Why is the D4 as much as it is?

[psreilly]

I just recently bought a Nikon D810, and i've been thrilled with the results. I was skeptical cause I had been shooting with a Hassy H1 for years, but this thing was fantastic. Point i'm getting at though is, I was looking at the Nikon D4 for awhile. The price was obviously much higher than the D810, but I didn't notice many advantages to the D4 if any. I mean same sensor size of course, less pixels, I believe I heard it's not as good in low light as the D810.. Now i'm not trying to hate on the camera, cause i've never shot with it

But what makes the D4 as pricey as it is?

 

[chuasam]

What makes a Leica expensive? It has even less image quality and no autofocus.
What makes anything cost what it does?

 

[psreilly]

I know but like what's dictating that price? I'd pay for a 10K Leica System if I could, you see the difference in a Leica mostly cause of the massive sensor size and just sheer quality.

What's Nikon bumping that price up for? AF Points? FPS? It's not worth an extra 2K that could be spent in glass

Cmon though man you wouldn't take a Leica just because there's no autofocus?

 

[Designer]

But what makes the D4 as pricey as it is?

Have you compared all the features side-by-side?

 

[Derrel]

Build quality. Battery life/size/longevity. My D2x's lithium ion battery is now 10 years and three months old, and is still showing one bar of lifetime left. The batteries on the D2,D3,and D4 bodies are exceptional. Viewfinder/prism quality. 400,000 frame shutter life, or more. Buffer depth/firing rate/card write speeds, all as good as Nikon can possibly make. Multiple format options (full-field, cropped, APS-C options in-camera). As with ALL the profesional Nikons, the D4 has built-in voice annotation, for captioning files/taking notes/observations,etc.. RUGGEDNESS of body and frame. Weather-proofing. The battery grip is built-in AND the battery is substantially larger and higher-capacity and longer-lived than the consumer type batteries.

If you've ever owned and shot a D1,D2,D3,or D4 series Nikon, you'll understand the differences between it, and a D700 or D800 class body and subsystems. The flagship bodies are built to the very HIGHEST standard of build quality, ruggedness, and reliability, and are designed for use with the biggest, heaviest, and longest lenses, in the worst conditions, for the absolute most frames per charge, with the biggest batteries, with the longest run-time and the longest service life for bothy battery, and the camera itself.

If you want a flagship Nikon, they can be bought used for a good price.

 

[psreilly]

Yeah, I mean I went on to Nikon and checked the specs.. but didn't go into the tiny details. It's a long spec list. I just checked the major points and couldn't find a reason to pay the extra money. I don't know I just can't understand the price hike. Just wanted to hear from a few of you on here on it, seems strange based on what I know of the camera

 

[psreilly]

Build quality. Battery life/size/longevity. My D2x's lithium ion battery is now 10 years and three months old, and is still showing one bar of lifetime left. The batteries on the D2,D3,and D4 bodies are exceptiional. Viewfinder/prism quality. 400,000 frame shutter life, or more. Buffer depth/firing rate. Multiple format options (full-field, cropped, APS-C options in-camera). As with ALL the profesional Nikons, the D4 has built-in voice annotation, for captioning files/taking notes/observations,etc.. RUGGEDNESS of body and frame. Weather-proofing. The battery grip is built-in AND the battery is substantially larger and higher-capacity and longer-lived than the consumer type batteries.

If you've ever owned and shot a D1,D2,D3,or D4 series Nikon, you'll understand the differences between it, and a D700 or D800 class body and subsystems.

I've watched a review and people have said why it's so nice to shoot with especially when shooting vertical. That makes sense based on the build of the camera, I can see there's no other bodies in the Nikon family like it. Battery life, okay I mean I hate running low on battery quickly too, but is that worth the price hike? D810 is weather proof, and can be dropped on cement a few times no problem so that parts a push

Overall it sounds like you're paying the extra money for battery life, grip (or size of camera), FPS and a better viewfinder

 

[Derrel]

The flagship bodies I have owned have been D1, D1h,D2x,D3x...and each one has been absolutely superlative in its own era. The D3x is still an amazing "shooter", in terms of how it actually works.

