The Perfect "Nikon" Wedding Camera

<p>To start off I am a Nikon using Wedding Photographer. I personally believe both Nikon and Canon are amazing cameras and dont want this to turn into some brand war. Each have pros and cons so lets just leave that out of this please.<br>

<br />I currently use a D700 as my primary camera. I have the f/2.8 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. I couple the long lens with my D300s. I have a D7000 as a backup.<br>

<br /> Ok now that you know my setup I would like to give you my big idea. I want to sell my D300s, D7000 and 70-200mm lens (i rarely use this lens, i primarily use the 24-70 and a 50 prime). I figure ill get around 4k. (1000 for the D7000, 1000+ for the D300s, and close to 2k for the lens). I will have the new camera and my D700 as backup.<br>

So with that money im debating whether to buy the D800 or the D4?<br>

Im leaning towards the D4 for these reasons.<br>

Yes the D4 is twice as much, but it also has a twice as long life expectancy. 200,000 actuations for the D800 and 400,000 actuations for the D4. Its essentially like buying two d800s, but it will last just as long and be better pictures.<br>

The D4 has better low light abilities.<br>

The image is better.<br>

It shoots higher rate of fire 10 fps vs 4fps.<br>

It shoots 16mp vs the 36mp of the D800. To me the lower mp is better. I dont need all of that image for a wedding. I see that as a big draw back for file size, editing speed and so on.<br>

With that said does anyone have an opinion? I would love to have a good reason to save 3000 dollars, but right now Im not seeing the logic.<br>

You can see some of our pictures here, <a href="http://www.jonmphotography.com">Sonoma Wedding Photography</a><br>

Thanks,<br />Jon</p><div></div>

<p>The argument that a camera would last twice as long, in fast changing digital advances race, is not an argument, since new models will come to life and you will perhaps be tempted to upgrade sonner.<br>

fps rate for weddings is not that critical.<br>

Once you learn how to shoot better, perhaps the 12 MP or 16 MP that you have is plenty. <br>

Refering to your attched photo:<br>

1 - has too much of an uninterested space on both sides of the picture. Zoom in a bit and you wiil have much better picture.<br>

2 - The lens was perhaps wide, and you can see vertical edge of the builting falling into the center or tilting. The trees always grow vertically, except in some windy places.<br>

3 - vertical space includes uninteresting a lot of green grass in front of your feet, and a lot of tree branches and the sky. </p>

<p>If you keep shooting like in the attached picture, the D800 with 36 MP will help you a lot, but otherwise learn how to utilize better the equipment that you have. If pictures taken right with D700, perhaps will not provide much of improvement from D800, if at normal manageable print size.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What's the limitation or problem of your current equipment? Will that be solved with a D4 or D800. And what about a backup system if you choose the D4? </p>

<p>The OP already said the D700 would be the backup.</p>

<p>I think the extra resolution of the D800 can be useful in wedding images, especially for formals and group shots. However, 16MP is a lot already. When considering the post-processing burden you should also note that the extra expense of the D4 can be used to buy a nice computer with a large internal RAID system built in. On the other hand if you shoot more than 150k-200k images with one camera in two years then perhaps the extra durability of the D4 comes in handy. </p>

<p>No way would I ever get a D4 for weddings now. I'd get the D800.</p>

<p>Hi Jon,<br>

I use D3 and D700 for my weddings (<a href="http://www.coolhandphotography.co.uk/">www.coolhandphotography.co.uk</a>).</p>

<p align="left">The 12m sensor was always too small and I have lusted after Canon 5D mkii for years, but my collection of Nikon glass prevented me from switching. Now with D800 out I will be upgrading and selling D700. Just like you I have a tendency to grab more than I need into a shot and always crop post production. More pixels will allow me more creative freedom. I like finding a picture within a picture. The price on D4 here in the UK is nothing short of astronomical - £5,200 (approximately $8,300). You can buy a new car with that sum.. However the price of D3S has dropped a lot now and I hope to replace my D3 with it as it offers amazing low light capabilities similar to D4.</p>

