the D4 how does it handle compared to D600?

[eric_arnold]

<p>a d4 is a high-performance camera for shooters who need to shoot high fps at high ISO. but it shouldn't be a requirement just to shoot at ISO 1600. IMO unless you are constantly finding yourself above ISO 3200, the d600 should be capable. as others have suggested it may be a case of tweaking your settings and nailing your exposures.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Slight disclaimer: many recent Nikon bodies (particularly since the D7000) are almost "ISO-less" - there's almost no difference in dynamic range whether you select ISO 6400 or whether you select ISO 100 and push the result by six stops (except in the ability to recover highlights). The D4, D4s and Df are slightly worse at very low ISO, but this is essentially true of the higher ISO range. So it depends how you're underexposing - if the solution would have been to increase the ISO, you might not see any difference in noise between a "correct exposure" and one pushed in post. This is less true for Canon, who seem to lose more dynamic range at lower ISOs (as did the D700 generation). The D4 and especially D4s (or D3s) should be a bit better at high ISOs, but you're losing some of the low-ISO dynamic range that the D6x0 and D8x0 series have, which has rescued me when friends get married in direct sunlight, and obviously you lose a bit of resolution. If you really feel the need, I'd save money and have a D3s as backup.<br />

<br />

If you're "correcting" the exposure by getting more light to the sensor - increasing the aperture or extending the shutter speed - then you should see less noise, because you're effectively at a lower ISO. If you're "correcting" by increasing ISO, you might just get back where you started.<br />

<br />

But yes, post-processing can help. DxO's PRIME noise removal seems pretty good, although it kills my MacBook's battery faster than anything else I've tried so far.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I'm likely shooting some friends at their wedding next year, because they flatly refuse to have a pro and don't want a "pro look". (I'm doing an engagement session soon so I can persuade them of my incompetence gently.) My plan is to have upgraded my D800 to a D810 by then, partly so I can trust the AF and partly for the quieter shutter, but - since the upgrade my deprive me of my D700 as well - I may end up hiring a D4 or D4s for the day. If I'm hiring an FX body, it may as well have the best low-light support, be as robust as I can manage, and be able to shoot fast if I need to capture dancing (likely). But the cost of hiring one is negligible compared with actually buying one, and I couldn't justify that, at least as an amateur. And it's definitely an alternate to my D8x0.</p>

[5711]

<p>you can hire cameras..yes..you can also hire lenses.<br>

however, make sure you do not spend too much.<br>

there is a point that you can cross, at which it would have been better if you had bought one as from now on, you would be making money with it.</p>

<p>i simply would not buy a d4s just because it is two steps better in iso than a d600..or whatever it is.<br>

<br />i am using a d3 and to put it thatway: very very few things require a different setting than iso 2000 and f2.8</p>

<p>if you know what to do and how<br>

<br />i want to give you the same advice as i did with another person</p>

<p>go to concerts<br>

take images like crazy and do test different things.</p>

<p>expose for the light and see where you can from there</p>

<p>iso will never be a problem once youve got that down.</p>

<p>in the end, what really matters is the print size.<br>

how large do you normally print for customers?<br>

what paper, what printer what processing do you use<br>

is it enough to get to a good result?</p>

<p>then do not buy a d4s, keep the d600 and rent a d4s whenever it is needed..</p>

<p>it is as easy as that, rly</p>

[andylynn]

I thought in the OP here wasn't thinking this through well. His D600 is capable of making great images at 1600, but his

expectations are to be able to shoot in darkness with no flash and make shots that show no noise at all at 100%. So he's

looking at spending thousands of dollars to get a marginal improvement in high ISO noise, while missing the real

advantages of a pro camera - which are about speed and handling and durability.

 

This all looks to me like markers of inexperience. What the OP really needs to do is improve his skills. Get comfortable

with flash, start nailing exposures and get used to using 24mp source files to output really good 6mp files or look at the

shots as prints where a bit of shadow noise isn't going to do anything.

[5711]

<p>yeah guess so.<br>

comparing images between the 610 and the d4...not that much of a difference..1 stop, maybe two?</p>

<p>so for a d4 you can buy two 610, almost 3 and definitely 3 if you are comparing it to a d4s.</p>

<p>d600 produces great images.<br /> you can learn to process them in a way that helps you deliver those photos<br>

or you can go buy a d4s<br>

it will be better</p>

<p>why not, if you got the money.<br>

a d4 or d4s is an outstanding camera and using one will ruin lots of other cameras for you.</p>

<p>do as you think, but keep in mind, there is not much difference between the d600/d610 and a d4 when it comes to noise performance. <br>

d4 and d4s are noticable better starting from iso 12k and it is a bigger difference at iso 25k<br>

but below that..<br>

well<br>

you are talking about iso 1600...</p>

<p>as i said</p>

<p>if you got the cash<br>

get a d4 or d4s<br>

but do not expect too much of it, just sayin :)</p>

 

[5711]

<p>i just googled "nikon d4 noise comparison"</p>

<p>try it</p>