Thank you for sharing this I am also a wedding photographer and want to upgrade my camera thank you for your review and suggestion.

About 'looking the part' - yes this is very important indeed.
I even have customers (mostly big companies) perusing my equipment and having questions and opinions about it - knowledgeable and interested people. You MUST have good stuff or they won't take you seriously.
A grip on any camera that doesn't have an integrated grip is a necessity here.
Dress the part, act the part, look the part, have the right stuff in your hand.
Don't even THINK of turning up for a shoot with just a small camera (even a Leica), no matter how cool you think it is.

Sure the D4 is a great camera - made for specific situations. And the D800 is a great camera made for specific situations. But both do very well in all situations.

I've even used a D800 for action (Triathlon World Cup for instance) and it did a fantastic job. Only thing missing is high FPS, but that's about it.

I've heard this nonsense about how the D800 is only suitable for landscape photography. A really tired old story. In fact it is a marvellous walkaround that can handle anything.
Why do you think the D800 scores the highest in DxO tests of any camera ever tested? Because it's that good.

Sure, the D4 is bloody marvellous and if you're a pro you're bound to have one. I wish I could afford both.

sevencrossing said:
I am the only person who fits a battery back for this very reason ?

there are times when I want to be a fly on the wall
but sometimes it is important to "look the part"

No you're not alone, and very much correct. When the brides father (normally) is being asked to part with a 4 figure sum for the photographer, he doesn't want to see the guy or gal turn up with a camera that cost a quarter of his fee. I have been itching to try and shoot a wedding with a couple of Fuji xpro-1's, as I'm sure they would do a pretty good job, and weigh about 100 lbs less than my current set up :-) but have concerns about their perception in this regard. Also with regard to having two different camera body's when shooting in a high stress environment like a wedding, when I finally change my D3s/D700 combo, I will DEFINATELY buy two of the same, as I find switching between the two slows me down currently, in spite of doing my best to exactly duplicate the controls on both the best I can.

msmoto said:
Gee whiz... as a paparazzi camera, the D4 is a sweet camera...and I will be trying it on a wedding soon... my youngest son's...They will let me do some candid shots after the ceremony.

And, no question, the D4 does about everything....I think I have posted some candid architectural shots which demonstrate this. But, one can have two D800's or one D4....and in shooting weddings, I have seen enough examples to clearly demonstrate the D800 is excellent and with two bodies, it is so much easier to do the assignment than if one has to change lenses on one body.

So, if money has anything to do with it...maybe two D800s trump one D4. On the other hand, If there is no money issue, two D4's would certainly be nice.... Or as a few of our members have...one of each.

Plus 1 msmoto. Your describing my future dilemma.

Consider also a D600; if the size, build and weight are good for you. You can save $1,000 and the DxOMark scores are only one point apart. I cannot imagine any client wanting a print larger than the D600 can produce at top notch quality. Don't need the additional 12mp the D800 provides. Put a battery grip on for vertical shutter release and a more professional look.

I mainly do wedding photography and use D700 for last few years.I can't complain I'm very happy from my D700, maybe in the future I will keep it as a back up and buy D 800 but need to wait for more tests and opinions if its worth that price.

Look the part.... the last time I shot the NAIAS, (Detroit auto show) I used a D200 on a monopod, D90 around the neck, carried a back pack, and when I walked through the crowd it was like the parting of the Red Sea. A great benefit, especially if one has a large credentials badge hanging from the neck. In a public venue, no crowd control, as in a wedding, sometimes one can get control of the situation better with the "look" of someone who is supposed to be there.

framer said:
A bigger camera makes you a bit more important in some peoples eyes.

I am the only person who fits a battery back for this very reason ?

there are times when I want to be a fly on the wall
but sometimes it is important to "look the part"

One thing that's not been said. When shooting a wedding you are part of the show. A bigger camera makes you a bit more important in some peoples eyes. I should underline the word "SOME". A big camera bag and a good assistant also helps. D4, D3s wins.

framer

msmoto said:

So, if money has anything to do with it...maybe two D800s trump one D4.

yes but Jon like many people buying a D4 already have a D3 or D700 as a second camera

I have a D800 but if I did wedding full time , I think would add a D4, not another D800

Jon Photography said:
The D800 would have been a giant mistake due to the massive pixel count.

