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

[fjrabon]

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?

Most people who own 1DX's aren't shooting just landscapes, weddings and model shoots.

Most do a lot of sports work, and then some studio work and a bit of on location model stuff. Let me ask you this, do you know anybody who shoots a 1DX? How many? You seem to think your typical 1DX shooter is basically the same person that buys a 5DMKIII. I shoot alongside people in 1DXs a lot, I shoot a lot of sports, both high school and college. That's the main market for the 1DX (and D4). The studio guys who buy D4s and the like also tend to be WAY, WAY past 6K in glass. Like way, way, way, way, way past that.

The prices were off the top of my head, and seemed to have dropped since I last looked by a bit

70-200 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens 2751B002 $2100 (thanks to a new $300 rebate Canon just started offering)
the 24-70 was a mistype, meant to type in $2400
300mm 7200
16-35 1,500
So, just those 4 and you're at $13,200. That's not including any real specialty lenses other than the 300mm f/2.8, which almost every pro sports shooter has (which, again, is a large, large chunk of the 1DX market, and those shooters who don't typically make up for it with a lot of other things, like macro gear, studio lighting, etc).

 

[fjrabon]

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

I really think you're missing the whole 'people who buy a $7000 body aren't thinking "hey let me buy a refurbished version of what is considered the trinity for the prosumer level"' point. Those people are buying D800s or even D700s. Even the people who are stretching every dollar to get into a D4 are usually trying to get past 'the trinity' as fast as they can, not view it as some sort of stopping point.

Again, the D4 and 1DX are designed for true top level pro work. They're buying absolute top of the line glass, and usually quite a bit of it.

edit: to include the Nikon side of things, your typical D4 shooter has:

14-24 f/2.8 (2,000)
24-70 2.8 (1900)
70-200 2.8 (2400)
300 2.8 or 200-400 f/4 (6500-7500)
85mm 1.4 (1700)
35mm 1.4(1600)
+ usually some sort of assortment of specialty lenses, like fisheye, macro, PC-E, etc. (1500-4000, depending on how much)

These people don't just buy 3-4 lenses and be done with it.

 

[Tee]

The Trinity and 2 good primes will run you a little over $9K in the Nikon world. Either way, glass plays a major factor when buying the upper echelon Canon/ Nikon bodies. In the end, the OP asked about the two cameras. Heck, if they have the money, I say go for it. Why should we worry about their ability and what we "feel" they need? To the OP: search the web for image samples of each body at different ISO's.

 

[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?

Most people who own 1DX's aren't shooting just landscapes, weddings and model shoots.

Most do a lot of sports work, and then some studio work and a bit of on location model stuff. Let me ask you this, do you know anybody who shoots a 1DX? How many? You seem to think your typical 1DX shooter is basically the same person that buys a 5DMKIII. I shoot alongside people in 1DXs a lot, I shoot a lot of sports, both high school and college. That's the main market for the 1DX (and D4). The studio guys who buy D4s and the like also tend to be WAY, WAY past 6K in glass. Like way, way, way, way, way past that.

The prices were off the top of my head, and seemed to have dropped since I last looked by a bit

70-200 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens 2751B002 $2100 (thanks to a new $300 rebate Canon just started offering)
the 24-70 was a mistype, meant to type in $2400
300mm 7200
16-35 1,500
So, just those 4 and you're at $13,200. That's not including any real specialty lenses other than the 300mm f/2.8, which almost every pro sports shooter has (which, again, is a large, large chunk of the 1DX market, and those shooters who don't typically make up for it with a lot of other things, like macro gear, studio lighting, etc).

The head of the photo department, who is also my studio professor,(and was my lighting professor last semester) uses a D3s. I can ask him, but I am confident he doesn't own a 300mm 2.8 lens. He uses the AF-s 85mm 1.4 the majority of the time. On the Hasselblad, he uses 120 and 150mm.

I've never seen him use a zoom.

As for the $7k 300mm lens, the OP did not mention sports. I'm not talking about the majority of pro shooters. I'm talking about the OP.

