colincarter46 wrote:
i dont understand your basis for saying the D4 is the better camera.

better at what?

not af, not dr, not metering, not video, not viewfinder, arguably not iso?


mshi wrote:
There are some improvements in AF particularly in low light.


Compared to the D3/D3s, yes. But not compared to the D800, which was the specific point being made.

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:

Compared to the D3/D3s, yes. But not compared to the D800, which was the specific point being made.

D800 is the all new camera that shares the same AF module with D4.

You know, I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

I'll recap. JTS1 said the D4 is a better camera than the D800, and twice said that anyone touting the D800's benefits must not own a D4. Colin responded by asking "better at what? not af, not dr, not metering..." and so on, to which you responded by saying there are some improvements to AF, particularly in low light.

I said those improvements are only in comparison to the D3s, not the D800 which is the camera to which we're comparing the D4. And you said "D800 is the all new camera..." and so on.

Perhaps if you wrote in posts longer than one sentence it would be easier for us to understand you? Because right now, I have no idea what you're saying.

colincarter46 wrote:

the basis of my argument is about 18,000 shots taken with my D800 over the last 6 months or so. The detail is stunning, certainly at a level the d3 or d4 cant get near to.

ive shot landscapes, weddings, motorsport and birds at all apertures and shutter speeds (here in the uk, we are often at high iso and low shutter speeds) and ive not seen any adverse problems. Landscapes at f18, f20 are as detailed, as sharp and free of diffraction issues as ones at f8 - f11.

Using your hypothesis, a 90 megapixel medium format digital back would be almost useless at all apertures and shutter speeds and we all know this isnt true.

The D800 is the first DSLR that can actually get close, and even surpass some, medium format digital backs in quality and thats a fact that has been proven.

The D4 isnt much better than the D3s, the increased resolution is a non issue and iso might actually be a tad worse.

If you dont agree, then thats fine, i can only go on my own findings.


First of all, thanks for responding. Secondly--fantastic images in your photostream!

I agree that firsthand experience trumps measurements and technical reviews. Pictures speak for themselves after all. Unfortunately, tech-speak is the most I have do go on since I don't have any experience with a camera of more than 12MP.

I also don't have much of an informed opinion on MF formats, analog or digital, where I have absolutely no experience, but that may be comparing apples to oranges considing it's a different "optical scenario."

Without my own experience to go on, I can't avoid but be hesitant to believe that it wouldn't be more technically challenging to wring the highest performance out of a 36MP SLR versus a 12MP model. Downsampled to comparable screen resolutions, sure, the point is moot and the higher res SLR will probably demonstrate greater performance overall.

Still, in the cases where I'm "getting away" with marginally slow shutter speeds, it seems natural to imagine that a higher resolving sensor has a greater chance to illustrate the shortcomings of my technique. Naturally though, my greatest shortcomings have nothing to do with the camera's limitations!

Within the experience I do have, sharpness issues are rare when I apply due diligence. In most cases, it appears that the lens is projecting an image on the sensor that exceeds its resolving capability, so if my future experience is similar to yours, that's a rather exciting prospect!

mshi wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:

i dont understand your basis for saying the D4 is the better camera.

better at what?

not af, not dr, not metering, not video, not viewfinder, arguably not iso?



There are some improvements in AF particularly in low light.


the AF on the D800 and D4 are identical.

unlike the D700 and D3, where Nikon used the AF module from the D3 on the D700 but used the D300 support electronics on the D700 so the af on the d3 was faster, this time around Nikon have used exactly the same module and electronics on the D800 and D4.

Frank_Maiello wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:

the basis of my argument is about 18,000 shots taken with my D800 over the last 6 months or so. The detail is stunning, certainly at a level the d3 or d4 cant get near to.

ive shot landscapes, weddings, motorsport and birds at all apertures and shutter speeds (here in the uk, we are often at high iso and low shutter speeds) and ive not seen any adverse problems. Landscapes at f18, f20 are as detailed, as sharp and free of diffraction issues as ones at f8 - f11.

Using your hypothesis, a 90 megapixel medium format digital back would be almost useless at all apertures and shutter speeds and we all know this isnt true.

The D800 is the first DSLR that can actually get close, and even surpass some, medium format digital backs in quality and thats a fact that has been proven.

The D4 isnt much better than the D3s, the increased resolution is a non issue and iso might actually be a tad worse.

If you dont agree, then thats fine, i can only go on my own findings.


First of all, thanks for responding. Secondly--fantastic images in your photostream!

I agree that firsthand experience trumps measurements and technical reviews. Pictures speak for themselves after all. Unfortunately, tech-speak is the most I have do go on since I don't have any experience with a camera of more than 12MP.

I also don't have much of an informed opinion on MF formats, analog or digital, where I have absolutely no experience, but that may be comparing apples to oranges considing it's a different "optical scenario."

