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

[Ilovemycam]

because the Pros know that megapixels aren't everything. D4 has 11 FPS, D800 has 4 FPS. the D4's viewfinder is also much better. it all depends on what you NEED out of a camera.

Nikon D4 vs D800 - Our Analysis

I would say the D800 is more than enough camera for most pros.

That is some crazy ISO!

 

[molested_cow]

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.

 

[Vautrin]

i think the bottom line is nikon is pretty good about thinking through their product line... each camera caters to a specific group, no one camera is a replacement for another

 

[DorkSterr]

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.

 

[unpopular]

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

 

[manaheim]

The D800 does NOT have lighted buttons and it pisses me off.

The D4 is a better camera for some things, the D800 is a better camera for others. If I had the money, I would have both and use them at different times. I don't, so I bought the D800 as overall it fits the bill, is ALMOST as good as the D4 in most things, and left me with $3K to do other things.

Honestly, I find both the D4 and the D800 to be bitter dissapointments.

 

[thetrue]

Disappointments how?

 

[manaheim]

The D4 is, overall, really not that much better than the D3S. It's 16MP... 4MP more. Whoopee. And by all accounts, does not have quite the noise handling that the D3S does. So that was more of a tradeoff than it was an upgrade. It has some other features... ethernet and such... but for $6000? Meh.

The D800 is mostly ridiculous. 36MP is actually very annoying. I wanted a D700 upgrade... not this monstrosity. 50 meg raw files are insane to have to deal with. I'm filling up hard drives incredibly fast.

They're both very good cameras... it's just that the D4 wasn't enough of an upgrade and, IMO, doesn't warrant the $6000 price tag, and the D800 is crazy specialized. It doesn't leave someone looking for a pro body with a lot of options, unless you want to buy old technology... and I can't see spending real dollars on old tech.

 

[thetrue]

Thanks for that very thorough evaluation. I guess it's not time for an upgrade for me just yet.

 

[fjrabon]

If I were buying a new full frame sports camera, I'd go D3S instead of D4 at this point.

 

[matthewo]

i dont agree that the d800 is a disapointment for being a 36mp camera and at the price point it comes in at. i do agree that the d4 is rather disapointing because of the iso not being much better then the d3s, and the d800 isnt much different as far as iso in the usable range under 6400 once you resize the images to similar sizes.

IMO, if the d800 would have been a 12 or 14mp camera that they dramatically increased iso over the d700 then they would would have a lot more people upgrading. i actually wouldnt mind trying the d700 to compare to the d800.

the only real downside to the d800 is the 4 FPS, which i really dont care about, i dont shoot much sports, but i have shots some wildlife, and its just fine. but i will say a nikon v1 with FT converter is a 2.7 crop and will shoot up to 60 FPS, so if i ever need insane speed i can just use that. i also have to say although, 36mp files are huge and rarely needed. i still love it when i need to crop a bit, but still print rather large photos. also i love being able to run the d800 in DX crop mode, to get 16mp files make my telephoto lens get 1.5x closer, not have to crop in post, go up to 5fps and not have to crop or deal with large files

in reality guys, cameras are just about how you use them. there where pros back 10 years ago when top of the line dslrs had less technology then an entry level dslr. buy a camera that fits your needs best.

IMO there is not much of a difference in IQ or ISO between the d4 and d800, maybe thats why people are saying they are a disapointment. because 36mp is just too much, and the d4s image quality isnt much better then the older model d3s or even a d800 at half its price.

 

[manaheim]

Dissapointing or not is a very personal thing. You can't exactly disagree with my dissapointment. You can only decide if you, too, are dissapointed.

That said, the sentiments I shared on this point are FAR from uncommon.

 

[gsgary]

I love it people moaning about Nikon instead of raving about them

 

[jmandell]

I see the D800 as a digital replacement of the medium format film. It is aimed at the landscape photographers, fine art, macro, and other situations where the speed and low light performance is not as critical. It has the large pixel count to make huge prints.

The D4 is for the full time professional sports shooter and photojournalists. They need high shutter speeds, fast ISO, fast, accurate auto focus and all the other goodies. It is for the photographer making a living of their work.

 

[unpopular]

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

the D800 is just a high resolution small format camera.