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



## Ilovemycam (Nov 22, 2012)

Is there a benefit to the lower mp D4?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 22, 2012)

It all depends what they are shooting
D4 is a much faster reacting but i have 2 friends that regret going from a D3s to a D4 they shoot wildlife and are seeing more noise in their shots


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 22, 2012)

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.


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2012)

As mentioned, a professional grade camera is about a lot more than just how many MP it has.

Going online and comparing the technical specifications of each camera would tell a lot about the differences between the 2 cameras.

In fact, the D800 is only a prosumer camera, and it lacks many useful features that are standard with professional grade cameras.

The pro may be attracted by the up to 11 fps burst mode rate, the XQD memory card slot, ISO 204,800, the new mirror balance system, built-in vertical grip, or the D4's Voice Memo feature.

Perhaps the D800/D800E's new low pass filter performance relative to moiré is an issue.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 22, 2012)

The D800 is my prosumer budget cam, and for the low price point works very well  =)


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

At this point, I don't think the pro-sumer/pro camera designation holds.  If you go into most new Nikon studios, if they have top of the line gear they recently bought, in studio they're not using D4s, they're using D800s.  The D4 is a field pro's camera.  The D800 is a studio pro's camera.  And their features are apportioned accordingly.  I think it was more than just marketing when Nikon stopped designating their various level cameras as pro, prosumer, etc.  

Look at the exact features Keith mentioned, they're all features that would appeal to a field pro more than a studio pro.  Whereas a studio pro will put the increased resolution to greater use.

Just my take on it anyway.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 22, 2012)

11fps?!?!?!?! I think I NEED a D4 pronto!!


----------



## jaomul (Nov 22, 2012)

If working in unsavoury areas the d4 is better at stopping the guy trying to mug you. Who would want a slap from one of them


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

jaomul said:
			
		

> If working in unsavoury areas the d4 is better at stopping the guy trying to mug you. Who would want a slap from one of them



A steel manfrotto monopod works well too. Also an SB910 full power zoomed to 200mm popped in their eyes (especially if dark) can work wonders.


----------



## greybeard (Nov 22, 2012)

Is the d800 hurting D4 sales?


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 22, 2012)

greybeard said:


> 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.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 22, 2012)

The D4 is built for speed. Speed in shooting. Speed in focusing. Speed in downloading to computer. Speed in transmitting the files across the wire. It's designed as a sports/action/news/event camera. It has plenty of resolution for most people; even at 15.9 MP, the D4 has more MP than most other Nikon bodies that came before it. For printed images, or web images, the halftone screen in publications, and the low resolution of most computer screens mean that roughly 16MP is plenty. The D800 does not offer a "small raw" option the way Canon has seen fit to offer, so for people who shoot a lot of frames in raw, the D800's file size quickly becomes a PITA, and actually, kind of a waste of space.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The D4 is built for speed. Speed in shooting. Speed in focusing. Speed in downloading to computer. Speed in transmitting the files across the wire. It's designed as a sports/action/news/event camera. It has plenty of resolution for most people; even at 15.9 MP, the D4 has more MP than most other Nikon bodies that came before it. For printed images, or web images, the halftone screen in publications, and the low resolution of most computer screens mean that roughly 16MP is plenty. The D800 does not offer a "small raw" option the way Canon has seen fit to offer, so for people who shoot a lot of frames in raw, the D800's file size quickly becomes a PITA, and actually, kind of a waste of space.



If I could convince Nikon to do one single thing it would be the small/medium/full raw offerings. There are times when I will literally go to change over to medium raw on my Nikon and then curse at the Nikon overlords for not offering it. Canon really nailed an extremely useful feature there and Nikon has been quiet as a mouse on it. For serious sports shooters in weird WB environments I think it's a HUGE advantage for Canon.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 22, 2012)

why would a professional delivery driver choose a small compact delivery van over a full-size semi truck?

wouldn't it depend on what your delivering and where? choosing the right gear gets the job done, and saves money.


----------



## Vautrin (Nov 22, 2012)

i hate the "prosumer" designation...  face it, anything d7000 or up is used by pros...  its all based on what you shoot and where...  its ridiculous to say anything less than a d4 is not a pro camera because plenty of pros make their money with less...


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> 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 (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 22, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Is the d800 hurting D4 sales?
> ...




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


----------



## unpopular (Nov 22, 2012)

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


----------



## manaheim (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 22, 2012)

Disappointments how?


