Nikon D610 or D4

[shane shacaluga]

I have been waiting for the D610 camera to be announced for quite some time, and now that I am about to jump on it, I have been offered a used D4 in very good condition at a "reasonable" price.

I am not one to abuse my equipment and was wondering whether any of you could help with my decision!

I currently use a D7000 which has the same 6fps the D610 offers and it AF's with 7 points up to f8 which is good as I only generally use the 9 central focus points on my camera

Not sure I actually need a D4 as I have never used one, but will the better AF system and higher FPS provide me with better images?

Thanks for your help

[Ashley Cohen]

If you can get a D4 at a very good price it will serve you for many years to come. The D610 is really just a replacement for the shutter oil issues of the D600 with a few tweaks to give it a reason to come to market. AF is still that of the D7000 with a few tweaks but the D4 is a pro level camera with very fast and accurate AF, amazing build quality and speed. It's entirely up to you but if the price difference isn't much get the D4, pro body's are just in a league of there own regardless of initial spec.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot Ashley

The price of the D4 is quite a bit higher but it's still low compared to what I have seen D4's being sold at

My concerns about the D4 are whether the lower MP will hinder my cropping ability (some say it will, other say the quality of the pixels in the D4 maintain a lot of detail)

The rest is a given that the D4 is better all round, but will it really give me a better image than the D610 can?

[Ashley Cohen]

Tricky one to work out for sure. are you keeping the D7000? how much do you typically crop images you take with the D7000? You have to take into consideration full frame over DX then work out what your cropping translates to when your shooting full frame. IF you were to go for the D800 you would have 15 megapixels when cropped to DX which is similar to the overall pixel's of the D7000. What lens are you using? My dads just switched from Nikon to Canon ( Im on canon too) as he's been very unhappy with the D7100 and his 300mm F4 mainly using the 1.7x tele. When he was using the D300s he felt the images were better, and as I said to him it's no doubt the 24mpx on DX are showing up the flaws of the Lens and tele combo. Something you have to consider when going to higher megapixel cameras.

[shane shacaluga]

My aim is to keep the D7000 for macro work really and when I need that edge in reach with good light. Also to carry to family events etc ;)

At the moment using the same 300f4 and 1.7x combo your dad uses. Works fine on my D7000 but feel the AF and grain in the shadows could be a lot better

I tried the D600 recently with this lens setup and it worked very well

My plan is to eventually get a 500 or 600 f4 but dont have the cash for that yet

[Ashley Cohen]

I thought you had the 300mm remembering previous posts. What sort of ISO's are you shooting at usually? In all honestly I cant' see a vast improvement coming from getting a full frame body like the D610, and the D4 seems over kill. If you are cropping heavy(ish) and not always getting the exposure right/ using high ISO your going to have that shadow noise showing but I used the D7000 my dad also had and it was superior in noise to the 7D which I still managed to get practically noise free web images from when shooting at ISO 1600. I think using the money to improve your lens situation sooner rather than later would be a better idea. The 500mm F4 is a cracking a lens, the 600 too but very heavy!

I've just got a 70D on canon and noise is looking very well controlled even at ISO 3200, it's still there but a 50% crop would be more than usable. Sometimes you just have to work on the processing and Noise reduction side of things rather than look at a camera upgrade as the main solution. I think going FF will limit you with reach and you'll be picking up the D7000 more than you think, especially if your shooting birds.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot for the advice.

Am usually shooting between ISO 800 and 1250 to be able to keep the SS high enough. Sometimes up to 1600. It all goes pear shaped after that.

I am hoping that with the D610 or D4 the shadow noise at these ISO's are minimal to none

[Randy Stout]

Shane:

My .02. I shoot with the D4 as my main body, still use the D300 on occasion. For my bird use, the FX format requires some significant glass to have enough reach. Most of the time that is a 600, but when I want to go light and handhold, the 500. And, I don't generally shoot little birds either, mostly loons, which are pretty good sized.

I rented a D7100 to try it out, and although it has many nice qualities, the tiny buffer and unpredictable AF(in my hands) didn't work.

D4 is a heck of a camera, don't feel constrained by the file size for my work, but as I said, I have the benefit of some long glass to make it work. I have a 300mm f/4, but rarely use it, not enough reach
on the FX camera.