<p align="left">If you can afford it then get a D4. It’s a professional camera and will serve you well for many years. D800 is aimed at semi-pro market and is lighter and slower. It would be nice to have both but we all have to compromise :-)</p>

<p align="left">Best wishes,</p>

<p align="left">Mary</p>

<p>In reality, you don't need more than a D700 for wedding photography. </p>

<p>My suggestion: Sell your D700 also (to me, a backup memory card slot is mandatory for event photography), get a used D3S (mid $3000 range) and get a D800. You will have the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>FYI, a shutter only costs a few hundred dollars to replace.</p>

 

<p>A used D3s is less expensive than a D4 obviously, but if you're concerned about durability then you should buy the camera new. Also from the tests I've seen the D4 has a distinct advantage in detail at ISO 6400. The D4 AF system (as well as the D800) have a claimed 1 stop improvement in low light sensitivity and also is reported (by both Nikon and users) to acquire the focus faster than the D3s.</p>

<p>It's not just the shutter that wears out but also the mechanical system that moves the mirrors, the bayonet and other parts that may need replacement in heavy use.</p>

<p>I agree with frank that the shutter durability shouldn't be an issue. After all, you haven't worn out your D700's nominal 100K clicks, and you're already thinking of relegating that to a second body.<br>

IMHO 10 fps shouldn't even be a remote consideration for wedding photography. If you use it, it'll just add to your burden of shots to edit, which you imply you don't want. Also, just because you have 36 Megapixels available, that doesn't mean you have to shoot at maximum resolution if it's not necessary. The D800 gives you a choice of 36, 20 or 9 Mp image sizes at full-frame. So you can save the hi-res shots for the large groups and shoot the rest at a lower resolution - always assuming the edges of your lenses are capable of holding up to 36 megapixels.</p>

<p>In addition, I think your estimate of what you'll get for your existing kit is a bit optimistic, especially the lens - $2K is close to the discounted new price. At trade-in you'll be lucky to get just over half of that.</p>

<p><em> D700's nominal 100K clicks</em></p>

<p>150K, you mean?</p>

<p>There is also the question that the shutter <em>must not fail </em>in use e.g. during a wedding ceremony etc. (If it fails you may not have time to fetch the backup, change lenses etc. during a critical moment.) Thus some photographers have the shutter replaced way earlier than the tested MTBF. Anyway, cameras can fail at any time. It's about probabilities.</p>

<p><em>The D800 gives you a choice of 36, 20 or 9 Mp image sizes at full-frame</em></p>

<p>A wedding photographer usually has to contend with mixed color lighting etc. which means shooting NEF is the best. Also, a key advantage of the D800 is its dynamic range which of course you can say bye bye to if you shoot JPG. Cropped NEF modes yield the quality of smaller sensor cameras (DX, CX) so again not very desirable especially since you have a small viewfinder section which doesn't clearly show when the focus is correct (to the precision requirements of smaller sensors). In practice people will use the full frame or 4:5 modes depending on aspect ratio, as the whole point of the camera is pretty much lost if you use any smaller parts of the frame on a routine basis.</p>

<p>If it was me Jon, I would buy the D4 and will not look back. I would suggest to read Thom Hogan website. In a few days, he will come back from vacation after testing the D800 and the D4 in full and perhaps that will help you to make a decision. We already have other professional reviews that some people does not pay attention to, but it is good to read, like the review given by Ken Rockwell. I like to read all they said about the same subject and that is why I do recommend to read what Ken Rockwell said about this camera, the D800. <br>

But my suggestion is not based on what he said, but simply in the fact that the D4, for my photography style, is better suited. If the D4 is too expensive, then I would go for the D3s. The D4 has more fps, same ISO behavior and enough pixels to get a good resolution in your pictures and you don't have to buy another computer to download the huge files created by the D800. For me, that is enough to point to the D4. Again, this is my humble opinion Jon. </p>

<p>Best wishes,<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>Crop properly at time of capture at 12/16mp or crop really sloppy and correct in post at 36mp?</p>

 

