I have the chance to buy a D4 in excellent condition and low shutter count at a very good price.
WHY should I buy it?? Wanting it is NOT enough reason says SWMBO.
WHY should I buy it?? Wanting it is NOT enough reason says SWMBO.
D4 Yes/No
- Thread starter BCcanuck
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Low light shooting in situations where you can adequately fill the frame and landscapes/nightscapes. That's where the D4 would shine over your D500. It would also be my go-to for portraits over the D500 where the larger sensor is very helpful in terms of shallow DoF from the same working distance with your 70-200mm f/4.
Basically it's very helpful to have a full frame sensor in your kit for low light work or for the DoF advantage you can get with the larger sensor and the D4 is a very good FX body. Just beware, it's easy to get hooked on the single digit D series cameras, once you hold one it's hard to go back to even a gripped prosumer camera body.
Last edited:
Because you have too many lenses that you have to keep changing with just one body and besides, SWMBO will get a swollen head from pride of her husband when walking around and people say, "Ooh, look at him with 2 big cameras and lens, he must be a professional"... 
I use a D4, D850 & Z6. I have had many great years of service from the D4 and love it. I will probably replace it with a D5 as I don't see the D6 as a big jump from the D5. The D5 is significantly better than the D4.
I love the ergonomics of the D4, its low light capability, its speed, battery life and the fact it is built like a tank. The biggest negative for me, is that having shot with the D850 for some time now, I would never use the D4 if I expected to crop.
The bottom line is that if you pick a D4 up cheaply, it is still a great camera. I have seen many advertised very cheaply and would not bother selling mine, for what i would get.
I love the ergonomics of the D4, its low light capability, its speed, battery life and the fact it is built like a tank. The biggest negative for me, is that having shot with the D850 for some time now, I would never use the D4 if I expected to crop.
The bottom line is that if you pick a D4 up cheaply, it is still a great camera. I have seen many advertised very cheaply and would not bother selling mine, for what i would get.
Look for some statements of @Capturingtheunseen.com here.
He helped me over the final bit of climbing the decision hill and now I have a D4S and I love it.
As stated before, I am currently very limited in shooting time and opportunity and still haven't been able to run more in-depth testing. But what I can say is:
Another point I realized is that ergonomics are a totally different story with one of these pro bodies compared with another body plus attached battery grip, but that depends on your hands.
Maybe you take a look at what the guys at Photographylife were writing about these two cameras.
He helped me over the final bit of climbing the decision hill and now I have a D4S and I love it
.As stated before, I am currently very limited in shooting time and opportunity and still haven't been able to run more in-depth testing. But what I can say is:
- Excellent low light performance in terms of noise level and maintaining details and colours with high ISO.
After some indoor experiments l should be at least two stops better in equivalent image quality than the D750, not talking about a DX bodies
You might want to take look to this one...
After you said you like darker backgrounds and you are to be in dark forest / swamp a lot, it would be really interesting to hear - sorry, read - what you think about low light performance of the D500 in real life. There are contradictory comments around. Looking at the Photographylife review of the D500 there is a visible improvement against the older D7200 in terms of noise, but it is kind of "moderate" - it is still a crop sensor. Other people - depending on their priority requirements and what they shoot - seem to be really happy with the D500.
I currently don't have one, but I did my own comparisons with real life photos the drop in low light IQ from my D750 to the D7200 (both 24MP) was equivalent to about 1,5 to 2 stops, when looking to unprocessed picture and 100% crops. The day before yesterday my used D4S arrived and I am desparately waiting for the memory card to arrive today. It will be interesting to repeat the test series with a D4S, a D750 and a D7200 side by side.
I'd love to swap my D7200 for a D500 primarily because of the combination of reach, frame rate and buffer size.
However, if you really have to push the limits in terms of low light it has to be FX I guess. Which is logical because unless the innovation wall for current CMOS sensor technology can be overcome the pixel area size remains to be the central parameter for noise tolerance.
D7200 --> 3,92 µm --> 15,37 µm²
D500 --> 4,2 µm --> 17,64 µm² --> +15% to the D7200 --> fits to moderate noise improvement of D500 compared to D7200
D4/s --> 7,3 µm --> 53,29 µm² --> +200% to the D500 --> well, what will that mean in the end
The potential of tweaking the limits here by in-camera software technology is more or less scooped.
