Soliciting advice...

[Caliban]

Knowing that the type of photography most often determines the kind of camera one purchases, I could use a little help with this question: For someone who, with the exception of macrophotography, shoots a variety of subjects (from landscape to studio and a lot else in between, and who chooses natural light over all), if one could ultimately choose between a Nikon D800 or the D4s, which would be the better (all around) choice? I've read a lot about both cameras, I've watched many video reviews, and I understand their similarities and differences; and now, I'd like some help deciding.

[Manfred M]

Hi - Welcome to CiC.

I went through the same thought process and ended up with the D800. The D800 shines in landscape and studio work, whereas the D4 is better for low light and action shots (faster frame rate), i.e. sports and wildlife work.

I don't do any sports and have not found that need the ludicrous high ISO ratings of the D4. Frankly, when I figured the price of the D4 into the equation, I could have bought 2 D800 bodies for the same price as the D4, for functionality I don't need. Add to that the 36MP sensor on the D800 and the 16MP sensor on the D4, the decision was even easier.

[Caliban]

Hi - Welcome to CiC.

I went through the same thought process and ended up with the D800. The D800 shines in landscape and studio work, whereas the D4 is better for low light and action shots (faster frame rate), i.e. sports and wildlife work.

I don't do any sports and have not found that need the ludicrous high ISO ratings of the D4. Frankly, when I figured the price of the D4 into the equation, I could have bought 2 D800 bodies for the same price as the D4, for functionality I don't need. Add to that the 36MP sensor on the D800 and the 16MP sensor on the D4, the decision was even easier.

[Caliban]

Thanks a lot for your insight...what you write is very helpful. What just occurred to me as I was reading your response are the following questions, which are all related to MPs: What about file size, especially when shooting RAW files at 36MP? Are those large files slower to work with and would the D800 user have to be prepared to invest in additional hard drives for those photo files? That should cover it... Once again, thanks a lot for your response(s).

[Manfred M]

I did upgrade my hard drive when I bought the D800, but I was running out of room anyways.

In terms of loading the files, if your computer has a USB 3.0 port, that will make a lot of difference. It takes marginally longer than with smaller files, but if you have a lot, yes it can make some difference. I use Photoshop CC for all of my processing and doing the edits takes does not seem to take any longer than when I use 12MP or 16MP files.

I'm someone that uses a lot (and I mean a lot) of layers in my edits, so PS creates some fairly large files (several hundred MB is not at all unusual). Again, these take longer to save than smaller files, but again really not a problem.

If your question is, "would you buy another D800", the answer is definitely and resoundingly a "yes". If I were to do it again, I might consider the D800E. I was a bit worried about moiré, when I went this route, but have only seen this once in my work, so much less of an issue that the "experts" thought.

[ajohnw]

It sounds to me like you should concentrate on ISO performance which I suspect the D4 may win easily. If you look on this page there is a pictorial view of what this means in terms of noise near the top of the page.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/18

Click on where it says jpg and select raw. It's a no nonsense way of showing it as it just shows crops of what comes out of the camera. Some average this and that. It's also possible to switch between this way of showing it and a graph. You can select what cameras to compare from the camera type drop down lists. In my case I selected the D600,D610 and the Canon 6D but the 4D is also there. I'm a bit brand agnostic. It wouldn't be all that unusual for a newer camera such as the D610 to have lower noise than an older more pricey model, the D4. The graph view is best for showing this as the colour noise crops vary with colour. The graphs average that.

If you find yourself wondering about one camera against another given the price etc write down a list of the differences and decide in the case of a more expensive camera if you really need it. One of my cameras will do 9 frames per second for instance. I'm glad there is a slower mode.

Look at the AF light sensitivity and metering range. Those are usually listed on this site as well. Make sure you are happy with how you can control the camera. Unlikely to be a problem on any of these. I always download a manual and spend some time with that as well as reviewers sometimes miss things. Manuals are a pain but the menu's section towards the end usually reveal all but aren't of much use if a person doesn't know what the terms mean.