If it is a really good price, get the D4 and try it, you can always sell it for little or no loss. I don't know how the D600 series will hold their value with the botched D600 oil issue and bad rep.

Cheers

Randy

[dankearl]

Ashley,
using terms like "reach" is so misleading.
I don't know how many times this is used but is just wrong.
You are NO closer to the subject with a cropped sensor.
You get more overall pixels to work with, with a FF sensor.
I own both a cropped sensor (D7000) and a FF (D800), there is no comparison.
You can crop after the fact with a nice FF camera and get a better result than with a cropped sensor.
Full frame images have better NR capabilities also in my opinion.

[Ashley Cohen]

Randy you pretty much reinforced the Point I was trying to make, I'd rather Shane didn't make the mistake of going down the FF route and being stuck on a 300mm with not enough focal length for his needs.

Dan, please don't nitpick about my wording, in my circle of photography friends we call it reach and I'll stick to using that phrase as it conveys the point Im trying to get across. We know it means getting more pixels on the bird which is key. Im also aware that FF gives you better quality pixels and lower noise. In fact I mentioned the D800 above for that very reason, with his lens he would have more pixels on the bird with that camera, and very good quality pixels at that, as I have seen Raw files of birds from the D800.

Shane as I mentioned I agree with Randy's points and I think having a 300mm will only limit you moving to FF. upgrade the lens as the D7000 is a great camera and you will get lower visible noise when cropping less due to having a bigger lens. Bear in mind also lenses hold there value much better than cameras which will come down in price over time, lenses you can end up selling for more than you paid!

[Bill Jobes]

As a D4 shooter (and a former D7000 shooter with a D7100 replacement), I can speak from extensive experience on this.

Simply put, the D4 so far out-performs the prosumer bodies, that I suggest you give serious consideration to going that route.

For BIFs, the others are snail-sluggish compared to the D4. The D4's AF is unmatched and its buffer allows you to keep the shutter blazing, while the others' buffers have choked on processing.

The IQ is superb, the D4's FF images are of such high quality that cropping, at least for me, has not been an issue.

Keep in mind, when you start post-processing with a crystal-sharp image, it holds up much better through enlargements than one that is slightly OOF.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot for all your inputs!

The D800 as far as I know has a similar pixel size to the D7000 so in theory the pixels on the subject would be the same as I have now. It would be even less with the D610

The question is are the pixels on the subject with a D800 of a better quality? Or would the larger pixels on a D4 with razor sharp AF provide a better image after cropping?

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Thanks a lot for all your inputs!

The D800 as far as I know has a similar pixel size to the D7000 so in theory the pixels on the subject would be the same as I have now. It would be even less with the D610

The question is are the pixels on the subject with a D800 of a better quality? Or would the larger pixels on a D4 with razor sharp AF provide a better image after cropping?

D4 vs D800 is a lot closer call than D4 vs D610. I have a D4, so that was my vote. Love it, no pixel envy here.

My two cents on D4 vs D610, if you think your photographic equipment trajectory (lenses) is near it's end then D610 is probably the solution. If you expect continuous improvement over time, the D4, hands down.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Linwood Ferguson]

D4 vs D800 is a lot closer call than D4 vs D610. I have a D4, so that was my vote. Love it, no pixel envy here.

My two cents on D4 vs D610, if you think your photographic equipment trajectory (lenses) is near it's end then D610 is probably the solution. If you expect continuous improvement over time, the D4, hands down.

Cheers,

-Michael-

I agree. I have a D4 and a D800, and have a friend who shoots with and loves the D600, but there's no real comparison. He uses the D600 vs. D800 for sports, because of frame speed and he doesn't need the pixels. But the AF system in the D600 (and I presume D610) is going to be significantly slower and less capable than the D800 and D4, which are pretty similar (I debate with myself all the time if the D4 actually focuses faster or more accurately).

If your primary driving factor for the D600 vs. D4 is pixel density get the D800. Remember that it works by the square, not linear -- 24 is not 50% more than 16 really, it's 22% each way. The only thing the D600 really has over the D800 is frame rate, in my opinion.

If you feel you need a high frame rate there's no comparison with the D4 with either one. It's not just 10 vs. 5.5 vs. 4, it's about the buffer -- the D4 has such a deep buffer you almost never will hear it slow down. And it definitely focuses faster and more accurately while shooting at speed - the mirror action is really just that much faster, it gets back and reset -- you can actually see the action and track it by eye through the viewfinder while shooting at 10fps.