Maybe one day we find things like Topaz Denoise AI as in-camera plug-in
When I got (re-)introduced to nature photography some years I was impressed by the pictures my friend was taking with his gear and I thought I better start small instead of spending a fortune for a pro body without being able to use it properly. And even today I found it to be crazy to spend the money for a D5 or D6. But in the meantime prices for used D4/D4S have come done quite a bit, so may be you consider doing what I did after "talking" to @Capturingtheunseen.com and get one of these. You have more than 4 MPixels extra (roughly +1/3) compared to your D3, the ISO performance is - even these days - something of the best you can get. There is still not so much room for cropping, but that doesn't matter because @Steve doesn't like it anyway
I don't know where you are, but here in Germany the Nikon Service Points themselves are trading used machines in very good condition. I just got one in perfect condition (looking brandnew, some of the acessories still unpacked) with slightly more than 100k shots on the counter with 30 day return policy and 12 months warranty for about 1.9 k€. Thats about half of what I wold have to pay for a used D5, if you can get find a good one - not talking about a new D6.
... I have to go know, the card has arrived
- High frame rate of 9 fps (I think for the D4, the D4S has one more) really makes a difference in the selection you get with faster action
- Although on paper the processors and the AF system is a previous version compared to the D4S you should get really good AF performance. If I compare my keeper rate with moving targets and take into consideration that my D4S almosrt doubles the shots per second I still have more reliable AF tracking.
- Even the low light AF tolerance you can expect to be better as the paper suggests. The step from -2 to -3 Ev that the D750 has as an advantage on paper was achieved just by squeezing the AF sensors a bit more together in the centre. But this comes at a price, because in the field you are better off with a larger area covered by the 51 AF points and I can say reality outperforms the lab figures in this point.
Another point I realized is that ergonomics are a totally different story with one of these pro bodies compared with another body plus attached battery grip, but that depends on your hands.
Maybe you take a look at what the guys at Photographylife were writing about these two cameras.
I only shoot wildlife and landscapes. I do a mix of printing, publications, and teaching with my work. I have owned the D4 and its three best characteristics are: Excellent low light/high iso performance, professional ergonomics that just feel good, and battery life. I spent a good few years with the camera, added the D500 to my bag, and stopped using the D4. The raw shooting performance (not raw files) is just better with the D500 for all the reasons that people use a body like this. The AF speed, additional resolution, 10FPS, limitless buffer, quiet shutter, and tighter crop simply make it an amazing body for professional wildlfife photography. The introduction of Topaz Ai makes ISO 3200 (and even 6400) files more than useable, and this eliminates one key advantage of the D4.
If you want a full frame body that will offer you amazing high iso performance and rugged build, you might consider the Z6 at what will probably be the same price. The Z6 AF is about as good as the D4, but has AF coverage throughout the entire frame. Add the grip and you can get 800 to 2000 clicks depending on how you use it. At this point, unless you are needing a"bullet proof" camera for high impact photojournalism (conflict/international journalism), the only pro bodies that make sense are the D5 or D6.
With that said, you have a lot of good glass and probably could use a 2nd body... just not sure the D4 should be it.
If you want a full frame body that will offer you amazing high iso performance and rugged build, you might consider the Z6 at what will probably be the same price. The Z6 AF is about as good as the D4, but has AF coverage throughout the entire frame. Add the grip and you can get 800 to 2000 clicks depending on how you use it. At this point, unless you are needing a"bullet proof" camera for high impact photojournalism (conflict/international journalism), the only pro bodies that make sense are the D5 or D6.
With that said, you have a lot of good glass and probably could use a 2nd body... just not sure the D4 should be it.
Last edited:
Andy Work
Well-known member
It would be great for landscape, portrait, lowlight, etc.
"Wanting it is NOT enough reason says SWMBO "
There's always the chance that she may be mistaken.
"Wanting it is NOT enough reason says SWMBO "
There's always the chance that she may be mistaken.