Jon
;

Thanks for all the feed back Jon

If I ever went back to doing weddings, you have convinced me, a D4 would be the way to go

I shoot mostly landscapes and have the awesome D800 ( the cost and weight put me off a D4)

but I am intrigued by your massive pixel comment

Have you tried a D800? and were do the problems occur?

Gee whiz... as a paparazzi camera, the D4 is a sweet camera...and I will be trying it on a wedding soon... my youngest son's...They will let me do some candid shots after the ceremony.

And, no question, the D4 does about everything....I think I have posted some candid architectural shots which demonstrate this. But, one can have two D800's or one D4....and in shooting weddings, I have seen enough examples to clearly demonstrate the D800 is excellent and with two bodies, it is so much easier to do the assignment than if one has to change lenses on one body.

So, if money has anything to do with it...maybe two D800s trump one D4. On the other hand, If there is no money issue, two D4's would certainly be nice.... Or as a few of our members have...one of each.

Ok Im back after a long summer of photography, and a lot of decision making. I ended up buying the D4. and keeping my D700 as backup. I got rid of my other cameras as they were rendered obsolete with the new D4.

My set up now consists of the D4 and D700 bodies, 18-35mm, 24-70mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm lenses, a SB-600 and SB-700, and a pocketwizard transmitter and transceiver with assorted filters and accessories.

I did so much debating before deciding to bite the expensive bullet that is buying the D4. I thought the D800 would do, or even just going with 2 D700's. Now that I do have the D4 I can tell you that it was money well spent. It is on a completely different level than the D700. The D800 would have been a giant mistake due to the massive pixel count. The D4 is amazingly fast and easy to use. The pictures are better than any i could produce prior to owning it. The autofocus improved on what was already the best autofocus out there. The dynamic range is spectacular. I can go on and on to why the D4 is superior to any other nikon camera (probably most if not all canons too, but im not qualified to give a definite answer as all i have shot is nikon) but I dont have the time.

And for all the pixel counters that claim the d800 is the d4 in a smaller body but with a even larger picture, you are just wrong. All you are doing is deceiving people out there that are doing their homework trying to make the best decision. After many discussions with professionals that have used both, and now my own hands on experience, there is no comparison to the quality and ease of use that the D4 brings. It is a camera geared specifically for professionals, with speed (speed to handle and shoot), ease of use and image quality in mind.

The only slight that i have towards it are the two new joysticks that wont customize to many other features than the standard, and that they removed the afc option on the front switch along with the focus type on the bottom right of the lcd screen. These have been replaced with a button to press where the af or manuel switch is. You hold it and wind the thumb dial. Its a little more of a pain, but nothing i cant get used to.

So if you are a photographer that legitimately makes a living doing photography, buy a D4, dont cheap out and get a D800 (unless your only goal is to get a great landscape shot) or the new D600, those each fall short in one area or another, the D4 is the complete package, and im excited to own it for the years to come. The shutter is rated at 400,000 shots, so im guessing ill be looking at upgrading to a D5 before that ever wears out.

Now with that said, if you just cant afford the D4 the D700 is still a great camera, I know the D600 just came out, but you will be giving up some features that the D700 has like the 51pt autofocus for 39 and the max shutter speed, along with a few other things. It does have a larger picture at 24 mp, but to me it wasnt worth upgrading. You can decide otherwise, both are great.

Thanks,
Jon
Jon M Photography
<link removed>

I to have the D700 and I had my D300 as a back-up camera and my main 3 lens are the 70-200mm 2.8 VR2 - 24-70mm 2.8 and the 14-24mm 2.8 as I was caught with the same question as sure lot's of people want to go with the D800 due to the 36mp sensor but all my clients don't want a image that size or have the computing power to deal with them. I went with the D4 as to it's high ISO, it's long shutter life and it's strong build. And if you not shooting weddings you can have the speed as well if you want to take in some sport games for some sun action shots. Lot's of people will like I said will choose the D800 for the price but I have a bad habit on killing Shutters ever two years for the amount of images I love to shoot as my D700 is at Nikon getting repaired and I still waiting for my D4 to arrive

On another note the D3S had a better ISO range over the D3X so the D700 was after the D3S

All will work fine: D3s, D4, D700 and D800. They just have different advantages and disadvantages. Soon there will be a D600 and D400 which should also work fine with their own advantages and disadvantages.