Also for high ISO -- despite what some charts say, the D4 has a good stop over the D800 (and so I think the D600) over 3200. Worse if you are also taking advantage of the D800 to crop (e.g. crop a D800 to 16mpx and it's more than a stop worse in my opinion at say 6400). But the D800 has a good stop over the D4 at low ISO in terms of dynamic range.

To put it in a bit of perspective, I shoot sports mostly. The D4 is what I use 95% of the time, the D800 sometimes has a second lens on. It's got the speed and accuracy. Yet whenI go out to take landscape shots, go on vacation, street scenes or shoot birds again -- the D4 stays in the bag, the D800 goes to work -- in decent light and time to compose it just plain takes better shots. Significantly better, not just pixels, the dynamic range is impressive - lots of cases you otherwise need HDR you just crank the shadow and highlight sliders a bit. Last two vacations I took both cameras and didn't even take the D4 out of the bag, literally.

I just can't see much decision for a D4 vs. D610; it's D4 (money aside). The D4 vs. D800 is a much more interesting choice. Kind of like a BMW X5 vs. a BMW Z4. :)

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot for your comments. The guy at my local camera store commented more or less the same. He said that the difference in price between the D610 and the d800e would be made up by selling my pretty clean D7000 and i would end up with a better camera overall with option to go dx if needed.

He advised to upgrade my PC with the cash i would save on the D4 or invest in glass

Having used bith d4 and d800, is the dynamic range better all the way up the iso or at what iso does the dynamic range of the d4 better that of the d800?

appreciate you all taking your time to comment

thanks

[Linwood Ferguson]

Having used bith d4 and d800, is the dynamic range better all the way up the iso or at what iso does the dynamic range of the d4 better that of the d800?

appreciate you all taking your time to comment

thanks

This is a non-scientific answer based on real world SPORTS usage, and notably in post processing and hunting for shadow detail and pulling back highlights, but to me the D800 is better up to about 3200 ISO (maybe a bit before, and then it crosses. At ISO 6400 and above, the D4 images not only are cleaner, but there's more in there if you need to adjust shadows and highlights than the D800.

My non-calibrated gut tells me it is about a stop difference each way, to the D800 favor low, and to the D4 favor high, based on shooting a lot of night and indoor sports.

All that said, considering where I am, I wouldn't shoot birds anywhere near that crossover point. To me noise and feathers and fine art shots just don't mix. So I'd say for birds, landscapes and the like the D800 is just always better in dynamic range, since I won't be up where that's not true.

Here's a link to a D4 image, heavily cropped, at night at ISO 6400, original resolution (I hope this just appears as a link and not a huge image)

http://www.captivephotons.com/Events...0-%20070-O.jpg

I had almost none in my files at 6400 with the D800, but here's a not-good-sports-shot, also a pretty heavy crop, full size, similar lighting:

http://www.captivephotons.com/Events...0-%20123-O.jpg

The rendering is not awful, I'm not saying the D800 is bad. Just to me there's quite a difference.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks, that really helps. I think my upper limit in ISO is 2500 usually staying between 800 and 1600 but at 1600 and above, with my current camera, if the shot is not perfectly exposed and have to crop a bit i may as well delete the photo.

Seems both cameras would take care of this problem.

Will test them both out at the store and see what i decide

Any other pros or cons i should be aware of for each body?

[Randy Stout]

Shane;

Here is a copy of the DNR plot of the two cameras from Bill Claff, well known for this type of analysis. D800 in blue, D4 in green. The crossover point is quite low on the ISO scale, but very close above ISO 400

Cheers

Randy

[shane shacaluga]

Wow, thats quite intersting. Its quite superior at anything below 400 then the two level off with a very slight edge to the d4 but marginal i take it. This doesnt make my decision any easier haha.

Thanks a lot for this. Will rattle my brains a bit more over the next few days

[Linwood Ferguson]

Wow, thats quite intersting. Its quite superior at anything below 400 then the two level off with a very slight edge to the d4 but marginal i take it. This doesnt make my decision any easier haha.

That's why I said my answer was unscientific, but it is based on real use. I've seen those charts, and while I am sure they are correct, I am not sure they tell the story you see as you use it. I've talked to many people shooting with the D4 and D800 in high ISO, and I haven't found anyone using them regularly who would think there's so little difference in the high ISO ranges. I pretty consistently hear "D3s very like D4, both significantly better than the D800 above ISO 3200". If you are on Nikonians site, go read some of the sports discussions (where high ISO is normal).