<p>I think it should be noted that the D4 and the D800 are basically the same camera, the share the same AF, metering, and processing engines. The primary difference is the sensor and frame rate, although there are other minor things, such as the D4 has a CF and QXD slot while the D800 has a SD & CF slot. If you are a sports pro that plans on shooting several hundred images in a burst then the QXD card is important, for the rest of us it is currently a very expensive way for a wedding photographer to have an in-camera backup.</p>

<p>As far as the sensor goes you have pros and cons. The D800 has more than a stop of dynamic range and quite a bit more color depth, while according to DxO optics has nearly the same ISO ceiling as the D4. It should however be noted that while at ISO 2800 the two cameras are very similar, but once you start hitting ISO 6400 & up the D4 will be a the hands down winner.</p>

<p>Personally I would rather have the dynamic range and color depth, because you will always capture more colors, more dynamic range, albeit when you start getting up over ISO 1600, the color depth and dynamic range decrease significantly.<br /><br />None the less from your description you get by with a D700 and the D800 should have very comparable high ISOs.</p>

<p>Frame rate, this could be a big issue if you like to shoot higher FPS; that's where the D800 and D700\D3\D3s\D4 make nice partners because those cameras are capable of 8,9, & 10 FPS respectively. Gives you the best of both worlds. I also think that if you put the D4 in a CL or CH and the D800 in the same, by the time your D800 reaches its 200,000 rated shutter count I would bet your D4 would be close to its 400,000 shutter count. Why? Because if you are shooting both cameras in burst mode, because the D4 is over twice as fast, you are probably going to get twice as many photos, means that shutter count is going to go up twice as fast, this is the reason Nikon puts a better shutter in this camera, because they know people who buy it are probably going to be shooting 10FPS on a regular bases, while people who buy the D800 will probably be on Single shot most of the time.<br>

As an example I used to have a pair of D3s's and in CH mode I would dare non-photographers to take just one picture, most people couldn't, even a slight press of the shutter results in 2 shots, and that's 9FPS vs the D4's 10FPS<br /><br />Yes the D800 will require larger cards, more computer processing power. However if this is the only reason you are buying a D4 over a D800 then I think you are missing the fact that for the $3000 you saved by buying the D800 over the D4 you can purchase a very strong computer for $1500, spend $500 on bigger hard drives and cards and still have $1000 left in the bank to put toward a lens, second camera body, whatever.<br /><br />Since Nikon's MSRP program went into effect, I don't think you'll have a problem getting $2k out of your 70-200, since the dealers can't sell it under $2400. Although to get that price it will have to have box and it will have to be pristine, and that's a tough sell locally and eBay will take well over $100 from your selling price :(.<br>

The D4's batteries last almost 3 times as long as the D800's, but they are also 3 times as expensive, so the only real advantage you are getting is you don't have to worry about switching batteries out.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>a key advantage of the D800 is its dynamic range which of course you can say bye bye to if you shoot JPG"</em> Why would that be the case? In any case, dynamic range advantage quickly disappears as soon as the ISO goes up over ISO 400.<br>

<br /><br>

<em>"</em><em>Anyway, cameras can fail at any time."</em> that is why a good back up is needed. A new camera can fail as well (although it would be less likely to). I always have my backup camera in arms reach when shooting critical moments at any event.<br>

<br /><br>

<em>"f</em><em>rom the tests I've seen the D4 has a distinct advantage in detail at ISO 6400"</em> From the tests I seen, they are about the same at ISO 2500 and the same at ISOs higher than 2500. (from the DXOMark site).<br>

<br /><br>

Chances are, the differences in AF speed and image quality will be pretty much indistinguishable between the D3s and the D4. With really fast glass, and even at f2.8, I have never had problems acquiring fast and accurate focus with my outdated D3. In reality, I am not questioning whether the D4 is superior to the D3s or not. I am certain it is. I like many of the enhancements Nikon has made. But, when someone has a budget, maximizing it is of most importance. Photographers successfully shoot weddings with cameras of much less caliber and capabilities than the one being discussed here. I would rather have a D3S and a D800 than a D4 and a D700. I suppose ideally, you would want a D4 and D800 if budget were not a concern.</p>

