Nikon D4

[sam_clay]

<p>Hiya,</p>

<p>i have a NIKON D3100 and a D600. I adore the 600.</p>

<p>I find it hard to see how the pro range are even better quality ? What does the D4 have to offer in your opinion ? I am not looking to purchase just yet, but I was wondering on peoples opinion.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

[Gup]

<p>Sam, you can start here:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6015410449/first-impressions-using-the-nikon-d4">http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6015410449/first-impressions-using-the-nikon-d4</a></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Sam.<br />

<br />

<i>That's</i> a beginner question? O.o :-) [Edit: Not any more. I hope this does better in the Nikon forum!]<br />

<br />

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/834%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/767%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/664%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon">This</a> may help - most notably, have a look under "Measurements" and "Dynamic Range". The D600 actually does slightly better than the D4 up to ISO 400. Up to ISO 12800, the D4 has a small advantage. At ISO 25600 (indicated) the D4 gets a bigger gap, around a stop; ISO 51200 on a D4 acts like ISO 25600 on a D600, in terms of noise. It's also designed to go on to "ISO 204800", though DxO claim the actual ISO is appreciably lower; don't expect miracles at this setting, though.<br />

<br />

So in terms of quality, it's slightly better at shooting in the dark - though it's best when the image quality is already getting a bit iffy. For journalism, especially sports, this is probably exactly what you need: even if it's only suitable for printing at small sizes, the important thing is to get the shot, whatever state that shot is in.<br />

<br />

The downside is that lack of dynamic range at very low ISO, and the resolution defecit. For landscapes - or, basically, anything where you can shoot at low ISO - you'll probably be better off with a D600. There's also no built-in flash on the D4 - for robustness, but it means you can't use the integrated flash to trigger other flash guns either.<br />

<br />

Note that, very shortly, you won't have to pay for a D4 to get a D4 sensor - the soon-to-be-released "Df" has the same sensor in it, and is otherwise quite similar in specification to the D600 (with some really unusual styling that's been discussed extensively in two large threads on the Nikon forum). The Df is priced similarly to the D800.<br />

<br />

Of course, the D4 isn't just about image quality. Indeed, I'd argue that - while the low light benefit helps - the primary reason that the D4 "only" has 16MP is that it has to be able to shoot at a very high frame rate: smaller images means less data. The D4 also has a much bigger buffer, very fast writing (at least to the right card), and is built to hammer nails in with. There are some more direct controls than the D600, particularly the portrait grip being integrated. It's also big and heavy - when I played with one, I actually had trouble reaching the programmable buttons because the grip was so deep (and I have big hands). It's designed to be a photojournalist and sports shooting work-horse, to get out of your way and shoot very quickly.<br />

<br />

As Canon discovered when both the 1Ds3 and 5D2 were current, and Nikon arguably discovered with the D3x, this kind of body is a mixed blessing for some types of shooting. If you're in a studio and the grip is useful, I can see it's worth it. If you're walking up a mountain looking for a perfect view, there's a lot to be said for a smaller and lighter camera.<br />

<br />

If you're looking at a D4, I'd note that a used D3s gives most of the low light performance and a lot of the speed and handling of the D4 at a much lower cost. It's only 12MP and the video quality is a bit outdated, but otherwise it's pretty competitive.<br />

<br />

I should stress that I've only <i>held</i> a D4 (and a D3), I don't own one - my Nikons are a D700 and D800 (which are vaguely half way between a D600 and a D4 with the grip shorn off) and an F5 (which is the film equivalent of a D4, with steam-powered electronics). So someone who owns and loves a D4 can, I'm sure, say more about it. Though I do envy the illuminating dials.<br />

<br />

In addition to the dpreview thoughts on the D4, Thom Hogan has <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d4-review.html">quite a lot</a> to say on it, though mostly comparing to the D3s. Enjoy your Nikon Acquisition Syndrome. :-)</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Had a D700 for a number of years and needed to get a second body. Unfortunately, at that time the D700 was discontinued, as well as the D3s. So I had a choice between a D800, D800E and a D4. From the reviews I read on the D800 and D800E they didn't appear to be as robust as I was looking for. So I went with the D4 and I'm very glad I did.</p>

<p>The D4 is built like a tank, and that's a big plus as I do photojournalism work. You will get top performance out of your AF-S glass and the camera has a very fast processor. You can shoot 11 fps, which I use a lot when covering sports. But I think the thing I like the best is it's low light performance. When needed I shoot comfortably at ISO 10,000 with excellent results, and have at times pushed it to ISO 12,800. </p>

