Vexxed between a Canon EOS 1D X and a Nikon D4

[IntrinsicIntent]

I'm somewhat new to digital photography, though one could say its in my blood. I currently have a Nikon D7000 and I'm not quite satisfied with it. I want to acquire a camera that will enable me to practically to do it all; from weddings, to model shoots, landscapes. close-ups of rare Brazilian orchids. Perhaps this is a pipe dream; according to the marketing from both Canon and Nikon "pipe dream" is not part of their vernacular. I realize its an expensive investment, but I figure if I'm going to do it right, and perhaps make a name for myself, I need the proper equipment that will enable me to reach those intangible heights.

If anybody has any advise on the two models, and which one is more capable, and a better fit for say me, than I would truly appreciate your feedback.

Thank you!

 

[fjrabon]

uh, it will probably take you several years of shooting to get where your D7000 is what is holding you back and you 'needed' to step up to the top of the line pro models.

Those models don't even make sense to own unless you also own several thousands of dollars in lenses, several thousands of dollars in lighting equipment, etc.

If you're really thinking of dropping that much money, get a D600 and the highest grade glass you can afford. And spend a ton of money on lights and lighting equipment.

The D4 doesn't make sense to own until you're up to about $15,000 in glass and $15,000 in lighting equipment.

(edit: I also am aware of the extremely high likelihood that this is troll bait, but, ya know, give the benefit of the doubt and all)

edit:

of the particular types of photography you listed:

Weddings: Mostly you need very good glass, mostly in the normal view range to medium telephoto range. Reflectors, speedlights and speedlight softboxes

Model shoots: Lights, lots and lots of lights and lighting modifiers. And a studio and backdrops. If on location, assistants and portable lighting gear

Landscapes: A good tripod

Orchids: Great macro glass

All of the above: good editing software and a great computer

None of those require a great body. Perhaps the only types of photography that are particularly beneficial from a body are sports and wildlife. The others a nice body helps, but are way down the list.

 

[gsgary]

Why are you not looking at 5Dmk3 and D800 because they are better because you did not mention sport, one more thing if you can't do it with the D7000 you will be wasting your money

 

[Mully]

Either camera will not make you a better photographer....... you will. So forget all the hype and use that d7000 till the sensor dies and by that time you will have shot and processed enpugh images to understand what you want and you will not be asking a group of photographers in a forum which is better ..... you will know or should know.

 

[jake337]

Unless you have the need for a larger sensor, stick with the d7000 and build up a great lineup of glass, lights and modifiers.


If you really need that extreme low light capability you could pick up a used D3s.

 

[ghache]

oh boy.

 

[rexbobcat]

I thought you were serious at first, and looking at which section this was posted in I was about to let a whole firestorm loose. Lol

(Oh you are serious...I thought you were looking at the D7000)

 

[SCraig]

If I HAD to choose between one of those two I'd get the D4 since all of my glass is for a Nikon. If I could choose among anything (and since the D4 is Nikon's highest-priced DSLR that pretty much opens the door for "Anything") I wouldn't choose either of those, I'd get a D800 and some better glass.

In your case, based on the fact that you yourself tagged yourself as a beginner, by the time you get to where the D7000 is holding you back there will probably some new models out that are even better.

 

[TCampbell]

I see that it says you are "new to digital". Does that mean you've been shooting film for a while?

When I looked at your list (and I'm a Canon shooter), there's really no reason for you to buy a new camera body. Your D7000 can be used quite effectively to do all those things (although you mentioned weddings and since there are no picture-retake days for weddings, wedding photographers always have a 2nd body as an emergency backup.)

You need lighting for studio quality photography, but for the most part, the lighting doesn't care what brand camera you have. I say for the "most part" because both Canon and Nikon have their own TTL flash metering systems when using dedicated flash and even third parties like Pocket Wizard make a version for Canon canon and another version for Nikon (there's no single unit that speaks both languages.) HOWEVER... you'll PROBABLY prefer to do lighting MANUALLY (invest in a light meter that can meter "flash" as well as "flash contribution" (when shooting flash combined with ambient light and trying to retain a natural look.)