 

[Derrel]

The D4 is a high-speed camera. A better choice might very well be a higher-MP model. I dunno...D600? D800? The D4's meant for SPEED and low-light autofocusing. There are better cameras for high-resolution work. It's your money. I would NOT look past the Canon 5D-III...with its newly-revidsed control layout, it's the most Nikon-like Canon ever made, and feels great in the hand, and has a good sensor and a good AF system. Price of the D800 is $3000, the 5D-III $3,499. Both a lot less than the D4.

 

[fjrabon]

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.



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

Most people who own 1DX's aren't shooting just landscapes, weddings and model shoots.

Most do a lot of sports work, and then some studio work and a bit of on location model stuff. Let me ask you this, do you know anybody who shoots a 1DX? How many? You seem to think your typical 1DX shooter is basically the same person that buys a 5DMKIII. I shoot alongside people in 1DXs a lot, I shoot a lot of sports, both high school and college. That's the main market for the 1DX (and D4). The studio guys who buy D4s and the like also tend to be WAY, WAY past 6K in glass. Like way, way, way, way, way past that.

The prices were off the top of my head, and seemed to have dropped since I last looked by a bit

70-200 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens 2751B002 $2100 (thanks to a new $300 rebate Canon just started offering)
the 24-70 was a mistype, meant to type in $2400
300mm 7200
16-35 1,500
So, just those 4 and you're at $13,200. That's not including any real specialty lenses other than the 300mm f/2.8, which almost every pro sports shooter has (which, again, is a large, large chunk of the 1DX market, and those shooters who don't typically make up for it with a lot of other things, like macro gear, studio lighting, etc).

The head of the photo department, who is also my studio professor,(and was my lighting professor last semester) uses a D3s. I can ask him, but I am confident he doesn't own a 300mm 2.8 lens. He uses the AF-s 85mm 1.4 the majority of the time. On the Hasselblad, he uses 120 and 150mm.

I've never seen him use a zoom.

As for the $7k 300mm lens, the OP did not mention sports. I'm not talking about the majority of pro shooters. I'm talking about the OP.

Yes, my whole point is that OP doesn't need a 1DX or a D4. So saying 'I'm not talking about pro sports shooters, I'm talking about the OP' is kind of pointless. If you're shooting landscapes with a D4, you're quite frankly an idiot. If you're shooting a D4, you should either just be really wealthy, and doing it because you have money to burn, or you're making over 70K a year from photography. I mean I make ~50K a year from photography, and I think the idea of me 'needing' a D4 or a 1DX is pretty laughable.

edit: one other thing, are you shooting your D7000 with active D lighting on plus increased (or even standard) contrast settings?

 

[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

I really think you're missing the whole 'people who buy a $7000 body aren't thinking "hey let me buy a refurbished version of what is considered the trinity for the prosumer level"' point. Those people are buying D800s or even D700s. Even the people who are stretching every dollar to get into a D4 are usually trying to get past 'the trinity' as fast as they can, not view it as some sort of stopping point.

Again, the D4 and 1DX are designed for true top level pro work. They're buying absolute top of the line glass, and usually quite a bit of it.

edit: to include the Nikon side of things, your typical D4 shooter has:

14-24 f/2.8 (2,000)
24-70 2.8 (1900)
70-200 2.8 (2400)
300 2.8 or 200-400 f/4 (6500-7500)
85mm 1.4 (1700)
35mm 1.4(1600)
+ usually some sort of assortment of specialty lenses, like fisheye, macro, PC-E, etc. (1500-4000, depending on how much)

These people don't just buy 3-4 lenses and be done with it.

What you are saying is, that in order for the D4 to be relevant, you need all of these lenses. I don't agree at all.
If you are shooting sports, sure, the 300mm is necessary. Wildlife, definitely.

Even brand new, you don't need to spend $15k on glass for what he wants to do. The trinity is a must have for weddings.
The lights are needed no matter what camera you shoot with for studio work.

85mm prime is pretty much what my professor uses in the studio 90% of the time on his D3s.

So I'd say $8-9k in glass is more realistic. Not $15k.

 

[fjrabon]

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

I really think you're missing the whole 'people who buy a $7000 body aren't thinking "hey let me buy a refurbished version of what is considered the trinity for the prosumer level"' point. Those people are buying D800s or even D700s. Even the people who are stretching every dollar to get into a D4 are usually trying to get past 'the trinity' as fast as they can, not view it as some sort of stopping point.

