What camera would you chose

[JR1]

I am in a position to chose between either a D4 or 1DX as I have both systems.

My father died in November, we were not close, not all families are, however I am now in a position financially to set both of my sons up in business, one is doing Plastering at City College Plymouth and the other wants to do fencing and maintenance.

I will be expanding my photography.

Up to now I have been a single father on Carers Allowance and my son has been receiving DLA, as of March next year they will be self employed, we are exceedingly lucky.

As to the cameras, as you see I have a website and will be expanding, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, as I say I have a "foot" in both systems, 2xD7000s, 60D, and lenses for both, but I do need pro bodies.

I have done the usual comparisons and will be trying them out, what I am hoping is there may be users of both the D4 and 1DX here who can offer their comments please.

Thank you

[Polar01]

The D4 one of the best for low light, 10/11 FPS, (I see you shoot high speed boats), shutter up to 1/8000 wish mine would go high for bracketing shots (1/4000 D600), suggest keeping one D7000 for when you need more reach. If you go that way sale the one D7000, the 60D and the glass that you have, then use that to help pay for say the 80-400mm which I understand is a very nice piece of glass, and maybe the 2x teleconverter, so you can really reach out and touch those boats.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers: Allan

[Andrew76]

I just had a quick look at your site.

If you're shooting a lot of adrenaline sports like speed boats, surfers, and moto-cross, sports that are often viewed from a distance, is a FF camera really your best choice?

You say you need 'pro bodies', but what does that mean?

I don't shoot either one of those cameras, so my advice is meaningless. But I just made the observation.

[jcuknz]

Looking at your website, I object in principle to Facebook so didn't enter, I didn't see anything that couldn't have been taken with my bridge camera which is an eight year old design so I too question your need for 'pro-bodies'. It has a 950mm AoV for surfing and distant boats from the shore. Judging from what I have seen from the FZ200 it would be even better .

[nimitzbenedicto]

Looking at your website, I object in principle to Facebook so didn't enter, I didn't see anything that couldn't have been taken with my bridge camera which is an eight year old design so I too question your need for 'pro-bodies'. It has a 950mm AoV for surfing and distant boats from the shore. Judging from what I have seen from the FZ200 it would be even better .

Looking at your website, I object in principle to Facebook so didn't enter,

hehehehe....

If you want a pro-body, like the Nikon D4, go for it.

[AB26]

A very personal opinion: I had an opportunity to shoot with a D4 at a Photo show. All I can say, it really rocks.
A D4 with a 600mm lens AIUEEEEE!

[RustBeltRaw]

I agree with the gents suggesting that a D4 or 1DX is overkill. If you have that kind of coin available, I'd look very closely at a Nikon D3 or D3x or Canon 1D mkIV and a 200mm (f2.0 or f4.0) or 300mm (f2.8 or f4.0) prime lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. Strongly suspect that would give you better results across the board than upgrading the body alone.

For whatever it's worth, I tried a 1DX in the camera store alongside my recently-purchased, 6-year old 1D mkIII. It's a speed freak, a low-light marvel, and a pleasure to shoot, but in my opinion, not worth $5,600 more than my 1D mkIII (paid $1,050 used). Makes more sense for high-end concert or indoor action photography than outdoor work.

[JR1]

I just had a quick look at your site.

If you're shooting a lot of adrenaline sports like speed boats, surfers, and moto-cross, sports that are often viewed from a distance, is a FF camera really your best choice?

You say you need 'pro bodies', but what does that mean?

I don't shoot either one of those cameras, so my advice is meaningless. But I just made the observation.

Oh don't get me wrong I shoot D7000s and love them, and will keep them, what I am saying is that where I am now shooting and what I will be shooting will mean "I" will gain from owning "pro" bodies such as the D4, NOT because I will take better photos simply because I will enjoy shooting more personally, and as a once in a lifetime financial benefit is there I will use it.

But you are right in what you say.

[JR1]

Looking at your website, I object in principle to Facebook so didn't enter, I didn't see anything that couldn't have been taken with my bridge camera which is an eight year old design so I too question your need for 'pro-bodies'. It has a 950mm AoV for surfing and distant boats from the shore. Judging from what I have seen from the FZ200 it would be even better .

Jealousy is a funny thing

[JR1]

I agree with the gents suggesting that a D4 or 1DX is overkill. If you have that kind of coin available, I'd look very closely at a Nikon D3 or D3x or Canon 1D mkIV and a 200mm (f2.0 or f4.0) or 300mm (f2.8 or f4.0) prime lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. Strongly suspect that would give you better results across the board than upgrading the body alone.

For whatever it's worth, I tried a 1DX in the camera store alongside my recently-purchased, 6-year old 1D mkIII. It's a speed freak, a low-light marvel, and a pleasure to shoot, but in my opinion, not worth $5,600 more than my 1D mkIII (paid $1,050 used). Makes more sense for high-end concert or indoor action photography than outdoor work.