Your own experience & skill, followed by your ability to control the lighting, followed by the lenses you have and how you use them are all far more important than the body. I might not be singing the same tune if you had an extremely old body with poor ISO range, didn't control noise levels well, lacked dynamic range, and had low resolution... but a Nikon D7000 is still a current body. Sure it's a couple of years since release, but mid-level and pro-level bodies don't release every year... it'll be several years between updates. It's still the latest body from Nikon in it's range.

 

[Ballistics]

uh, it will probably take you several years of shooting to get where your D7000 is what is holding you back and you 'needed' to step up to the top of the line pro models.

I completely disagree. I'm about 6 months into needing an upgrade and I've been shooting for 13 months. Takes about a month to get the basics down, and 2 months to be well versed. Wish I went right for the D700 from day 1. Being a good photographer and being limited by your gear are 2 very different arguments. I'm using a digibacked hasselblad in the studio and know how to use it very well, I just suck as an artist to produce anything worth looking at lol.

Also, why would you need $15k in glass? The trinity isn't even $6k.

Tripod, lighting,computer and software is a necessity no matter what camera you own.

If you are sure you want to get into photography and you have the money, invest. It's cheaper in the end.

Like gary said - Why are you not for the D800 or Mk3?

The D7000 isn't the best for low light. I was taking some horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800, which is why I am looking towards the D600.

 

[fjrabon]

uh, it will probably take you several years of shooting to get where your D7000 is what is holding you back and you 'needed' to step up to the top of the line pro models.

I completely disagree. I'm about 6 months into needing an upgrade and I've been shooting for 13 months. Takes about a month to get the basics down, and 2 months to be well versed. Wish I went right for the D700 from day 1. Being a good photographer and being limited by your gear are 2 very different arguments. I'm using a digibacked hasselblad in the studio and know how to use it very well, I just suck as an artist to produce anything worth looking at lol.

Also, why would you need $15k in glass? The trinity isn't even $6k.

Tripod, lighting,computer and software is a necessity no matter what camera you own.

If you are sure you want to get into photography and you have the money, invest. It's cheaper in the end.

Like gary said - Why are you not for the D800 or Mk3?

The D7000 isn't the best for low light. I was taking some horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800, which is why I am looking towards the D600.

If you were taking 'horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800' with a D7000, you were the problem, not the camera.

This was specifically in response to the D4 or 1DX. Which is a true professional grade camera, that's made for professional grade glass and professional grade lights. If you're looking at a D4 or 1DX, you're looking at much more than 'the trinity'.

Your typical 1DX shooter, for instance, is shooting with a 300mm IS II f/2.8 (~$8,000), the 70-200 IS II f/2.8 (~$2500) and that's just their telephoto stuff. They probably also are using the brand new 16-35mm f/2.8 L (1500), the 24-70 IS II L (~2900), 35mm f/1.4 50mm f/1.2 etc

If youre shooting those bodies, you've long passed 'the trinity'.

You also probably have at least something like a Norman D24 setup, probably a few impact battery powered strobes,etc

 

[Ballistics]

uh, it will probably take you several years of shooting to get where your D7000 is what is holding you back and you 'needed' to step up to the top of the line pro models.

I completely disagree. I'm about 6 months into needing an upgrade and I've been shooting for 13 months. Takes about a month to get the basics down, and 2 months to be well versed. Wish I went right for the D700 from day 1. Being a good photographer and being limited by your gear are 2 very different arguments. I'm using a digibacked hasselblad in the studio and know how to use it very well, I just suck as an artist to produce anything worth looking at lol.

Also, why would you need $15k in glass? The trinity isn't even $6k.

Tripod, lighting,computer and software is a necessity no matter what camera you own.

If you are sure you want to get into photography and you have the money, invest. It's cheaper in the end.

Like gary said - Why are you not for the D800 or Mk3?

The D7000 isn't the best for low light. I was taking some horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800, which is why I am looking towards the D600.

If you were taking 'horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800' with a D7000, you were the problem, not the camera.

This was specifically in response to the D4 or 1DX. Which is a true professional grade camera, that's made for professional grade glass and professional grade lights. If you're looking at a D4 or 1DX, you're looking at much more than 'the trinity'.