Let's put it this way: take the four most-critical f/2.8 professional optics Nikon makes, the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 300/2.8, and put them onto a D3 or D4 series body, and then on a D610 or D810. The sheer size, and weight of the body acts as "ballast" against the mass and weight of those common pro-level lenses. Put the 300/2.8 on a monopod with a D610, and its out of balance and ungainly. Put a D3 or D4 on the back of that same lens on a monopod, and the balance is ideally matched. An un-gripped half-height body is not all that well-balanced with these heavier types of lenses, especially for long shooting sessions. And yes, for vertical shooting, the flagship bodies have the built-in trigger and controls that make it easier to grip,swing,handle, and shoot with a bigger lens like a 70-200 or 300mm f/2.8 model, or even something bigger,longer,and much heavier like 400/2.8 and so on.

Same goes for event lenses; the half-height, lightweight bodies are a *female dog* on the wrists when matched with the heavy, high-performance lenses. As in many things involving the human body, BALANCE and weight distribution are keys once the activity lasts for more than a few minutes' time span. A 24-70 on a body like a little Nikon D5300 is a wrist-fatiguing nightmare, as the torque the lens creates on the wrist is terrifically high; even though a D2,D3,or or D4 weighs substantially more overall than a consumer or semi-pro type half height body, with the same lens, the BALANCE of the overall outfit makes it easier and more pleasant to shoot with. None of this shows up in statistical comparisons, but once you try it for yourself, it's apparent.

A good example in Canon are their 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L lenses--they are VERY heavy and dense, and on lightweight bodies, the nose-dive effect these dense, heavy lenses exhibit is incredible on the lightweight, half-height type cameras....but on a 1D series, the balance is good. The reality is that the flagship bodies are designed to work optimally with the flagship-type lenses.

 

[psreilly]

The flagship bodies I have owned have been D1, D1h,D2x,D3x...and each one has been absolutely superlative in its own era. The D3x is still an amazing "shooter", in terms of how it actually works.

Let's put it this way: take the four most-critical f/2.8 professional optics Nikon makes, the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 300/2.8, and put them onto a D3 or D4 series body, and then on a D610 or D810. The sheer size, and weight of the body acts as "ballast" against the mass and weight of those common pro-level lenses. Put the 300/2.8 on a monopod with a D610, and its out of balance and ungainly. Put a D3 or D4 on the back of that same lens on a monopod, and the balance is ideally matched. An un-gripped half-height body is not all that well-balanced with these heavier types of lenses, especially for long shooting sessions. And yes, for vertical shooting, the flagship bodies have the built-in trigger and controls that make it easier to grip,swing,handle, and shoot with a bigger lens like a 70-200 or 300mm f/2.8 model, or even something bigger,longer,and much heavier like 400/2.8 and so on.

Same goes for event lenses; the half-height, lightweight bodies are a *female dog* on the wrists when matched with the heavy, high-performance lenses. As in many things involving the human body, BALANCE and weight distribution are keys once the activity lasts for more than a few minutes' time span. A 24-70 on a body like a little Nikon D5300 is a wrist-fatiguing nightmare, as the torque the lens creates on the wrist is terrifically high; even though a D3 or D3 weighs substantially more overall, with the same lens, the BALANCE of the overall outfit makes it easier and more pleasant to shoot with. None of this shows up in statistical comparisons, but once you try it for yourself, it's apparent.

A good example in Canon are their 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L lenses--they are VERY heavy and dense, and on lightweight bodies, the nose-divce effect is incredible....but on a 1D series, the balance is good. The reality is that the flagship bodies are designed to work optimally with the flagship-type lenses.

Never held a D4 in any capacity, but with what you said about the d3000 series I agree. Some lenses can really overpower the body of the camera. It makes sense that the balance would be more distributed cause the D4 looks like a horse of a camera. Again though I feel like Nikon is stretching a bit with the price. The D4 has its advantages most of which you've listed. Just see,s overpriced. As the first poster noted though what makes anything cost that price

Those 40k medium format systems make me laugh

 

[runnah]

Psh I have wrists of steel and forearms like a Russian pipe welder! I can free hand a 600mm f/4!

All humor aside the "extra" bulk of the D4/1dx do help with balance when using big heavy lenses. Even battery grips help.

 

[Derrel]

The D3x spent most of its life at $7,999, as did its Canon compatriot. The D2h was $3,499 for most of its life; today you can buy one for $150-$225. The new D2x I bought in May of 2005 was a cool $4999, but today you can get one for a few hundred bucks. I don't know what the D4 is going for, nor the D4s...but once again...after a flagship model is no longer state of the art, the used market prices become very affordable. These cameras never do sell in high,high numbers, so the price is always high when they are current and brand new.