<p><em>"a key advantage of the D800 is its dynamic range which of course you can say bye bye to if you shoot JPG" Why would that be the case? </em></p>

<p>JPGs are 8 bits per color; the dynamic range of the D800 measured by dxomark is 14.3 EV (measured by first resizing to 8MP). It's a little difficult to express a 14 EV dynamic range with three 8-bit color values. This is why the JPGs are small: they dump what the algorithm thinks is insignificant and this includes deep shadow detail.</p>

<p><em>"from the tests I've seen the D4 has a distinct advantage in detail at ISO 6400" From the tests I seen, they are about the same at ISO 2500 and the same at ISOs higher than 2500. (from the DXOMark site).</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

DXOMark evaluate the sensor SNR basically to come up with their sensor performance characterisation. They do not look at all at differences in detail. In fact the first thing they do is resize all images to 8 megapixels. Thus even if they did look at the detail, which they do not, it would be difficult to see differences between 12MP and 16MP cameras when both are first resized to a lower resolution image. DXO do have also camera+lens ratings, which includes evaluation of detail, but they do all of that at base ISO if I'm not mistaken. Thus you need to look at other sources for detail at high ISO. </p>

<p><em>Chances are, the differences in AF speed and image quality will be pretty much indistinguishable between the D3s and the D4. </em></p>

<p>Brad Hill writes the following after his 10-day field test of the D4 (he used the D3s before): http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/fieldtest_NikonD4.html</p>

<p>Quoting: <em>" In day-to-day field use the biggest improvement - and the one that will contribute most to me capturing images that were missed before - is in autofocus performance."</em></p>

<p>In Chapter 2 he writes a lengthy report on the matter. Anyway, I have read the same message by other users about the autofocus. I look forward to it myself, though it will be some time before I can manage to buy a D4.</p>

<p>"Yes the D4 is twice as much, but it also has a twice as long life expectancy. 200,000 actuations for the D800 and 400,000 actuations for the D4."</p>

<p>But you are going with the *it will never fail - ever* thinking style. You should have a back-up camera as close as possible to your primary camera. Should a mishap occur at a wedding, it is not the place to start using a *nearly-just-like* camera to continue with your wedding photography. You would not take a 13-inch spare tire for your automobile (or truck) that had 15-inch tires on the vehicle?</p>

<p>Two Nikon D700 camera bodies would be ideal. If you have the $$$s, a pair of Nikon D4 bodies would be the way to go.</p>

<p> </p>

Main camera: D4 or D3s

 

Backup: D7000 which you already own.

 

This is as close to a no-brainer as I could imagine.

<p>what hasnt been stated is the reason why the OP needs to upgrade from his current setup. if it's not MP, then no need WHATSOEVER for a d800. if you don't need video or higher frame rate than 8fps, no reason to get a d4 above a d3s (which has the same or better low-light ability) or even another d700. the advantage of getting another d700 is: shared batteries/cards/cables, completely redundant controls, and lower cost.</p>

<p>personally, i would hold on to the 70-200 as it's such a versatile lens and the 50 overlaps with the 24-70's range, so all you're getting is a faster aperture; sell the d7000 and d300s; and get another d700 or a low-mileage d3s. that's not the exciting thing to do, but it makes a lot more sense IMO, were i in the OP's shoes.</p>

<p>According to the DXOMark site, all sensor tests "measurements are performed on the RAW image file BEFORE demosaicing or other processing prior to final image delivery." "<strong>Sensor Overall Score</strong><strong> is normalized for a defined printing scenario</strong>—8Mpix printed on 8"x12"". - this is the only test that they claim they re-sample.</p>

<p>For typical shooting, I still maintain that it will likely be hard to see significant AF differences between the cameras. I shoot a lot of sports with my D3, mainly with the 70-200mm, and my in-focus rate is in the high 90% range. And usually when the camera misses, it is my fault. Brad Hill says his is in the 70'% to 80% range for his D3S. But he was also using Nikon's 400mm and 600mm lenses which are not what I consider 'typical' lenses. It is not possible for the in-focus rate to be so low with the 70-200mm lens. I guess there 400mm and 600mm put more strain on the AF system.</p>