Any other pros or cons i should be aware of for each body?

I am sure you have read the specs so won't repeat that. Both are ergonomically pretty decent, but surprisingly different considering their near simultaneous release (example: dial for meter difference in D800, button + thumbwheel on D4). The D4 has a few nice features like lighted buttons that are nice, focus point selection display continually, and voice memo which I'm using more and more. I use the popup flash on the D800 a lot, notably as commander mode for a couple of DB800's. Handy. I did not get a grip for the D800, and have not had a lot of urge to; I use it differently and rather like the smaller form factor (the D4 is pretty large -- surprisingly light for the size but intimidating if you do street photography, though the D800 is not tiny by any means. The D4 has a "silent" mode for high speed frame grabs from video, kind of cool, but I've never found a use (they are about 2mpx or so). The D4 has Ethernet built in -- really dumb as who wants a RJ45 connection as opposed to wifi, but well, maybe some do.

There's nothing that to me, at least, screams "this is better" loudly, just a few things on each side that are nice (again, other than the core difference of frame rate and pixel density). The D4 is probably built better but the D800 really is pretty industrial strength as well, though the battery door is a weakness (falls off easily when open, ok when closed), as is the nature of a popup flash (nothing bad about it particular, just all of them are a weak point). Battery life on both is excellent, though obviously the relatively huge D4 lasts longer (but the D800 battery costs a LOT less also). If you want the D800 with a grip you can actually use the D4 battery in it, handy if you bought both cameras.

The CF + SD is annoying in the D800, and the CD + XQD is annoying in the D4. In both cases I bought one big card and just leave it in as a backup, and one to use for uploads. No big deal, just annoying. I still think Nikon was stupid for not using either all CF, all SD, or all XQD -- who wants two card types in one camera (or worse, as I have, three card types in two cameras released within weeks of each other). But bought the extra card once and done (or if you are a "no backup needed" person then who cares).

Really it's not any of the little stuff that drives a decision, in my mind. One is a high speed, high ISO, sports camera. One is a high resolution, terrific general purpose camera. I wouldn't trade either for the other, really. Just depends on what you need for what you want to shoot, and want to spend.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Shane;

Here is a copy of the DNR plot of the two cameras from Bill Claff, well known for this type of analysis. D800 in blue, D4 in green. The crossover point is quite low on the ISO scale, but very close above ISO 400

Cheers

Randy

It should be noted that the calculations used to make this chart are not beyond controversy (I'll let it go at that ;-)

I don't think anyone disputes that pixel for pixel the D4 shines particularly at ISO400 and above. I hardly shoot below ISO400 myself.

Linwood, Do you actually see in your images differences in DR between the D800 & D4 at ISO100 (for instance)? That would be in the whites and blacks head room.

Cheers,

-Michael-
Tempted by the D800, have D4, anticipating the D4X ;-)

[shane shacaluga]

I only use under ISO400 whem doing macro work with flash and its usually up at 800 or over unless its a white bird or harsh sunlight.

I would love to see zoomed in images of both at iso over 1000 and see which retains more detail. I would think the higher pixel count of the d800 would show more detail, but is this in fact the case? Does the amplified light affect the pixel advantage of the d800?

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Shane,

Greetings. It is virtually impossible to do an apples to apples comparison (though many try). I think you will find the differences are small enough to argue about except in the cases of high iso (where noise overrides resolution), frames per second, and printing large. Decision points are a lot toward personal taste, shooting style, subject selection, output preference rather than large technical differences. Did I say cost?

I'm personally amazed at the huge improvement the D4 has over the D3 (not a particular slouch that). ymmv.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Linwood Ferguson]

OK, here's a rough, unscientific attempt.

I took several images of roughly the same scene with the D800 and D4 on manual mode at 1/5000th second and F8. I did it at ISO 4000 which was sort of the right exposure, and then at ISO 100 which was many stops under exposed. The idea was then to look in shadow detail and see what remains. On the correct exposure I raised the shadows to max (too much) and lowered the highlights to max just to stress the image more. Then I looked at the same object in the shadows. Incidentally I picked the object after shooting, it's a bit out of focus, but sharpness is not the issue but noise and color. I picked the best image from each set.