Again, the D4 and 1DX are designed for true top level pro work. They're buying absolute top of the line glass, and usually quite a bit of it.

edit: to include the Nikon side of things, your typical D4 shooter has:

14-24 f/2.8 (2,000)
24-70 2.8 (1900)
70-200 2.8 (2400)
300 2.8 or 200-400 f/4 (6500-7500)
85mm 1.4 (1700)
35mm 1.4(1600)
+ usually some sort of assortment of specialty lenses, like fisheye, macro, PC-E, etc. (1500-4000, depending on how much)

These people don't just buy 3-4 lenses and be done with it.

What you are saying is, that in order for the D4 to be relevant, you need all of these lenses. I don't agree at all.
If you are shooting sports, sure, the 300mm is necessary. Wildlife, definitely.

Even brand new, you don't need to spend $15k on glass for what he wants to do. The trinity is a must have for weddings.
The lights are needed no matter what camera you shoot with for studio work.

85mm prime is pretty much what my professor uses in the studio 90% of the time on his D3s.

So I'd say $8-9k in glass is more realistic. Not $15k.

I'm asking why you 'need' a D4 in those situations. The D800 is going to be as good or better unless you're shooting sports image quality wise. The big plus for the D4 is you get top of the line image quality, plus a high fps. Sure, the build quality is better, but unless you're wiping your behind with $100 bills or on a trip to the sahara, you don't pay an extra $3000 just for build quality.

 

[Ballistics]

Most people who own 1DX's aren't shooting just landscapes, weddings and model shoots.

Most do a lot of sports work, and then some studio work and a bit of on location model stuff. Let me ask you this, do you know anybody who shoots a 1DX? How many? You seem to think your typical 1DX shooter is basically the same person that buys a 5DMKIII. I shoot alongside people in 1DXs a lot, I shoot a lot of sports, both high school and college. That's the main market for the 1DX (and D4). The studio guys who buy D4s and the like also tend to be WAY, WAY past 6K in glass. Like way, way, way, way, way past that.

The prices were off the top of my head, and seemed to have dropped since I last looked by a bit

70-200 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens 2751B002 $2100 (thanks to a new $300 rebate Canon just started offering)
the 24-70 was a mistype, meant to type in $2400
300mm 7200
16-35 1,500
So, just those 4 and you're at $13,200. That's not including any real specialty lenses other than the 300mm f/2.8, which almost every pro sports shooter has (which, again, is a large, large chunk of the 1DX market, and those shooters who don't typically make up for it with a lot of other things, like macro gear, studio lighting, etc).

The head of the photo department, who is also my studio professor,(and was my lighting professor last semester) uses a D3s. I can ask him, but I am confident he doesn't own a 300mm 2.8 lens. He uses the AF-s 85mm 1.4 the majority of the time. On the Hasselblad, he uses 120 and 150mm.

I've never seen him use a zoom.

As for the $7k 300mm lens, the OP did not mention sports. I'm not talking about the majority of pro shooters. I'm talking about the OP.

Yes, my whole point is that OP doesn't need a 1DX or a D4. So saying 'I'm not talking about pro sports shooters, I'm talking about the OP' is kind of pointless.

No it isn't. You said:

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 was what I was questioning. Saying that the D4 isn't good for that type of work is a completely different argument.

If you're shooting landscapes with a D4, you're quite frankly an idiot. If you're shooting a D4, you should either just be really wealthy, and doing it because you have money to burn, or you're making over 70K a year from photography. I mean I make ~50K a year from photography, and I think the idea of me 'needing' a D4 or a 1DX is pretty laughable.

Well he mentioned 2 other genres of photography besides landscape. So he's not using it for just landscapes. A quick search will show wedding photographers raving about the D4.

 

[fjrabon]

The head of the photo department, who is also my studio professor,(and was my lighting professor last semester) uses a D3s. I can ask him, but I am confident he doesn't own a 300mm 2.8 lens. He uses the AF-s 85mm 1.4 the majority of the time. On the Hasselblad, he uses 120 and 150mm.

I've never seen him use a zoom.

As for the $7k 300mm lens, the OP did not mention sports. I'm not talking about the majority of pro shooters. I'm talking about the OP.

Yes, my whole point is that OP doesn't need a 1DX or a D4. So saying 'I'm not talking about pro sports shooters, I'm talking about the OP' is kind of pointless.