<p>The D4 is a fast, workhorse of a camera and I would recommend it to anyone who shoots more than 3000 frames per week.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Why do I shoot a D4? Well lets see. It is fast the AF is amazingly accurate. The low ISO files are very clean the dynamic range in real world usage is more then I could ask for. In my experience the file size is just about perfect. I print 40 inches on the long side without thinking twice. The color fidelity are a huge step up from the D300 and D300's that I had been using. There are Four things I didn't like about the D4. I am not a fan of the XQD card. Sure it is super fast but it is also much more expensive then a CF card. I don't like not being able to use the same battery as my D2h took. Also as a sports photographer I like the DX crop. I was really hoping for a D400 but it still hasn't shown up. Last but not least I really didn't like the price but the camera's performance makes that less painful.</p>

 

[pge]

<p>To put the answer very simply, a camera is more than its sensor. I think we can loose sight of that on these forums where we pixel peep the hell out of photos and argue all day about small differences in image quality. A pro camera is a very different machine than a consumer model. You need to hold one and shoot with it, that is how you will see the difference.</p>

 

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I've been using Nikon pro cameras since the 70's and one of the things that has always been true is that there is a noticeable difference in the top of the line and the next step down. You always pay for it but the D3/4 really is a better camera than anything else in the line. You can quantify it in frame rates, buffer size and other specs but there is a very different feel to it that just lets you know it's a better tool.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Not much more to add to what was said before. As a PJ it is the only choice for me for day-to-day use. It has a feature that is not available on any other body (except the other pro bodies) And that is the voice memo. The voice recorder is a God send to PJs. A virtual necessity.</p>

<p>So suppose I shoot the cheerleaders. I can walk up to them and record a voice memo that says, "from left to right. Sarah Smith age 19, Mary Moore age 18, Cathy Crosby age 16, Ann Able 18, all compete in the state semi-finals on Oct 7 at the Smith High School Gym". Now I have attached to the photo the information I need for the cut line. I can put on track times, home towns, the bull's name in bull riding.....anything. Compare this to pockets full of notes that can get lost and have to be sorted later. And it is all done on the fly. </p>

<p>The frame rate is super and low-light performance more than acceptable. It is expensive, built like a tank and looks as cool as a camera can. </p>

<p>The best thing to say about it is it gets out of the way and lets me work. For PJ work more pixels are not necessarily better. It is a beautiful camera and a joy to own. </p>

<p>Of course my latest love it my D7100. For a whole lot less money you can have a lovely camera. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am not a pro, but I bought a used D3s on eBay this summer. It is a dream to shoot, even in near darkness, hand-held. A week or so later, I was in the mountains with it. It was another dream day, although it was heavy and not the best camera for hiking or for landscapes. Yet, yet, I came back with the shots.</p>

<p>I won't try to quantify it or explain it. It is real, though. Pros do not spend such big bucks for the sake of appearances.</p>

<p>These things are durable, they get the shots, and they are easy to shoot.</p>

<p>If image quality alone is one's sole consideration, there are certainly cheaper alternatives--provided that one gets the shot in the first place.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dwight200]

<p>Since someone mentioned really high ISO in the D4, I just thought I'd add a note on the D4's ISO 200K (H4.0) setting.</p>

<p>First of all, I have not done extensive testing. This is just at the level of "second impression". When I first got the D4 I naturally tried shooting it in the dark at ISO 200K. I got some images but they aren't anything I'd like to show anyone, so I pretty much dismissed it as marketing more than technology advance.</p>

<p>Later I was doing some indoor shots at a conference. They had the power point show on and the room was darkened, so I tried taking a few shots at ISO 25K, 50K, 100K, and 200K. I was able to get usable images at 200K, but only if there was enough light to get good images at 50K. The 200K images had really wild colors and it took a lot of postprocessing to get something useful out of them. When there wasn't enough light to get a good image at 50K (not doing handheld time exposures), the 200K images were pretty poor. Yes, you can get something out of them, but the utility of the images depends on how desperate you are to get something.</p>

<p>Again, I did not do extensive testing, and this was a one-time observation, but I probably won't use anything about ISO 50K for anything important. I can get images at 12800 that will clean up pretty well, but from there to 50K you're talking about extensive noise processing and possibly even downsampling.</p>

<p>I still think the D4 is a great camera, and there may be a way to use H4.0 that I haven't tried yet. H2.0 is still pretty impressive in my book, and I use 10K a lot now that I can do it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I can't believe I'm sending traffic his way twice in one day, perhaps it's travel fatigue from my trip?</p>

<p>For a contrarian, and obviously meant to be highly provocative, viewpoint<br /> Ø/nikon/d600-d800-d4-are-the-same-camera.htm<br /> where Ø = the hypnoken.com</p>