First are all 8 shots just for perspective, D800 on top, D4 on bottom. Left to right - original, then shadow/highlight raised, then original underexposed, then with exposure raised +5 stops (no other changes).

The comparisons in the second shot are then from the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th counting left to right, top to bottom (note the order changes on the blowups - sorry, didn't realize until I did these). I hope it's acceptable to show these full sized. The images have been scaled to be approximately the same size by showing a twice enlarged D800 and 3 times enlarged D4. So the idea is to represent the subject about the same size, not the pixels.

There's noise and pixels in both of course. But look at the top (ISO 4000). The pixel size on the left frame is much larger, yet the color noise is much less. This is after highlighting the noise by maximizing the shadow detail and starting at ISO 4000. There's more resolution on the right, and perhaps a bit more contrast, but the noise does less damage on the left (in my opinion). No noise reduction was applied in lightroom.

But look at the bottom image, at ISO 100. Here in my opinion it all switches over. Here the shadow detail was increased by a huge (+5) exposure increase. The D800 (on the left) seemed to have more to give, there's still some detail you can see on the left wall, the noise is not nearly as prevalent. You can see the buckle hanging down more clearly and even see its shadow on the wall a bit, but not on the right.

Is this dynamic range? I don't follow the scientific definition, but this what I'm saying. The D4 remains cleaner up in the stratospheric ISO range. The D800 has all sorts of depth for adjustment in the raw image at low ISO. I should note there's highlight that is similar but not as great (similar but not as noticeable in highlights).

I don't know if these kind of extreme tests are all that useful. What I see is that if I'm shooting at high ISO, to get similarly usable prints, I need to keep the D800 about a stop lower. And if I'm shooting a high dynamic range image (say waterfalls in the sun) the D800 does a MUCH better job in post processing.

But to the original poster -- if you are a birder, to me there's no contest - D800. MAYBE if your focus is birds in flight, and you are really obsessed with them, the frame rate on the D4 is a deciding factor. Maybe. But to me for birding the D800 is the camera. The only thing you lose is reach vs. DX; a D7100 MAY be better then. Maybe. But I'd take the D800 because soon afterwards you'll buy a longer prime to take advantage of all those pixels.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

But to the original poster -- if you are a birder, to me there's no contest - D800. MAYBE if your focus is birds in flight, and you are really obsessed with them, the frame rate on the D4 is a deciding factor. Maybe. But to me for birding the D800 is the camera. The only thing you lose is reach vs. DX; a D7100 MAY be better then. Maybe. But I'd take the D800 because soon afterwards you'll buy a longer prime to take advantage of all those pixels.

Ha, after all that I was sure you were going to say D4. Higher ISO for ss & IQ, frame rate, buffer size ;-) Ah, your mileage apparently does vary.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[shane shacaluga]

I was thinking the same, that you were going to say D4 for sure haha

Thanks a lot for your input. Much appreciated ;)

[Linwood Ferguson]

I was thinking the same, that you were going to say D4 for sure haha

Thanks a lot for your input. Much appreciated ;)

Well, if I were writing on a sports forum where ISO4000 were the norm, I would have.

I really think the conclusion from the above, given a birder is much more likely to be near ISO 100 than ISO 4000, is that the D800 retains more shadow detail at ISO 100. I personally don't find frame rate an issue for birding, except a tiny fraction of the time; I do find reach (cropping) an issue all the time. So I'll take reach + shadow depth over frame rate + high ISO any day for birding.

But that's why I like to give answers with photos -- people can draw their own conclusion, including as many do that testing is pointless. :)

Join me on the (night) soccer field and my opinions change completely. Though I confess, there's something (a big owl I think) that swoops across our field once or twice each game, and one day I'm going to get an image of him and see what it is. BIG something, and not a bat, and only at night. But that's a different topic.

[shane shacaluga]

Looking forward to see what that big owl is ;)

my iso is usually 800-2000. Dont go up further due to camera limitations but i guess either of the 2 will work fine up to 3200 which i have never really had to use.

If i finally decide on the d800, should i go for the normal one or the 800e?

[Linwood Ferguson]

If i finally decide on the d800, should i go for the normal one or the 800e?