Without my own experience to go on, I can't avoid but be hesitant to believe that it wouldn't be more technically challenging to wring the highest performance out of a 36MP SLR versus a 12MP model. Downsampled to comparable screen resolutions, sure, the point is moot and the higher res SLR will probably demonstrate greater performance overall.

Still, in the cases where I'm "getting away" with marginally slow shutter speeds, it seems natural to imagine that a higher resolving sensor has a greater chance to illustrate the shortcomings of my technique. Naturally though, my greatest shortcomings have nothing to do with the camera's limitations!

Within the experience I do have, sharpness issues are rare when I apply due diligence. In most cases, it appears that the lens is projecting an image on the sensor that exceeds its resolving capability, so if my future experience is similar to yours, that's a rather exciting prospect!

thanks for the comment about my photostream, much appreciated.

and thanks for your reply, i hope you dont think i was just trying to be argumentative, it wasnt my intention.

So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?


Thanks

David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?


So long as your technique + lens + aperture did not rob the D800 of its resolution advantage over the D4, in which case all you have is a lower resolution image containing more pixels - not as good as a higher resolution image with the same number of pixels.

And also so long as the D800 got the shot - e.g. you didn't miss out on the best shot because of a slower frame rate or smaller buffer. Such things do not count once you have the desired shot but they do count if they prevent you from getting it.

- Alan

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
JTS1 wrote:
I think that your analysis is quite valid. Probably all the folks touting the D800 don't own the D4. [...] The D4 is the much better camera [...]

Because, of course, anyone who disagrees with your thinking must not know what they're talking about, right?

Because, of course, you do own and shoot both so as to be qualified in making that statement? Or is it that you have no clue what anyone else here uses or owns, and are simply being dismissive so you'll mentally relieve yourself of the need to think about viewpoints that are different from yours?

Would you care to tell us just how much experience you have shooting or owning either camera?

Rodolfo,

Please don't take offense if you think that the D800 is the best thing since slice cheese. You are entitled to your opinion. I have a lot of use with the D4. Less with the D800E since I only recently acquired it. I get great shots with both. It's just the D4 seems to have many more keepers and much easier to shoot. Just finished a shoot with a 16 month old with the D800E. Have some great shots that I can blow upto mega prints. However I could have had a better rate of keepers if I carried the D4 due to ergonomics of the D4 and low light capability.

But my comments were not to met to ruffle your feathers.

Alan321 wrote:
David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?


So long as your technique + lens + aperture did not rob the D800 of its resolution advantage over the D4, in which case all you have is a lower resolution image containing more pixels - not as good as a higher resolution image with the same number of pixels.

And also so long as the D800 got the shot - e.g. you didn't miss out on the best shot because of a slower frame rate or smaller buffer. Such things do not count once you have the desired shot but they do count if they prevent you from getting it.

- Alan



you need to be really sloppy with a D800 to rob it of its 20 megapixel advantage over the D4, but I all to commonly see photographers out with expensive gear like a d800 or d4 with a 500 or 600 lens and shooting off a $50 tripod that has about as much support as 3 sticks tied together with string so i sort of get your first point.

as to your second point, if you prefer the camera to get the shot for you and you regularly shoot off 30 shots at 10 frames per second, hoping to get that "perfect moment" then the D4 is for you. If you get satisfaction from knowing that it was you and not the camera that captured that special moment, then the D800 is for you.

you can give a D4 to a first time shooter, set it to 10 fps and point it in the direction of your subject and pretty much guarantee that you will have a shot that you want from that 30 or 40 shot burst over 3 or 4 seconds but there is absolutely no skill involved at all. This is not the type of photographer i strive to be.

The D800's only advantage over the D4 is the ability to deliver larger prints.

In every other respect, the D4 is far superior. It's that simple. At least that's been my experience with both bodies.

JTS1 wrote:
Please don't take offense if you think that the D800 is the best thing since slice cheese. You are entitled to your opinion. I have a lot of use with the D4. Less with the D800E since I only recently acquired it. I get great shots with both. It's just the D4 seems to have many more keepers and much easier to shoot. Just finished a shoot with a 16 month old with the D800E. Have some great shots that I can blow upto mega prints. However I could have had a better rate of keepers if I carried the D4 due to ergonomics of the D4 and low light capability.

But my comments were not to met to ruffle your feathers.

No offense taken. All I meant to emphasize -- and I tend to be emphatic about those things -- is that "best" is not universal... what you mean to say is "best for me". Maybe you have bigger hands, and so the D4 fits you better. Maybe you'd prefer the D800 with a grip to get the vertical shutter and second multi-selector. Maybe you love the D4's additional buttons and controls. Maybe the higher-ISO capability and higher frame rate is key for you. Heck, maybe you just haven't used the D800 enough to get as comfortable with it as you are with your D4.