<p>Again, all cameras being discussed are excellent and will not disappoint.</p>

<p>Eric, I think you make a good point, if what the OP has is working for him, why does he need to upgrade? That being said however, the D800 has a far superior metering system and a much better AF system, especially in low light (which wedding photographers frequently do shoot in). I would think the better AF and metering systems would be worth the cost of upgrade alone if the OP makes his living from wedding photography. Also, the D700 only has one card slot and given the nature of wedding photography it would be best if he had cameras that had a dual backup card system, which doesn't necessarily mean he needs a D800\D4, but from his current system an upgrade to a dual card system would be order. In that case, the D4 is weak because QXD cards are rare and expensive (at least for the present moment in time) making them a poor redundant option.</p>

 

<p>Elliot, have you ever shot a D800\D4 vs your D3? I'm not saying your wrong, I used 3 D3s's with everything from the 400mm F2/.8, 20mm F/2, 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II, 135mm F/2, 105mm F/2.8 VR macro, 50mm F/1.4G, 24mm F/1.4G and that's my short list. I would agree with Brad that shooting fast moving sports 70-80% is reasonable for a good operator. But lets assume for a moment that it was 90%, the D800\D4 series could still be 95%. And its not just the accuracy, what about how quick it locks focus? How well it tracks? Also the AF sensors of the D800\D4 are rated to work in a stop darker than the D3\D3s\D700, something that really wouldn't matter to someone shooting sports (as even a dim gym will probably will have more than enough light for the AF system to work) but could mean all the world to a wedding photographer who will likely find himself in very dark situations, where even the stop lower rated D4\D800 will struggle.</p>

<p>My overall point here, is that if you are an everyday Joe who enjoys the hobby of photography, then great, go buy a D3s, it will do the exact same thing the D4\D800 will do, or if you are a weekend photographer that occasionally shoots but has another full time income. Or if you shoot portrait or landscape photography, the AF system because significantly less important. But when you make your living at shooting sports or wedding photography or any other type of photography that pushes the limits of the AF system, the little things count. Doesn't mean you can't do extremely well with an older model, but in my mind that's what makes the difference between a pro and an amateur, a pro has the right tools for the right job, and since focus is just about everything in photography, especially types that will push the system to its limits like fast moving sports subjects or low to extreme low light wedding environments, even a small increase in accuracy, tracking, and\or acquisition makes a difference that is worth paying for in my humble opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if what the OP has is working for him, why does he need to upgrade?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's the thing that stuck out for me about the OP's post. i'm not a wedding photographer, but it doesnt seem like the d700 is inadequate for that task.it also seems like what you need for that is redundancy,i.e. a backup camera which is exactly or close to the same as your main camera. a hybrid DX/FX system can get a little funky with the 1.5x crop so it makes more sense IMO to be full DX or full FX if you shoot weddings.</p>

<p>if the OP is going full FX, does he need a d800 or d4? not really, since another d700 or a d3s will do everything required. i personally could see where a d800 could work for weddings, but since the OP doesnt want bigger files and doesnt need more MP, everyone else who not-so-secretly lusts for a d800 telling him he should get one isn't helping. ditto for the d4. the d3s uses the same battery as d700, has mostly the same controls, is FX, and has two CF card slots. it has 8fps and still class-leading low-light performance. therefore a D3s/d700 system for weddings makes a lot of sense, more IMO than d800+d700 or d4+d700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would think the better AF and metering systems would be worth the cost of upgrade alone if the OP makes his living from wedding photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>maybe, maybe not. hard to say. everytime a new camera comes out, nikon's marketing dept. and NAS-addicted fanboys conspire to make it seem like everything before was a lump of coal. Remember, wedding photographers didnt all starve in the days of the d200, did they? suffice to say, the d700 and d3s are pretty good at AF and metering; the improvements are incremental, especially if you're not shooting long lenses with teleconverters and/or pro sports. you obviously dont have to spend $6k to get better low-light performance than a d700, as long as you can live with the shame of "only" having a d3s.</p>