 

[runnah]

The flagship bodies I have owned have been D1, D1h,D2x,D3x...and each one has been absolutely superlative in its own era. The D3x is still an amazing "shooter", in terms of how it actually works.

Let's put it this way: take the four most-critical f/2.8 professional optics Nikon makes, the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 300/2.8, and put them onto a D3 or D4 series body, and then on a D610 or D810. The sheer size, and weight of the body acts as "ballast" against the mass and weight of those common pro-level lenses. Put the 300/2.8 on a monopod with a D610, and its out of balance and ungainly. Put a D3 or D4 on the back of that same lens on a monopod, and the balance is ideally matched. An un-gripped half-height body is not all that well-balanced with these heavier types of lenses, especially for long shooting sessions. And yes, for vertical shooting, the flagship bodies have the built-in trigger and controls that make it easier to grip,swing,handle, and shoot with a bigger lens like a 70-200 or 300mm f/2.8 model, or even something bigger,longer,and much heavier like 400/2.8 and so on.

Same goes for event lenses; the half-height, lightweight bodies are a *female dog* on the wrists when matched with the heavy, high-performance lenses. As in many things involving the human body, BALANCE and weight distribution are keys once the activity lasts for more than a few minutes' time span. A 24-70 on a body like a little Nikon D5300 is a wrist-fatiguing nightmare, as the torque the lens creates on the wrist is terrifically high; even though a D3 or D3 weighs substantially more overall, with the same lens, the BALANCE of the overall outfit makes it easier and more pleasant to shoot with. None of this shows up in statistical comparisons, but once you try it for yourself, it's apparent.

A good example in Canon are their 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L lenses--they are VERY heavy and dense, and on lightweight bodies, the nose-divce effect is incredible....but on a 1D series, the balance is good. The reality is that the flagship bodies are designed to work optimally with the flagship-type lenses.

Never held a D4 in any capacity, but with what you said about the d3000 series I agree. Some lenses can really overpower the body of the camera. It makes sense that the balance would be more distributed cause the D4 looks like a horse of a camera. Again though I feel like Nikon is stretching a bit with the price. The D4 has its advantages most of which you've listed. Just see,s overpriced. As the first poster noted though what makes anything cost that price

Those 40k medium format systems make me laugh

If you use something everyday it has to be high quality and reliable. For example professional contractors never use the tools from Home Depot or harbor freight. They buy the pro level stuff that will last for 100's of hours and continue to run in the worst conditions possible. Sure it costs more but when your livelihood depends on getting the job done, some $10 ratchet set from the gas station doesn't cut it.

So yeah, to Susan the soccer mom a $8k camera would be a bit much, but to Dirk Photoguy that is a small price to pay to get the job done right.

 

[psreilly]

The D3x spent most of its life at $7,999, as did its Canon compatriot. The D2h was $3,499 for most of its life; today you can buy one for $150-$225. The new D2x I bought in May of 2005 was a cool $4999, but today you can get one for a few hundred bucks. I don't know what the D4 is going for, nor the D4s...but once again...after a flagship model is no longer state of the art, the used market prices become very affordable. These cameras never do sell in high,high numbers, so the price is always high when they are current and brand new.

checked Adorama and BH it was around 5000 just body

 

[jaomul]

You said d810 iso or low light performance was better, I think you'll find the 16mp 10 fps is better at hi iso, and whichever way you cut it,10 fps if required is not substituted by 5 bigger file fps, that sports, journalists or whoever needs said product. Probably d810/800 is better for a lot but if you need a d4 it's price is what you need to pay

 

[Designer]

Yeah, I mean I went on to Nikon and checked the specs.. but didn't go into the tiny details. It's a long spec list. I just checked the major points and couldn't find a reason to pay the extra money. I don't know I just can't understand the price hike. Just wanted to hear from a few of you on here on it, seems strange based on what I know of the camera

Be careful that you don't fall into the "mass consumer mindset" and start looking at pixel count as the premier measure of quality in a camera. The manufacturers have emphasized pixel count to the point that that is what is currently driving the digital camera market.

On the other hand; professional photographers need to consider much more than simply pixel count if they want a camera that will perform to their specifications.