----------



## manaheim (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 22, 2012)

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


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 22, 2012)

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


----------



## matthewo (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 22, 2012)

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 (Nov 23, 2012)

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


----------



## jmandell (Nov 23, 2012)

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 (Nov 23, 2012)

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

the D800 is just a high resolution small format camera.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 23, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ 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! (Nov 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ I see digital medium format as the replacement to film medium format.
> ...



+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 (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

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 (Nov 24, 2012)

More like $30'000+


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 24, 2012)

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 (Nov 24, 2012)

^^ 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

^^ 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

Because they shoot sports.

Or at least that would be my first assumption.


----------



## thereyougo! (Nov 24, 2012)

DorkSterr said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2012)

DorkSterr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2012)

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.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 24, 2012)

If you're taking pictures of stuff that doesn't move around, you can use pretty much anything you like and hit it with the "Brenizer Method" which essentially uses your (small) sensor as a larger one through stitching.

Do It In Post!


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

amolitor said:


> If you're taking pictures of stuff that doesn't move around, you can use pretty much anything you like and hit it with the "Brenizer Method" which essentially uses your (small) sensor as a larger one through stitching.
> 
> Do It In Post!



errr... I'm trying to wrap my brain around that and not seeing how that works.

DOF, quality and noise issues would all seem to be an issue regardless... though I suppose if you lash together enough shots and downsampled...

Ugh.  That just hurts my brain.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> errr... I'm trying to wrap my brain around that and not seeing how that works.
> 
> DOF, quality and noise issues would all seem to be an issue regardless... though I suppose if you lash together enough shots and downsampled...
> 
> Ugh.  That just hurts my brain.



DoF is 'solved' by brenzier because you're using smaller images with more magnification to create an image with a larger field of view. 

If, as amolitor specified, your subject isn't moving, noise isn't an issue, just shoot long exposures with long exposure noise correction.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

Oh... wow.  That's messed up.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

Sure, this method would work - it'd work with a medium format camera as well - but, what a pain.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Sure, this method would work - it'd work with a medium format camera as well - but, what a pain.



ha, yeah.  Just waiting for somebody to brenzier a medium format.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

I love how people attribute the technique to Brenzier. As if he was the first one to realize that you can stitch together photos in both the x- and y-axis... Brenzier's "method" is more of a technique.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

Is that like the dude who painted the "happy little trees"?  I understand he basically "stole" his method from his own teacher.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

don't fook with Bob Ross, bro.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 24, 2012)

If you think about how Brenizer (yes, the naming isn't really appropriate, but it's the name we've got) it's pretty much exactly like lashing your whatever-lens-you're-using (say, 85mm f/2.8) onto the front of a larger sensor (and magically getting it to cover the larger sensor).

Don't think of it as stitching the image "out there", think of it as stitching the image projected onto the sensor, and it should fall into place.

I dunno if it's one click now, but if it's not it will be. Lock focus and exposure, pan the camera around in a spiral, out from the desired center of the frame, taking pictures. Dump the whole mess into whatever software and press "go" and, poof, medium format image, or large format, whatever you like, as taken with whatever lens you had on the front. It's not any freakier than the old slit-scan pano cameras, which are the analog version of pretty much exactly the same thing.

I don't see that this introduces any noise, per se, and the quality doesn't do anything but go up.

Computational photography, it's the future!

Anyways, uh, this is pretty far afield from the OP, sorry!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

one huge advantage to the technique is that focal length is not tied to FOV. This is actually a big advantage IMO, and one reason I'm very interested in robotic heads. In fact, magnification is tied to resolution.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 24, 2012)

I just like the tilt-shift medium-large format effect that I can get with the bokeh panorama thing.

Although if I stitch through PS it sometimes can't put together some of the OOF background photos depending on how shallow the DOF is.


Does anyone know of a stitching software that is more capable than Photoshop and more accurate? Oh, and one that blends the photos together so I don't have to mess with levels and color for every little piece


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Does anyone know of a stitching software that is more capable than Photoshop and more accurate? Oh, and one that blends the photos together so I don't have to mess with levels and color for every little piece



There is Hugin. But it's not easy to use.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 24, 2012)

rexbobcat, I'm curious how canon's photostitch might work? Yeah, yeah, it came with the camera so what good could it do, right? I actually heard that it's not too bad though...


----------



## cosmonaut (Nov 24, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I carry a Glock 26....... But don't make me break out the 50 cal Desert Eagle.....


----------

