for shorter range zoom and the teleconvertor allows the extended reach. This is also the cheaper option as is less than buying the 80-400mm lens.

Next year I have 2 safaris planned in Masai Mara next September and a surprise one in May for my 50th birthday. Would also appreciate your own take on what lenses you would purchase as there is a greater emphasis on the glass than the body. As a once in a lifetime experience I want the right kit (body and glass) to capture the moment and a trip to NZ in 2015 planned.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts which might help or hinder my decision.

WestEndBoy

I would go with the Nikon respresentative. That is my plan when I eventually get a zoom telephoto. Most of the time you will be shooting in the 70-200 range so get the best glass in this range.

This will even be a decent budget safari option, but get the 200-400 F4 if you really want to do it. I am also considering the 400 2.8 for my safari in about 10 years. I don't think it is better than the 200-400 F4 for a safari, but I would use it for other stuff like portraits. And if you have this much cash to burn, look at the RRS safari setup.

shawnino

@Minispud: if you can, give a quick look at the previous-generation Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. That's what I wish I had bought. Current gen is $3500 and has weather-sealing and hooks up to the dock-thingy, which is cool, but the previous generation is now new between $2000-$2500. If you need something between 50 and 120, there are reasonable options near 85...might net out to only three hundred bucks if you sold your 70-300 to finance it.

I own the 200-400mm f/4 and it's great, but I wish I had the Sigma 120-300, f/2.8 at 300mm, and four grand in my pocket. OK wouldn't stay in my pocket long, but, hey.

Ade

Next year I have 2 safaris planned in Masai Mara next September and a surprise one in May for my 50th birthday. Would also appreciate your own take on what lenses you would purchase as there is a greater emphasis on the glass than the body. As a once in a lifetime experience I want the right kit (body and glass) to capture the moment and a trip to NZ in 2015 planned.

For safaris you really want high resolution cameras and glass. So that means two D800s or possibly the rumored D4X if it comes out before your trip.

The 70-200/2.8 and a TC are essential gear as well, plus a long zoom of your choice (the 200-400/4 mentioned a couple of times above is a solid choice).

Thom Hogan does various workshops in Africa and has some good safari recommendations:

http://www.bythom.com/photographic-travel/africa/how-to-think-about-equipmen.html

proudgeek

About to travel to Costa Rica with a 300 f/2.8 plus a TC14, essentially giving me a variable aperture 300-420. I'll report back. The good news is that I think it should be able to be handheld.

paulr

As you are talking about a large investment I would rent to test. I tend to use 24-70 and the 70-200 most of the time, however there's only one way, you have to use the lenses yourself to suit your photography,The new 80-400 does seem to get good reports though. The 70-200 is favoured by most press photographers and when used with the D4 gets amazing results. Maybe its time to act, I waited for the D4X but released tomorrow never comes.

Golf007sd

@Minispud: First things first, if you find that the D4 meets your needs and style of photography, then get it first and get very very comfortable with using it. Knowing its features and how it works will be invaluable in the field...regardless of the setting.

Second, I'm a big fan of fast, constant aperture lenses. Depending on your budget, you will find that in the telephoto world, I would go with 2.8's or F/4's. I have the 70-200 2.8 /w 1.7 tele and have found its performance to be fantastic. No mistake in getting such a combo. However, shooting in wildlife, does require some careful consideration; such as: will I be walking or be in a car; what is the trail like; will I be able to hand hold the lens or not; will I have a tripod or a monopod with me; will I need two bodies?

Third, if I was going to Masai Mara, I would have two bodies: a D4 and a Dx or another Fx body. The D4 would have a long telephoto mounted on it (i.e a 400 2.8 or 500/600 f 4.0). If funding is an issue and your usage for such long lens are minimal, then by all mean rent one of these bad boys for the trip. My thinking behind such a combo is that, I would want a fast FPS body on it for those long distant subject moving fast and a lens that will allow for tack sharp images. The second body would have the 70-200 2.8. I would also take two teleconverters with me: 1.7 and the new 2.0.

donaldejose

People are saying the D4 didn't sell well for Nikon. Is this a fact? How do we know that fact?