Very interesting and legit comments for and against. I had it for years, shot >60k images with it, but it is a small image in the end. Technology advances is such that the autofocus system used in the D4 is just not on par with what you can get now in the new generation bodies. I found the D500 immediately better at locking on to a subject than the D4. That is the main reason I sold it too. In the end, there may be too much emphasis on full frame - it is just another format for an image in a long line of formats. One should just look at a body and say - this is the images size. 35 mm is not medium format not the large formats film negatives we all knew ~ we do not really compare 35 mm against that, do we? Above all, get what you want and can afford, and enjoy the ride! Heck, even the D3S was wonderful!
Ineluki
Active member
I had used a D4 for about eight years and replaced it with a D6. The D4 is still an amazing good camera. You get the shot when you shoot. Use it with XQD and you are in present technique.I have the chance to buy a D4 in excellent condition and low shutter count at a very good price.
WHY should I buy it?? Wanting it is NOT enough reason says SWMBO.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
Why buy the D4? Because the image quality will blow you away. I own one and a D500, and the D500 sits at home while the D4 keeps producing awesome images.
The Dynamic range is out of this world. The high ISO tolerance is amazing. 12,800 is no problem.
Megapixels aren't everything. If needed you can always add pixels with software.
People who say it isn't that great have never used one, and are only looking at spec sheets.
I owned a D5 for a while and returned it. The image quality just wasn't as good.
The Dynamic range is out of this world. The high ISO tolerance is amazing. 12,800 is no problem.
Megapixels aren't everything. If needed you can always add pixels with software.
People who say it isn't that great have never used one, and are only looking at spec sheets.
I owned a D5 for a while and returned it. The image quality just wasn't as good.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
lol I bet you've never used one.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
I'm replying to more than one person here.
" The raw shooting performance (not raw files) is just better with the D500 for all the reasons that people use a body like this. The AF speed, additional resolution, 10FPS, limitless buffer, quiet shutter, and tighter crop simply make it an amazing body for professional wildlfife photography.
What is "raw shooting performance?" I'm not sure how any of those affect the raw image at all.
Interesting how you left out image quality there, To me, that is my number one priority. AF speed on your D4 will be much better if you turn off "auto-focus tracking with lock-on." Why is a huge buffer that important? I've never run out the buffer on my D4. I shoot in 2-3 shot bursts instead of just spraying and praying. The shutter is a bit loud, I will give you that. No one is perfect. If it is a situation where that is really important, you can always turn it to quiet mode. Tighter crop? 4 megapixels? Really? How much difference can that make? As for the frames per second, they are the same. 10fps.
All people (myself included) said was the D4 lags behind on several features.{/QUOTE]
That has definitely not been my experience. At all.
True if you want to spend time in PP, I’d say ISO6400 is no problem, but people are different in their tolerance for noise.
That's true, but who wants a noisy image if you can have one without it?
Never done that, but never felt the need either....
Really? A difference of 4 megapixels makes cropping no problem? Besides adding pixels in PS, you can also edit the raw image in Topaz De Noise AI, which sends it back to Lightroom as a .tiff file, and then export it from Lightroom as a PNG file and end up with a larger file.
Why the hostility? No need for that everybody is nice and kind giving their two cents?
You found my brief statement hostile? Sorry, it wasn't intended to be. I just don't like to mince words.
(Take a look at the sensor database of DXOmark)
I don't much care what any specs say. I care what the images look like that the camera produces. But, if you want to compare them, here are some for you:
To provide the proof I really do own these cameras. LOL
lol You didn't have to post the pic, I would have just believed you.
Someone mentioned that the autofocus wasn't nearly as good on the D4 versus the D500. I remember struggling with that when I first got the camera. Turning off the "Auto-focus with lock-on" solved that issue for me. I see little, if any difference now.
In regards to buffer capacity: Who needs a 200 shot buffer capacity? lol
I would encourage everyone to stop obsessing over specs--and the opinions of others, including myself--and just get your hands on the camera body you are interested in and use it the way you would normally use it. Many places online offer a 30 day return policy if you are not pleased with the camera.
As I said, my D500 sits at home while my D4 keeps taking awesome images. I will probably be selling it if anyone is interested.