No it isn't. You said:

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 was what I was questioning. Saying that the D4 isn't good for that type of work is a completely different argument.

If you're shooting landscapes with a D4, you're quite frankly an idiot. If you're shooting a D4, you should either just be really wealthy, and doing it because you have money to burn, or you're making over 70K a year from photography. I mean I make ~50K a year from photography, and I think the idea of me 'needing' a D4 or a 1DX is pretty laughable.

Well he mentioned 2 other genres of photography besides landscape. So he's not using it for just landscapes. A quick search will show wedding photographers raving about the D4.

Yeah, and those wedding photogs are usually either idiots buying the D4 because its the D4, and the low light autofocus is sorta nice (which the D800/5DIII is just as good at, from what I've seen) and are successful enough to buy whatever they want just because they want it. I still maintain that the D4 doesn't make sense unless you're a pro sports photographer (in which case you've got easily 15K in glass) or just have money to burn because you're wildly successful (and thus you probably have >15K in glass). If you're shooting a D4 with just a 85mm f/1.4, you're doing it wrong. Outside of certain very specific cases (like med format) if your glass doesn't total at least 2X cost of your body, you're probably doing it wrong.

edit: some people want to buy the D4 because it's the top of the line Nikon (same with the 1DX). Sure, that's their prerogative. It doesn't make it smart. Especially if they're cutting ANY corners on glass.

 

[21limited]

As a Pentax shooter, I can point you towards a guy shooting covers for Vanity Fair and other magazines with an old K20D, a four year old Pentax Body almost two bodies old. He's just now upgrading to a K-5 , the equivalent of a Nikon D7000, at least in terms of IQ. In any case, since you already have a Nikon, you should be looking at a D600 or D800 if you're hell bent on upgrading. Since Pentax doesn't make FF I've promised myself a D600 if sales go well. But I'm not putting money out for this. Right now I'm paying for my printing supplies and inventory for shows, it's mind numbing. I have a big show coming up with the potential to pay for a camera and glass. If that happens it'll be a D600 and the trinity. But the money isn't coming out of my pocket. There's lots of Pentax stuff I can buy to improve my images that cost less. And I'm doing fine now with my K-5. Actually I still use my K20D a lot of the time. If you understand a camera, know it's strengths and weaknesses, you can get quite a lot out of it. I think that's all these guys are saying.

 

[DorkSterr]

I say stick with what you got.

 

[rexbobcat]

Alright look. To put this whole freaking STUPID issue to rest I'll just give the OP one of my D4's and my 200-400mm f/4 that's been gathering dust for several months.

Geez guys.

 

[IntrinsicIntent]

I appreciate all the feedback; I by no means meant to start disagreements amongst other members!

My question really distills to whether or not to stick with Nikon or jump to Canon. I'm very impressed with the build quality of the lenses of the Canon "L" series. My Nikon has served me well, however, I think I'm at the point to make an investment to further my career, and my craft.

I used to shoot film slr; I had a Nikon and a Leica. All of that gear I have sold, and have profited quite well from it. I have approximately $20k to invest, not including the profits from selling my current gear. I'm getting well versed in all facets of CS6. Sports photography is another aspect I'd like to get involved in. Though my passion lies more in abstract art photography utilizing human anatomy as a conduit to display the similarities. Though mainly I want to be well versed varying aspects of photography as well as lucrative (hence the allusions to weddings, models shoots, etc).

I have no Canon experience, so my question now, as objectively as possible, which is the better company to stick with. It seems to me that Canon is a bit more innovative with their features, though lack the aesthetic appeal that most Nikon's employ. Essentially I want a very fast, versatile camera capable of different aspects, from weddings to football games, to tango dance contests. I am new to DSLR's , and so far I've been disappointed with the Nikon's I've had; first the D5100, and now the D7000. Also if somebody could recommend a respectable place to purchase my equipment from; in the past I used Ryther Camera out of NJ and I don't believe I got the equipment as described in the purchase agreement.

 

[IntrinsicIntent]

Alright look. To put this whole freaking STUPID issue to rest I'll just give the OP one of my D4's and my 200-400mm f/4 that's been gathering dust for several months.

Geez guy

I take it that you are not a fan of the D4, or Nikon in general for that matter...