But here is a question. I noticed no one mentioned the D3x although I know a few wedding photographers who used to them for their portrait quality (replaced them with D800 now). What is the place, if any, for a D3x these days? It has high IQ at base ISO but not good high ISO performance. When, if ever, should a person select a used D3x over a D4 or D800? I don't see any reason to do so unless the price falls low enough for it to compete against the new D400, D7000 replacement or D600. Unless it sells for less than a D800 people should just buy the D800.

Jonmphotography said:
Ok heres my setup and concerns.

I currently love my D700 and use it as my primary camera with a 24-70mm 2.8 lens. I have a 300s for my secondary camera coupled with a 70-200mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.8 fx model, making it more like a 75mm. I really dont like to use the 300s with the 70-200 very often. I probably use my D700 setup 80% of the time. So thats another reason I want to upgrade. II also have a D7000 and just never use it.

So my thought is to sell the D7000, D300s and 70-200mm lens. With the money either buy a D800 and have some left over or spend a little extra on the D4.

My major concern is Low Light Capability, Dynamic Range, and Good focusing. As any Wedding Photographer knows priests dont like flashes in churches and Receptions can be dimly lit. Not to mention I hate using flash. I like natural light, so the best low light performer is what im looking for, after all thats why i went with the D700 in the first place.

My thoughts. I like that the D800 has a better dynamic range. I do not like that it is 36mp. I do NOT want all of that file space eaten up. I like that the D4 has a better high ISO capability and is only 16 mp, has double the life expectancy, and image is better, but dont like the cost of course. Not really sure why I would go with the D3s over these two, but that has been recommended to me.

So with that said. I am looking to have my D700 as my second camera (not backup) I will probably attach my 50mm 1.8 lens for my more artistic shots and low light help. And then use the new model as my primary with my 24-70mm 2.8. I may switch the lenses at the time of the ceremony if its dark and reception to get the most out of a low light situation. I love taking pictures with no flash so my fastest lens with a camera that can handle higher ISO would be best for that. And I already have a great system when I need a flash on my D700.

What do you guys think?
You can see my work at Lake Tahoe Wedding Photography

Thanks,
Jon

Get the D800.

I just made a photo book with some 24 inch wide double page spreads using a D7000. The image contained enough megapixels for that. So I would say a 16 mp D7000 would be enough for a wedding photographer unless you think your clients are going to want 20 x 30 inch prints. I have made those with a D7000 also and they were fine but perhaps not optimal.

I dont understand why you want to spend so much of your profits (or is it increased lossed on cameras) After 20 years as a qualified wedding photographer I have at present 2 x D 7000 ..18-200mm ...Why ..cheap and has two cards ..those SD are not reliable..I would be happy with two D3200 IF they had two card slots and throw them away at the end of each season..well sell them so I wait for a D 7200 which I hope is 24 mp and dual slots

I flat-out believe the D800 is an *amazing* camera for most wedding photographers. If you are the kind that shoots 3,000 to 4,000 images a wedding, probably not. I overshoot on purpose during "moments"... but I don't come close to those numbers. I'm trying to lower my shot-numbers every single wedding, too.

But when you are selling 12x12 albums with 24" spreads, I'll take every amazing megapixel I can.

I think the OP went with Canon, ha, ha, ha... has not reposted to anything here...

But, the locals who are looking at the D4/D800s are seeing about the same quality at ISO 6400 regarding noise, or lack thereof, so it looks like the D800 will perform quite well in low light. I am a "real life experience" person, and it is always good to find the performance in the field is confirming what the tests suggest.

Dear Jon,

I am amateur photographer, but quite enthusiastic ;-) I owned D300 and shifted to 2a nd hand D3s pussing to 2 years ago. Since then, I have shot many protraitures of my young chidren (thousands!) with natural light in very low light conditions with excelent results: up to ISO 1600 dynamic range is outstanding, up to ISO 3200 is still very high and images are perfect. Above such ISO it depends on the picture, lense, and shutter speed (the faster the less noisy), but for wedding prints up to ISO 6400 many of shots are usable with the proper postprocessing (noise reduction) for printing up to 8x12 inches. I have covered some friends weddings and I have ever printed in album photos at ISO 10,000 (low light disco dancing) shot at 1/125s with Nikon 50mm f1,4 (affordable and with much faster focussing in extremly low light than the other much more expensive f1,4s).

