D4 vs. 800E

[allegretto]

Thought I'd consult with the experts here.

I'm no pro, but very serious about my subjects and photography. Was a Leica guy for many years with a Canon love affair in there too with a 1DsII but had to bail on Canon color, just never seemed "right" to me. But Leica gear is tricky and always costs a fortune. In these days of new sensors and lenses I think the Leica "advantage" is slimmer than ever and I don't like flash very much (OK, not at all) and Leica hi-ISO performance is laughably poor.

Tried a couple of brands (will name them after they are gone on eBay) but was totally underwhelmed despite many positive reviews. Guess I have a certain expectation.  Went to dpreview and reviewed test shots and felt that their color was more to my liking than Canon (don't mean to start any arguments, just stating a preference). So decided that Nikon and their extremely versatile system is the way to go. Also on dpreview I viewed hi-ISO performance and while the D4 may be abut two stops better ISO, unless I went 1:1 or greater, the D4 pics just seemed more pleasing. Perhaps there is a physical reason for that and someone can enlighten me.

So, I popped for a D4 (hi-ISO here we come) and will be adding 24-70 2.8 and a couple more chunks of glass soon. Don't feel sorry for me, my lightweights are an XPro-1 (great camera for many things, but slow in the dark) and an RX100 (WOW!).

So the questions are;

- if any of you have both 800E and D4, do you think one is "better" than the other?
- if you just have an 800E, do you lust for a D4?
- if you just have a D4, do you lust for an 800E?

FWIW, I intend on this camera to be my party, moving target and event camera. Occasional field trips too, but the others are for grab-shots and whip-outs.

Thanks in advance...

[Petrus]

I used D800 and D4 both for a few weeks in the spring, and now I have been using and customizing my D4 for about a month ( I have been on a sick leave & vacation for over 4 months now, but got a new kit to practice with: D4 with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400). For my work, newsmagazine photography, D4 is plenty sharp enough, fast frame rate & AF, splendid high ISO etc etc. I think I like it better than D800. So I would say that if extreme resolution was not needed, and it can be achieved only by extreme measures anyway (mirror up, tripod etc), D4 is the choice. If only doing landscapes, then D800.

I also have X-Pro1, and like it a LOT for reasons maybe not all directly connected with real end results or usability; old school feel, or something, and a different mindset when using it.

[LKaven]

- if any of you have both 800E and D4, do you think one is "better" than the other?

They are very different animals.  For professional work, speed, ease of workflow, the D4 is the choice.  For high ISO work, the D4 is definitely the choice.  However, the only limiting factor at high gain settings in the D800 is the thermal noise component, which can be mitigated with a dark frame subtraction.  The added work of a manual dark-frame subtraction is a speed and ease of workflow issue for me. 

For certain situations, I will use the D800 at high gain settings, especially where a scene has areas of good detail in even lighting.  The D800 can bring out detail in certain parts of the scene in a way that makes a picture.  The differences between the two cameras in low light response is minute, nowhere near 2 stops, nowhere near it.

For any situation in which detail is required, the D800 wins hands down.  Group portraits, environmental portraits, all benefit from the extra pixels on a face.  If you want to finesse hair, skin, and clothing texture, the D800 is the one.  Of course it's preferred for landscapes and architecture.  I don't like the feel of the D800 a lot, but I don't hate it either.  I much prefer the viewfinder on the D4. 

[langier]

Both seem overkill for what you are doing. I tried using my d800 for events and the files are too much. A D700 is more than adequate for FX and the D300 for dx.  I'd even say that a d7000 would be just fine though the files a little large for events, but not too bad for low light like the D700, but smaller, lighter and half the price.

I just shot a wedding and lead a workshop on fair (event) photography and did it with a pair of second-hand D3 and fx lenses. The results are just fine. I could have easily used a pair of D300 bodies and packed a lot less weight in either case and had super files.

Late in the wedding and at a couple of the night events, the D3 IQ was highly adequate. Since few if any of the files will ever be used at larger than an occasional 8x10 and most on the web or print up to 1/2 page, noise isn't a real factor.

Save the money and weight and the time to process those large files and get something better suited to your needs.

[allegretto]

Oh, I hear you. My Fuji takes nice pics too. Don't wish to come off wrong, but I use these different cameras for fun too. If I don't like one, I put it on eBay and think of it as "leasing". I realize that it is easy to dismiss me as a simple dilettante and perhaps to some of you I am. But I enjoy photography, enjoy the equipment and the learning that comes with all of it. It's a more comprehensive hobby than just taking pictures and seeing who is interested.