<p>Otherwise the difference is $5363-1599=$3764 ;)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I can get images at 12800. . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can usually get good color at 12,800 ISO on the D3s. When I cannot, I convert to black and white if further manipulation won't solve the color distortions. I don't care to try to shoot faster than that. Seven stops is plenty if the files are clean. It could certainly be used at higher ISOs for emergency shots, but that is about it. I prefer to shoot at ISO 6400 and below. The D4 is better, from the comparative images I have seen.</p>

<p>I once shot the Canon 5D II accidentally at 12,800. The shots were usable. In general, however, the lower grade but higher megapixel cameras are just not going to be as good at high ISOs.</p>

<p>A notable exception is the D800/E, which does remarkably well at high ISO. With some cleanup in NR after downsampling, the results are surprisingly good, although still nothing like the D3s or D4. The D800 series does not have high FPS rates, of course, nor does it have the autofocus or build of the professional grade cameras. It does have great image quality.</p>

<p>-Lannie</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"I find it hard to see how the pro</em> range<em> are even better quality ?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

If you are referring to IQ, it would be hard to see a difference under most shooting circumstances. So if that is what you are referring to, you are correct in your assumption.<br>

<br>

<br>

<em>"What does the D4 have to offer in your opinion ?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Basically faster frame rate, which can be an advantage under certain shooting conditions. And a shutter rater for more actuations. And better ergonomics to some. The layout of the buttons/controls is obviously different and there is easier access to certain settings/features. The integrated grip gives the body a nice feel. But the D600 has size and weight on its side.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>A smaller size and less weight is not something I consider an advantage. I do understand that some people like small cameras and that's great but I do not. I like my F3 with the motor drive not without and the F that I have is about the smallest thing I have that I like. It is a matter of personal preference.</p>

 

[sam_clay]

<p>ok, some brilliant answers !! thank you..... very interesting. thanks again :)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Single-digit Nikons have served me well for thirty years. My D3 just turned over 70M images and is going strong (I just had the meter selector switch repaired). All the controls I need are outside the camera and not buried in menus, and I don't miss having a pop up flash. I've never run out of battery on a job. I'm not sure just how many exposures it will handle, but it's more than 600. It's a chunk to carry, but the grip doesn't wobble or detach.</p>

<p>If I were buying new, I'd go with a D4 for the extra resolution and stop or two of useable ISO speed.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>You're talking about different beasts. The D4 is like the Ferrari, and the others are like the Mustang, Corvette, and Miata. The Ferrari wins, when it comes to pure performance, even if it isn't quite as fast off the line as the Mustang or Corvette. The Miata is cheap and fun, but it doesn't compare to the Ferrari.</p>

<p>More simply put, the Nikon D4 is a professional's camera. It has a bigger buffer for shooting raw photos. It shoots much faster than the other cameras. It is made to shoot in dark situations, like on a basketball court in an indoor stadium or like at a wedding. It is made to be reliable. It is made for professional style handling (with a built-in vertical grip) and use (longer battery life, two really fast memory card slots, etc.).</p>

<p>Why would someone compare a Ferrari with a Mustang? Normally it is about price, if you are comparing such things. If you don't have gobs of money, I suggest you keep buying lenses and stick with a D7100 or D800 (or even a used D700). But ultimately, there really is no comparison between the D4 and other Nikon cameras (except maybe the D3s and its predecessor, the D3).</p>

<p>If all you want is the sharpest photos you can get in a full-frame camera, then get the D800. But I am guessing you did not get that, because the D600 is cheaper. If so, you should not even be considering the D4. It is a VERY expensive toy for a photographer who is using a D600 and happy with it. That said, if you DO have a bigger budget (or can squeeze out the extreme amount of extra cash required), go ahead and get a D4, especially if you think you'll be going into a War zone or on a long trip into the jungle, where you will not have access to replacement gear. I suggest also getting the 24-120mm f4 VR to go with that excellent camera. It is weather sealed, like the camera, and it gives an excellent range of focal lengths for using in all sorts of situations. If you will be shooting wildlife, you should probably also get yourself a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. If you will be shooting landscapes or interiors of cathedrals or something, I suggest you also get the 14-24mm f2.8 G.</p>

<p>Understand that your image quality will not be improved (except possibly at the highest ISO settings) by shooting with a D4, when comparing against the D600. It is not about image quality though. It is about speed, usability, and reliability. You don't use a Chevy pick-up truck to haul loads of boulders. You use a Caterpillar or Terex off-road dump truck.<br>

http://www.terex.com/construction/en/products/new-equipment/trucks/off-highway-rigid-frame-trucks/tr100/index.htm</p>