" The raw shooting performance (not raw files) is just better with the D500 for all the reasons that people use a body like this. The AF speed, additional resolution, 10FPS, limitless buffer, quiet shutter, and tighter crop simply make it an amazing body for professional wildlfife photography.
What is "raw shooting performance?" I'm not sure how any of those affect the raw image at all.
Interesting how you left out image quality there, To me, that is my number one priority. AF speed on your D4 will be much better if you turn off "auto-focus tracking with lock-on." Why is a huge buffer that important? I've never run out the buffer on my D4. I shoot in 2-3 shot bursts instead of just spraying and praying. The shutter is a bit loud, I will give you that. No one is perfect.
If it is a situation where that is really important, you can always turn it to quiet mode. Tighter crop? 4 megapixels? Really? How much difference can that make? As for the frames per second, they are the same. 10fps. All people (myself included) said was the D4 lags behind on several features.{/QUOTE]
That has definitely not been my experience. At all.
True if you want to spend time in PP, I’d say ISO6400 is no problem, but people are different in their tolerance for noise.
That's true, but who wants a noisy image if you can have one without it?
Never done that, but never felt the need either....
Really? A difference of 4 megapixels makes cropping no problem? Besides adding pixels in PS, you can also edit the raw image in Topaz De Noise AI, which sends it back to Lightroom as a .tiff file, and then export it from Lightroom as a PNG file and end up with a larger file.
Why the hostility? No need for that everybody is nice and kind giving their two cents?
You found my brief statement hostile? Sorry, it wasn't intended to be. I just don't like to mince words.
(Take a look at the sensor database of DXOmark)
I don't much care what any specs say. I care what the images look like that the camera produces. But, if you want to compare them, here are some for you:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
To provide the proof I really do own these cameras. LOL
lol You didn't have to post the pic, I would have just believed you.
Someone mentioned that the autofocus wasn't nearly as good on the D4 versus the D500. I remember struggling with that when I first got the camera. Turning off the "Auto-focus with lock-on" solved that issue for me. I see little, if any difference now.
In regards to buffer capacity: Who needs a 200 shot buffer capacity? lol
I would encourage everyone to stop obsessing over specs--and the opinions of others, including myself--and just get your hands on the camera body you are interested in and use it the way you would normally use it. Many places online offer a 30 day return policy if you are not pleased with the camera.
As I said, my D500 sits at home while my D4 keeps taking awesome images. I will probably be selling it if anyone is interested.
OohMatron
New member
Agreed, there's always one idiot on these threads.
Hey guys, could you please come back on the carpet all together again. This is a photography forum, not a battlefield
.Everybody decides himself what (s)he is buying, how (s)he is prioritizing the opinions of the community members in relation to this decision and whoever gave her/his personal experience as an input thus did something to help the person taking this decision. But that's it ... It is all about personal experience, but your personal experience is always determined by your preferences, i.e. what you shoot, when and where you shoot, how you shoot and why you do it exactly this way. And the number of variations will probably be as big as the number of persons involved in the discussion.
It is like in all other areas of life that have to do with technology. 80% of the users are using only 20% of the potential and the capability of the technology anyway. The real pro's are are a small portion of the remaining 20% of the users and they are the group pushing the technology to the limits ... all others are just praticing to use it properly. To my understanding I am lightyears away from being a pro, but I am happy to share my experience ... while still practicing
, and I am constantly learning from others even if they have an opinion that I don't like - at least in the first place ...
Last edited:
Words of wisdom here. Please don't make me uncomfortable about my post by downgrading the replies to acrimonious arguments.Hey guys, could you please come back on the carpet all together again. This is a photography forum, not a battlefield
Everybody decides himself what (s)he is buying, how (s)he is prioritizing the opinions of the community members in relation to this decision and whoever gave her/his personal experience as an input thus did something to help the person taking this decision. But that's it ... It is all about personal experience, but your personal experience is always determined by your preferences, i.e. what you shoot, when and where you shoot, how you shoot and why you do it exactly this way. And the number of variations will probably be as big as the number of persons involved in the discussion.