So while a 300 or 700 or 7000 may be very nice for my needs, I get more out of playing with and handling the Pro equipment. Plus, I get more options to consider as well.

I often read where folks think people as myself think I'm buying a high end camera cuz I think it will make me a "better photographer" and then they laugh. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm comfortable with knowing I'm not as good, and will likely never be as good as some/many of you at actual image capture and art. But I like the toys...

[Eric Brody]

It's your money. Get what you like. I think it is pretty arrogant to tell someone whom they do not know, that their camera(s) are "overkill" for what they do (clearly "trivial" work in their eyes). It's like telling someone who can afford it, that a Mercedes or Lexus is overkill for driving around town and short vacation trips. I'm mostly jealous of someone who can afford both. To me the D800E, and I'm fortunate to have one, is an instrument that is probably best for high resolution, detailed, "deliberate" work. That does not mean you cannot or should not use it for sporting events. The D4, and I really do not want one at this time, is an perfect instrument for fast, high quality work, eg sports. I am a former 4x5 and medium format film person who finally has a camera that can easily do most anything I want from macro, to landscape, to portraits and everything in between. If I needed to photograph a sporting event, I'd prefer a D4, if I had one, but could probably make do with the D800E or my old D700, which, though obsolete, still seems to work and to make pretty nice images, many of which are on people's walls.

Comparisons are great, clearly different tools excel in different areas, but unless someone's paying for it, no one has the right to tell you which camera to use for which purpose. I never did use the 4x5 for action work, by the way 

Two quotes, one from Al Webber "Buying a Nikon and a roll of Kodachrome does not make you a photographer ..Just like buying groceries does not make you a chef," another from August Renoir, "Be a good craftsman, it won't stop you from being a genius."

Have fun, make images, do not worry about others' opinions.

Eric

[BernardLanguillier]

For what it is worth, I have found the AF of the D800 to be very good when used with the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR in pretty low light, fast moving subject and using external focus points.

The image below was shot at f2.8 at ISO3200.



It is significantly better than my former D3x, itself the equivalent of the D3 I used to own as well.

So the D800 is an outstanding sports camera, only the frame rate is too low for some applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take from what I have read is that the Nikon D4 is more of a pro camera intended for action. In those situations it is probably difficult to utilize all the resolution of the D800.

If you need outmost picture quality (including low ISO DR), you would be better of with the D800.

Mostly I guess the cameras simply overlap. You can save some money with the D800, and it will deliver better images when optimally used at low ISO. The D4 may shoot faster and work better at very high ISOs.

Regarding the Megapixels, 18 may be plenty, but 36 is twice as many, and it may be relevant. Not only resolution is higher but the images will respond better to sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

[lfeagan]

Speaking to their weaknesses
The D800E is a wonderful camera and for all but the fastest action machine-gunning has an acceptable frame rate. I have used mine at night time sporting events as a second body effectively. My primary body provides the 8fps that is useful for the close up action when a player is scoring.
The D4 is also a wonderful camera and provides a high enough resolution to create excellent prints at many sizes.

I enjoy what the the high resolution of the D800E enables for me.
1) It allows me to crop more aggressively when the lens on at the moment limits magnification and players are far away. (If only there were a 400-600 f/2.8...to dream the impossible dream)
2) I enjoy creating large stitched panoramas. People can walk up as close as they want to a print and see oodles of detail. Hoorah for gigapixel images.

Final Thoughts
I do not lust for a D4. At this time, the extra FPS and improved high-ISO performance are not limiting my photography. That being said, I wouldn't complain about having those capabilities at my disposal (there are times better high-ISO performance might be handy). If I needed what the D4 does above and beyond my current kit, I would have one. At present, it is more of a "that would be nice to have, just in case I needed it" for me.

It sounds like you have a D4 in hand, and if your overall question is "should I get a D800E" in addition, I would say that I doubt that you need one. If you enjoy playing with cameras, as it sounds like you do, then you might enjoy having one. If you were going to visit a remote location to capture once in a lifetime moments day and night and could only take one camera, I would take a D4. Oh snap, I may have just convinced myself to buy one. 

[allegretto]

Thanks for the info and wishes. It's supposed to be fun, Right?