They also show dynamic range in jpg's. Sometimes raw. These can be misleading in terms of actual photographic results. Noise tells all really as it directly effects the dynamic range. I find the comments useful as well thought out and at the end of the reviews.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

People often worry about buying the "wrong" camera, but keep in mind that there is a HUGE overlap in capability - especially between those 2 cameras. It's not like the difference in functionality and performance between, say, a sports car and a bus.

[Melkus]

Thanks a lot for your insight...what you write is very helpful. What just occurred to me as I was reading your response are the following questions, which are all related to MPs: What about file size, especially when shooting RAW files at 36MP? Are those large files slower to work with and would the D800 user have to be prepared to invest in additional hard drives for those photo files? That should cover it... Once again, thanks a lot for your response(s).

Yes to both of your questions.The 36 megapixel sensor is awesome and the files will look amazing but there is a trade off. If you go out and shoot 200 photos you’re talking about taking up around 10 gigs of HD space so you may need to buy hard drives a little sooner than normally. You could do like some of us here and get a external hard drive, I use a Seagate backup plus 5TB unit or you could just delete photos to get room. Yes the file will also take longer to edit since you’re waiting on the progress bar more. I find myself doing a “quick” edit where I reduce the image size from 7000 pixels wide to 3000 px and running my filters and plug-ins just to see what I like. It only takes a couple extra minutes and then I’ll go back and edit the full size photo from scratch once I know the direction I want to go. If I had to get through hundreds of photos a day, this would definitely be a slow down in my workflow. But I don’t. I typically walk away with only a few keepers from a landscape shoot, so it doesn’t take me too long to experiment.

[Melkus]

I did upgrade my hard drive when I bought the D800, but I was running out of room anyways.

In terms of loading the files, if your computer has a USB 3.0 port, that will make a lot of difference. It takes marginally longer than with smaller files, but if you have a lot, yes it can make some difference. I use Photoshop CC for all of my processing and doing the edits takes does not seem to take any longer than when I use 12MP or 16MP files.

I'm someone that uses a lot (and I mean a lot) of layers in my edits, so PS creates some fairly large files (several hundred MB is not at all unusual). Again, these take longer to save than smaller files, but again really not a problem.

If your question is, "would you buy another D800", the answer is definitely and resoundingly a "yes". If I were to do it again, I might consider the D800E. I was a bit worried about moiré, when I went this route, but have only seen this once in my work, so much less of an issue that the "experts" thought.

I would say so also but the one thing if any that ticks me off is that the D800 doesn’t have the ability to separate your bracketed photos by two stops. So your only choice is to shoot 5 frames (all separated by 1 stop) and later delete the +1 and -1 photos so you only have the +2 photo, the metered shot, and -2 photo. Other Nikon cameras have this feature, and Canon has had it for years now, so I’m a little annoyed that the D800 doesn’t have it. It seems like it would be such a simple firmware update right?

[Manfred M]

I would say so also but the one thing if any that ticks me off is that the D800 doesn’t have the ability to separate your bracketed photos by two stops. So your only choice is to shoot 5 frames (all separated by 1 stop) and later delete the +1 and -1 photos so you only have the +2 photo, the metered shot, and -2 photo. Other Nikon cameras have this feature, and Canon has had it for years now, so I’m a little annoyed that the D800 doesn’t have it. It seems like it would be such a simple firmware update right?

Totally agree. That is a PITA, but frankly, taking 5 shots and deleting the 2 middle ones is a very easy workaround.

[ajohnw]

Totally agree. That is a PITA, but frankly, taking 5 shots and deleting the 2 middle ones is a very easy workaround.

Many cameras can do +/- 1 stop. it's interesting how often people assume this is worth using for HDR when it's really intended to help get exposure right. Trouble as I see it with 5 is that some shots might benefit from +/- 3. Or even I right for high and a +3.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Actually John; the D800 can bracket up to 9 shots in 1/3. 2/3 and full stop increments.