Now I have ordered a D800 for landscape and protraiture with flashes. I have read about the good high ISO peformance: great, an add. But file size is crazy for wedding printing size. And D800 will eat batteries one after another (I am getting 6 batteries).

I would use a D4 or a D3s for weddings, keeping the great D700 as second body. D4 does not make large difference in terms of resolution nor ISO vs D3s: 16 vs 12 MP is little more resolution, and ISO 2800 vs ISO 3200 is little lower ISO capabilty (DxO Mark)... not a difference to shift. For me the PROs of D4 are based in uograded technology (SW and processor): focus system (fast and working down to f8), good for sports thought at weddings may well help not to miss a moment, face recognition exposure system (no more compensations)... but D3s retains the crown in high ISO, it has been also posted D4 noise reduction is more agressive than D3s's (?), but what is absolutely true is that D3s battery life is almost 2x than D4's and that D3s is proven and has a solid reputation well deserved: no problems at all.

Below please find some D3s samples of high ISO:

At ISO 3200:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pepepalosamigos/6301628569/in/set-72157628302971689

At ISO 6400

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pepepalosamigos/6994902687/in/set-72157629250812762

So my tip is easy: forget D800, and get a D4 is you can afford it, but without discarding a D3s if you can get a good deal (2nd hand from a non professional like me, so shutter is still within "single" age)

Cheers

Jose

D3s is a tried and true wedding camera and you can get a pretty good deal on a preowned one right now. Would not recommend the d800 for non-portrait work

I got my D800 in Japan last month, and I am enjoying the camera greatly. It is my first fx camera, coming from a D50 to D60 to D90 to D7000. I do not conduct any scientific comparison tests on my cameras because that's not what I do with them, but I'll provide some input that may help the original question on this thread. I have not yet shot a wedding with it, but I have tried it in various venues that a wedding may take place in.

First, the D800 would be a wonderful camera for engagement and formal shots, especially those taken outside, better than the D3s and maybe better than the D4. The dynamic range is much better than my D7000 or the D700 and D3s I rented last year. The sharpness, especially when used with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and 85mm f/1.4G are phenomenal. Many of these shots are the sharpest photos I have ever taken. I am not as impressed when used with my old 50mm f/1.4D. It's sharp, but not phenomenally sharp as the other two lenses. The 16-35mm f/4G is better than the 50mm, but again, not as sharp as the other two lenses.

Secondly, the autofocus reliability in low light has increased tremendously from the D7000 and the D700. I get really accurate AF results almost every time, without the motor hunting for what to focus. The virtual horizon feature inside the optical viewfinder also makes composition so much easier, and it's a feature I hope will be included in all future DSLRs.

Third, I have not been as impressed with the D800's low light capabilities as far as noise is concerned. Noise creeps in quickly at around ISO 1600, which is probably the maximum I'm willing to go with this camera. You can get rid of some noise in post and maintain some sharpness, but ultimately the D3s (and expectedly the D4) will trump the D800 on this front. This is a problem in almost all wedding venues I have been to, where you need to be at least ISO1600 or greater without flash, such as chapels, ballrooms, restaurants, etc. My feeling is that the D800's strengths are from ISO 100 to 800. After that, I feel that the D800 loses its advantages, and can be a disadvantage when used handheld without a flash. Looking at my past wedding photos, more than half are taken at 1600. For me, when used during a wedding, the D800 will be a good second camera, but not the main one.

Finally, some reviewers have talked about the fact that it is difficult to edit and store 36mp files. I use a mid 2009 13" Macbook Pro with 8GB RAM and edit/store completely on external Lacie Rugged Mini portable hard disks. So far, I have not noticed any more slowdown on my computer than when I was editing 16mp files from my D7000 in Lightroom 4. I really do not think that the larger size is a disadvantage, unless you really cannot afford a new hard drive or memory cards.

sevencrossing said:

For weddings I can't see why you might need a D4 it is designed for sports and Press work

Congratulations Seven! With regards to your comment above, funnily enough I would make the reverse comment about the D800, a camera I would view as best suited to landscapes? Just goes to show.......each to his own.

Enjoy it.