Well after years of M4/6/8/8.2 and 9 shooting, and a couple years of S2, the two things I've always wanted were;

fast autofocus I can trust

hi-ISO performance

I'm also quite certain the the D4 and 800/E have more menus and gizmos than I will ever use. But I cannot tell you how many "almost good" shots I've had to relegate to archives due to one or both of those parameters. Usually use Aperture Priority/Manual to control DOF and the Leicas would far too often leave me gasping for shutter speed. And sadly, no image stabilization in any Leica product. My subjects are alive and highly mobile.

So I went full bore on those two parameters. Actually I could have gone 800E as well, but got my D4 at a "cannot refuse" price from a reliable source. So if I don't like the lug-factor I can flip it and not take too much of a beating. And as you note, if I find some files wanting for detail too often, I'll add an 800E body. Heck, even now when "in demand" they are no more than a nice used -cron. Like the wide flexibility of the Nikon system and expect great color. Maybe not "Leica" color, but maybe...?

The M9 at 18MP and the S2 at a higher absolute count but a larger sensor have shown me that I can likely get very nice images for my purpose with 16MP+ of big, deep pixels.

Any additional comments are much appreciated, thanks for contributing to my knowledge.

[lfeagan]

Usually use Aperture Priority/Manual to control DOF and the Leicas would far too often leave me gasping for shutter speed.

You will adore Auto-ISO (I know I do). It enables me to shoot in aperture priority in widely varying lighting conditions without worrying about the shutter speed dropping down on me and then having to futz with raising the ISO while trying to get a shot quickly.

[LKaven]

I also love auto-ISO in Manual mode on the Nikons, for those situations with fast-changing light where I already know what the exposure is going to be.  In the theater, I set to approximately 1/200 and f/2.8-f/3.2, set negative exposure compensation to avoid burnouts from the PAR lights, and go to work.

[BernardLanguillier]

You will adore Auto-ISO (I know I do). It enables me to shoot in aperture priority in widely varying lighting conditions without worrying about the shutter speed dropping down on me and then having to futz with raising the ISO while trying to get a shot quickly.

Yes, Auto ISO is in my view the most important and differentiating feature of the camera, more so than DR or high resolutions.

It makes it hard not to get technically perfect pictures nearly every time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ariliquin]

I love my D800E, with the right lenses and technique; excellent colour, resolution, contrast and detail. If I was doing mostly sport action I would consider D4, but doing mostly landscape and some street.

Interesting to note D600 is rumored to have 16bit image. At 24mp this could be an excellent alternative to D800/D4, with great detail and functionality.

[allegretto]

Oh my...!!!

The D4 is quite a camera! Infinitely complicated, but I am taking useful images in the dark. My Leicas could not come close to this. Lots to learn about the camera, but goodbye flash for all but the darkest settings... what a relief.

Maybe an 800E body for Christmas, but it's all here right now. Also picked up DxO Optics Pro Elite 7.0... this may be... magic!

I know, lots of exclamation points, but that's how it is. It's an over-used phrase, but this set up changes everything. Would have never left Brand "L" until I read here about all the Nikon generated excitement. Thank you folks...

[lfeagan]

Glad to hear you are enjoying your new camera. Have a lot of fun!

[LKaven]

Interesting to note D600 is rumored to have 16bit image.

Do you have a source for this rumor?  Digging up another 2 stops of per-pixel engineering DR would be a major achievement at this point. 

[lfeagan]

Do you have a source for this rumor?  Digging up another 2 stops of per-pixel engineering DR would be a major achievement at this point. 

What, you don't visit NR regularly? You gotta work on being a fan boy more.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/30/updated-specifications-for-the-nikon-d600.aspx/

[Petrus]

16 bit image processing might not mean 16 bit DR, though, just a convenient number for data processing (2 bytes).

If the rumors are mostly true and the DR as good as D800 or even D4, this D600 would compete successfully against EOS-5DIII at half the price.

[lfeagan]

As Petrus says, having 16-bits of precision does not imply more dynamic range. The number of bits of precision in the processing of an image has little to do with the scaling of an input signal to those 16-bits. There is no reason we couldn't design an A-D converter that had 16-bits of precision that were only available over a 1-stop range of an input signal. The output that we received from such an A-D converter (and any converter in general) then needs to be mapped into a target color space using a transfer function. Whether all 16-bits of precision in the internal processing pipeline are represented in the output is another matter.