<p>Im shocked by the responses I have received. Seems like a lot of hot air going on. I dont know if its jealousy that people can afford a nice camera, or a resistance to new tech. Theres no arguing the new models are superior.<br>

<br /> I never once said my D700 was in adequate. I believe the contrary. I love my D700. I have 2 cameras I dont like to use, and the ability to get close enough to the D4 to consider the upgrade.<br>

<br /> For those of you that think i want this just for a higher mp, again i dont know where you would get that idea. I want the d4 over the d800 because it is less. I wish there was a D800 at 12 or 16, then i wouldnt even post the question. But its not so that gives the d4 an additional advantage in my eyes.<br>

<br /> If the cameras cost the same i would go with the d4 obviously, but they arent, so thats where my dilema is. I do NOT want the 800 for the fact it is 36mp. I already have a very high end imac that can handle a lot, but i dont want to slow it more than i am used to.<br>

<br /> The reason I am looking for the new D800 and D4 over a D3s or D700 is because the image comparisons at high ISO are better for both. So if im going to spend thousands of dollars on equipment I want the best image. I am a professional, this is my tool to make a living so why wouldn't I. I was hoping to find a convincing reason to go for the D800 but im getting a lot of hot air with little convincing facts. Yes I dont need the 10fps for a wedding, but I shoot other action photography in the winter. I live in tahoe and know many skilled skiers and snowboarders. So it would be nice to have for that, but not necessary.<br>

<br /> The guy that said you can shoot 36mp, 20mp or 9mp with the D800. I cant prove you incorrect, but everything I read says you can only downsize the full resolution of the sensor in modes like jpeg. If you shoot RAW and want to decrease the mp, you are actually using a cropped sensor at that point. So I believe your argument is worthless on that point for the fact that I always shoot in RAW and would never crop the sensor.<br>

<br /> About the shot I attached, good lord. I wasn't looking for a photo critique, just thought id throw a wedding picture up there. And by the way mr expert, if you look at the wall behind the tree all of the lines are vertical, so the tree is what you see, you should get off your high horse and realize you dont know nearly what im assuming you think you do. If you want to break down my work try going to my site, then let me know i suck, im sure youll have a little tougher time.<br /> With all that said, I did see some valid points like the fps, the technology advancements coming before i wear it out. The D3s is an option but I just would love to have the better image quality and focusing of the d4. I love to shoot low light with no flash, so any advantage, even a slight one means something to me. I also am a believer that it will be a while before we see the next step. I believe i was 2008 when the older models came out (i may be wrong, i dont remember exactly) So i am happy to have the new model now and have it for 4 years at the minimum.<br>

<br /> If you guys would like to add to that I look forward to hearing more.<br /> Jon<br /><a href="http://www.jonmphotography.com">Lake Tahoe Photographer</a></p>

<p>I missed Eric Arnolds post when i just wrote the previous post. He of everyone makes the most sense. So everyone that is being naive you should simple read his on the second page and realize youre wrong.<br>

<br /> I do however not have some of his concerns. The different cables and batteries dont matter. The camera comes with the cables and a battery. I have yet to exhaust my battery during a shoot, but a second battery is a must, its not an expensive cost.<br>

<br /> The low light is better in the D4 theres no denying that. The d3s option is a very good one, and i may go with that. I have always wanted one, and may go for it. But like i keep saying, if im going to spend all that money its not a big deal to go a little above and beyond.<br>

<br /> Photography is my livelihood, and a single wedding isn't too big of an investment for me. I save in other avenues, I do my own web development and online marketing. I was really looking for tech advice that I may not have heard of or a really good argument against the d4. So far the best I have seen is a good argument for the D3s.</p>

<p>Jon<br /><a href="http://www.jonmphotography.com/sonoma-wedding-photographer-kia-robert">Sonoma Wedding Photographers </a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I missed Eric Arnolds post when i just wrote the previous post. He of everyone makes the most sense. So everyone that is being naive you should simple read his on the second page and realize youre wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Given this response, Jon, could you kindly indicate which part of my post was wrong, naïve, or did not make sense to you? I was giving what I perceived to be sound and reasonable advice.</p>

<p> </p>