THe issue isn't that it brackets, but rather that there aren't additional bracket steps. I rarely do HDR, but I do manually blend multiple exposures, so the bracketing that I do is generally directed at giving me enough data so that I can do the blending I want. In some instances, I will shoot 3-stop differences, and will often do so the old fashioned way; on manual.

[FrankMi]

Actually John; the D800 can bracket up to 9 shots in 1/3. 2/3 and full stop increments.

Lucky guy! My D3100 doesn't do Automatic Exposure Bracketing. It's all manual!

[pnodrog]

The smaller size and pop up flash make the D800 far more convenient for general photography. If low light and ultimate robustness are very important then the D4(s) has an advantage. Due to the resolution the D800 is also very capable with DX lenses if used and indeed in a variety of available cropped formats using FX lenses.

For ultimate performance I would lean towards a D4s but for practicality and price I prefer the D800 or D800E.

[ajohnw]

Actually John; the D800 can bracket up to 9 shots in 1/3. 2/3 and full stop increments.

THe issue isn't that it brackets, but rather that there aren't additional bracket steps. I rarely do HDR, but I do manually blend multiple exposures, so the bracketing that I do is generally directed at giving me enough data so that I can do the blending I want. In some instances, I will shoot 3-stop differences, and will often do so the old fashioned way; on manual.

Most will do that sort of thing Manfred but it seems few will go far enough for HDR.

Personally I still feel the OP should be thinking about ISO to noise performance rather than pixel counts. As I see it this is one of the two advantages of going full frame. The other, contentious, is resolution related to the actual lenses which is not really directly pixel related. I'm not sure if I will ever upgrade FF but as money is involved I keep an eye on them just in case. I'm more likely to buy an E-M1.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - The D800 had very good low noise / high ISO performance, I really have no issues shooting at ISO 3200, but it cannot keep up to the D4, with its larger pixels. For the type of shooting the Caliban is looking at, the D800 would certaily meet his needs. I'm not saying that the D4 wouldn't, but Nikon specifically designed the cameras with different target audiences in mind:

D800 - Landscape and studio / portraiture and the D4 for sports and event photographers.

Baed on what his shooting requirements are (which are similar to mine) the D800 makes more sense.

[ajohnw]

John - The D800 had very good low noise / high ISO performance, I really have no issues shooting at ISO 3200, but it cannot keep up to the D4, with its larger pixels. For the type of shooting the Caliban is looking at, the D800 would certaily meet his needs. I'm not saying that the D4 wouldn't, but Nikon specifically designed the cameras with different target audiences in mind:

D800 - Landscape and studio / portraiture and the D4 for sports and event photographers.

Baed on what his shooting requirements are (which are similar to mine) the D800 makes more sense.

He mentions available light Manfred. As I see it from reviews is that the D800 looses out on the usual claims of 2 stops extra on ISO for full frame over crop. In fact looked at from a graph point of view there is little difference between it and an E-M1. Crops of actual shots are harder compare as colour channel noise seems to vary. Taking the crops from the D4,D600,D610 and some aspects of the D4 are better. Go to the graphs and the D610 wins. They do these tests by using adobe raw noise reduction off and measuring it. The graphs average.

The D4 has crazy extended ISO settings with very high noise levels but as I see it this is really aimed at newspaper photography type must catch something situations not quality. In fact for many subjects I feel the highest ISO on the others is in the same area. I have used 25,600 on my E-M5. Ok with the right noise reduction software and subjects that can stand some smoothing. 3,200 on a seagull produced a lot of noise in the background. The E-M1 is a bit better than the E-M5. What I find is that the reviews can be useful in this area but max ISO is also subject and conditions related.

