Why would a pro go from a D800 to a D4?

[2WheelPhoto]

^^ I see digital medium format as the replacement to film medium format.

the D800 is just a high resolution small format camera.

+1

Full frame won't achieve depth of field of the medium and large formats either. No matter how big the file size.... nevermind

 

[thereyougo!]

^^ I see digital medium format as the replacement to film medium format.

the D800 is just a high resolution small format camera.

+1

Full frame won't achieve depth of field of the medium and large formats either. No matter how big the file size.... nevermind

+1 more

I've compared a similar shot taken with my D800 and my Pentax 645D and while the D800 is fantastic, the 645D is still better.

No matter what the Nikon hype (and if Canon do bring out a 40+mp camera next year as is rumoured, the argument is the same), just because it has 36 mp does not mean it is medium format. Otherwise you could say that the Nokia smartphone with 41mp was medium format. People often talk about resolution as IQ. They are not the same. Image Quality is about so much more.

On the subject of shooting speed,I've used the D800 to shoot my youngest nephew playing soccer and yes I had quite a few misses but did get some great shots too. I find it useable but not ideal, but then most of my subjects are static.

36mp? Yes the files are big, but having the 40mp 645D means I'm used to that and have plenty of external drives. I'd rather downsize for printing than have to interlope for upsizing. The one thing that blew me away with the D800 was the dynamic range. That's what made me buy it.

 

[molested_cow]

yes. but does the d800 have illuminated buttons?? because honestly, that's a game changer for me.

Seems like a small feature because you see that on almost any device with keypads, but having worked on keypads for extreme environment use, illuminated keypads means you need light pipes. Since most electronic devices are already compact in terms of component packaging, this means complicating the hell out of the lives of engineers. Then, they have to worry about the button travel, weather sealing and how all that still can maintain a consistent lighting effect.

 

[manaheim]

^^ I see digital medium format as the replacement to film medium format.

the D800 is just a high resolution small format camera.

It's funny when you see the same people who pick on P&S sensors for quality due to size issues, turn around and say how the D800 replaces medium format cameras. I'm not referring to the poster in THIS thread, but I've seen it. Bigger sensor with more space between sensors is better. (sensor=pixel)

 

[pixmedic]

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong because i am NOT 100% sure on this point...but I was under the impression that "digital medium format" was a hasselblad (or other MF camera) with a $20k+ digital back on it. bit of a price jump there from a D800 or D4.

 

[DorkSterr]

More like $30'000+

 

[rexbobcat]

Where the heck did the idea come for that high MP=medium format?

The only reason medium format cameras have such high MP is because medium format film has approximately 30+ MP of resolution in the first place.

If a digital MF back had only 20 MP it would still be medium format while the D800 is still just 35mm.

 

[unpopular]

^^ exactly. The choice between a P21 on a Contax 645 over a D800 would be very difficult for me, but I'd be more inclined to go with the medium format options before 35mm...

 

[manaheim]

Where the heck did the idea come for that high MP=medium format?

The only reason medium format cameras have such high MP is because medium format film has approximately 30+ MP of resolution in the first place.

If a digital MF back had only 20 MP it would still be medium format while the D800 is still just 35mm.

Well, people have been saying it, but so has the press. Particularly because they found at least one MF camera that had a lower quality rating than the D800 on DXIO or whatever the hell that site is... but of course, that's based upon THEIR rating system, which I always felt was a little weird. "We downsample everything to 12mp and then compare" (or something like that).

I think it's just like anything... something new comes out and there's always some percentage of the population that desperately wants to say that the new thing crushes the old and will one day replace it. We see it here on the forum all the time. Right now there's a thread about how some phone will be replacing DSLRs. It's all very silly.

 

[unpopular]

^^ you can only take DXO Mark so far. I bought my a700 because it had a better viewfinder than the a350, but was surprised that the image quality was MUCH better, the a700 has been fairly popular, while the a350 has been disappointing. Snapsort is better, but only when the information is accurate, and often times it isn't. Even when I can absolutely see evidence, like dpreview's resolution test stating the two are similar, real-world experience has lead me to believe that the a700 is sharper with better color with smoother gradation and better noise management than the a350. I can't really explain it, because measurements made by these trusted reviewers say it should be otherwise - and I do trust objective, scientific obersvation over hippy dippy "it just has a better aura". I'd admit it's just "lost cost" talking, but I wasn't expecting significantly better image quality, and I am very happy with the viewfinder and felt it was worth the purchase the moment I held it to my eye.

While I don't necessarily doubt that DXO Mark objectively measures real metrics of camera performance, real world use doesn't always seem to reflect this and the only way to get a feel for camera performance is to actually use it.

 

[jake337]

Because they shoot sports.

Or at least that would be my first assumption.

 

[thereyougo!]

More like $30'000+

You can get the Pentax 645D for around $7k 40 mp and weather sealed. I find it easy to use and not all that heavy. It's only truly weather/dust shielded with certain lenses - the DFA lens like the 55mm f/2.8 25mm f/4 and the upcoming 90mm f/2.8 macro.....

The back isn't interchangeable, but the quality is high with ISO from 100 - 1600 with 9 focus points.

 

[jake337]

If you've heard the D4 firing off at 11fps.....

Even my D700 has higher burst rate than the D800! D4 is for sports or any fast action photography. D800 is for relatively still photography where size counts.

Not just firing at 11 fps but doing it for 80 something frames straight without stopping with the new XQD card.

 

[jake337]

Is the d800 hurting D4 sales?

I wouldn't think so..not on any significant level anyway. I imagine that they cater to different shooting needs. the price gap between the two is probably based on the pro features that the D4 has not found on the D800. for people that really want, or need those features, they will go to the D4 if they can put out the money. depending on need, im sure there are people that are buying the older D3's even though the D800 is out.

The d800 defiantly took away some attention from the D4 though.

It didn't take any attention away from that beast of a professional sports camera.

I wonder how many professional sports photographers went with a D800 over a D4 or D3S?

 

[unpopular]

It's very easy to get into medium format for under 10k, even under 5k depending on the setup. I think any landscape photographer ought to seriously consider medium format before 35mm DSLR at this point, especially if you miss your view camera.

Medium format has earned a reputation for being outlandishly expensive, but like everything else, it does depreciate and we're getting to a point now where very useable gear is available at reasonable prices.