Does anyone actually buy the Nikon D4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieInLondon

Hi, I'm new here so I will try to keep to all the forum rules.

I own both the D4 and the D800. I have hardly used the D800 as yet as the D4 has done everything I have asked of it magnificently. Up to and including recording a Dance Concert for a local Dance Academy. Long story short, I took out the cards, used the HDMI connection to an Atomos Ninja 2 for a 10bit ProRes 422 quality film at 24fps. All the other gear that I used, for instance a Zoom H4n for the soundtrack that was hooked into the Sound Engineers desk and a Rode Video Mic Pro in the hotshot to get the room ambience to mix in, can be answered another time.

I have used the D4 and a host of Nikkor lenses (mostly primes, unless I am doing portraits in which case I use the Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 VrII) for just about every type of scenario. It always comes through. I shoot uncompressed 14bit RAW and post process in Lightroom or Photoshop depending on what I need to do.

Is it worth buying? It is the price of a small car once you kit it out properly with the right lenses and accessories. So think carefully WHAT you want to do with it? Just a casual shooter... I would suggest the marvellous D800. I have used it on a few occasions and it does everything that Nikon advertise. And then some.

But if you are seriously wanting a DSLR from Nikon that will last you for years to come and just knock the socks of the competition, then I have to be bias and say BUY the D4.

---

Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieInLondon

But if you are seriously wanting a DSLR from Nikon that will last you for years to come and just knock the socks of the competition, then I have to be bias and say BUY the D4.

---

To state right from the beginning: I don't own the D4, in fact never consciously seen one in material. Still, your statement appears to me somewhat sweeping. Is it not more that the D4 is a specialist instrument for photo journalists? Its chief advantages are exceedingly high burst rate and high ISO performance, as well as excellent and instant connectivity - expose, send, a second later in the web. That's what you want when covering a sports event. It seems to me that or anyone who has other priorities the D4 may not be the best choice.

Lukas

I guess if you are as useless a Photographer as KR is you will not be able to utilise the D4 to its full potential. :eek:
If you know what you want and you want a tool to get what you want the D4 will surely be the tool to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukaswerth

To state right from the beginning: I don't own the D4, in fact never consciously seen one in material. Still, your statement appears to me somewhat sweeping. Is it not more that the D4 is a specialist instrument for photo journalists? Its chief advantages are exceedingly high burst rate and high ISO performance, as well as excellent and instant connectivity - expose, send, a second later in the web. That's what you want when covering a sports event. It seems to me that or anyone who has other priorities the D4 may not be the best choice.

Lukas

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black pearl

Why?

---

There are a lot of reasons to buy cameras other than a D4. Cost is one of them. Portability is also one of them.

I like the DX format because of the crop factor. My D300 with the 70-300mm VR becomes the equivalent of an FX with a 105-450mm zoom. Yes, I could make that up with more pixels on the FX but that would just mean needing yet another new camera.

Come to that, my walk and bike kit is a Nikon 1 V1 with the kit lenses, a flash and the Nikkor 55-200mm VR along with some achromats for macro work it all fits into a small bag that fits into the basket on my bike or over my shoulder. The 200mm at the long end is the equivalent of a 540mm on an FX camera.

Here is the 55-200mm f5.6 on the V1
http://birdsnbugs.files.wordpress.co..._6902cr107.jpg

I can carry it over my shoulder all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

I guess if you are as useless a Photographer as KR is ...

---

- unfair and unpleasant. :(


Happy New Year to you all. :)

Philip

This may only inflame the already lengthy debate, but what Ken Rockwell said about the D4 is that it leaves consumer cameras like the D800 and Canon 5D mark III completely in the dust. KR actually likes the D4 but doesn't recommend it for every shooter.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d4.htm

Happy New Year everyone. A day late for those of you in the eastern hemisphere.

How did this thread turn into a nonsensical discussion about which camera is best? Of course human ego drives us to each think that whichever camera we own is the best. But in fact different cameras are made for different purposes. It's the very reason that they make various models. There is no "best" camera in absolute terms. As demonstrated by this thread we each have our own definition of that term.

Now to start the year off right I think all of you KR haters out there should buy yourselves some good Karma by visiting his site and making a donation to help him feed his ever growing family of starving children. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saorsa

There are a lot of reasons to buy cameras other than a D4. Cost is one of them. Portability is also one of them...

Here is the 55-200mm f5.6 on the V1

http://birdsnbugs.files.wordpress.co..._6902cr107.jpg

---

I shoot this same rig from time to time (or I did until the adapter went belly up). And on those occasions it is the "best" piece of kit that I own. Which is why I'm shooting it at that particular time and in that situation.

Actually I think I can state with just as much authority as some well know internet personalities that the V1 has some of the same stuff inside it that a D4 does :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernFocus

Actually I think I can state with just as much authority as some well know internet personalities that the V1 has some of the same stuff inside it that a D4 does :eek:

---

Hey, like they say "Parts is parts".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR1

I have been seriously looking into this camera but it now appears exceedingly over priced.

Also According to K Rockwell the D800/E, 600 and D4 are in fact the same camera inside !!!!!

Thanks

---

He isn't a source that a high percentage of knowledgeable photographers go to. DP Review is probably the most thorough and reliable (read honest) site for unbiased reviews.

Might just as well ask "does anyone actually buy a Ferrari/Mecerdes/BMW/Porsche/Audi)?

So really, this whole thread is pointless.

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

I guess if you are as useless a Photographer as KR is you will not be able to utilise the D4 to its full potential. :eek:
If you know what you want and you want a tool to get what you want the D4 will surely be the tool to use.

---

Who is KR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR1

Who is KR

---

Ken Rockwell.

I wouldn't call him useless, but he has a very strong tendency to not look at issues to any great depth.

And that makes him look like he says controversial things in order to generate traffic to his web site (an opinion often stated by others).

Of course KR, fool that I am.

I think you have to weigh up ALL aspects of reviews in fact.

I wouldn't buy a car just because one magazine said it was the best, I would seek out all reviews than place them against my needs.

DP review is the first I look at every time, also I look at "KR" but have found that on occasion he contradicts his comments. Trusted reviews are also worth a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

This result does not make any sense. With the D700 the 8.45μm pitch versus the 4.87μm on the D800 should mean a more detailed image, even with a bit of diffraction coming into play. I could see someone reporting less image quality improvement than would have been expected with a higher resolution sensor, but there is simply no way that IQ can decrease.

I would have to assume that there was either some pixel peeping going on at two different levels of magnification, a problem during image capture or with the image processing.

---

I agree, and would add that f/16 is the setting at which my 9.12um Sigma pixels begin to just see diffraction. So I would imagine that diffraction on the D700 would begin to show at a bit less that that f-number, certainly not more.

To compare D700/800 shots, it would be fairest to properly re-sample the D800 image downward in the ratio 4.87/8.45, I reckon. In my experience with my own cameras, the D800 will have a slight edge, done that way. That is because the D800 saw the diffraction, the lens blemishes and image details at a higher spatial sampling rate and also because modern algorithms for re-sampling are pretty good these days - even Adobe's ;)

You know, there is a neat website that will do a lot of the calculations for you and has an excellent discussion of diffraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

I guess if you are as useless a Photographer as KR is you will not be able to utilise the D4 to its full potential. :eek:

---

What makes you think KR is a useless photographer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AB26

I guess if you are as useless a Photographer as KR is you will not be able to utilise the D4 to its full potential. :eek:

---

He's a better photographer than I, Gunga Din . .

Say whatever else you may about KR, he's making a living off of photography and he's got us talking about him :eek:

I rather like his list of good/bad lenses.