As somebody with no 'axe to grind' (I don't have a D4 or D800), I see the D4 as better. The ability to disregard the consequences of boosting the ISO to an extent undreamed of even 4 years ago outweighs the higher Mp of the D800. As people have been saying for a while now "I want usable Mp not more Mp". The 16Mp of the D4 do seem somehow 'finer' than the 16Mp of my D7000 - maybe I should have said 'less apparent'.

The price is crazy though so I will be super content with a D800 one day. Don't get me wrong here, the high ISO performance of the D800 is great, it is just that it looks to me like the D4 is better.

I find all this stuff so funny. And it is kinda like "How much is enough?" Well, the answer is always "a little more than you have." We cannot seem to be satisfied. I am fortunate enough to have a D4. This camera so outperforms me I doubt if I will ever be able to use all the features. I still have not taken a serious video.

The simple fact is that the D2h had 4 MP and produced phenomenal images. Yet, some just seem to think having 20 more will change things. However, this particular phenomenon is almost universal. How many drive cars which will go 170 mph, yet rarely drive them over 70 mph.

I suppose if Nikon had a 24MP camera with native ISO of 25,000, shoots 15 FPS, I would have to get one. Then maybe not. My suspicion is we will continue to see very large improvements in the sensor technology in the next few years. And it will need to be accompanied by the computer power to handle the files.

Oh well.....

Having a D4 gives me everything I need in a camera. It does what I require it to do. I’m not out buying every new camera model that hits the market. I buy what I know I’ll use and what the camera's capability gives me.

The D3, D3s and D3X are fantastic and the D4 provides a great compromise of the three.

I do understand the argument on Pixel count and 24 vs. 16 in the end, did not affect my final decision.

Get the D4 and be done with it. After all you are not going to take your cash to the next life...so live now and be happy. I will warn you however, once you get your hands on the D4...you will think you have died and gone to heaven. :P

Andromeda said:
I do prefer the D4 however would like to see the mega pixel upgrade to the 24 level. After all the consumer and advance DX models are now with that range so why wouldn't the FX Flagship.

Oh here we go - it has started.

Less than one month ago everyone was still screaming wanting "a true D700 replacement" with a 16mp sensor. Now the D4 isn't enough? I do wish people would educate themselves. I still look at getting a D3s from time to time.

Let the banging of heads on the wall begin.

The pixel count has very little to do with the final photo except in the color depth for huge enlargements. At normal sizes, up to 16" x 20" enlargements, I would suggest no one can tell the difference between a D4 and D800.

If one can afford the D4, and does not want to do 6 foot by 9 foot enlargements, I think in the final analysis, this is the one to get. Or, if one can afford a D4, then maybe also get a D800.

On the other hand, if there is a restricted budget at less than $10,000-15,000, I would suggest a D800 and use the remainder of the budget for the glass. Like a 300mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.4, 16-35mm f/4.... or whatever is your desire. Usually if one is even thinking about a D4, it means lots of money or totally insane. Or both....:-)

I will never tell....LOL

d4 is reportage style camera, and 24mpx is the last thing it needs. need more mpx get d600/d800 instead.

I always tussle with the D4 vs. D800 arguments, mega pixel vs. FPS speed and higher ISO. The D4 is a huge investment but a stunning camera and you'd want a great return on it if you're a fulltime professional.

I do prefer the D4 however would like to see the mega pixel upgrade to the 24 level. After all the consumer and advance DX models are now with that range so why wouldn't the FX Flagship.

@msmoto Your shots were totally acceptable to me...even those that you shot at 12,000+ ISO (i.e the one post a remark on...could not put the link here). Would a flash help, yes...specially if you had the Gary Fog Collapsible Lightsphere.

I was allowed to shoot some supplementary photos at my son's wedding this past weekend. And following my PAD posts for the last couple days will take someone to the "set" on Flickr.

My plans were to shoot two bodies, but the fact I had to be in the wedding at times, and was not allowed to wear my jeans and t-shirt, I decided the D4 with 24mm f/1.4. No fill. At times I utilized the videographers lighting..and at the cake cutting, where I was almost certain the mush in the face was to occur, I shot 8 FPS....

OK, the point....there are no doubt some of the photos on Flickr which are IMO marginal...needed a fill flash. But, the majority can be managed in LR 4.2 or other PP program and again, IMO are a more accurate representation of the situation than if I had added fill flash.

Conclusion: Two cameras, one with fill flash for the "lighting from H***" situations. And, while one needs big ISO, the second with fill might be only 6400 ISO.

Please understand, I have no problems with seeing a small amount of noise....

msmoto said:
I noticed a no budget restraints suggestion.... so D4, D800, 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and if the lights are horrid, a soft box fill on camera with about a 1 f/stop down on the flash exposure, i.e., just for a fill...

+1, +1.5? :)

A lot of cameras will do the business. I'd be far more uptight about lighting.

I couldn't believe it, but I saw a used D600 for $1700 in the window of one of my favourite camera stores this afternoon! Even crazier was the fact that a used D800 was placed right next to it for $2750. Apparently the D600 will drop like a stone in pricing especially for used bodies and will register below a used D700 because of the body structure differences if you can believe it. Both bodies were mint and had 2,900 and 3,000 actuations respectively. andens grab a D600 it is super light and takes great images. The 24-70 will serve you perfectly as well.