Your typical 1DX shooter, for instance, is shooting with a 300mm IS II f/2.8 (~$8,000), the 70-200 IS II f/2.8 (~$2500) and that's just their telephoto stuff. They probably also are using the brand new 16-35mm f/2.8 L (1500), the 24-70 IS II L (~2900), 35mm f/1.4 50mm f/1.2 etc

If youre shooting those bodies, you've long passed 'the trinity'.

You also probably have at least something like a Norman D24 setup, probably a few impact battery powered strobes,etc

- Not $10k more than the trinity.
- Lights are not subjective to the camera. You still need lighting gear no matter the lights.

If you were taking 'horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800' with a D7000, you were the problem, not the camera.

That's it? That's the end all be all response? That's the only possibility? That's a hell of a conclusion to draw based on not seeing the images.

 

[fjrabon]

I completely disagree. I'm about 6 months into needing an upgrade and I've been shooting for 13 months. Takes about a month to get the basics down, and 2 months to be well versed. Wish I went right for the D700 from day 1. Being a good photographer and being limited by your gear are 2 very different arguments. I'm using a digibacked hasselblad in the studio and know how to use it very well, I just suck as an artist to produce anything worth looking at lol.

Also, why would you need $15k in glass? The trinity isn't even $6k.

Tripod, lighting,computer and software is a necessity no matter what camera you own.

If you are sure you want to get into photography and you have the money, invest. It's cheaper in the end.

Like gary said - Why are you not for the D800 or Mk3?

The D7000 isn't the best for low light. I was taking some horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800, which is why I am looking towards the D600.

If you were taking 'horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800' with a D7000, you were the problem, not the camera.

This was specifically in response to the D4 or 1DX. Which is a true professional grade camera, that's made for professional grade glass and professional grade lights. If you're looking at a D4 or 1DX, you're looking at much more than 'the trinity'.

Your typical 1DX shooter, for instance, is shooting with a 300mm IS II f/2.8 (~$8,000), the 70-200 IS II f/2.8 (~$2500) and that's just their telephoto stuff. They probably also are using the brand new 16-35mm f/2.8 L (1500), the 24-70 IS II L (~2900), 35mm f/1.4 50mm f/1.2 etc

If youre shooting those bodies, you've long passed 'the trinity'.

You also probably have at least something like a Norman D24 setup, probably a few impact battery powered strobes,etc

- Not $10k more than the trinity.
- Lights are not subjective to the camera. You still need lighting gear no matter the lights.

If you were taking 'horribly noisy pictures indoors at 800' with a D7000, you were the problem, not the camera.

That's it? That's the end all be all response? That's the only possibility? That's a hell of a conclusion to draw based on not seeing the images.

uh, yeah, the lenses I listed out, which is a pretty normal gear bag for a 1DX shooter are well over $15000. The two telephotos alone are over $10,000.

I don't know what to say. The D7000 isn't 'terribly noisy' indoors at ISO 800 by any sane standards I've ever seen. Very few people would call it terribly noisy at ISO 1600. It is generally considered to have the best low light performance of any crop frame camera out there. The only other response is that you have a really, extremely different standard from anybody I've ever met for 'terribly noisy'.

The point with the lights is that it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to own a ~$7000 camera body unless you've got a full big time lighting rig as well (unless you're a pro sports shooter, and thus can't really use lights, but if you're a pro sports guy/gal, you also probably have around ~30K in lenses instead of 'just' 15K).

 

[Ballistics]

Why and when would you need a $8k 300mm lens for landscapes, weddings or model shoots?

You also inflated the hell out of the prices of the lenses.

$2900 for the 24-70?
$2500 for the 70-200mm?
$8k for the 300mm?

I think you over exaggerated by about $2k.

The D4 doesn't make sense to own until you're up to about $15,000 in glass and $15,000 in lighting equipment.

This is what I'm questioning here. Why doesn't it make sense unless you have $30k of glass and lights?

 

[Ballistics]

For arguments sake, if you went the D4 route, you can get the trinity refurbished for $5210.
If you really need the 300mm 2.8, you can get one refurbished for $4400