For any, all, or even none of those reasons, it's perfectly natural to prefer one camera over the other. I'm totally impressed by the D4, D800, D600, D5200, and V2, since they're all great (and each is "better" than the others) for certain profiles. For true low-light or fast-action work, nothing like the D4. For huge prints or great detail, the D800 rules. For hiking and rock-climbing, I don't see anything out there better than the D5200. For walking around with my kids and being a dad while also getting good images, the V2 is unbeatable for me. I wouldn't shoot a ballet performance with a V2, and I wouldn't take a D4 when mountain-climbing. Would you?

I had both D3s and D3x bodies because each did something different "best". I don't really benefit from the D4... but I think it's the "best" for what it does and for anyone who prefers it. It just irks me to see so many people conclude that camera X is "the best" and others are inferior, when in truth it's only that the other cameras don't serve their personal needs and preferences as well as X.

colincarter46 wrote:
mshi wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:

i dont understand your basis for saying the D4 is the better camera.

better at what?

not af, not dr, not metering, not video, not viewfinder, arguably not iso?



There are some improvements in AF particularly in low light.


the AF on the D800 and D4 are identical.

unlike the D700 and D3, where Nikon used the AF module from the D3 on the D700 but used the D300 support electronics on the D700 so the af on the d3 was faster, this time around Nikon have used exactly the same module and electronics on the D800 and D4. quote<<<


The D4 and D800 AF module, Processor, circuit board, motor drive, and/or memory must be different in some way.
It could not be just the Sensor that allows the D4 to focus and lock on so much faster.
I've had both in my hands at the same time, the difference is very noticeable.
It could not be just the motor drive

DigitalBill wrote:
The D800's only advantage over the D4 is the ability to deliver larger prints.

In every other respect, the D4 is far superior. It's that simple. At least that's been my experience with both bodies.

its not that simple unfortunately,

i could say "the d4's only advantage is its ability to do 10 frames per second, its that simple"

Apart from certain sports, which are the scenarios the d4 was made for, the D800 is the superior camera.

colincarter46 wrote:
Alan321 wrote:
David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?

you can give a D4 to a first time shooter, set it to 10 fps and point it in the direction of your subject and pretty much guarantee that you will have a shot that you want from that 30 or 40 shot burst over 3 or 4 seconds but there is absolutely no skill involved at all. This is not the type of photographer i strive to be.

WOW... really?

ShutteredMe wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:
Alan321 wrote:
David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?

you can give a D4 to a first time shooter, set it to 10 fps and point it in the direction of your subject and pretty much guarantee that you will have a shot that you want from that 30 or 40 shot burst over 3 or 4 seconds but there is absolutely no skill involved at all. This is not the type of photographer i strive to be.

WOW... really?

yes, really, nothing difficult about aiming a camera and keeping your finger pressed down for a few seconds.

Im not talking about panning shots here, but again the decisive moment can be caught with timing rather than mashing the shutter.

i think most people have forgotten about timing etc, and it makes you wonder how all those great shots were captured before the invention of the motordrive.

colincarter46 wrote:
ShutteredMe wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:
Alan321 wrote:
David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?

you can give a D4 to a first time shooter, set it to 10 fps and point it in the direction of your subject and pretty much guarantee that you will have a shot that you want from that 30 or 40 shot burst over 3 or 4 seconds but there is absolutely no skill involved at all. This is not the type of photographer i strive to be.

WOW... really?

yes, really, nothing difficult about aiming a camera and keeping your finger pressed down for a few seconds.

Im not talking about panning shots here, but again the decisive moment can be caught with timing rather than mashing the shutter.

i think most people have forgotten about timing etc, and it makes you wonder how all those great shots were captured before the invention of the motordrive.

I've asked people to take pictures of me and my family on outings, and they can't shoot for sheit.

ShutteredMe wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:
ShutteredMe wrote:
colincarter46 wrote:
Alan321 wrote:
David Frost wrote:
So if printing larger than 11x17 prints D800 is the better option correct?

you can give a D4 to a first time shooter, set it to 10 fps and point it in the direction of your subject and pretty much guarantee that you will have a shot that you want from that 30 or 40 shot burst over 3 or 4 seconds but there is absolutely no skill involved at all. This is not the type of photographer i strive to be.

WOW... really?

yes, really, nothing difficult about aiming a camera and keeping your finger pressed down for a few seconds.

Im not talking about panning shots here, but again the decisive moment can be caught with timing rather than mashing the shutter.

i think most people have forgotten about timing etc, and it makes you wonder how all those great shots were captured before the invention of the motordrive.

I've asked people to take pictures of me and my family on outings, and they can't shoot for sheit.



at the end of the day we all buy and use what we want to anyway, so its pointless arguing.

All extremists should be taken out and shot.