In fact you are so close, I just saw the D3X, very impressed you may well be onto something there, I don't shoot primes as I find them limiting,

[JR1]

I agree with the gents suggesting that a D4 or 1DX is overkill. If you have that kind of coin available, I'd look very closely at a Nikon D3 or D3x or Canon 1D mkIV and a 200mm (f2.0 or f4.0) or 300mm (f2.8 or f4.0) prime lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. Strongly suspect that would give you better results across the board than upgrading the body alone.

For whatever it's worth, I tried a 1DX in the camera store alongside my recently-purchased, 6-year old 1D mkIII. It's a speed freak, a low-light marvel, and a pleasure to shoot, but in my opinion, not worth $5,600 more than my 1D mkIII (paid $1,050 used). Makes more sense for high-end concert or indoor action photography than outdoor work.

So would YOU suggest the 1D Mk4 instead

[arith]

Hassleblad for true colour and weddings, Cost a lot though. They are trying hard to sell and you might get a a decent camera with lens and viewer and back for only £2000000 NO! not that much, £20 almost by a factor of 1000.

[JR1]

Hassleblad for true colour and weddings, Cost a lot though. They are trying hard to sell and you might get a a decent camera with lens and viewer and back for only £2000000 NO! not that much, £20 almost by a factor of 1000.

Actually I am serious

[William W]

I have not used both those cameras. I have used many cameras and over the years, made many purchase choices.

What lenses and other gear do you presently have? (please be specific).

You also state "but I do need pro bodies" does that mean your intention is to buy more than one 'pro body'?


WW

[Andrew76]

"I" will gain from owning "pro" bodies such as the D4, NOT because I will take better photos simply because I will enjoy shooting more personally, and as a once in a lifetime financial benefit is there I will use it.

Then have at it! When does an opportunity like this come along? And anyone who says they wouldn't indulge if there were no consequence, is either lying, or foolish!

If you're going to keep the D7000s though, I think you've answered your own question.

[Manfred M]

I looked at the D4 and the D800 / D800E. While both are pro bodies, Nikon was targeting different end users with the two (three really) different products.

In the end I found that the less expensive pro camera (D800) was better suited for my shooting requirements based on the type of photography I do. The D4 excels in low light and burst mode work, whereas the D800 has a much finer pixel pitch as well as better dynamic range and colour depth. With the battery grip (which I use all the time), the camera is the same size as the D4. I had budgeted for the D4, but ended up getting the D800 and adding the f/2.8 14-24 Nikkor to the collection.

Don't just look at the most expensive camera; figure out what your needs are and make the appropriate choice. Paying more for the wrong body is not a wise investment, regardless of how much money you have available to spend.

[JR1]

I have not used both those cameras. I have used many cameras and over the years, made many purchase choices.

What lenses and other gear do you presently have? (please be specific).

You also state "but I do need pro bodies" does that mean your intention is to buy more than one 'pro body'?


WW

Ok, 60D with 28-135 canon, 120-400 Sigma, 100mm Canon Macro and Canon 20-35.

2x D7000s with Sigma 150-500, Nikkor 28-300, 18-105,

Oh and NO, just one body.

This image of mine in Sigmas literature was taken with the 120-400

[JR1]

I looked at the D4 and the D800 / D800E. While both are pro bodies, Nikon was targeting different end users with the two (three really) different products.

In the end I found that the less expensive pro camera (D800) was better suited for my shooting requirements based on the type of photography I do. The D4 excels in low light and burst mode work, whereas the D800 has a much finer pixel pitch as well as better dynamic range and colour depth. With the battery grip (which I use all the time), the camera is the same size as the D4. I had budgeted for the D4, but ended up getting the D800 and adding the f/2.8 14-24 Nikkor to the collection.

Don't just look at the most expensive camera; figure out what your needs are and make the appropriate choice. Paying more for the wrong body is not a wise investment, regardless of how much money you have available to spend.

Price isn't everything, BUT the D800 is aimed at a "better than me" market, it requires the "dedication" I do not have, to obtain the best results, and as I shoot mainly sports it is not in my lineup.

I also agree fully with your comments about not spending OTT.

I am and have always been happy with my D7000s, I may in the end take YOUR advice and stick with what I have, however, at 56, with the funds to get a D4, it is also partly a want as much as a need if you can understand.

[JR1]

Then have at it! When does an opportunity like this come along? And anyone who says they wouldn't indulge if there were no consequence, is either lying, or foolish!

If you're going to keep the D7000s though, I think you've answered your own question.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head, up until my father died getting a D4 was a dream, no it will not make me a better photographer, it will however make what I do more enjoyable.

[Glenn NK]

Don't overlook a factory refurbished camera. I was shooting a school Christmas concert last night (just personal images), and the school's photographer, whom I know well, was using his Canon 1D Mark 4.

He feels this format is a good compromise between the 1.6 crop bodies and the FF 1DX (for example). The 1D 4 has a 1.3 crop factor. It has an excellent AF system.

The beauty about a refurb is that it's completely re-built by Canon, but the price is much lower than new. Of course this would also apply to the Nikon bodies.

Glenn