It is like in all other areas of life that have to do with technology. 80% of the users are using only 20% of the potential and the capability of the technology anyway. The real pro's are are a small portion of the remaining 20% of the users and they are the group pushing the technology to the limits ... all others are just praticing to use it properly. To my understanding I am lightyears away from being a pro, but I am happy to share my experience ... while still practicing
I got what I wanted, opinions! Without knowing exactly what I want to use the D4 for, without knowing my skill or knowledge level, it is not possible for any opinon to be the correct answer for me. But they ALL contibute to my ability to make an informed choice. Thank you all.
Calson
Well-known member
The D4 has 2012 technology in terms of the sensor, the Expeed processor, the autofocus system, and it memory cards. Would you invest in a laptop from 2012? I disagree with the comment that the D6 is little better than the D5. The D6 has a vastly improved autofocus system with full coverage using cross sensors.
With film an old camera with good lenses could still produce sharp contrasty images but with digital the camera is more of a computer with a lens attached. The D7200 introduced in 2015 was a vast improvement over the 2004 D2x camera in every respect. Better IQ at ISO 3200 from the DX D7200 than from the DX D2x at ISO 800. Not surprising as the technology advanced a great deal over the intervening 10 years.
I would be tempted to buy a used D6 in a couple of years. I can afford the $7200 to buy a new one but it does not offer anywhere near enough of an improvement over the D850 for me to get one at this time. I cancelled all my 2020 trips and cannot see planning new ones until late in 2021 so the D6 would be sitting on a shelf for the most part.
With film an old camera with good lenses could still produce sharp contrasty images but with digital the camera is more of a computer with a lens attached. The D7200 introduced in 2015 was a vast improvement over the 2004 D2x camera in every respect. Better IQ at ISO 3200 from the DX D7200 than from the DX D2x at ISO 800. Not surprising as the technology advanced a great deal over the intervening 10 years.
I would be tempted to buy a used D6 in a couple of years. I can afford the $7200 to buy a new one but it does not offer anywhere near enough of an improvement over the D850 for me to get one at this time. I cancelled all my 2020 trips and cannot see planning new ones until late in 2021 so the D6 would be sitting on a shelf for the most part.
Last edited:
I cannot say anything about D5 and D6 because they have been out of the game for me already for financial reasons - sad but true.
And YES, it would be a shame if there wasn't development from 2012 to now
. That was the point where I temporarily jumped over to the "spec and chart party" and looked behind the differences between EXPEED 3 (D4) and 4 (D4s, D750, D7200) and the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX I (D4 and D4S) and II (D750, D7200). From there - beside other things like network with 1000BaseT - I decided to prefer the D4s to have the more modern infrastructure (point scored for you ) and still getting what I was looking for, which is frame rate, buffer and maximum low light IQ without having to spend more time with post processing than taking photos.It is like you say, just for a different generation of cameras. I got the best possible compromise between my requirements and the price I can afford to pay. I don't know what happens next, but if everybody here would be as happy with her/his gear as I am at the moment we would encounter something like a tiny littly piece of a perfect world
- well, at least im terms of photography, not talking about "the rest" .Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
Yeah, you'd think newer would be better. It isn't always, though. Sometimes it's just marketing; putting a new product out there with a few changes in order to spur sales.
For example, going from the D4 to the D5 should be an improvement. It actually went backwards in terms of image quality. I had one for a month and took thousands of captures with it. I disliked it very much, returned it, and went back to the D4. Now I'm happy again. Do a search for reviews on the D5 versus the D4. I'm not alone with that opinion.
At the end of the day, all the specs and "newer and better" features are just words. You have to get the camera in your hands and see the actual results.
Also, the equipment is only part of the equation. I know a woman who shoots a Nikon D7100 and 70-300mm lens. Her images can compete with anything I've seen here. It takes knowledge of your equipment (strengths and weaknesses) good lighting, and closeness to the subject. Those are much more important than the equipment.
" Also, the equipment is only part of the equation. I know a woman who shoots a Nikon D7100 and 70-300mm lens. Her images can compete with anything I've seen here. It takes knowledge of your equipment (strengths and weaknesses) good lighting, and closeness to the subject. Those are much more important than the equipment. "
Exactly!
Exactly!