John
-

[Manfred M]

He mentions available light Manfred. As I see it from reviews is that the D800 looses out on the usual claims of 2 stops extra on ISO for full frame over crop. In fact looked at from a graph point of view there is little difference between it and an E-M1. Crops of actual shots are harder compare as colour channel noise seems to vary. Taking the crops from the D4,D600,D610 and some aspects of the D4 are better. Go to the graphs and the D610 wins. They do these tests by using adobe raw noise reduction off and measuring it. The graphs average.

The D4 has crazy extended ISO settings with very high noise levels but as I see it this is really aimed at newspaper photography type must catch something situations not quality. In fact for many subjects I feel the highest ISO on the others is in the same area. I have used 25,600 on my E-M5. Ok with the right noise reduction software and subjects that can stand some smoothing. 3,200 on a seagull produced a lot of noise in the background. The E-M1 is a bit better than the E-M5. What I find is that the reviews can be useful in this area but max ISO is also subject and conditions related.

John
-

John - it is all a matter of degree.

This is a handheld shot on the D800 at ISO 6400.




I do existing light shots at ISO values as low as ISO 400 (and have for decades, back from the days when the fastest films were Tri-X and HP4). The question is whether the the nominal 1-stop additional ISO 12800 or the noisy pushed (maximum 204800 (+4 stops HI 4) on the D4 verus 25600 on the D800 (+2 stops HI 2) make any difference. Frankly we are getting into marketing verus real differences here.

[ajohnw]

You've got me at it again Manfred. What I find noise wise via Dpreview is that the D800 isn't disimilar to the D7000 and a number of others. Also that against those levels of camera the 2 stop full frame advantage is more like 1 stop. I've only seen the 2 stop claim posted on CinC never in a review.

Pictorially, this is crops it looks like this



To be honest though I do wonder about these as a newer camera version is always better than the previous ones. The manufacturer might interfer with numbers that raw converters use or maybe Adobe never completely turn noise reduction off. Some new versions do contain new sensors though so pass.

Graph wise just for chroma which can tend to be the most pesky they look like this



The more I go into it currently I see full frame gaining 1 stop iso wise against crop or m 4/3. Where it does really gain over both is in terms of good old line widths per pixel height basically because the frame is bigger. This doesn't prevent huge prints being made from either of the 2 smaller formats.

The reason the 6D is there is certain things relating to light levels and focusing. Not sure where Nikon fit in on that aspect yet. Also as usual they tend to have lower dark noise figures. Part of me is beginning to think there are no real practical advantages to encourage me to spend money on a full frame camera. The fact that I wouldn't really gain on ISO via a D800 does put me off that one though. Each to his or her own really.

John
-

[Manfred M]

John - as I have written before, the published reviews, while completely technically correct, they are often totally irrelevent in real world work. These sites measure things that are easy to measure but not things that are meaningful to real world photography. Just look at the level of magnification required to produce these results; sorry, I'm a photographer, not a pixel peeper.

This brings back memories from many years ago, during my university days. One of my professors that had a handstamp with "BULL****" (sorry CiC has censored this part) written in large red letters. This would be liberally used while marking assignments that were technically correct, but practically meaningless (unfortunately an all too common fault with 1st year engineering students). I would like one that works in the internet days and apply it liberally to many of the photography reviews out there.

As for older cameras (frankly the D800 is getting there now as I've had mine for over 2 years already), in real life work, I do notice a difference in high ISO performance when I compare the three cameras I use. The D90 (about 6 years old) I won't use above ISO 800, the GX7 is fine to around ISO 1600 and I have no issues with the D800 up to ISO 3200. Part of the issue, is of course that the mFT sensor creates a much smaller image, so when enlarging a shot taken with it, versus the D800, this is a real world issue that comes into play. Regardless, I've taken some really great images with all three of them, and to me this is all that really counts.

As for making camera recommendations, I base this on my own experiences with the gear. This is also my approach when I am in the market for something; I try to speak to someone who owns it, and if possible I will borrow it and use it. Fortuanately I know quite a few photographers...