800E I think. I have yet to find anyone with an "E" that had issues with Moire (maybe unless you are a fashion photographer). And it's pretty fixable in post. But that's because I feel like I want to remove all avenues of blame from my shots other than me, and otherwise you can always say "the AA filter made that soft".

But from what I see in comparisons it takes one seriously careful shot, with very careful technique and optically wonderful lenses to get down where the difference is discernible. So I doubt you can tell the difference.

I didn't get the E because I wanted it on the first week it was out.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot for the help and advice

Tested the D800 and D4 in the shop today! Astounded by the size and the machinegun fire on the D4. The AF in poor light was pretty similar to the D800 but it was a very unscientific focussing on different people walking by and changing from person to person

From what I could see zooming right in on the cameras LCD, both handle up to ISO 6400 very nicely.

The D800 takes its time to bring up the pics on the LCD in comparison to the D4 but the IQ seems amazing.

I have just been offered a pretty clean 500f4 VR lens so may take the 800 and use the remaining cash to pay off part of the lens

Does anyone know if there are 2 500 f4 VR lenses from Nikon or just the one, and it happens to have the VR II version?

[Linwood Ferguson]

Does anyone know if there are 2 500 f4 VR lenses from Nikon or just the one, and it happens to have the VR II version?

I do not, but I had stumbled across this database some time ago, and it says only one. I have no idea if this is complete.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#400

The brief history on DxOMark would indicate it is the only one:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon...s-in-the-range

But again, all from google, I do not know personally.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks, it seems it was given the VRII so all good!

Worried i would be buying an older model

[Roger Clark]

OK, here's a rough, unscientific attempt.

Hello Linwood,

Your results are skewed by your resampling method. You've resampled the D800 images and if you used the typical resampling algorithms, like cubic spline or its variants, the resampling throws out information. See my discussion in the camera-body upgrade thread:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...rade-5d-mk-iii

Basically, the lens for a given exposure time and f/stop delivers X photons per square micron to the focal plane. The D4 has 7.3 micron pixels, the D800 4.9 micron pixels, for an area ratio of 2.2. So in the same exposure, the D4 collects 2.2 times more light per pixel. But the D800 sees more detail. Both sensors collect the same amount of light from the subject (both sensors should be pretty equal in fundamental sensitivity as they are of the same vintage, 2012) If the resampling was done such that the S/N per square micron was preserved (see how I did that in the camera-body upgrade thread), the D800 images would look much better compared to the D4 images when you have the same pixels on subject, and the two images would look very comparable in terms of noise. Also note that at low ISOs, the D4 is showing more fixed pattern noise than the D800. So with good resampling, the D800 images would look better than the D4: equal in S/N, lower fixed pattern noise, and better detail as one is averaging Bayer interpolation artifacts with the D800 down sampling.

Roger.

Roger

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks for this info Roger

Would the Anti Aliasing filter cancellation of the D800e have a positive or negative effect on noise/artifacts in your opinion?

[Roger Clark]

Thanks for this info Roger

Would the Anti Aliasing filter cancellation of the D800e have a positive or negative effect on noise/artifacts in your opinion?

Anti Aliasing filter or not is likely little change in S/N, and regarding artifacts it will depend on the subject and algorithm. In my opinion, all Bayer sensor interpolated images are full of artifacts, just they are small enough to usually not visually impact the image. If you have a raw converter where you can select the interpolation algorithm, such algorithm artifacts can become apparent. If I were choosing a D800 versus D800e, I would choose the 800e for wildlife, people, and natural landscapes, and the 800 for architecture where moire might be an issue (which is rare). If D4 versus 800(e) the choice would not be on S/N (like I said in the other camera body upgrade thread), but on other features, like AF performancs, build quality, etc.

Roger

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot Roger

AF performance seems pretty similar on both.

I don't need such extreme build quality as found on the D4 although I would like a bit more speed. I guess the slower fps will make me a better photographer in the long run

[Bill Jobes]

Thanks a lot Roger

AF performance seems pretty similar on both.

I don't need such extreme build quality as found on the D4 although I would like a bit more speed. I guess the slower fps will make me a better photographer in the long run

Shane, I'm not sure from where this notion arose that the AF performance "seems pretty similar" on the D800 and the D4.

That wasn't remotely true in my experience. IMO, it's an Internet myth that's morphed into gospel in the minds of some.

I seriously considered adding a D800 to my pro sports and BIF kit, and shot enough with one to know it doesn't hold a candle to the D4 in terms of AF speed and in-camera processing.