I'd probably lean to a D600 backed up by a D7000. They share a lot of accessories - batteries, cable release, SD cards only, etc. And functionally, the shape of the body and placement of controls are similar. The D700 is a good camera, but I would choose the D600 and related updates at a little more money. The D700, D300, etc have accessories that are not compatible so the savings is not what you would like.

I would more to the pro lenses which is where your money will go. The 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the classic combination but you might try the 70-200 f/4. You'll probably want a couple of flash units - one for each camera and to make sure you have a backup.

I noticed a no budget restraints suggestion.... so D4, D800, 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and if the lights are horrid, a soft box fill on camera with about a 1 f/stop down on the flash exposure, i.e., just for a fill...

R8R said:
I've shot a friend's wedding with the D7000 and it was totally usable. The images came out great. You need to know that thing inside and out though to make shooting fast and flexible. Put good glass on it.

+1

I've shot a friend's wedding with the D7000 and it was totally usable. The images came out great. You need to know that thing inside and out though to make shooting fast and flexible. Put good glass on it.

If I were committing to Nikon as a wedding photographer my choice would be D800 with a D600 backup. If you are strapped for cash at the moment, you should go for D700 to which you could add a D600 later then D800 when you are rich and famous (;-/). The important thing is that you are exclusively full frame and so your camera body will not affect the style of photo you take, just the ultimate resolution. Next decision is glass - start with 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8's if you can - you'll never sell them to upgrade.

Even if you do get a D7000 (DX sensor) body which is very cheap right now, you should get FX (full frame) glass so you can upgrade the body later.

HTH.

ask anyone you know if you can shoot their wedding casually. then rent a body and some lenses (stay out of the main photog's way).

then see if what you have shot is anywhere near good enough.

then think real hard about wedding photography and what you'll need.

I have $30000 worth of gear and years of experience and would still be nervous shooting a wedding by myself.

If you really can't afford a D800 look at the D600 and get the D800 later but if you are on very tight budget the D7000 will be fine. forget the D90 and the D300 both now very dated, the other option is a S/H D700

Used D7000? Or a used D300s? Or D90, used. I am thinking one might want to start out inexpensively and when the new iterations of the model come out...add a body. One needs a couple lenses. The kit lenses with a flash for weddings may be fine. Then as the price goes up, so does the quality. I am shooting a wedding on full frame with a 24mm, and on DX with an 85mm. No zoom.

There is no doubt a lot of folks have done extremely competent jobs at weddings with the D7000. I suppose it depends on whether someone is spending $500 or $5000 for the photos...

More to come from the experts.....

I would suggest using a D600 ($1,000 less than a D800 and available now - plenty of images from it on NR PAD) combined with the replacement for the D7000 (likely to be named the D7200 and likely to be out early next year).

Hi,

Apologies, if I'm in the wrong place, I have used this site intermittently before so may need guidance as to which is the best forum. However, my main question is relating to 'What is a good Nikon camera, to begin photographing weddings with? As a bit of a background to assist, I have for many years used film and still do almost all the time (current camera's include Nikon F3, Minolta Dynax 7 and 9, and a Mamiya RB67) in addition to digital I have been a Sony A100 user, since they came out. However, I'm not ready to commit to the new translucent sensor technology, as it is still new, and as Sony have stopped making standard DSLR's I'm reluctant to commit the the A900 if that is the end of the road for Sony Dslr's. I have been asked to photograph a number of weddings later in the year and next, I realise that one digital is not a good idea, and hence I am thinking of changing platforms to Nikon and have been looking a the D7000 as the my first digital Nikon. Probably to use as them main camera to begin, supported by the A100 if need be, although i recognise all the issues with lenses and flash I have a full compliment of these for the Sony, I would look to get these for the Nikon as soon as practical. I have also looked at the D800, but that for the time being is a little out of reach. So the question really is do you thing that the d7000 id an adequate camera fro weddings, whilst supported with the Sony and the RB for the portraits and art photo's - if the time allows. Many thanks for your thoughts.

Honestly, only if you're interested in frames/sec, would I recommend the D4. Moreover, if you look at the specs of the cameras the last few years, one will realise, that nothing has really changed that much. The best camera, is yourself !

For those in search for a new camera or a lens, here is the latest update in my Excel Chart (Major update with the old Minolta Cameras, and discontinued Canon Lenses)
http://www.photoexposition.fr/2012/05/15/update-excel-sheet/

Jerome.

I cannot see how Jyri, above, thinks the D800 is a preferable camera, as the FPS is so low. But, I have only shot a D800 once... so, what do I know?

Thanks, Jonny

What I tried to say was that I do prefer my D800 in almost every case, except when I need the FPS -> some high speed sport action or shooting concerts comes to my mind. Family or kid shots, I'd take my D800.

In my own experience only advantages D4 has over D800 are:
- Robust one piece kit, compared to using D800 with MB-D12
- Slightly better controls and usability - Ergonomics
- Faster FPS
- Marginally better in low light

IQ is almost always better on D800, it's just question if things mentioned above are limiting you to nail the shot you need, in a nutshell I think only the FPS is such a thing in some high speed occasions.

i though about it and finally ordered D4.

with kiks, sometimes to capture the right moment 6 fs feel less so 4 is a step back wards
plus i will keep D7000 so i can use it for travel.
and if i do not like D4, i can always sell it back in couple of months
plus at least that way i will have a full frame camera in summer, otherwise who knows i dont get my D800 till fall or may be later ...

adorama gave my camera to someone else as i didnt made decision in time but told me that the next D4 they will receive, they will ship it to me.
so based on the current shipments, any guesses by when can i have my D4??

Thanks ALL