At least that was my experience, and I did not purchase the D800.

[Linwood Ferguson]

Shane, I'm not sure from where this notion arose that the AF performance "seems pretty similar" on the D800 and the D4.

That wasn't remotely true in my experience. IMO, it's an Internet myth that's morphed into gospel in the minds of some.

I seriously considered adding a D800 to my pro sports and BIF kit, and shot enough with one to know it doesn't hold a candle to the D4 in terms of AF speed and in-camera processing.

At least that was my experience, and I did not purchase the D800.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in camera processing" in this context, but for AF performance it's a really tough call. I do shoot with both, often at the same event. I alternate a bit between "D4 is faster" and "about the same" but it's a really close call if there is a difference. They both have the same internal AF system and the same EXPEED 3 processor. Are the processors running at the same internal clock rate, is there a difference somewhere else? Not sure.

But for initial focus capture, e.g. point, touch AF-ON, and how long until it is in focus -- I think from a practical perspective it is a wash. I just went and refreshed my memory, and took a slower focusing lens (80-400G), and clicked from close to far several times on each. Clearly that's not scientific, but it seemed identical to me. On a fast focusing lens, both are darn close to instantaneous. I have no idea how either works on a screw-focus, that might be different.

Where there may be a difference but it is tough to qualify is tracking. The D4 mirror return is MUCH faster than the D800. When shooting full blast at 10fps, you still see through the viewfinder fairly well. The D800 not so much, so my IMPRESSION is that it has less time to track during a burst and may not be as accurate. But I'm not sure. The settings for tracking, focus points, lock-on time, etc. are all the same settings, and react the same way on both cameras in real use.

But when shooting 4 fps and 10fps what you end up with in a burst is a lot different -- more motion between frames for one thing, so the D800 is more likely to loose a fast moving subject not because it's not fast to focus, but because in .1 seconds the subject doesn't move nearly as far as in .25 seconds. So yes, in that sense it is faster.

As to in-camera processing the D4 has a huge buffer. Put a dirt slow CF card in it, and you still are likely never to hit the limit. In real use it just seems almost infinite (it's not -- I've hit it occasionally, but coming from any other camera you fell like it for quite a while). The D800 in comparison even at 4fps is pretty easy to hit. Even not shooting long bursts, especially if you are using CD + SD in backup mode. I've hit it frequently when there's a lot of continuous action and I'm firing 2-3 frame bursts (I do shoot in backup mode which is the worst cast). Now it's moving images that are MUCH larger around also, but it is slower to process in terms of clearing its buffer. It's also slower to display, scroll, etc. Is that because it's slower, or because it's 36mpx instead of 16mpx. Not sure, but the "feel" for such activities is certainly slower. But unless you are a high average frame rate shooter that's not terribly relevant; if you are, it is killer.

But seriously -- I swap the same lenses around on a D800 and D4, notably for basketball, and shoot with some relatively slow-to-focus lenses (85/1.4 and 50/1.2 for example), and I really can't tell the difference for initial capture. And burst rates are so different it's hard to compare.

Is it an internet myth they are similar? Perhaps, but if so I'm contributing to it.

Note (to give something to the original topic) the D6x0 has a completely different AF system and people shooting the D600 next to the D800 say it is significantly slower to fix. Not slow; faster than a lot of old standbys like the D300. But not as fast as the D800. That's from talking to people, not personal experience. But with

So one more posting to perpetuate the myth. :) But with almost 30,000 clicks on the D800 and about 85,000 on the D4, I've had a bit of time to compare.

[dankearl]

Bill,
I think the guy to answer the question about the D800 AF would be Alan Murphy.
He uses both the D800 and the D4 and posts great BIF with both.
If the AF was not good on the D800, why would he use it?

[shane shacaluga]

My comment regarding the AF was my brief comparison of both cameras while i was focussing on people outside the shop who were walking up and down the main street.

My understanding is that the D4 battery produces greater power and can move AF motors faster than other cameras so that may be a reason for the difference between the 2. I have read that using the grip with the d4 battery on the d800 will increase AF speed too. But if someone has real life experience of this please comment.

I agree that the D4 will last me for years to come but i feel i will find it easier to upgrade to a pro body later on than to buy a good quality prime lens. So rather go for the d800 and lens than just the D4.

There are a lot of trade offs to think about

[Linwood Ferguson]

My comment regarding the AF was my brief comparison of both cameras while i was focussing on people outside the shop who were walking up and down the main street.

My understanding is that the D4 battery produces greater power and can move AF motors faster than other cameras so that may be a reason for the difference between the 2. I have read that using the grip with the d4 battery on the d800 will increase AF speed too. But if someone has real life experience of this please comment.

I agree that the D4 will last me for years to come but i feel i will find it easier to upgrade to a pro body later on than to buy a good quality prime lens. So rather go for the d800 and lens than just the D4.

There are a lot of trade offs to think about

A guy named Peter Beckett did some testing of that theory, there's a thread on Nikonians

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...id=87491#87496

You may need membership to see that thread, not certain (and apologies if so).

He didn't have a D4 to experiment with, but did some experiments with a D800 and different power sources, and did timings with a scope (i.e. real scientific approach, not just "feels the same" like me), with the goal to see how power available affected focus speed, with a scope doing the timing very precisely.

I hesitate to abbreviate his findings as there was some ambiguity in there, as it's not clear cut. But if you are interested it might make interesting reading.

[Bill Jobes]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in camera processing" in this context,

I am referring to the buffer speed. As you know, the D4 can burst blazing fast for as long as you wish. The D800 would choke first.

It's good to know that you like the D800. My experience was different. Sitting in an end zone with a red zone drive coming at me, trust that the D4 would be in my hands.

[Bill Jobes]

Bill,
I think the guy to answer the question about the D800 AF would be Alan Murphy.
He uses both the D800 and the D4 and posts great BIF with both.
If the AF was not good on the D800, why would he use it?

Thanks Dan, but I don't need to ask Alan. I can answer the question. My own experience with both bodies resulted in me choosing the D4 over the D800 for sports and BIFs.

[dankearl]

Bill,
I was not implying that you did not have the expertise to make a decision on the camera.
But when you say it is a "Myth" that the D800 has a good AF system, I think you possibly had a bad camera.
Not just Alan Murphy but other professionals use it so my simple question was "why would they"?
They would not use it if it wasn't good , they don't have to......

[Linwood Ferguson]

I am referring to the buffer speed. As you know, the D4 can burst blazing fast for as long as you wish. The D800 would choke first.

Absolutely. In fact, be sure to write your congressman, as certain gun control groups want to include the D4 in the Assault Weapons ban.

[shane shacaluga]

Hi guys,

I am the proud owner of a new D800e.

Thanks for your help. Hope i can make the most of this cameraa potential

[Linwood Ferguson]

Hi guys,

I am the proud owner of a new D800e.

Thanks for your help. Hope i can make the most of this cameraa potential

You know what the kids say "Pictures, or it didn't happen".

Looking to see the new postings, and enjoy.

[dankearl]

Good choice Shane, you will enjoy it.
Look at the postings today of Alan Murphy and Tony Whitehead.
The D800 has very nice AF as you can see.

[shane shacaluga]

Thanks a lot. Already noticing that. Its ability to pull colour from dark areas is very good. Took a pic of a backlit kestrel that i would have had to delete, but managed to recover it to a decent looking image.

Off to shoot some sea-birds in my boat this evening. Hope to test it properly then

Will keep you posted

[arash_hazeghi]

A guy named Peter Beckett did some testing of that theory, there's a thread on Nikonians

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...id=87491#87496

You may need membership to see that thread, not certain (and apologies if so).

He didn't have a D4 to experiment with, but did some experiments with a D800 and different power sources, and did timings with a scope (i.e. real scientific approach, not just "feels the same" like me), with the goal to see how power available affected focus speed, with a scope doing the timing very precisely.

I hesitate to abbreviate his findings as there was some ambiguity in there, as it's not clear cut. But if you are interested it might make interesting reading.

This is very interesting measurement Linwood. However there is one issue that he needs to verify before making any conclusion from the scope waveforms.

Most cameras are not designed to work with two or more voltages. When you attach the higher voltage battery, the camera's PCC (Power Conditioning Circuit) will down-convert the higher voltage to camera's nominal voltage. The main factor in driving a ring-type ultra sonic motor is voltage. If the camera does not pass the higher voltage to the servo it wouldn't matter if he used a high voltage battery.

I don't know about Nikon, but for Canon they can only work at one voltage.